French WW2 Soldier Carries Donkey

Boy oh boy, would I ever love to know the story behind this picture!



As someone in the comments observed, it gives new meaning to the phrase "hauling ass"!

Read more...

Brook: Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine?

Yaron Brook asks the question that all Americans should be asking, "Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine?"

Here's his OpEd in full:

Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine?

By Yaron Brook

Government intervention in medicine is wrecking American health care. Nearly half of all spending on health care in America is already government spending. Yet President Obama's "reforms" will only expand that intervention.

Prior to the government's entrance into medicine, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market--no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.

Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans' rising productivity would have afforded them better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn't for food or clothing.

But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product--for which each individual must assume responsibility--had given way to a view of health care as a "right," an unearned "entitlement," to be provided at others' expense.

This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).

The resulting system aimed to relieve the individual of the "burden" of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. Today, for every dollar's worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out of pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14 percent.

Shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them led to an explosion in spending. In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a "right," demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.

As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the "right" to health care: from regulations mandating various forms of insurance coverage to Bush’s massive prescription drug bill.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a "right" to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a "right" to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as the Founders conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but to freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services--no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a "right" to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

Real and lasting solutions to our health care problems require a rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights. This would provide the moral basis for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the tax and regulatory incentives fueling our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.

Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.

Yaron Brook is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights in Washington, D.C. ARC is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

If you agree with him, then you should tell your elected officials.

Read more...

The Psychology of Social Media

Too funny:



(Via BuzzFeed and Eric)

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

Nick Provenzo has the latest Objectivist Roundup over at Rule of Reason. Go check it out!

Read more...

Feynman on Mirrors

Legendary CalTech physicist Richard Feynman discusses the classic logic problem, "Why do mirrors reverse left-right but not top-bottom?"



Don't click through unless you want to hear the answer.

Read more...

Wednesday Open Thread #81

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...

Oral Surgery and Evil Mothers

As my twitter followers know, I had oral surgery on Tuesday afternoon. Some time ago, my gum on a particular molar (#19, in fact) receded beyond the point of safety. The surgery, performed by a periodontist, transplanted a section of gum tissue from my palate (i.e. the roof of my mouth) to that problem spot.

The surgery went very well, but now I have a bunch of sliced-up tissue by that molar, plus a seemingly massive excavation site in the roof of my mouth. All of that will heal up, but for the moment, it's rather painful -- even with the protective dressings around the molar and the palate guard covering the whole roof of my mouth. Plus, I've definitely learned the meaning and importance of taking drugs to "get ahead of the pain" via my own failure to take my prescribed Vicodin as soon as possible yesterday. I was only delayed by about an hour, but that made a difference, I think.

Anyway, that's all just a long-winded way of saying that I'm not much in the mood for blogging. Hence, I'm going to lean on Miss Manners today, as I was totally floored by the woman in this column when I read it:

Dear Miss Manners:

My son got married two years ago, and please keep in mind that my daughter-in-law and I have never had a falling-out. We've stayed at their house overnight and were treated wonderfully. We get along fine because I do not want to be a meddling mother-in-law.

However, I've got some situations that I do not know how to handle.

1. First, tell me, am I wrong for believing that the bride should acknowledge her groom's side of the family with a thank-you note for gifts, rather than making the groom write the thank-you? The way they handled it, she wrote the thank-yous to her side of the family and my son wrote the notes to his side. Is this the acceptable way now?

2. Does that also hold true on Mother's Day? Only my son acknowledges me on Mother's Day with a phone call, but the both of them acknowledge her mother and both her grandmothers each year by taking them out to brunch or hosting a brunch at their home. Even though we live in another state, I felt slighted again this year on Mother's Day when all I received was a phone call from my son, no card, nothing. I was brought up to respect both our mothers on Mother's Day with at least a card, and it was always the wife's duty to keep the list and remember to buy the cards or whatever.

3. Would I be out of line by sending a thank-you note to my son thanking him for the phone call? I love my son dearly, and it's not that I expect a gift, but I don't think it's very nice to call me up and tell me what they are doing for the other mothers and all I get is a "Happy Mother's Day."

4. I really need some answers because I feel that when they start having a family, I will be slighted again where the children are concerned.

Wow. That's a woman determined to ruin her relationship with her son, then blame it on her daughter-in-law! Here's what Miss Manners said in reply:

Unless you heed Miss Manners's advice, you will indeed receive more slights. That is because you are manufacturing them yourself, and she is advising you to stop.

The premise on which you base your grievances -- that a wife assumes all social duties because the husband is the sole wage-earner -- has long been defunct. Couples sensibly decide for themselves who does what, and dividing correspondence by family is both common and sensible. You wouldn't care to have Mother's Day acknowledged by a card from your daughter-in-law and ignored by your son.

So if you expect more than a telephone call, you should deal with him. And not by a thank-you letter if you intend that as a reprimand.

Try saying "Your Mother's Day excursions sound so delightful that I'd love to join you some time. Would it be convenient for me to visit at that time? Or if it turns out that I'm not able to, I'll settle for a card."

Sadly, I don't think the woman will follow Miss Manners' good advice -- and she'll make her son and his bride miserable in the process.

Read more...

Upgrade to HD Television

Paul and I have been living in the stone ages: we've not yet upgraded to high definition television. We bought a 52" set back in 2001, when HD was way too expensive. We've delayed the upgrade as prices dropped so as to get more value from that purchase. But now, with the upcoming NFL season approaching, I just can't stand it. We'd like to get another large screen -- probably about the same size. Any recommendations for buying? Any features that we definitely must have?

Read more...

Monica Hughes in The Objective Standard

Dr. Monica Hughes has an article in the Summer 2009 edition of The Objective Standard (TOS) entitled "A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture".

I just read it, and I found it very informative. I know very little about farm and agriculture policy, so her article filled in a big gap in my knowledge. If you're not a subscriber, you can purchase a PDF of the article from TOS for $4.95 at the article link.

She also runs a website devoted to free market agricultural policy, Free Agriculture - Restore Markets (FARM).

Congratulations, Monica!

As a side note, this the fifth Objective Standard article written by members of our local Front Range Objectivism Group, all done pretty much by people working in their spare time on top of their regular day jobs.

The list of TOS articles from FROG members includes:

Monica Hughes, "A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture", Summer 2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Lest We Be Doomed to Repeat It: A Survey of Amity Shlaes’s History of the Great Depression", Spring 2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America", Fall 2008.

Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'", Winter 2007.

Diana Hsieh, "Egoism Explained: A Review of Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist", Spring 2007.

I'd especially like to thank Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, for his hard work in publishing such a consistently strong journal, as well as for providing a great platform for new writers such as me.

Read more...

Faith in Atheism

Here's another funny bit from the BBC sketch show That Mitchell and Webb Look -- this one on atheism:



Oh, and here's Abraham and Isaac:

Read more...

The Federal Health Care Muggers

The PajamasMedia website has just published my latest health care OpEd entitled, "The Federal Health Care Muggers". Here's an excerpt:

The Federal Health Care Muggers

The Democrats' agenda of "universal health care" is in deep trouble, as more Americans (including many "Blue Dog" congressional Democrats) are growing increasingly uneasy about the costs.

...But in addition to this economic flaw, there's also a more fundamental danger to the congressional plan. This plan would violate individual rights on a massive scale by imposing new mandates on individuals, businesses, and insurers, forcing Americans to cede control over their health care to the government.

(Read the whole thing.)

Read more...

Recap #51

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

• Monday, July 20, 2009: Schwartz on Systems by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, July 21, 2009: Health Rations And You by Paul Hsieh
  
• Wednesday, July 22, 2009: Albertoli: Immorality of Socialized Medicine by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, July 23, 2009: Watkins Rebuts Singer on Rationing by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, July 24, 2009: Reynolds on Innovation by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Saturday, July 25, 2009: Hsieh OpEd: The Federal Health Care Muggers by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Sunday, July 26, 2009: Armstrongs on DeMint Handouts by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Sunday, July 26, 2009: Schwartz on Non-Reform by Paul Hsieh, MD

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #80

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...

Vegetarians 0, Meat Eaters 1

Here's a damn funny bit from the BBC sketch show That Mitchell and Webb Look on the morality of vegetarianism:



For the record, I am not in favor of eating the cats of vegetarians. Also, I'm not sure whether cats are gamey or not.

Read more...

Atlas Shrugged Movie Update

Here's another report and then another report on the attempts to produce a film version of Atlas Shrugged. Basically, Charlize Theron was reported as interested for a few days, but now she's reported as not interested.

The good news is that the "option with the Rand estate expires if principal photography does not begin in 2010." Given the involvement of the producers with David Kelley's thoroughly dishonest and incompetent group, currently known as The Atlas Society, I very much hope that option expires.

Read more...

Objectivist Academic Center Deadline

A note from the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Academic Center:

The final deadline to apply for the OAC for the 2009-10 year is July 31! In the current cultural climate, there is no better time to study Ayn Rand's ideas in a systematic fashion, under the guidance of ARI's intellectuals.

Join other OAC students who are studying Rand's ideas; visit http://www.objectivistacademiccenter.org and apply today.

(Help us spread the word about the program and its deadline--please share this with students who might be interested in the OAC.)

I heartily recommend the OAC -- particularly to students pursuing a career as an intellectual, whether in academia, politics, journalism, law, or whatnot.

Update: I just got their longer pitch via e-mail. It explains the program a bit more for people unfamiliar with it.

If you've read one of Ayn Rand's novels you know that her writings are packed with radical, thought-provoking philosophical ideas. And perhaps you are interested in studying those ideas further. Then you might be interested in the Objectivist Academic Center.

The Ayn Rand Institute was founded on the conviction that Ayn Rand's philosophy could have a major positive impact on today's culture if more people were to become aware of it.  Our mission is to advance Ayn Rand's philosophy in order to change the culture's intellectual climate.

But the intellectual climate of a culture is established by the ideas put forward by the leading intellectuals of that culture: the philosophers, college professors, journalists, writers--those whose careers involve the dissemination of ideas, whether by teaching, public speaking, writing, or some other means.

To change our culture by spreading Ayn Rand's philosophy requires new intellectuals who have a deep understanding of that philosophy. The OAC offers a systematic education in Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and the methods of objective thinking and communication.

If you'd like to engage in a systematic study of Ayn Rand's ideas under the guidance of ARI's top intellectuals, visit the OAC web site and apply today. We can only offer a limited number of slots each year, so act soon! The deadline is July 31, 2009. Contact oac@aynrand.org if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Objectivist Academic Center
Ayn Rand Institute
949.222.6550

Read more...

Campaign Finance Laws Stifle Speech

I meant to post this op-ed some weeks ago, but it got lost in the shuffle. Better late than never!

"Campaign finance laws stifle speech" by Steve Simpson
Published on June 27th in The Colorado Springs Gazette

The Colorado Supreme Court recently turned down an opportunity to vindicate the First Amendment right to speak about politics without government getting in the way. That is bad news for Coloradans, but the case, a challenge to the campaign finance laws brought by the Independence Institute, places Colorado on the forefront of a growing battle over speech about campaigns.

Colorado, like the other 23 states that allow citizen initiatives, requires groups that wish to speak out for or against ballot issues to register with the state and to report contributions and expenditures - that is, to report detailed personal information about supporters and chronicle the group's political activities.

The nonprofit Independence Institute learned about these laws the hard way when it criticized Referenda C and D in 2005 and was promptly sued by a member of the campaign supporting the referenda who claimed the group had violated the campaign finance laws.

After spending thousands in legal fees defending itself, the institute brought its own suit challenging the laws under the First Amendment, but lost in both the trial court and the court of appeals. With the Colorado Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case, the last option for the institute is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The question in this case cuts to the heart of political freedom in this nation: Can states require citizens who wish to band together to speak out about political issues to register with the government and disclose the identities of those who support them?

Supporters of these laws claim that groups might influence the outcome of an election, and that is certainly true - indeed, that is usually the reason to speak out during an election.

But allowing individuals to influence the course of their government is one of the main reasons we have a First Amendment. Americans have relied on the right to organize and to speak - often anonymously - from the founding generation, though the debates over ratification of the Constitution on up to today.

If the "free" in free speech means anything at all, it means that individuals who organize and speak have the right to determine their message and what information they disclose about themselves. Listeners can always demand more information or disregard what they hear entirely. But requiring individuals to disclose their contributions for or against ballot issues is no different from requiring them to disclose their votes.

The Independence Institute's case is not an anomaly. The same thing happened to a group of neighbors in Parker North, Colo., when they opposed the annexation of their neighborhood in 2006. They placed "No Annexation" signs on their lawns and were promptly sued by the proponents of annexation for failing to comply with campaign finance laws. A federal court found that "[b]y permitting this intimidation, Colorado's campaign finance laws had the effect of stifling political speech in violation of the First Amendment," but still refused to strike down the laws. That case is currently on appeal.

In California, during the debate over last year's marriage amendment, both sides used information obtained from campaign finance laws to harass and intimidate their opponents. A case challenging the laws is currently pending in federal court.

Federal courts in Wisconsin and Florida have recently struck down similar laws under the First Amendment. As the court in Florida wrote, "While it is true that the legislature has the power to regulate elections, it does not have the power to regulate purely political discussions about elections."

Despite the clear language of the First Amendment, the reality in America today is that to speak out about politics, you need more than an opinion - you also need a lawyer. Fortunately, courts are beginning to take notice of this sad fact, and we may soon see the day when free speech is once again a right, not a privilege.

Simpson is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents the Independence Institute and the Parker North neighbors.

Read more...

Richmond Tea Party

From John Lewis:

A Tea Party is coming this Saturday, July 25, in Richmond, Virginia. The last one, held her in the spring, drew 6,000 people. We are hoping for 8,000 this time.The focus here is on education; speakers at the main stage include Ed Cline and me, but there are also seminars, including one by Paul Saunders and me on environmentalism and individual rights.

Please spread the word! More information is here.

Indeed, please do send this announcement to anyone in the area you know who might be interested in attending.

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

The latest Objectivist Roundup has been posted to Reality Talk. Go check it out!

Read more...

Promoting Egoism in Patient Correspondence

A patient whose knee MRI I read last week had some questions about the results, and I told her she could contact me via e-mail.

Basically, she was frustrated by her interactions with her other doctors and she also wanted to give me additional details about her prior knee surgeries in case it changed my interpretation. (That information was helpful, but didn't ultimately change my final opinion).

After several e-mail exchanges, she was both thankful for my replies and apologetic for bothering me.

I then decided to reply with the following pro-egoist preamble in my most recent e-mail to her:

I completely understand how frustrating it can be to have a medical problem without an easy diagnosis. So I empathize with your situation. So don't apologize for asking questions! This is your body, and ultimately your responsibility. You should never apologize for seeking what's best for your own life and happiness.

(I then responded to her specific question about the significance of a particular MRI finding.)

Read more...

Wednesday Open Thread #79

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...

Values of Harry Potter, Again

Now that the new Harry Potter movie is out, I'd like to reiterate my recommendation for Ari Armstrong's excellent little book Values of Harry Potter. Here's my official endorsement of it.

I've read all the Harry Potter novels multiple times, discussed them at length with friends, read essays analyzing them, and even published an essay of my own. Yet Ari Armstrong's Values of Harry Potter offered me a delightful array of fresh insights into J. K. Rowling's works. It offers fans of Harry Potter a unique opportunity to explore the core values of the novels, to discover why we find them so captivating and so inspiring. Readers will develop a deeper appreciation for Rowling's achievement in portraying life-loving, courageous heroes. They will discover compelling answers to any half-formed questions and doubts about the significance of her Christian themes. When I re-read the Harry Potter series -- as I'm eager to do again -- I will gain far more insight and inspiration from them than ever before, thanks to Values of Harry Potter.

For a taste of Ari's writings on Harry Potter, you might check out these essays, as well as his review of the new movie. You can also view the contents of the book and download a sample via this page.

I recommend the book to all fans of Harry Potter, but particularly to people interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. You'll find much of interest in it -- much that you didn't notice on a first or second or third reading of the books. So go order your copy now!

I would ask that you order from the web site directly, rather than via Amazon, as Ari earns significantly more per copy that way. The price is the same. Given the quality of the book -- not to mention Ari's tireless and often-uncompensated efforts to promote free markets in Colorado and elsewhere -- he deserves every penny he can earn from sales of this book!

Read more...

Folding Advice

This video is definitive proof that some people lack important projects in their life. It's detailed instructions on how to fold a thong. Seriously. It's more complicated than you think!



Now that you know what to do, I expect that all of you will be folding your thongs in the future, rather than merely stuffing them willy-nilly (so to speak!) into an underwear drawer.

Read more...

Brook on Health Care

The Friday July 18, 2009 edition of PJTV features a must-see interview with Yaron Brook on health care:



What's especially impressive is that the host Allan Barton wanted Yaron Brook to discuss the nature of rights at both the philosophical and economic levels -- something we badly need in the health care debate.

Terry Jones of Investors Business Daily also made many excellent points.

If you want to oppose the push towards socialized health care, you can find contact information for your elected officials here or telephone them at (202) 224-3121.

Read more...

Government Health Care Organizational Chart

Here is the organizational chart (PDF) for the proposed new government universal health care plan:



(You can click on the image to see it full-size.)

Don't you feel better knowing that the same government that is doing such a good job running General Motors also wants to take over your health care?

Read more...

Feyman's Nobel Banquet Speech

My earlier post on physicist Richard Feynman ("Feynman on Honors") spawned an intense discussion on whether Feynman's stated disdain for what he called "honors" indicated a rejection of justice.

In light of that, I'd like to post the text of his Nobel Banquet Speech delivered in Stockholm on December 10, 1965, followed by a few of my own comments.

Here is what he said:

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The work I have done has, already, been adequately rewarded and recognized.

Imagination reaches out repeatedly trying to achieve some higher level of understanding, until suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature's pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed. That was my reward.

Then, having fashioned tools to make access easier to the new level, I see these tools used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond. There, are my votes of recognition.

Then comes the prize, and a deluge of messages. Reports; of fathers turning excitedly with newspapers in hand to wives; of daughters running up and down the apartment house ringing neighbor's doorbells with news; victorious cries of "I told you so" by those having no technical knowledge - their successful prediction being based on faith alone; from friends, from relatives, from students, from former teachers, from scientific colleagues, from total strangers; formal commendations, silly jokes, parties, presents; a multitude of messages in a multitude of forms.

But, in each I saw the same two common elements. I saw in each, joy; and I saw affection (you see, whatever modesty I may have had has been completely swept away in recent days).

The prize was a signal to permit them to express, and me to learn about, their feelings. Each joy, though transient thrill, repeated in so many places amounts to a considerable sum of human happiness. And, each note of affection released thus one upon another has permitted me to realize a depth of love for my friends and acquaintances, which I had never felt so poignantly before.

For this, I thank Alfred Nobel and the many who worked so hard to carry out his wishes in this particular way.

And so, you Swedish people, with your honors, and your trumpets, and your king - forgive me. For I understand at last - such things provide entrance to the heart. Used by a wise and peaceful people they can generate good feeling, even love, among men, even in lands far beyond your own. For that lesson, I thank you...

I found the following aspects of his remarks especially noteworthy:

1) For him, his achievement was its own reward.

As a scientist, his primary orientation was towards reality and existence, as opposed to a second-hander's orientation towards other people. He eloquently noted the joy a brilliant scientist feels when, "...suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature's pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed".

In that moment of achievement, it's him "alone" with nature.

2) He acknowledged and was justly appreciative of the recognition he received from his peers in the form of having his work "used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond".

3) He recognized his winning the Nobel Prize served as a focal point by which others who might not understand much about physics could still offer their own appreciation and praise of his work. Although his primary motivation as a physicist was to unlock the secrets of nature, rather than to garner praise from others, he was genuinely appreciative of the praise he received from "friends and acquaintances".

And he returned their praise with a "depth of love" which he "had never felt so poignantly before".

In my experience, this sort of benevolence towards one's fellow man is possible only to those who are independent in a very deep way -- i.e., not primarily trying to seek the approval (or avoid the disapproval) of others.

4) He recognized that "honors" awarded by a "wise and peaceful people" were commendable. Hence, I think he had an implicit understanding of what Objectivists mean by "justice".

(I do acknowledge that his quote in the earlier post could be interpreted to indicate that he did not believe that "honors" were a form of justice.)

5) I'm not an expert on the biography or psychology of Richard Feynman, although I have read some of his books.

But my understanding of his attitude towards his work was that he was incredibly first-handed.

In that way, he was similar to Hank Rearden, as portrayed by Rand in Part 1, Chapter 8 of Atlas Shrugged ("The John Galt Line") as follows:

...[Rearden] was watching the performance of track and train with an expert's intensity of professional interest; his bearing suggested that he would kick aside, as irrelevant, any thought such as "They like it," when the thought ringing in his mind was "It works!"

Of course, Rand was not saying that all thoughts such as "They like it" are "irrelevant". After all, one of the key themes of Atlas Shrugged was the importance of granting approval and moral sanction to those who deserve it (and withdrawing it from those who do not deserve it).

But it's also clear from Rand's portrayals of Howard Roark or Hank Rearden, that an independent first-handed thinker would find others' praise of his work ("They like it") to be irrelevant to the primary reward that the creator gains from his achievement -- namely the work itself. This issue is separate from the fact that justice is a virtue and that in a healthy society, good men will receive justly-earned praise for their achievements.

My own take on Feynman was that because he was so extremely first-handed in his attitude towards his work, he viewed others' praise of his work as extremely secondary to the primary reward he gained from the work itself, which may have caused him to regard such praise as "unreal", just as Hank Rearden regarded others' approval of Rearden Metal as "irrelevant" to the primary reward of knowing that "it worked".

But Feynman was clearly still appreciative and thankful for the praise that he did receive when it came from those whom he esteemed. And in his Nobel Banquet speech, he expressed that gratitude with great warmth and benevolence.

To summarize: I found Feynman's first-handed attitude towards his work to be a rare and admirable trait. And given the fuller context provided by his Nobel Banquet Speech, I believe he also had at least an implicit appreciation for the Objectivist virtue of justice.

Read more...

Recap #50

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

• Monday, July 13, 2009: Massachusetts Vs. Georgia - In Lego! by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, July 14, 2009: Schroeder Critiques Grand Junction Model by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, July 15, 2009: Of NICE and Men by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, July 15, 2009: Schwartz on the Public Plan by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, July 16, 2009: Government Health Care Organizational Chart by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, July 17, 2009: Crowder on Canada by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Saturday, July 18, 2009: Brook on PJTV by Paul Hsieh, MD

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #78

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...

One Year Later

I'm amazed to report that I've been on my paleo diet of fatty meats, pastured eggs, raw dairy, plentiful vegetables, raw and roasted nuts, and moderate fruit for over a year. I began my diet somewhat gradually in June 2008, then settled on it in a serious way the second week after OCON -- meaning starting on July 14th, 2008.

I've stuck to it remarkably well. Sure, I've eaten some off-diet foods -- usually a bit of dessert when at a party. Yet even then, I've rarely indulged in more than a few bites. In fact, I often like to taste off-diet foods. If I enjoy them, then they're a pleasant indulgence. If not, as happens far more often, I've confirmed my commitment to paleo eating. Yet I've never gone off-diet for as much as a whole meal, e.g. by eating a pasta dish or a slice of pizza. If I did, the effects would be rather less than pleasant, I know.

Somewhat to my surprise, I managed to eat reasonably well for the two weeks Paul and I spent away from home in late June and early July -- first in Maine and then at OCON. OCON was a bit of a problem, as I had no control over the meals served to me by the hotel at the various lunch and dinner events. Happily, except in one instance, I found enough good food to eat. I refrained almost entirely from the constant parade of cloying desserts served. The worst I ate was a half a round of mocha cheesecake. (It was darn yummy but too sweet. I love cheesecake though, so I might work on finding and/or developing a paleo-friendly recipe.) For next year's OCON, I'm going to request special meals from the hotel as needed. It will be meat, veggies, and berries only for me!

I did not expect myself to stick so well to eating paleo, but I've found that I don't miss the foods I've given up. I enjoy eating far more than ever before. Every meal is a wonderful opportunity to eat something incredibly delicious and satisfying. Plus, I'm no longer entranced by the thought of waffles or bread or pasta; I'd much rather eat bacon and eggs and brussel sprouts. Ordinary desserts are cloying sweet to me, and I often feel seriously unpleasant cravings for MOREMOREMOREMORE after indulging in a bite or two. By forgoing sweets as a matter of standard policy, I'm no longer beholden to the cookies in the pantry, as I used to be. Also, I find that preparing paleo foods has simplified my cooking. I spend less time cooking and shopping than before, and I waste less food too.

So what are the results? Let me summarize.

I've lost about 18 pounds, while also gaining muscle from short, intense weight training sessions. That's a huge shift for me. Before, I was gaining three to five pounds per year eating the recommended low-fat, low-calorie, lots-o-grains diet while doing tons of long, boring cardio workouts. That's all changed. I do have a few more pounds of fat to lose. These last few pounds have been stubborn, perhaps due to some hormonal problems I've been working on fixing with my doctor.

I have more strength and energy than ever before. I was able to lift 335 pounds on the leg press at the gym at OCON -- ten reps, no failure. That's not bad for a girl, I think, particularly given that I do all my weight training at home, without any fancy equipment. Also, I never experience the shaky, desperate need for food that occurs with a crash in blood sugar. I can skip one or two or five meals at will, even while doing heavy lifting, mental and physical. I don't get sleepy in the afternoons. At OCON, I found that I could function much better while sleep deprived than usual. (Normally, I'm careful to give myself the seven hours or so that I need.)

All my standard measures of health are significantly improved, including my fasting glucose levels, blood pressure, and cholesterol. (My LDL was elevated when last checked, but given my high HDL and low triglycerides, that LDL is likely lower than the reported calculated value. Moreover, my LDL would be almost entirely the good large fluffy kind, not the bad small dense kind. Next time I see my doctor, I'll get a measured value, plus a particle size test.) I'm no longer eating myself into type 2 diabetes and hypertension, as I clearly was. I'm certain that my fatty liver has been reversed.

I've learned to love all kinds of foods that I hated before: brussels spouts, broccoli, cauliflower, uber-dark chocolate, and more. I really like vegetables, whereas I used to merely tolerate them. Fruits seem intensely sweet to me now.

Last but definitely not least, my relationship with food is much, much healthier. I love to eat, and I'm perfectly capable of consuming vast quantities of food. (When I do, I don't feel painfully bloated and sluggish but merely full.) However, I'm also capable of not eating for 24 or 36 hours. Most importantly, I never feel anything like the always-unsatisfying compulsion for sweets that used to dominate me whenever sweets were within reach.

Overall, I'm darn pleased. Hooray me!

Read more...

No Enemies

The fabulous Rory Hodgson (aka @Tenure) recently sent me the following poem by the Scottish poet Charles Mackay (1814 - 1889). It suits me well.

"No Enemies" - Charles Mackay

You have no enemies, you say?
Alas, my friend, the boast is poor;
He who has mingled in the fray
Of duty, that the brave endure,
Must have made foes! If you have none,
Small is the work that you have done.
You've hit no traitor on the hip,
You've dashed no cup from perjured lip,
You've never turned the wrong to right,
You've been a coward in the fight.

Read more...

Objectivists at the Boston Tea Party

Yaron Brook and John Lewis spoke at the Boston Tea Party on July 4th. Here they are, on YouTube:

John Lewis, Part 1



John Lewis, Part 2



Yaron Brook, Part 1



Yaron Brook, Part 2



John Ridpath spoke earlier in the day, but I didn't see it on YouTube, but if you have a link, please post it in the comments.

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

Wow, the Objectivist Roundup is two years old! Go check out this anniversary edition at Titanic Deck Chairs.

Read more...

What is Objectivism to You?

"What is Objectivism?" A couple of years ago, I asked this question shortly after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Later, I would hear and read about future students of Objectivism asking the same question, and I often would assist them in finding the answer. For that question, Ayn Rand herself gave several answers of varying length and complexity, spanning from John Galt's lengthy speech and a plethora of non-fiction essays, all the way down to single, concise sentences packed full of meaning.

My personal favorite of her answers is that Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on earth." Honestly, the first time I read that sentence, I was simultaneously amazed and amused. Amazed, because I had never heard anyone advertise a set of ideas as being needed to live on Earth -- that kind of thing was unheard of in my experience. Amused, because at the time I thought it was a silly thing to say or write down. (With the level of sarcasm-lovers in our postmodern society, I seriously doubt I was the only one who had that reaction to it.)

Of course, it's not my favorite description of Objectivism because of my initial reaction to it -- rather, it's my favorite because as I learned more about it, amazingly enough, I started to believe that the sentence was true. By reading and talking about the philosophy over time, I became convinced that ideas and the subject of philosophy was important for everyone to learn about, and that Rand's philosophy was the most important of all for people to recognize and consider. As I thought about the distasteful state of the world, and of the tenets of the philosophy, I came to personally believe that it was necessary in order to live in the world, almost as if my thinking were paying homage to her own.

As I start my third year as a student of Objectivism, I once again ask myself what Objectivism is. I think John Ridpath gave an interesting indirect answer, in the Q & A of his 1989 lecture "Religion Vs. Man": "[Objectivism] is [a] really honest and serious attempt to understand the world and what the implications of all of our understanding are." What he said is almost exactly how I would describe Objectivism now, and will probably do so for some time into the future.

And so now I ask: what is Objectivism to you?

Read more...

Feynman on Honors

Physicist Richard Feynman explains why he doesn't like honors:

"I don't like honors. I'm appreciated for the work that I did, and for people who appreciate it, and I notice that other physicists use my work. I don't need anything else. I don't think there's any sense to anything else. I don't see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize. I've already got the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it. Those are the real things. The honors are unreal to me. I don't believe in honors. It bothers me, honors..."

This is a good gut-level response of a man who is a primary creator of value, as opposed to a second-hander.

Read more...

Wednesday Open Thread #77

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...

Wal-Mart Supports Socialized Medicine

Another Front Range Objectivist is on the warpath! Kelly Valenzuela sent this announcement to OActivists on Monday:

I just heard an ad on the radio for Walmart. In the ad, they are pushing for nationalized health care and I am mad as hell! After all the arguing and debating I've done on Walmart's behalf (about cities not allowing them to build new stores, about unions criticizing them, about people hating them because they were "too big", etc.) for them to turn their back on me now is sickening.

I called Walmart's toll-free customer service number and told the associate how I felt about their nationalized health care push and why I will never shop at another Walmart ever again, after being a loyal customer for about 30 years now. (And you don't know how hard that will be for me!) I then sent an email to Walmart from their website reiterating the same information. I encourage you to do the same.

If they want to play politics, I'm gonna play capitalism and boycott their stores!

If Walmart is pushing socialism, I can't believe there's any hope left for capitalism. :-(

I wholeheartedly support Kelly, and I encourage others to do what she's done.

You can e-mail Wal-Mart's customer service via this web form. Their web site lists 800-925-6278 as their customer service contact number, but you might also try their "ethics" number at 800-WM-ETHIC. Also, for more information on this issue, see Paul's post about it on the FIRM blog.

Update July 17th: Here's what I just sent to Wal-Mart:

Dear Wal-Mart --

I am appalled by your promotion of socialized medicine. You are using dollars that you've earned in the (relatively) free market in consumer goods to destroy what little freedom remains in medicine. Americans should be free to exercise their own judgment using their own property in medicine, just as in every other area of their life. That's what it means to possess the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are being systematically trampled by the government today -- and you are lending your support to that black evil.

Until Wal-mart publicly commits to supporting free market reforms in medicine, I will take my business elsewhere.

For more information on free market medicine, see: http://www.westandfirm.org/

We stand for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

America was founded on the principles of freedom and individual rights. Applied to medicine, the law must respect the individual rights of doctors and other providers, allowing them the freedom to practice medicine. This includes the right to choose their patients, to determine the best treatment for their patients, and to bill their patients accordingly. In the same manner, the law must respect the individual rights of patients, allowing them the freedom to seek out the best doctors and treatment they can afford.

Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) promotes the philosophy of individual rights, personal responsibility, and free market economics in health care. FIRM holds that the only moral and practical way to obtain medical care is that of individuals choosing and paying for their own medical care in a capitalist free market. Federal and state regulations and entitlements, we maintain, are the two most important factors in driving up medical costs. They have created the crisis we face today.

Diana Hsieh
Sedalia, Colorado

Read more...

The Demanding Altruist

I was pretty floored by this letter in a recent Miss Manners column:

Dear Miss Manners:

Several years ago, I volunteered at an elementary school and became friendly with a mother and son who both taught there. My health has since deteriorated to the point where I am in a wheelchair. I left my volunteer job and the mother and son moved on.

In the eight years since we worked together, the mother has sent me jokes and prayers through e-mail, but seldom a personal message. I have not heard from the son in at least four years. Nothing at all until I received his wedding invitation.

I sent my regrets, and a note saying I would send a gift when I was out of the hospital. That day, I was cleared for surgery, and I spent three days in a hospital and four weeks in a rehab facility.

While I was unable to get my e-mail, the mother of the groom sent me four e-mails reminding me to send her son "something to honor his special day." I then received a group e-mail with a few wedding pictures, so everyone she sent it to was able to read her message that I could finally get her son a gift, and how was surgery? I could also see that she had abased another recipient.

I finally wrote her that I'd had enough. They claim to be devout Christians, yet they are hounding me for a gift. I explained that being in a wheelchair, it is difficult to get out, and I was sorry I didn't go shopping.

Then her son took over. He ignored my physical limitations and went on and on about how he gave me two months and I should have had plenty of time to buy him something. I have not heard from the man in four years, and then I receive an invitation to his wedding. Do I owe him a gift?

Miss Manners, as expected, responded quite reasonably, writing the following:

As a symbol of your affectionate relationship? The next step in such a campaign is to threaten to break your knees. When this happens, Miss Manners recommends involving the police. In the meantime, she suggests blocking or deleting their e-mail.

That's right, but it doesn't speak to the kind of vicious moral psychology underlying the actions of this young man and his mother.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that these people are "devout Christians." In fact, even apart from that claim, I would have bet $100 that they were serious advocates of altruism. They are not hypocrites, either, as most people would suppose. They practice what they preach -- even in this instance. How so?

The altruist denies the value of his own existence. He regards the welfare of others as of greater moral significance than his own: he regards himself as morally obliged to sacrifice his concerns, his values, and even his life for the sake of others. (That's the definition of altruism: it's other-ism.) He does not hold that view due to some particular imperfection or degradation unique to himself. Instead, he denigrates the self as such: he regards every person as obliged to do the same. (That's ultimately incoherent, but I'll leave that aside for now.) Consequently, the serious altruist will develop the most disgusting kind of contempt for other people. He values them as little as he values himself -- meaning: not at all. So if another person pursues his own values rather than sacrificing himself as demanded, that person must be condemned as immoral. Morality requires every person to forgo his own values for the sake of others. And so you have the strange phenomena of committed altruists demanding sacrifices from other people to satisfy their most petty whims -- and condemning them as selfish for failing to do. That's not hypocrisy: it's the twisted logic of altruism.

In contrast, the rational egoist knows the value of his own life -- and his own responsibility for achieving his happiness. He knows that every other person can and ought to take the same perspective on his own life. He knows that he only profits from interacting with others to the extent that they do so. He wants other people to act as rational egoists in pursuit of their own personal values. Consequently, he treats other people with respect for doing so -- never as his personal serfs.

It is the egoist, not the altruist, who values other people.

Read more...

Dangerous Cows

Our radiology practice covers multiple hospitals in Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska, which sees patients from rural areas. One of my partners has collected the following recent patient histories from various cattle-related mishaps.

(If you're having trouble reading the text, you can click on the item to see the full-sized version.)

Lesson -- Don't horse around with cows!

Read more...

Fight for Your Rights

Last week, Front Range Objectivist Hannah Krening published an excellent letter to the editor in the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Time to fight for your rights

I am not a politician or a government bureaucrat. I am a musician who cannot escape the point that our country is at a turning point. There's an old Reggae song with these words:

"Stand up! Stand up! Stand up for your rights!

"Don't give up ... don't give up the fight!"

We know that we love our country for the freedom, the rights that are our birthright, and some of us believe they are threatened, but what are rights? Is the right to pursue our own happiness and keep the fruits of our labor the same as a "right" to education, government assistance, health care? Why or why not?

Where do rights come from? Are they privileges handed out by a benevolent government, God-given, or do they exist because of our nature as human beings?

What are the principles, the ideas behind our Founders' willingness to fight for their rights? What principles could be so deeply understood as to inspire them to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend them?

A short message cannot give you answers, so instead I want to call you to the battle of ideas. To know the answers to these kinds of questions we must rise above our education and work to get a deeper understanding of that which we know we are losing.

If we disagree with current trends and legislation, it's not enough to vent, and just feel good when we hear the words "freedom" and "rights." We must carry on where our Founders left off, and not give up the vigilance, the fight. Only if we know HOW to face those who would further erode our rights will we ever be effective.

We have great documents, great thinkers and even great fiction to fuel our battle. The words of our Founders, of Ayn Rand, and of living writers such as Edward Cline and Amity Schlaes are well worth our time.

I hope we can honor the Founders and our country by a pledge to hone our thinking and actions. We need to regain our understanding of the roots of freedom, and then "Stand up! Stand up! Stand up for our rights!"

Hannah Krening, Larkspur

Great job, Hannah!

Read more...

Recap #50

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

• Monday, July 6, 2009: Canadian Cost Controls by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, July 7, 2009: Save Justin's Health Insurance by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, July 8, 2009: More Mythbusting From The AAPS by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, July 9, 2009: Schwartz on MassHealth by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, July 10, 2009: The Human Face of Socialized Medicine by Paul Hsieh, MD

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #76

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...

Hitler Goes Meta

Oh dear, poor Hilter. He's just found out that he's a joke on YouTube:

Read more...

Graphical History of the American Flag

This is a great graphical history of the American flag:



You can click on the image to see it full size.

(Via Cool Infographics.)

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

One Reality has the latest Objectivist Roundup. Go check it out!

Read more...

Jason Crawford, Rational Egoist

Jason Crawford recently sent me the following announcement:

As @rationalegoist on Twitter, I post about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I've just launched a blog/website associated with the Twitter account, http://rationalegoist.com. The first post is up, on "The Cult of Need."

I don't plan to write substantive posts often; I will probably use it for long-form replies to Twitter posts, and for brief thoughts.

Excellent news! If I ever get around to updating my blogroll, I'll be sure to add Jason's new blog.

Read more...

Wednesday Open Thread #75

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...

Happy Blogiversary to Jenn!

Sunday was the four-year blogiversary of Rational Jenn. Jenn's blogging has become a favorite of mine. She's funny, she's smart, and she interesting. I particularly enjoy reading about her kids and her approach to parenting, particularly because it's quite different than anything that I'm doing in my own life. So congratulations on your four years, Jenn!

I was delighted to read the following in her announcement:

However, the blog has developed into more than just an outlet for my daily thoughts about mommydom and the kids. My writing on the blog had ebbed and flowed without real direction until I joined OBloggers. So many things changed after I joined that group. I have been able to get to e-know many other bloggers who share my philosophical views. Joining that group made me eager to write posts of more substance, to share a bit more about what I think and why, and to enter into the Great Bloggy Conversation, if you will. So if I haven't said it before, thank you, Diana, for starting OBloggers!

That's exactly what I wanted to happen with OBloggers, and I'm delighted by its good effects in this case. Hooray!

Read more...

Starbucks

On our trek to Trader Joe's yesterday, Paul and I saw two excellent advertisements from Starbucks, including the one to the right.

The other advertisement concerned their striving for -- and achieving -- perfection in their coffee.

I'm not a huge fan of Starbuck's coffee: it's a bit too bitter for my tastes. And I'm not a fan of their business philosophy -- particularly their support for "fair trade" coffee and environmentalist practices. However, I do love that advertisement!

Read more...

Photos from the Boston Tea Party

Here are a few photos from the July 4, 2009 Boston Tea Party, including the Ayn Rand Center booth as well as some of the OCON attendees carrying signs.

The weather was perfect -- sunny and clear, but not too hot. Attendance was probably 200-300, although it varied during the day. The crowd was philosophically mixed, and not obviously dominated by religionists or fringe ideological groups.

I didn't hear the talks by John Lewis or Yaron Brook because the schedule ran late and I had a conflicting engagement. I was told they were well received but I'll leave it to others to link to their speeches once they are available online.

Read more...

OCON Twitter

I'm posting lots of quick updates about OCON on Twitter -- including many about Yaron Brook's currently happening "State of ARI" presentation. To read those, visit my feed @DianaHsieh. Others at OCON are tweeting too; you can find them via this search for #OCON.

Read more...

Recap #49

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

• Monday, June 29, 2009: Schroeder on the Dartmouth Atlas by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, June 30, 2009: Congress Exempts Itself From Insurance Controls by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, July 1, 2009: The Forbidding Arithmetic of Healthcare Reform by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, July 2, 2009: Harsanyi on Lying With Statistics by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, July 3, 2009: More on the Administrative Savings Myth by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Saturday, July 4, 2009: Wal-Mart and the Employer Mandate by Paul Hsieh, MD

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #74

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...

Some Notes on Maine

Paul and I spent four delightful days hiking in Acadia in Maine before traveling down to Boston for OCON yesterday. We stayed at a bed and breakfast in Bar Harbor, and we hiked various sections of Mount Desert Island. It was our second trip to Acadia; we returned because we enjoyed the hiking so very much last time. The trip did not disappoint: we exhausted ourselves with hours of vigorous hiking each day, then restored ourselves with excellent seafood in the evenings. For example, here we are, as happy as clams, on the top of a hill:

(Click on the picture for a larger version.)
For three of our four days, we hiked on semi-difficult trails -- meaning lots of streams, mud and muck, rocks of all shapes and sizes, exposed tree roots, and some good climbs. Our hikes lasted from four to six hours each day. After the past few months of dissertation work, it was a genuine luxury to be able to physically exhaust myself in that way.

I wore my Vibram Five Fingers on all of these major hikes. Vibram Five Fingers are barefoot "shoes": they protect the feet from cuts and abrasions, while allowing the person the kind and range of motion of bare feet. Here is a picture of me in my Vibram Five Fingers in May:


(Again, click on the picture for a larger version.)
Shortly after my mother took this picture, I ran a very comfortable mile and a half in them on a rocky desert trail. (When running in them, you don't pound-pound-pound like with normal running shoes, and so they're actually easier on your joints. You must be more agile -- and more sensitive to your terrain -- in them.)

I bought my Vibrams last fall: I began hiking and running barefoot in them in a desperate attempt to alleviate serious pain in the balls of my feet due to Morton's neuroma and capsulitis. I'd already tried standard medical treatment -- meaning custom orthotics, steroid shots, heat and ice, and rest. Nothing worked: I couldn't run a half mile without suffering two weeks of crippling foot pain. So last fall, I tried going barefoot, thanks to some posts from Richard of Free the Animal. That solved the problem very quickly -- and finally made clear its cause. Like him, I found the process of learning to walk barefoot quite fascinating! (Maybe I'll post more on that someday.)

I've done quite a bit of running and hiking in my Vibrams, albeit always in dry rather than wet terrain. Acadia was very, very wet. So I was a bit worried about them. However, they passed every test. I had excellent control and perfect grip on slick rocks. My feet didn't get tired, sore, or swollen like they do with hiking boots. I enjoyed the greater control and care required to pick my way through the obstacles on the trail, but they didn't slow me down. Apart from a few spots on my feet rubbed a bit raw -- not surprising given that I hiked over 15 hours in these "shoes" over four days -- they were very comfortable. I expect that I'll use them even more frequently now.

Also, I fasted while hiking. In ages past, I would have been obliged to routinely refuel myself with carbs to prevent myself from collapsing during these kinds of hikes. Now, because my body runs on fat, I was able to eat a smallish breakfast of eggs and fruit, hike for five hours without any food, entirely skip dinner, eat another smallish breakfast of eggs and fruit, then hike for another few hours before eating a snack of nuts, then eat a hearty dinner.

One final tidbit from Maine: I bought some local raw cow's milk at the "alternative" grocery store just a block away from our bed and breakfast. It was excellent -- and what a delight to buy it at a store! The grocery also had some raw goat milk yogurt, but I didn't have time to try that, as I would have liked. However, I did try the pasteurized plain sheep milk yogurt, and that was stellar. It had an extra tang to it, and I definitely liked that. I might try to find a source of sheep's milk in Colorado.

Read more...

Sarah Palin Resigns

Sarah Palin's announcement of her resignation as Alaska's governor was a bit of a shocker. John Hawkins of Right Wing News proposed five possible reasons for the move:

1) She may intend to run for President in 2012 and feels like it's to her advantage to resign now. It will mean no more phony ethics complaints. She'll be able to raise money and campaign for Republican candidates without having it used against her as governor as well. On the downside, it would hurt her in her weakest area: experience. Some people may perceive it as being flaky and emotional as well, which is something a female politician needs to work especially hard to avoid.

2) There may be some big scandal that's about to come down the pike. That's a pretty standard reason for resignations of this sort. What it would be, I have no idea at this point.

3) She, or perhaps Todd, could have a big health issue.

4) Maybe the Left finally wore her down and she just decided politics wasn't worth it anymore. I've seen it happen to other conservative women who've endured far less abuse than Sarah Palin and her family have so far. Indeed, it's part of the Left's strategy with conservative women. They try to make politics so ugly, so nasty, so personal, and so vicious that conservative women just quit.
...

5) She could be pregnant again.

Option #1 is not credible: Sarah Palin has ended her political career with this resignation. (Thank goodness!) Option #4 isn't so likely either at this late date, not without some additional pressure. So I'm betting on Options #2, #3, or #5. My money is on #5. Or perhaps another of her children is in some kind of un-Christian trouble. If Palin herself is pregnant, my only comment is somewhat general: career women really ought to figure out how to use birth control.

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

Rational Jenn has posted the latest Objectivist Roundup. Go check it out!

Read more...

Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse

Paul and I just finished four lovely days of hiking in Acadia, Maine. (I'll blog some about that later today, if I can.) We've had not-so-great internet access, however, so I'm a bit behind on some internet-dependent tasks, including blogging. However, tomorrow I'll start a daily (but short) blog post on OCON.

However, I want to mention that Dr. Tom Stevens -- of the so-called Objectivist Party has written the most absurdly offensive blog post possible: Farrah Fawcett's E-Mail Reveals Ayn Rand Thought Their Sharing The Same Birth Date Had Significance. I won't pain you by quoting the pompous blog post, but basically he accuses Ayn Rand of relying faith, superstition, and mysticism because she apparently made an offhand remark to Farrah Fawcett about them sharing a birthday.

Sheesh.

Read more...

Today's X-Ray

One could pretty much guess the history from this image:



Yes, that's a foreign body in the patient's rectum.

More specifically, it's an electric toothbrush.

And according to the ER doctor who removed it, it was in the "ON" position.

Read more...

Wednesday Open Thread #73

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...