A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle... bacon for your brain!

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Twitter, Again

By Diana Hsieh

Heh:



I've found Twitter to be an excellent source of blog-worthy links, noteworthy political news, and useful tidbits on my various interests. (If only I had more time to blog what I find!) Plus, I get to keep up with some good folks in a less-demanding format than e-mail.

Of course, I know that everyone is captivated by my random thoughts. Okay, maybe not. Nonetheless, you can follow me here.

Fellow tweeters are welcome to post their follow links in the comments.

Read more...

Hugel OpEd on National Service

By Paul Hsieh

The March 30, 2009 edition of the Harrisburg (PA) Patriot-News has published the following excellent OpEd by OAC student Lucy Hugel on the national service bill. Here's the introduction:

National service bill makes 'volunteerism' compulsory
by Lucy Hugel

Thursday, the U.S. Senate sent back to the House an amended bill to "expand and improve opportunities for service," legislation modeled on President Obama's campaign promise to establish "universal voluntary citizen service."

If passed, this act will produce an explosion in the number of service programs. Unfortunately, the goal of this legislation is profoundly un-American--to instill an ethic of servitude in every citizen.

How could expanding community service programs have such a radical effect in the land of liberty? To understand this, one must see how the plan aims to smuggle in compulsory service...
Read the whole thing here.

Congratulations on getting published, Lucy! And thank you for defending a person's right to his or her own life.

Read more...

Monday, March 30, 2009

Hsieh LTE in NY Times

By Paul Hsieh

The March 30, 2009 New York Times has printed my latest LTE on health care. It's the 6th one down:

Re "A Health Plan for All and the Concerns It Raises":

To the Editor:

It would be just as wrong for the government to compete with private insurers to provide health insurance as it would be for the government to compete with G.M. or Ford to build taxpayer-subsidized "public automobiles."

The unfair competition from a public plan would destroy the private health insurance industry. The inevitable result would be the rationing and other horrors of a Canadian-style single-payer system, which most Americans neither wish nor deserve.

Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo., March 25, 2009

The writer, a medical doctor, is a co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.
It was written in response to their March 25, 2009 story, "A Health Plan for All and the Concerns It Raises".

Read more...

Interesting Lessons About Urban Combat

By Paul Hsieh

StrategyPage has a recent post summarizing some interesting lessons about urban combat from the US experience in Iraq and the Israeli experience in Gaza.

Here are a few excerpts:

...Tanks are a necessity, unless you want to take very high infantry losses (5-7 of your troops for every enemy soldier). The ratio of infantry to armor vehicles should vary from 30 to 100 infantrymen per tank.

...The most useful armored vehicle is the D-9 armored bulldozer. This beast is large enough, and powerful enough, to plow through buildings, or to shake buildings to set off booby traps or force civilians (and sometimes fighters) to clear out. You've got to protect the D-9 with infantry, as it is not invulnerable to anti-tank weapons.

...Deal with the underground. The sewers will be used by the enemy to move around. You will have to blow up portions of the sewer system. It's not worth the casualties to go down and fight in the sewers.

...Snipers are the biggest problem, followed by machine-guns and booby traps. The troops have to learn to stay under cover at all times. And if they smoke at night, don't do it anywhere that an enemy sniper can get a shot at you. Most snipers will be in the upper stories of buildings (but not the roofs where your helicopters can get at them.) A smart foe will booby trap the ground floor entrance and arrange for another escape route, so that if you send troops into the building, the sniper will escape and your guys will run into the trip wires and explosives. The antidote for this is to take the high ground first and use your own snipers to take out the enemy snipers. This is where night operations are essential. The sniper cannot hit what he can't see, and enemy snipers will have a lot fewer clear shots at night. When you do encounter a sniper, take him out with your own snipers, or tank fire, or take the building he's in down with a smart bomb.

...Flashlights are more valuable than you think. Make sure all the troops have them, and a good supply of fresh batteries.

...If the battle goes on for more than a few days, sleep becomes a weapon. Trained and disciplined troops are better able to get sufficient sleep to keep the battle going. These troops take turns fighting, and then sleeping. The undisciplined and poorly led enemy does not, or cannot, do this, and the enemy fighters become slower and sloppier because of the fatigue. This is an ancient technique. The Romans, two thousand years ago, trained their troops to engage in close combat for 10-15 minutes, then to fall back and rest, while another line of swordsmen advanced and went at the enemy (who got worn down quickly because they fought until killed, without being relieved by fresh fighters.)

Read more...

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Recap #37

By Diana Hsieh

Yikes, I posted nothing new on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government this week.

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

And this week on FA/RM, the blog of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets:

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #45

By Diana Hsieh

Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Read more...

Saturday, March 28, 2009

The Meaning of an Hour in the Dark

By Diana Hsieh

Here's an excellent letter by OActivist Roberto Sarrionandia published in the UK's Daily Telegraph from on tonight's "Earth Hour":

Turning the lights out is an attack on civilisation

SIR -- This Saturday evening, for "Earth Hour", we are encouraged to turn off our lights as a symbolic sacrifice for nature.

This is a terrifying concept. The electric light has brought safety to our streets, and enabled us to work and enjoy ourselves long into the night. It is, in many ways, the symbol of civilisation.

One hour in the dark may be enjoyable if it is temporary, but existence without electricity would bring death en masse.

When we declare our opposition to the electric light bulb, we declare our opposition to man.

Roberto Sarrionandia
Saundersfoot, Pembrokeshire
For more from Roberto Sarrionandia, see his blog, Tito Says. For more on "Earth Hour," see Keith Lockitch's op-ed on its real meaning.

Most of all, don't forget to leave on your lights in honor of Edison Hour tonight!

Read more...

Red Meat Kills?

By Diana Hsieh

If you want to know the scoop on the widely-reported study supposedly showing that red meat kills us, I recommend that you read:

(1) Dr. Eades sober analysis of various studies on the health effects of meat-eating

(2) Richard Nikoley's well-deserved rant against this very poor observational study

Then you can enjoy your next steak without an unnecessary serving of guilt and worry.

Read more...

More on Vitamin D

By Diana Hsieh

Yesterday, Monica of Spark a Synapse got some surprising results from her Vitamin D test. She writes:

My vitamin D level was only 30 ng/mL. That is after over a year of supplementing with cod liver oil, which has 500 IU per 1/2 tsp. I take around 2 tsp. at a time, or 2000 IU. This was also after several sessions of sitting out in the sun this spring at high altitude, 8400 feet. Granted, I have not taken the cod liver oil religiously every day. However, my diet is very good (raw milk, eggs, meat, occasional liver [very high in vitamin D!!]) and although food is not a sufficient source of vitamin D, I probably get around 400IU daily in my food, the government's recommended level.
As Monica observes, while 30 ng/mL isn't awful, something more like 60 to 80 ng/mL seem to be required for robust health. Happily, my vitamin D test showed 88 ng/mL. Notably, that was after a few months of serious supplementation with cod liver oil and D tablets -- 3,000 IU to 5,000 IU per day, in addition to some time outside in the sun.

Speaking of Vitamin D, the Mayo Clinic recently published an interesting report on the correlation between chronic pain and low vitamin D levels:
Mayo Clinic research shows a correlation between inadequate vitamin D levels and the amount of narcotic medication taken by patients who have chronic pain. This correlation is an important finding as researchers discover new ways to treat chronic pain. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the United States. These patients often end up taking narcotic-type pain medication such as morphine, fentanyl or oxycodone.

This study found that patients who required narcotic pain medication, and who also had inadequate levels of vitamin D, were taking much higher doses of pain medication -- nearly twice as much -- as those who had adequate levels. Similarly, these patients self-reported worse physical functioning and worse overall health perception. In addition, a correlation was noted between increasing body mass index (a measure of obesity) and decreasing levels of vitamin D. Study results were published in a recent edition of Pain Medicine.
That result isn't terribly surprising: doctors have long known about the importance of vitamin D to musculoskeletal health. (The extreme form of vitamin D deficiency is rickets.) Moreover, a 2003 study showed that 93 percent of subjects with non-specific musculoskeletal pain were vitamin D deficient. (That report doesn't say what constituted Vitamin D deficiency for the purpose of the study, but I imagine that it was less than 20 ng/mL, at least. Some people in the study had zero vitamin D!)

Please do note that both of these reports concern observational studies: they show correlation, not causation. However, the connection between chronic pain and vitamin D is clearly an issue worthy of further scientific study.

For more general information on Vitamin D, see this post from Stephan, the Vitamin D Council, and Grassroots Health.

Read more...

Friday, March 27, 2009

Atlas Is #1

By Diana Hsieh

Great news from the Ayn Rand Center:

The Ayn Rand Center is pleased to announce that Atlas Shrugged, which ranked #3 in the U.S. Literature and Fiction category merely a week ago, has now climbed to #1!

According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center, "The explosion of interest in Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's ideas that we're seeing right now is remarkable. As the United States' economy deteriorates and the free market takes the blame for the disastrous consequences of government policies, Americans are increasingly turning to Atlas Shrugged, whose parallels to the current crisis are truly breathtaking.

"Anyone genuinely concerned with the expanding role of government and the accelerating erosion of freedom in this country should pick up a copy of Atlas and read it. In Atlas they will find the deeper philosophical explanation for what is going on today and, more important, they will find the revolutionary philosophy needed to guide us to a brighter future."
Wow. For a book that was published over 50 years ago, that's damn amazing.

Also, two other editions of Atlas are ranked #7 and #8, The Fountainhead is ranked #14, and the Atlas Shrugged Cliffs Notes are #24. Amazing!

Read more...

Edison Hour

By Diana Hsieh

Tomorrow evening, Paul and I will celebrate Edison Hour. Amy Nasir explains this festival of lights on the New Clarion:

On Saturday, March 28, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m., in contrast to the dubious "Earth Hour," there are a couple of new movements celebrating the achievements of Thomas Edison and those men and women who--as Ayn Rand eloquently phrased--"took first steps, down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision."

In honor of Edison Hour, which was coincidentally established by the University of Michigan Students of Objectivism and myself, and also in tribute to Human Achievement Hour, households and businesses across the nation will be keeping their lights and other electrical devices on, and refusing to concede the unearned guilt that environmentalists want to establish in our culture.

We live in the most innovative, life-sustaining and "money-making" country in mankind's history, and we should never apologize for human happiness and success. So please remember to keep your lights on this coming Saturday. You may want to spend the hour by sitting down by the bright light of your lamp reading Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or revisiting her uplifting novella, Anthem, from which I've selected a quote from its main character who rediscovered electricity and the light bulb:
I have learned that my power of the sky was known to men long ago; they called it Electricity. It was the power that moved their greatest inventions. It lit this house with light which came from those globes of glass on the walls.
Let's make sure that the precious inventions that freed the world from darkness are never taken for granted, and especially not destroyed by the anti-man philosophy of environmentalism and "Earth Hour." Let's change the tide of the culture by celebrating human achievement and literally fending off the darkness.
Hear, hear!

P.S. Ari Armstrong has a good post on Edison Hour too.

Read more...

Yaron Brook on the Glen Beck Show

By Diana Hsieh

From the Ayn Rand Center:

Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, is scheduled to appear on the Glenn Beck program on Fox News Channel today, Friday, March 27. The program starts at 5 p.m., Eastern time (2 p.m., Pacific time). Dr. Brook will discuss Timothy Geithner's new proposal to expand the government's regulatory power over the private sector.

Read more...

Special Offer on The Objective Standard

By Diana Hsieh

I'm late in posting this special offer from The Objective Standard. Today is the final day:

The Objective Standard is offering a 20% discount on subscriptions to first-time subscribers through March 27, 2009. If you have considered subscribing to the Standard but have held off—or if you know anyone who has—now is the time to act.

A one-year print subscription is only $47.20 (regularly $59), and a two-year print subscription is only $87.20 (regularly $109). Likewise, a one-year online-only subscription is only $39.20 (down from $49), and a two-year online-only subscription is only $71.20 (down from $89).

These prices revert to regular rates after March 27.
You can subscribe via this page.

Read more...

The National Service Threat

By Paul Hsieh

The March 26, 2009 Washington Examiner has published a good OpEd on the threatened expansion of the Americorps "National Service" program. Although this issue has received less press than the various bailout-related issues, it could be equally important to the future of America.

Here's an excerpt from the Examiner piece (bold emphasis is mine):

"Expanded Americorps Has An Authoritarian Feel"

...To begin with, the legislation threatens the voluntary nature of Americorps by calling for consideration of "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people." It anticipates the possibility of requiring "all individuals in the United States" to perform such service -- including elementary school students.

The bill also summons up unsettling memories of World War II-era paramilitary groups by saying the new program should "combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service," while establishing "campuses" that serve as "operational headquarters," complete with "superintendents" and "uniforms" for all participants. It allows for the elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all stages of life. And it calls for creation of "a permanent cadre" in a "National Community Civilian Corps."

But that's not all. The bill also calls for "youth engagement zones" in which "service learning" is "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency." This updated form of voluntary community service is also to be "integrated into the science, technology, engineering and mathematics curricula" at all levels of schooling. Sounds like a government curriculum for government approved "service learning," which is nothing less than indoctrination.

Now, ask yourself if congressmen who voted for this monstrosity had a clue what they were voting for. If not, they're guilty of dereliction of duty. If yes, the implications are truly frightening.
(Read the whole thing.)

This bill has already passed the House and being considered by the Senate.

The Senate recently voted 74-14 to move the bill onto the floor (i.e., to not filibuster the bill). Hence, it has support from numerous Republicans and Democrats.

If you're alarmed and outraged by this idea, then you can do the following:

1) Forward the Examiner piece to friends, family, co-workers, etc.

2) Tell your US Senator to vote against the bill.

The Senate version is called S.277.

To contact your Senators to tell them to oppose S.277, click here.

You don't have to write anything long or super-eloquent. It's more important that your e-mail subject line be something unambiguous like "Oppose S.277", so their staff aides know how to tally your e-mail. For instance, I dashed off the following short note to my Senators:
Please oppose S.277. It moves us dangerously close to mandatory national service, something which is un-American and a violation of individual rights.
Of course if you are so inclined, you can write something longer. Here's what Diana sent:
As your constituent, I wish to express my opposition to any expansion of AmeriCorps and other "service" programs. Such programs are not just costly and ineffective. They also violate the property rights of taxpayers to dispose of their own hard-earned income in accordance with their own choices and values.

Personally, I strongly object to any attempts to use the power of the government to promote the moral ideal of selfless service to the community -- as AmeriCorps does. That ideal does not represent my values: I reject that moral ideal as destructive to human life and happiness. Yet I am forced to pay for this government program. That is morally wrong.

A person has every right to donate his own money to the charity of his choice. A person has every right to volunteer or work for the charity of his choice, if the charity is amenable. I do both -- routinely -- for causes that I care about.

However, a person has no right to dispose of another person's money to fund his charitable work. That's theft, plain and simple.

AmeriCorps should be dismantled, not expanded.
The Senate will be voting soon on this. Hence if you wish to speak out on this issue, the time is now!

Update: The Senate has just passed its version of the bill by a margin of 78-20. They still have to reconcile their version with the one passed by the House of Representatives before they can submit it to President Obama (who has promised to sign it).

Read more...

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Extreme Sheep LED Art

By Paul Hsieh

Ok, maybe it's a bit of stretch to call it art. But it's pretty cool:

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

By Diana Hsieh

The latest Objectivist Roundup has just been posted to Erosophia. Go check it out!

Read more...

How and Why Athletes Go Broke

By Paul Hsieh

The March 23, 2009 issue of Sports Illustrated features this interesting article entitled, "How (and Why) Athletes Go Broke".

One astonishing tidbit:

By the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce.

Within five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke
The article analyzes the psychology behind the bad decision-making and puts them into four main categories:
1. The Lure of the Tangible
2. Misplaced Trust
3. Family Matters
4. Great Expectations
As the article notes, many professional athletes are very similar to lottery winners in that they suddenly gain a great deal of money out of proportion to their life skills. Either they raise their life skills to match their money, or they lose money until their bank accounts are again proportionate to their life skills.

These athletes' stories also illustrate the following truth from Francisco D'Anconia's "money speech" in Atlas Shrugged:
...Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money.

...Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth -- the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.

Read more...

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Steep Rollercoaster

By Paul Hsieh

If you like rollercoasters, then you'll love this one:

The new attraction at Thorpe Park in Surrey, Saw -- The Ride, claims to offer the world's steepest freefall drop -- a beyond-vertical 100-degree descent back under the ride's 100ft (30m) peak.
Includes video. (Via BBspot.)

Read more...

Is This The End of America?

By Paul Hsieh

Terence Corcoran asks this provocative question in the March 19, 2009 edition of the Financial Post.

Here are a few excerpts from his column:

Is this the end of America?

...One test of whether we are witnessing the end of America is how many more times Americans put up with congressional show trials of individual business people and their employees, slandering and vilifying them for their actions and motives. And for how long will they tolerate a President who berates business and corporations as dens of crime and malfeasance? If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism.

...Reform of health care, environmental policy, education, energy, banking, regulation -- every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy has been put on alert for major change. Expansion of government spending, plunging the U.S. into unprecedented deficits, is without parallel. In economic policy, through regulation and control of energy output, financial services and monetary expansion, the U.S. government has embarked on a fundamental reshaping of America. It is designed, in short, to bring on the end of America.
Corcoran also discusses the recent massive expansion of the money supply caused by the Federal Reserve and the risk of inflation.

So is this the end of America? I hope not. And it won't be if enough people are willing to speak out against our current path and also stand up for the right ideas.

But we'll find out soon enough.

Read more...

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

How Many People Have My Name?

By Diana Hsieh

HowManyOfMe.com
LogoThere are
4
people with the name "Diana Hsieh" in the U.S.A.

How many have your name?

About "Diana":
  • There are 330,501 people in the U.S. with the first name Diana.
  • Statistically the 188th most popular first name.
About "Hsieh":
  • There are 3,274 people in the U.S. with the last name Hsieh.
  • Statistically the 10133rd most popular last name.
But perhaps I should have kept my maiden name, because here's the results for "Diana Brickell":

HowManyOfMe.com
LogoThere is
1
person with the name "Diana Brickell" in the U.S.A.

How many have your name?

About "Brickell":
  • There are 918 people in the U.S. with the last name Brickell.
  • Statistically the 29402nd most popular last name.
(Via Rational Jenn.)

Read more...

Hsieh OpEd at PJM: "Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil"

By Paul Hsieh

The online political commentary/opinion website PajamasMedia.com has published my latest OpEd, entitled "Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil".

Here's the introduction:

Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil

Summary: Health insurance companies are on the verge of a Faustian bargain that will take the rest of us down with them.

March 22, 2009 - by Paul Hsieh

In German folklore, Johann Faust was a physician who sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for knowledge. Of course, the pact destroyed him. The American health insurance industry is on the verge of striking its own Faustian bargain with the U.S. government. But this bargain won't just destroy the insurance industry; it will also drag 300 million Americans into the pit of government-run "single payer" socialized medicine...
Read the rest here.

Read more...

Monday, March 23, 2009

Barack's TelePrompter

By Greg Perkins

Okay, given Obama's reputed dependence on prepared text for his charismatic orating, and recent slips like his slavishly reading another person's speech the other day (and thereby oddly thanking himself for hosting the event), this blog is just hilarious: "Barack's TelePrompter -- Reflections from the hard drive of the machine that enables the voice of the leader of the free world."

From the recent entry, "I'm Not Getting Paid Enough":

Okay, I see the bus coming right at me, so let's be clear: this was His ad lib.
...
It's days like this that make me miss the days when He and I would walk the streets of Chicago, doing community activism. Sure, it took Him 30 minutes to set me up, and sometimes he couldn't get the extension cord to reach an electrical outlet, or the folks he wanted to talk to would walk off because they had better things to do, or the glare off my screen made his remarks unreadable. But it was a simpler time, when he could stay on script and didn't feel the need to "speak his mind," and we were a team. All I know, is it's going to be a long flight home.

Read more...

The New Dog

By Diana Hsieh

Hooray! I'm so insanely happy to report that Paul and I adopted a dog yesterday afternoon from the Front Range German Shepherd Rescue. He's a one-year-old, 70-pound German Shepherd male. He's low-key, attentive, and affectionate, but inexperienced in the ways of the world. Right now, he's a bit agitated by his unexpected change in residence. Over the next few weeks, he needs regular exercise to build muscle, training in walking gently on a leash, and instruction on playing nice with the cats and horses.

We haven't decided on a name definitively, but we're thinking "Conrad."

As any cat owner might imagine, our cats are not so pleased by the introduction of this interloper to their domain. They're in hiding.

Read more...

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Recap #36

By Diana Hsieh

This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
This week on FA/RM, the blog of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets:

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #44

By Diana Hsieh

Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Read more...

Saturday, March 21, 2009

The Return of Lard

By Diana Hsieh

The Wall Street Journal reports on the return of lard, i.e. pork fat, in cooking in the article Big Fat Deal. Here's a bit from the middle:

Lard's redemption is also driven by a shift in culinary thinking that suggests it is not as unhealthy as some people think. One of the primary evangelists is the Weston A. Price Foundation, a small Washington, D.C.-based group that has promoted lard's unlikely health benefits for the last decade. Lard has also benefited from movements like sustainable agriculture, which preaches against allowing any part of an animal going to waste.

Lard didn't always have such a bad reputation; a century ago, most Americans cooked with it. But when the vegetable-based shortening Crisco came out in 1911, it saw lard as a major competitor. Procter & Gamble, Crisco's creator, denigrated lard in its Crisco marketing, discussing its "lardy, greasy taste" and calling it indigestible. Its popular cookbook, "The Story of Crisco" was full of illustrations like one comparing a smoke-filled "lard kitchen" to a gleaming "Crisco kitchen."

The result was that a cook who used lard came to be seen as "someone who was uneducated, who was dirty, unscientific, lived on a farm," says Sally Fallon, president of the Price Foundation. Then came health campaigns against saturated fats and cholesterol, compounding the unflattering image and effectively banishing lard from U.S. kitchens for decades.

But lard's reputation is undeserved, says Ms. Fallon. While she doesn't advocate supermarket lard, which typically has extra hydrogen pumped in to extend shelf life, she says natural, minimally processed lard is good for you. It contains up to 60% monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats--the "good" fats that have beneficial effects on cholesterol. It also is high in vitamins A and D.
Unfortunately, the article doesn't mention Fallon's view that saturated fat isn't a health risk but rather a positive good.

For more on the benefits of cooking with lard, Dr. M.D. Eades wrote an excellent post in defense of lard a few months ago. In it, she compares the composition of lard to other fats widely regarded as healthy -- and lard does very well by every reasonable measure.

By coincidence, that blog post by Dr. Eades was inspired by a news article that confused hydrogenated vegetable shortening with lard. Similarly, the above Wall Street Journal referred to "five quarts of a type of lard from cows known as beef tallow" in its last paragraph. But tallow (i.e. beef fat) is not a kind of lard (i.e. pork fat). It's a sad sign of the culinary times that people don't know what the word "lard" means. But happily, that seems to be changing.

Read more...

Fish Oil

By Diana Hsieh

Fish oil has become a fairly standard dietary supplement in the last few years, particularly for its cardiovascular benefits. My goal in this post is not to analyze those studies, but rather to consider the nuts and bolts of extracting genuine benefits from fish oil, based on my own readings on the topic. I'm not an expert, obviously, just a curious layman.

First: Dosage.

Not too long ago, Dr. Davis, the Heart Scan Doc, wrote a very helpful post on getting your dose of fish oil right. In essence, you need to look at the EPA and DHA numbers, add them together, then multiply that sum by the servings of capsules that you take per day. Dr. Davis writes:

What should the total daily dose of EPA + DHA dose be? That depends on what your goals are.

If your goal is to modestly reduce the risk of dying from heart attack, then just eating fish a couple of times per month will begin to exert an effect, or just taking a dose of 300 mg EPA + DHA per day from a low-potency capsule will do it. However, that's an awfully unambitious goal.

Our starting omega-3 dose in the Track Your Plaque program has, over the years, increased and now stands at 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day. However, the dose for 1) full reduction of triglycerides and/or triglyceride-containing abnormal lipoproteins, 2) reduction of Lp(a), and 3) the ideal dose for coronary and carotid plaque control are substantially higher.
I've spent way too much time in Whole Foods examining the labels of various kinds of fish oil. My conclusions are two: (1) the EPA + DHA of many fish oils is shockingly low and (2) the total EPA + DHA varies wildly independent of price. The highest numbers I've seen so far are in the ProOmega fish oil sold by Dr. Eades. It has 450 mg DHA and 650 EpA per two-capsule serving. (Nope, I don't benefit from sales of that in the slightest.)

Second: Storage.

In addition to EPA + DHA content in your fish oil, you should worry about the strong possibility of rancid fish oil. Here's what Dr. Eades says about the danger:
Fish oil is primarily EPA and DHA, both of which are extremely unsaturated. And, as we all know, the greater the degree of unsaturation, the greater the propensity to go rancid. When these oils go rancid (or "go off" as the Brits put it) they don't go from being healthful to simply becoming neutral, they actually convert to harmful oxidized fats called lipid peroxides.

Lipid peroxides can (and do) start free radical cascades that can damage fatty cellular membranes. At the very least lipid peroxides consume the body's stores of vitamin E and other antioxidants to neutralize them, leaving the body short of many of its natural defenses.
You can prevent it by taking some simple steps. Dr. Eades writes:
How do you insure that the fish oil you get is not rancid? It's actually pretty easy.

First, purchase the freshest fish oil capsules you can find. Take them home, and if they are in plastic bottles, put them in glass bottles. Plastic bottles, surprisingly enough, are not totally impervious to air. Glass bottles are impervious to air. Most fish oil is encapsulated using gel caps, which are also not impervious to air. You can't really reencapsulate the fish oil, so you've got to live with the gel caps, but putting them into a glass bottle keeps the air from getting to the gel caps in the first place.

Second, put the glass bottle in the refrigerator. The cold will markedly slow down the oxidation process even if a little air gets in the bottle. Refrigerated fish last a lot longer than fish left out on the counter.

The final step you can take to insure freshness of your fish oil capsules is to bite into one and chew it. If it is rancid, you'll know it. If it is, throw the whole batch out. If you perform the chew test every four or five days, you'll always know you're taking unrancid fish oil.
I keep my fish oil in the fridge, but I ought to transfer it to a glass jar. I should also make a habit of doing a chew test once a week. That sounds icky, but I will hope that fish oil is only disgusting when rancid. After all, I have no problem taking my spoonful of straight cod liver oil each day, also kept in the fridge, along with the butter oil. Now that I consider the matter, however, it would be easier (and likely cheaper) to switch to the liquid form of fish oil -- like Nordic Naturals Omega 3D -- once I used up my current supply of capsules.

Third: Ratios

From what I've read, the critical issue with omega-3 fatty acids is not your absolute intake, but your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. Stephan of Whole Health Source argues -- and rightly so, I think -- that a healthy omega-6: omega-3 ratio is somewhere between 2:1 and 1:4. By way of contrast, the ratio in the American diet today is around 16:1.

As the charts in Stephan's post show, limiting your omega-6s requires avoiding vegetable oils, except palm and coconut oil. Animal fats are far preferable -- particularly beef, lamb, and pork fat rather than chicken and turkey fat. In practical terms, that requires strictly limiting conventionally-prepared fried foods, mayonnaise, salad dressings, and the like found in grocery stores and restaurants. If you're willing to take a bit of trouble, however, you make and enjoy healthy versions of these foods at home using good fats.

If you'd like to know more about omega-3 and omega-6 fats, I recommend Stephan's whole series on the subject, to which I've linked before:
Fourth: Supplements in General

Finally, I'd like to recommend Richard Nikoley's post on diet supplements. (That's a link to Part 4, but he summarizes and links to the prior parts in the introduction.) I agree with his general principle that "supplementation ought to be the exception, not the rule, and there ought to be clear reasons for supplementing." I also think his particular recommendations of Vitamin D (in the form of D3), fish oil, and K2 (whether via butter oil or in a synthetic form) are very sensible.

Read more...

Friday, March 20, 2009

May Rebuts Stranahan

By Paul Hsieh

As more Americans rediscover Ayn Rand's ideas, some of her detractors are coming out of the woodwork.

One such attack came from Lee Stranahan, who wrote, "An Insider's Look At How Ayn Rand Destroyed The World".

Fortunately, frequent NoodleFood commenter Jim May has taken the time to rebut Stranahan in this post at the New Clarion blog, "The Stranahan Syndrome".

Thank you, Jim!

Read more...

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Wolverine

By Diana Hsieh

Oh, I'm definitely looking forward to this movie:

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup #88

By Diana Hsieh

The 88th Objectivist Roundup is now available on Amy Mossoff's excellent blog The Little Things.

Read more...

Environmentalist Propaganda Video

By Paul Hsieh

When someone asks if environmentalism is really anti-man, you can point them towards this video:



One of man's cardinal values is self-esteem. If a person believes he is evil and unfit for existence, then he won't fight for his life.

Environmentalism attacks self-esteem by portraying man as such as evil and unfit for existence. If Americans ever fully internalize that code of values, then we'll be in big trouble.

Hence the importance of identifying (and opposing) that deadly code whenever one sees it.

Read more...

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Atlas Shrugged Audio Sale

By Diana Hsieh

An audio version of Atlas Shrugged is currently available for purchase from Audible.com for a whopping $4.95. This is the version read by Scott Brick, not Christopher Hurt.

It's part of Audible's "Win-Win" sale, which ends tomorrow (Thursday) at 4 pm EDT. The sale, I think, is only good for members of Audible.com.

Read more...

The New F***ing Citibank

By Paul Hsieh

Today's video: "The New F***ing Citibank"



Probably NSFW due to repeated use of F-bombs. (Via Radley Balko.)

Read more...

Wednesday Open Thread #43

By Diana Hsieh

Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Read more...

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Sleep Running Dog

By Diana Hsieh

This dog must have had one heck of a dream!

Read more...

Activism Against NAIS

By Diana Hsieh

On March 11th, a congressional committee held a public hearing on plans to expand NAIS, the National Animal Identification System. This issue has been on my radar thanks to Monica Hughes' blogging on it on the FA/RM blog. An action alert from the Weston A. Price Foundation describes the proposal as follows:

The USDA has proposed a rule to require all farms and ranches where animals are raised to be registered in a federal database under the NAIS for existing disease control programs. The draft rule covers programs for cattle, goats, sheep, and swine. It also sets the stage for mandatory NAIS animal identification in the future.
It's not too late to comment. The alert noted that:
You can submit written testimony to the subcommittee up to 10 days after the hearing. Send your testimony to the Hearing Clerk, Jamie Mitchell, at Jamie.Mitchell@mail.house.gov. Be sure to put "March 11 Hearing - Animal Identification Programs" in the subject line. Keep your comments clear, polite, and concise.
Here is the e-mail that I sent yesterday. I encourage others to write their own letters.
From: Diana Hsieh <diana@dianahsieh.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:58:58 -0600
To: <Jamie.Mitchell@mail.house.gov>
Subject: March 11 Hearing - Animal Identification Programs

Dear Members of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry --

I am writing to you to oppose National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

I am an ordinary citizen from Colorado, albeit with some interest in raising livestock myself. I am opposed to NAIS because:

* NAIS violates the property rights of all farmers. Farmers should not be required to tag their livestock any more than parents should be required to tag their children. Livestock is private property, and the government should respect that by limiting itself to protecting the rights of property and contract.

* The costs of compliance with NAIS will drive smaller farmers out of business. Sadly, I suspect that many large farms -- particularly those already on the government dole -- are pushing for NAIS for that very reason. They are eliminating their competition by government regulation. That's anti-American. The government should not be complicit in such schemes.

* NAIS will raise prices for consumers. Food prices have already gone through the roof. Particularly during an economic downturn, to require farmers to incur more costs -- which will then be passed on to consumers -- is very bad economic policy. Freedom, not government controls and regulation, is the key to economic prosperity.

* NAIS will not protect the food supply. The government does a lousy job of protecting the food supply, as the recent peanut butter and tomato scares show. The solution is not more burdensome regulations. It is a free market in agriculture. Under that system, Americans would have the capacity to buy from known local farmers or rely on the private certification of their choice. Americans will be responsible for their own safety -- just as they ought to be. We are not children: we are rational adults who ought to be free to act on our own best judgment.

NAIS is indefensible. It is anti-American. It should be wholly abandoned.

For more information on Free Market Agriculture, see the web site of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets (FA/RM) at http://fa-rm.org/.

-- DMH

Diana Hsieh
Ph.D Candidate, Philosophy, CU Boulder
E-mail: diana@dianahsieh.com
Blog: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DianaHsieh
Secular Government: http://www.SecularGovernment.us
Free Market Medicine: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org
I also sent that letter to my two senators and one representative in Washington.

If you express your opposition to this dangerous and expensive expansion of government control over the private property of farmers, write to the subcommittee hearing clerk at Jamie.Mitchell@mail.house.gov. You can find and contact your own representatives via Congress.org. You are welcome to use my letter (or portions thereof) as you see fit. Please feel free to post what you write in the comments.

Read more...

Monday, March 16, 2009

Yaron Brook on PJTV

By Diana Hsieh

I've not had the chance to watch this 20-minute "Pajamas TV" interview of Yaron Brook on "Is Atlas Shrugging?" yet, but it's sure to be good. Spread the word!

Read more...

Eric Daniels on Free Speech

By Diana Hsieh

On April 11th, Front Range Objectivist Supper Talks (FROST) will host a dinner lecture with Objectivist historian Eric Daniels on "The Looming Crisis over Free Speech." It will be an excellent lecture, so if you're able to attend, please consider doing so. Note that an RSVP is required by April 6th.

Here's the full announcement:

Supper Talk with Dr. Eric Daniels on "The Looming Crisis over Free Speech"

  • Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009
  • Time: 6:00 pm social hour (cash bar); 7:00 pm dinner; 8:00 pm talk
  • Location: West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado
  • Cost: $60 per individual, $35 per student
  • RSVP: To reserve your space, you must RSVP by April 6th to Betty Evans via e-mail (betty@frontrangeobjectivism.com) or phone (303.421.7334). Please send your check to FROGS c/o Betty Evans, 1140 US Hwy 287 STE 400-283, Broomfield, CO 80020 or use Paypal to send your payment to betty@frontrangeobjectivism.com.
In this lecture, Dr. Daniels examines the state of free speech in America and finds that it is under serious threat. From campus speech codes to anti-discrimination and harassment law, from campaign finance to commercial speech, Americans today enjoy less and less freedom in communicating their ideas. Today's colleges and universities have become a hotbed of censorship, producing generations of Americans who have accepted suppression of speech as the norm. Dr. Daniels argues that the emerging crisis is a result of the lack of a proper understanding of individual rights, especially property rights. Only by understanding the proper basis of rights can we act to secure our freedom of speech and to protect the rights that give rise to it.

Dr. Daniels is a research assistant professor at the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He lectures internationally on American history and attended ARI's Objectivist Graduate Center. He recently coauthored U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2008 Report. He contributes to The Objective Standard and wrote a chapter for Abolition of Antitrust.

Read more...

Laws Versus Regulations

By Diana Hsieh

I'm looking for a good source to help clarify the distinction between ordinary laws and regulations. Any suggestions? A relatively short online essay would be most helpful.

Here's why I'm asking: On Saturday, I attempted to argue against any and all regulations, on the grounds that ordinary laws would be sufficient to protect individual rights. I wasn't satisfied with my answer, as I felt like I had muddied the issue somehow. Then yesterday I was asked about the issue in e-mail, so I said the following -- tentatively:

Laws might be good (insofar as they protect rights) or bad (insofar as they violate rights). The same could be said of regulations. However, due to their different origins, regulations are dangerous to liberty, I think. How so? In essence, laws are a product of the legislative process, whereas regulations are a product of agencies of the executive branch.

Laws must be passed by our representatives: we can review the legislation, ask that they vote one way rather than another, and hold them accountable for their votes. This process is imperfect, particularly today. Yet we still find some measure of openness and accountability in it.

In contrast, regulations are passed by government bureaucrats in agencies answerable to the president. These bureaucrats may or may not court public opinion; they may have a narrow partisan agenda; they may not give a damn about public opinion. These agencies are likely to be ruled by special interests at the expense of the rest of us -- for the kinds of reasons that Milton Friedman observes in Free to Choose. In particular, the special interests stand to gain much by making the regulations in their favor, while each citizen (or resident) will only lose a bit. Consequently, regulations are very likely to violate rights in all kinds of horrible ways -- just as we see today.

In other words, regulations come to be when the legislative branch illegitimately cedes its power of making law to the executive branch. It's a dangerous violation of the separation of powers -- and an evasion of legislative responsibility. And the result is reams and reams of unknowable and often contradictory government edicts.
Is that basically right -- or am I totally confused? Also, as I mentioned at the outset, I am interested in any good sources on this issue of laws versus regulations.

Oh, and I should mention that I didn't cite Milton Friedman's Free to Choose because I'm a fan of the book. I'm not. However, Friedman's discussion of some of the tendencies of regulatory agencies is reasonably good, and I know that the other person has read it.

Read more...

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Recap #35

By Diana Hsieh

This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
This week on FA/RM, the blog of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets:

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #42

By Diana Hsieh

Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Read more...

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Stephan on the Tokelau Island Migrant Study

By Diana Hsieh

Unfortunately, I don't have time to blog anything substantial right now, so you will have to content yourself with some very interesting blogging from Stephan of Whole Health Source, namely his excellent series on the Tokelau Island Migrant Study.

In other news, I've begun making kefir, i.e. fermented milk. It's super-easy to make, and I'm totally fascinated by the science of it. I'm still not thrilled with its taste, but it's growing on me.

One more thing: I hereby declare that Daylight Savings Time is a menace to civilization! I'm still not even remotely adjusted to it.

Read more...

Friday, March 13, 2009

Is Ayn Rand Relevant? Yes!

By Diana Hsieh

The Wall Street Journal just published an excellent short op-ed by Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute on Ayn Rand's significance today. Go read it now -- and then post a comment.

Read more...

Hilter Is Mad, Yet Again

By Diana Hsieh

This time, it's about TO.



I love these re-subtitled Hitler videos far, far too much. Someday I'll have to watch the actual movie.

Read more...

Link-O-Rama

By Diana Hsieh

  • Broken Picture Telephone is not merely entertaining. It also illustrates a serious epistemological point about just how much more information is conveyed by just a few concepts as opposed to mere percepts. Granted, those percepts are often amazingly badly drawn. That's part of the humor. (Via The Hoodat Report.)

  • WOW: "It may be tough to get financing for a new car these days, but in Detroit you can buy a house with a credit card. The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service. Not $75,000. Remove a zero—it's seven thousand five hundred dollars, substantially less than the lowest-price car on the new-car market." (Via The Agitator.)

  • Can some teenager please verify that they can hear this sound? I can't hear a damn thing!

  • Uh, what part of Obama's body is this blond chick holding on to? (Yes, it is safe for work -- and damn funny.)

  • Rational Jenn on The Art of War for Parents and On Siblings. Good stuff.

  • 25 Really Unromantic Album Covers. Heh.

    Read more...
  • Thursday, March 12, 2009

    Fatal Distraction

    By Diana Hsieh

    Via The Agitator, here's a must-read: Fatal Distraction by Washington Post writer Gene Weingarten. It is one of the most heart-wrenching stories that I've ever read. It's about the loving parents -- 15 to 25 per year in America -- who accidentally kill their own young children by unknowingly leaving them in the car on a hot day. The article makes perfectly clear that the attempted prosecution of such parents for any kind of crime is completely unjust. Memory is inherently fallible -- as we all know -- and even the most loving parent can forget his or her own child. When such happens as a result of a fluke, rather than as the product of habitual failure to take proper care, the result is an unimaginable tragedy, not a crime.

    I wish that I had time to write more about the issues pertaining to memory and negligence that the story raises, as that's right up the alley of my dissertation. Perhaps I can do that later.

    Sadly, as the article observes, the laws regulating the way in which children are strapped into car seats contributes to the problem.

    This is journalism at its finest. Prepare to have your mind engaged and your heart broken. Go read it.

    Read more...

    Objectivist Roundup

    By Diana Hsieh

    Titanic Deck Chairs has the latest Objectivist Roundup. Go check it out!

    Read more...

    Challenging What Everybody Knows

    By Greg Perkins

    How do you quickly explain -- or at least motivate further exploration of -- subtle ideas that would challenge "what everybody knows"? It's just hard, a skill to be practiced, which is why I eagerly listened to the (quite excellent) debate between Dr. Ghate (Ayn Rand Institute) and Dr. Huemer (CU Boulder Philosophy Department) over Ayn Rand's ethics.

    One of Huemer's big points was that egoism logically entails predation. The idea is that there are times when it is in one's interest to lie, cheat, steal, etc. -- so it logically follows that a true egoist selfishly seeks to exploit others when he would so profit. Huemer's reduction to absurdity on this was that the true egoist would do so even when the overall benefit is tiny and the offense is great, like killing someone for the net benefit of a dollar. If an "egoist" wouldn't murder for a dollar, then he isn't actually an egoist and ought to stop peddling the notion that thoroughgoing selfishness is proper.

    That one can profit from "prudent predation" is one of those things that Everybody Knows. So what might an Objectivist say to shake a general audience's confidence in the idea that predation is egoistic? That's a tall order given our current culture; there's just too much conceptual territory to cover to truly nail it down in a scant few minutes. So my first-blush approach would be to only try to indicate how Objectivists have a considered view that reveals predation -- no matter the form or degree -- to be utterly, unequivocally, hideously at odds with genuine egoism. Something like:

    Recall my sketch of Rand's analysis of the nature of "value" and how values are what living organisms must pursue to live -- i.e., that there are needs they must satisfy to maintain their existence as living organisms. Different kinds of organisms do this in different ways, of course. Look at, say, the need for food: trees grow roots and turn their leaves to the sun, while squirrels climb and scurry to harvest nuts, and lions use their speed and teeth and claws to chase and catch their prey. But we are a bit different, in that there is no particular method we need to use to satisfy our requirement for food: we may grow it on a farm, harvest it from the sea, raise it on a ranch, hunt for it in the plains, trap it in the forest, create it in the lab, and on and on. So it wouldn't make sense to say that we eat by virtue of fangs, claws, or roots like we might say of other organisms -- rather, we get our food by some method, but that method is determined by our thinking. It's a long discussion, but the same is true for every need we have and every value we pursue: put simply, our primary or basic means of survival is thinking. We are the rational animal, discovering by reason what is valuable, and determining via reason how to achieve it.

    Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed -- and ignoring facts and acting on emotion or whim means courting disaster. So someone really interested in living -- our truly selfish ethical egoist -- will want to internalize the fact that reason is his fundamental means of survival, his basic tool for living, the essential faculty and activity that he needs to cultivate and use and jealously protect as the lifeline it genuinely is. Reliant on the power of his conceptual awareness, he will see the value of working to understand the nature of concepts and the implications for the nature of knowledge; the laws of logic and absolute requirement for objectivity -- because indifference to these things would mean indifference to his lifeline! He will seek to think and act on principle because reason demands it as his only hope for methodologically pursuing life over the span of an entire lifetime in the face of an incredibly complicated world.

    Morality is a set of principles guiding your choices and actions in life. And rationality is our fundamental tool for living. So it makes sense that an egoist will understand moral virtues as expressions or applications of rationality to various aspects of living. Indeed, Rand framed each major virtue as the recognition of a fundamental fact. At this point you should be able to glimpse why Objectivists recoil in horror at someone suggesting that even the most "prudent" of predation would be egoistic: seriously considering predation means ignoring or outright rejecting the fundamental facts of human life captured in supremely-prudent moral principles like productiveness, justice, and honesty. Seriously entertaining their violation means rejecting not just particular principles and the facts they describe, but the need to act on principle and rationality as one's basic means of survival. What a real egoist hears is someone suggesting living by actively repudiating their fundamental means of living! That's insanity. And it's certainly not selfish.
    This of course invites followup on just what those fundamental facts are, why reason demands thinking and acting on principle, etc. That's fine, though, as the goal was only to weaken their confidence in what "everybody knows" and spark further investigation.

    There are so many angles that could be taken, so many basic ideas to try to sketch -- how would you approach this? What are the actual words you would use in such a setting?

    Read more...

    Wednesday, March 11, 2009

    Today's X-Ray

    By Paul Hsieh

    History: Leg Pain



    Yeah, I bet his leg is a little uncomfortable!

    Read more...

    Wednesday Open Thread #41

    By Diana Hsieh

    Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

    For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

    Read more...

    Tuesday, March 10, 2009

    White Wedding, Literally

    By Diana Hsieh

    A literal version of Billy Idol's "White Wedding" video:


    I remember being really disturbed by this video as a kid. He was marrying her, but he didn't seem to love her! He hurt her when he put on the ring! It just didn't make sense! (Okay, so I must have been about six at the time.) Now that I've seen the literal version, it all makes sense. Well maybe not, but at least it's dumb rather than scary.

    Now if only I could find that horror movie about bad moonshine that my sisters let me watch when I was about five that gave me nightmares for years. (My mother was not pleased.) I still have very vivid memories: The woman's hair fell out, she went all screwy in the head, she grabbed a massive knife from her kitchen with the intent of chopping up her two young daughters, but she was stopped and killed at the last minute by the dedicated police officer. It was scary stuff for young little me!

    Read more...

    Good News/Bad News on Atlas Shrugged Publicity

    By Paul Hsieh

    We're currently in the middle of a "good news/bad news" situation with respect to Objectivism.

    The good news is that there's tremendous interest in Ayn Rand's ideas.

    At OCON 2008, Yaron Brook said that one of ARI's goals was to reach the point that Ayn Rand's ideas were being discussed everywhere -- in the newspapers, in line at the local Starbucks, on talk radio, etc. He hoped that it could happen in 10 years.

    It's taken less than 10 months.

    The bad news is that there's a lot of misinformation about Objectivism being circulated out there, either knowingly or unknowingly.

    Hence, if you think that some people are not accurately portraying Rand's ideas, feel free to set the record straight by leaving your own comments on the various blog or news article sites.

    The single most important thing you can do is to encourage people to read (or re-read) Rand's books for themselves, so that they can make up their own minds on these issues (rather than just taking the word of some random author or online commenter).

    Another thing you can do include post a link to the ARI website's, Introduction to Objectivism.

    The free online CliffsNotes for Atlas Shrugged are also pretty good (although of course not a substitute for the book itself.)

    Or if I can plug myself, link to my PajamasMedia article, "Ayn Rand and the Tea Party Protests".

    Or if you're feeling ambitious, write up your own blog post or OpEd on what "going John Galt" really means.

    Other promotional methods (t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.), can also play a part as long as they get people interested in studying Rand's ideas.

    And think about "upping your game" by one notch. If you're a blogger and you've written an especially nice post on the topic, think about also sending it to your local newspaper as an OpEd. If you've composed a good online comment, think of sending it to your local newspaper as an LTE, as well as leaving it as a comment on more than one blog or article website. If you've read a good article on Rand, forward it as appropriate to your friends, family members, co-workers, and elected officials.

    We have an unprecedented opportunity right now to promote Rand's ideas. If we let her opponents and detractors frame the debate on their terms, it could harm our cause for years to come. On the other hand, if we frame the discussion on our terms, we could advance our cause by several years or possibly decades.

    From personal experience, a single individual can have a disproportionately large effect in this battle of ideas, if he or she is willing to speak up and willing to articulate their ideas in a way that makes sense to the average American.

    But we don't have a lot of time to spare. Hence the importance of taking advantage of this golden opportunity.

    Of course, there's no "duty" to advocate and defend Rand's ideas. But for many of us, it's enjoyable and in our self-interest. If this is something that appeals to you, then please do so in whatever fashion is most suitable within the context of your life.

    Thanks!

    Read more...

    Monday, March 9, 2009

    Dr. Brook on Neil Cavuto

    By Diana Hsieh

    From the Ayn Rand Center:

    Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, is scheduled to appear on the Neil Cavuto show on Fox Business Network tomorrow, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at about 6:15 pm, Eastern time (3:15 pm, Pacific time). Dr. Brook will discuss "climate change" and government regulation of CO2 emissions.
    Update from ARC: "Unfortunately, we have just learned that Fox Business Network has just cancelled Dr. Brook’s TV appearance. We will notify you if Dr. Brook is rescheduled."

    Read more...

    Optical Illusion Girlfriend

    By Paul Hsieh

    From CollegeHumor, of course:

    Read more...

    What's the Diff?

    By Paula Hall

    Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is challenging part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional, which is good. Any challenge to legal discrimination between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage is a good thing, in my book. No person of any status, married or single, gay or straight, has a right to government social welfare benefits. But government violates rights when it fails to protect any citizen who respects the rights of others. Voluntary marriages between two consenting adults do not involve the initiation of force against anyone, and therefore, do not abridge anyone's rights. Where there has been no violation of rights, there's no role for the government. End of story.

    Unfortunately, this is probably the only good fight that GLAD is waging.

    GLAD recognizes that ...
    [t]here are many priorities for the LGBT community that likely rank ahead of a DOMA Section 3 repeal, including the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a hate crimes bill, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).
    What I find particularly noteworthy is the likelihood that the LGBT community thinks "a hate crimes bill" is more important than challenging DOMA. The only difference between "crime" and "hate crime" is motive. If I graffiti your property, I've violated your property rights. If the graffiti is of a swastika, what's the difference? Only the hurt feelings of the victim. This makes hate crime laws not about punishing objective rights violations, but about punishing some people for hating others. This is wholly improper, and itself a violation of rights. As Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Center said:
    According to "hate crime" laws, a murderer deserves a greater punishment if his crime is motivated by an idea such as racism or sexism. If the government assumes the power to punish on the basis of "unacceptable" ideas, it has assumed the power to exonerate and offer leniency to favored ideas. If anti-abortion religionists hold sway in government, on the premise of "hate crime" laws, a zealous Christian who guns down an abortion doctor could receive a lighter sentence or be exonerated--on the grounds that such an act is evidence of noble "idealism."

    Once the government starts punishing criminals for acting on "unacceptable ideas," it has assumed the role of arbiter for which ideas are acceptable or not. If whoever wields power can shape the law to advance an ideological agenda, then it cannot be long before merely holding unorthodox or unconventional ideas becomes a crime that the government punishes.

    The government has no business punishing people for their ideas, no matter how repugnant. By demanding the government do precisely that, "hate crime" laws threaten our freedom of thought--and undermine the system of objective law that protects it. Such laws should be abolished.
    So here's the problem. On the one hand, GLAD is challenging the fact that DOMA discriminates between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, discrimination that is clearly religiously motivated. On the other hand, GLAD wants to make it a crime for people to hate homosexuals. Religion is a feeling that there's a God. Hate is feeling that someone is vicious. Religion is a feeling. Hate is a feeling. Are we seeing a similarity, here?

    In other words, GLAD thinks it is permissible to legislate feelings about homosexuality. Godbangers on the religious right think it is permissible to legislate feelings about marriage. What's the diff?

    Ayn Rand wrote that "[w]hen men share the same basic premise, it is the most consistent ones who win." One can argue whether GLAD or the godbangers are more consistent in their calls for thought control. But that's just the problem -- it's arguable. GLAD is, putting it mildly, inconsistent on the issue of thought control. And unfortunately, same sex marriage advocacy happens largely through groups like GLAD.

    Equal marriage rights is a legitimate issue, but so long as GLAD is hypocritical about thought control, the drive to eliminate discrimination in marriage is vulnerable to defeat by opponents -- like the godbangers -- who are more consistent in their drive to become the nation's thought police.

    The solution, naturally, is for all proponents of same-sex marriage to make a consistent, principled argument on the basis of individual rights for everyone, in all circumstances, no exceptions. In fact, that's the solution in a number of analogous cases involving attempts to shove religion down our throats, like the attempts to teach creationism in schools, or to outlaw abortion.

    When freedom-lovers fight on the basis of principles, the difference between the religious right and the defenders of individual rights is clear for all to see.

    Read more...

    Sunday, March 8, 2009

    Recap #34

    By Diana Hsieh

    This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

    This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
    Nothing new was posted on FA/RM, the blog of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets this week.

    Read more...

    Sunday Open Thread #40

    By Diana Hsieh

    Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

    For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

    Read more...

    Saturday, March 7, 2009

    Look at Pictures, Eat More

    By Diana Hsieh

    Heh: Exercise Campaigns May Encourage Extra Eating.

    New research suggests that campaigns to promote exercise may have an unintended consequence: they make people eat more.

    In a study in the March issue of the journal Obesity, 53 college students were asked to judge a series of posters drawn from an actual exercise campaign and, on another occasion, a group of similar-looking posters that did not mention exercise. They were told they would be given a few raisins afterward, which they were to taste and rate. After the students looked at the exercise posters, they ate an average of 18 calories, but they ate only 12 calories after viewing the posters with no mention of exercise.

    In a second test, 51 different students, told they were participating in a computerized test of hand-eye coordination, were randomly assigned to be exposed to action words like "active" and "go" typically used in exercise advertising. A control group was exposed to neutral words, like "pear" or "moon." Again, they were offered food (peanuts, raisins and M&M's this time) and the results were similar: those who heard the action words ate more.

    Dolores Albarracin, the lead author and a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that context was important. "When the setting of the advertising is more conducive to eating than exercise, people eat," she said. "If you just wallpaper everyplace with these kinds of posters, it may not do much good."
    Well, I'm glad that the article didn't include examples of the exercise ad campaign for illustration. I'm already quite hungry, and our dinner reservation isn't for another 40 minutes.

    Read more...

    Food Link-O-Rama

    By Diana Hsieh

  • Stephan of Whole Health Source looks at Dietary Fiber and Mineral Availability. Oh, and here's an earlier post from Stephan on How to Eat Grains. As usual, it's very good stuff.

  • Rational Jenn on peanut and other food allergies.

  • The Heart Scan Doc discusses some of the interesting health effects of Vitamin D that he has seen.

  • Monica of Spark A Synapse summarizes the latest data on BPA, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes. There is good reason for some concern, I think.

  • Do you need an extra layer of fat? Try the vegetarian diet the Roman gladiators. Heh.

    Read more...
  • Food Neurosis

    By Diana Hsieh

    The NY Times recently ran an article entitled What's Eating Our Kids? Fears About 'Bad' Foods. Here's the opening:

    SODIUM -- that's what worries Greye Dunn. He thinks about calories, too, and whether he's getting enough vitamins. But it's the sodium that really scares him.

    "Sodium makes your heart beat faster, so it can create something really serious," said Greye, who is 8 years old and lives in Mays Landing, N.J.

    Greye's mother, Beth Dunn, the president of a multimedia company, is proud of her son's nutritional awareness and encourages it by serving organic food and helping Greye read labels on cereal boxes and cans.

    "He wants to be healthy," she says.

    Ms. Dunn is among the legions of parents who are vigilant about their children's consumption of sugar, processed foods and trans fats. Many try to stick to an organic diet. In general, their concern does not stem from a fear of obesity -- although that may figure into the equation -- but from a desire to protect their families from conditions like hyperactivity, diabetes and heart disease, which they believe can be avoided, or at least managed, by careful eating.

    While scarcely any expert would criticize parents for paying attention to children's diets, many doctors, dietitians and eating disorder specialists worry that some parents are becoming overzealous, even obsessive, in efforts to engender good eating habits in children. With the best of intentions, these parents may be creating an unhealthy aura around food.
    From my perspective, the problem is not that parents are attempting to steer their kids toward healthy foods. Parents ought to do that: they ought to feed their kids foods that nourish and sustain them, as well as to teach them the principles and habits of good eating. The problem here is that some parents seem to be imposing a strict dietary regimen on their children as a duty disconnected from facts -- and disconnected from the child's own understanding. That duty-based approach will do psychological damage, whether the recommended diet is sound or not.

    The proper response to that problem is not to say "eat in moderation" or "don't be so fussy" or "lighten up." Nutrition is a science: the human body is not mere mere subjective phenomena, capable of being stuffed full of anything without ill effect. As a matter of objective fact, some foods are healthy and others are not. As a matter of objective fact, some foods should be eaten in abundance, others in moderation, others rarely, and others not at all. The proportions may often depend on the individual, but even then, facts are facts.

    A person can do him self very real damage by eating the wrong kinds of foods. Personally, if I attempted to eat sweets "in moderation," I would suffer for it. I would start feeling run down. I would be constantly hungry. I would have persistent cravings for more sugar. I would regain weight. My fasting blood glucose would rise again, meaning that I'd be on my way to type 2 diabetes. My liver would get fatty again -- or fattier. My HDL levels would decline, and my triglycerides would rise. All of that would be very bad for me, and that's a matter of fact.

    So for me to refrain from eating sweets is right and proper. Frankly, I'm even discovering that the ill effects I feel from eating just one brownie once a month are not worth the pleasures of it on my tongue. Do I flog myself for eating that once-a-month brownie? Of course not. I simply observe those ill effects and remind myself to choose more carefully next month. It's too bad that I'm so sensitive, and I'm well aware that others are more tolerant of sugar than me. But I'm not going to beat my head against a wall: my job as a person is to live in reality in accordance with the facts, whether I like them or not.

    The only real solution to the problem of this new neurosis about food is to banish the duty-based approach to eating in favor of a fact-based approach. A person's dietary choices should be based on his first-handed understanding of the facts. That means understanding the actual science of nutrition -- opposed to the conventional wisdom. (For that, I think, a person simply must read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories.) And, in conjunction, a person must track the effects of his diet on his day-to-day well-being to determine what kinds of foods benefit versus harm him. That often requires some substantial work of discovery: it's usually not obvious without some careful and sustained experimentation of one's own. Moreover, to be useful, such experiments should be guided by a person's well-grounded general knowledge of metabolism, nutrition, and the like.

    In short, a person should fare better in perceptible ways on on any diet worth sustaining. That knowledge should be the basis for the person's nutritional choices, not mere dogma. If a person has that knowledge, then for him to insist on his food choices -- however fussy, however demanding, however contrary to conventional wisdom -- is right and good. Such a person is acting in his self-interest, based on his own independent judgment. And that's a good thing.

    Read more...

    Back to TOP