A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle... bacon for your brain!
Showing newest 36 of 81 posts from January 2010. Show older posts
Showing newest 36 of 81 posts from January 2010. Show older posts

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Activism Recap

By Diana Hsieh

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

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

Read more...

Open Thread #134

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, January 30, 2010

Thyroid Update: Desiccated Thyroid and Iodine

By Diana Hsieh

After months of being lethargic, confused, fat, pained, and cold from my hypothyroidism, I'm finally on the mend! Although I'm not yet 100%, the turn-around was remarkable. Within just a few days, my worst symptoms of mental fog and lethargy were alleviated by rejecting the conventional treatment of synthetic T4 (e.g. Synthroid, levothyroxine) in favor of desiccated porcine thyroid plus high-dose iodine.

(Desiccated thyroid is dried pig thyroid; it contains the full range of natural hormones produced by the thyroid, not just T4. High-dose iodine means supplementing with 12.5 to 50 milligrams per day.)

When I was diagnosed as hypothyroid in early November, my TSH was only 3.23. That's barely abnormal, but I was suffering from most of the standard symptoms of hypothyroidism. (TSH above 2.5 suggests hypothyroidism.) My doctor put me on 50 micrograms of Synthroid, a synthetic version of the T4 hormone. Two months later, in early January, my TSH was down to 2.28, but my symptoms were somewhat worse. Also, my Free T3 and Free T4 were the same, still on the low end of the middle range.

Undoubtedly, I could have increased my Synthroid, eventually reducing my TSH to my doctor's target of around 1.0. Would I have felt any better at that point? Based on my experience on the drug for those two months -- when my lab values improved but my symptoms worsened -- I strongly suspect not. Instead, if I'd stayed on Synthroid, I likely would have been mentally and physically disabled for the rest of my life.

I'm not exaggerating. During those two months, I was unable to work, travel, or pursue any substantive projects. My weekly trip to the grocery store exhausted me, and I often couldn't muster the energy to slowly walk around the pastures with Conrad. My IQ felt about 20 points lower; I could only think at a very surface level. I was most definitely not flourishing. My mind and body seemed to be slowly shutting down.

Sadly, that's not an uncommon response to the standard regimen of T4-only medication. TSH might fall to normal levels, but the many debilitating symptoms of hypothyroidism remain. From what I've read in countless forums, too many doctors seem concerned only to treat the problem of high TSH, not the underlying problem of hypothyroidism. In particular, many doctors seem to ignore the fact that the body might not effectively convert the storage hormone T4 into the active hormone T3 -- or that tissues might not effectively use T3. Many patients on synthetic T4 medication complain to their doctor about their persistently raging hypothyroid symptoms, only to be summarily dismissed. After all, if the TSH is normal, all those classic hypothyroid symptoms simply must be due to something other than a poorly functioning thyroid -- like aging or poor diet or even hysteria. Or so they claim. (Such doctors equate hypothyroidism with elevated TSH, just as analytic philosophers equate concepts with definitions.)

The consequences of that mis-treatment are tragic. People suffer the degradation of living as a quasi-corpse for years and decades, unless they discover desiccated thyroid. (Or, in some cases, they suffer unless they find a way to return to desiccated thyroid, after some new doctor switched them from it to synthetic T4, often against their express wishes.) It's heartbreaking to read these stories. I know that, without dedicated and tenacious people like Janie Bowthorpe of Stop the Thyroid Madness, I could have suffered the same fate. Instead, I got off pretty easy with only two months of living as a semi-corpse on Synthroid.

At the time of my diagnosis of hypothyroidism in early November, I was aware that Synthroid might not work for me. However, given that I developed my hypothyroidism at the very height of a government-induced shortage of desiccated thyroid, I was willing to try it. Well, I got my answer by early January: Synthroid didn't do squat for me, except lower my TSH.

Happily, my excellent family practice doctor, Dr. Heble, was willing to switch me to one grain of desiccated thyroid, to see whether that might help. (One grain is the standard starting dose for desiccated thyroid, but it was an increase for me, based on this conversion chart.) By that time, I'd found a local source: Wise Compounding Pharmacy.

Just as I was making that switch from Synthroid to desiccated thyroid, I also began taking high-dose iodine, plus selenium. As I indicated in my first post on my hypothyroidism, I suspected that I might be deficient in iodine for three reasons.

  1. Seafood is the primary natural dietary source of iodine, but I hated it until my mid-20s, and even now, I don't eat more than a serving per week.

  2. Nearby oceans supply the soil of the east and west costs with iodine, but I've lived in the "goiter belt" for the last decade.

  3. Then, perhaps tipping me over the edge, I switched from iodized salt to (low-iodine) sea salt when I began eating paleo in the summer of 2009.
(I'll say more on what I suspect about the origins of my hypothyroidism in another post, including its relationship to my lacto-paleo diet.)

Back in early December, I began cautiously supplementing with 150 micrograms of "Liqui-Kelp," gradually increasing that to 600 micrograms over the next month. (150 micrograms is the government's recommended daily allowance.) I never felt any positive results from doing that. However, during that time, I was reading about much, much higher doses of iodine -- between 12.5 and 50 milligrams -- as sometimes necessary for whole-body health, including improving thyroid function.

I was intrigued by that, but also very wary. Most doctors will say that milligram doses of iodine are dangerous. However, the claims of danger seem to be sketchy, seemingly based on poor-quality epidemiological studies. Plus, most people seem to be able to handle those milligram doses just fine, and many people see remarkable improvement on them. Also, from what I read in some standard medical sources, a person with a physically intact thyroid can handle that much iodine, but a person with a damaged thyroid (e.g. partly removed in surgery) will be unable to tolerate it. Also, some people with Hashimoto's do great on iodine, but others don't tolerate it well. So, with much trepidation, I decided to try milligram doses of iodine.

On Monday, January 11th, I began taking Iosol and Lugol's, working my way up to about 16 milligrams by the end of the week -- over 100 times the government's RDA. I also began supplementing with 100 to 200 micrograms of selenium each day. (Selenium is essential for thyroid health, you probably don't want to take iodine without it, and you definitely don't want to take more than 400 micrograms per day. That upper limit seems well-established.)

(Note: I don't have any special reason for doing both types of iodine, except my own confusion. Lugol's -- or the tablet form Iodoral -- seems to be the preferred form, as it contains both iodine and potassium iodide. From what I've read, different tissues prefer those different forms. Iosol contains only iodine. The milligrams of iodine per drop for J.Crowe's Lugol's Solution is here.)

On Tuesday of that week, I began feeling better: I was able to run some errands, then attend Ari Armstrong's "Liberty in the Books" economics discussion group. That amazed me, as doing both would have been impossible just a week before. Then, on Wednesday, I switched to the desiccated thyroid. Over the next few days, I felt amazingly better. My brain fog lifted, and my lethargy disappeared. I could think again! I could concentrate! I danced around the house, singing silly songs! I wanted to exercise again! I had energy to burn! Life was good again!

Most amazingly, within just a few days on the milligram doses of iodine, a 16-month bout of totally mysterious amenorrhea came to an end. (Sorry, TMI, I know... but it's important.) I was totally floored; I never expected that kind of result, not so fast! By way of background, the problem started after I went off the birth control pill in October of 2008. My doctor did a battery of tests over the summer, but nothing seemed wrong, except that my estrogen levels were very low -- like menopausal. Initially, we thought the problem was just that my reproductive system went dormant with the shock of going off the pill after about fifteen years of nearly continuous use. Once the hypothyroidism cropped up, my doctor wondered whether there might be some connection. Hypothyroidism is known to cause menstrual problems, albeit usually causing too-heavy periods. Now I wonder what my iodine deficiency did to my estrogen levels, if that's what happened. (Oh, and I'm not the only one.)

Never in my life have I experienced such a dramatic turn-around in my health, mind, and mood as I experienced that week on iodine and desiccated thyroid. If I weren't a intransigent atheist, I would describe it as a miracle. That's what it felt like: I got my life back -- I got myself back -- in the span of just a few days.

However, I had an epistemic problem. Although I knew that the improvement began before I switched to desiccated thyroid, I wanted to sort out how much was due to the iodine supplementation versus the desiccated thyroid. So after three days on desiccated thyroid, I switched back to my old 50 microgram dose of Synthroid. I stayed on that for about five days -- enough time to allow the T3 of the desiccated thyroid to fully clear from my system.

During that time on iodine plus Synthroid, I definitely felt a decline in my energy and mental function, although I was still significantly better than when on Synthroid alone. I was eager to get back to the desiccated thyroid, and I perked up again when I switched back to it. Interestingly, I'm going without iodine today and tomorrow, to prepare for an iodine loading test on Monday. I'm definitely feeling a fuzzy-headed today, perhaps due to that lack of iodine intake.

Overall, I would say that I was functioning at about 50% while Synthroid, at about 75% while on Synthroid plus iodine, and now I'm at about 90% with desiccated thyroid plus iodine.

Oddly, my symptoms are not all better. Instead, my body's response has been somewhat mixed. My brain fog is gone, and my powers of memory and concentration are much better. I have tons more energy, such that I'm able to put in a day's work. Overall, my mental function and energy levels should be about 10% better, I think. I've stopped gaining weight, but I've not yet lost any weight. My digestion is definitely better: I'm not chronically bloated, and I'm able to skip a meal without disaster. My carpal tunnel is somewhat better, but still bothering me somewhat. However, my body temperatures are still quite low, averaging about 96.5 F. My skin is still terribly dry.

I'm also able to exercise -- but wowee, I am so out of shape! I'd been increasing sedentary for the last few months, such that I barely moved in December. Now I can exercise, but my muscles are shaky and then sore from even mild weightlifting. Also, I used to be unable to exert enough energy to get winded, but now my wind is the major limiting factor when I row on our rowing machine. That's good!

Also, my goiter -- the nodule in my thyroid -- seems to have shrunk considerably. Before, I could feel a squishy spot on my neck, and I could see a slight bulge in the mirror. Now that's all gone. I'll have an ultrasound recheck in late March, and I expect good results from that.

I'm going to have another thyroid lab panel done in early March, and I expect that I'll be increasing my desiccated thyroid dose to 1.5 grains then. Also, as I mentioned, I'm taking an iodine loading test on Monday. I'll be very curious to see my results; I expect that I'm still iodine deficient, and that I can and ought to increase my daily dose, perhaps up to 50 milligrams per day for a few months. Paul -- who has been supplementing with just the RDA of 150 micrograms for the past few weeks -- will be taking his test when he can, likely next weekend. I'll be very curious to compare my results with his.

I've come to wonder whether iodine might be like Vitamin D -- in the sense that the miniscule amounts recommended by the government might be sufficient to ward off obvious illness -- rickets, in the case of Vitamin D and goiter, in the case of iodine. Yet a much higher dose might be optimal. I'm definitely not recommending everyone start taking large doses of iodine. However, if you're suffering from the symptoms of hypothyroidism, you might investigate iodine. And for everyone else, I recommend that you make sure that you obtain the recommended 150 micrograms per day.

Mostly though, I'd like to see some solid research and writing on the subject. While I've learned a great deal from the sources I've read, I've been frustrated by the inconsistent quality thereof. I'm not competent to dig up and read the primary sources in the medical literature: I'm purely a consumer of secondary sources. That makes me exceedingly nervous, as I know just how inaccurate secondary sources can be!

I have serious reservations about the scientific judgment of some of the sources I've read on iodine and hypothyroidism -- even though I often found them fascinating and helpful. For example, Dr. David Brownstein wrote a fascinating little book on iodine -- Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It. (He's also the author of Overcoming Thyroid Disorders.) His collection of articles on iodine (often co-authored) looked good too... until I got to the belligerent argument for young-earth creationism. Seriously. I don't think that Brownstein is lying about the tests he's done and the results he's gotten, particularly given that others have reported similar results. Yet I simply cannot trust the medical judgment of someone who appeals to the Flood (!!) and Satan (!!) to explain why the soils of some inland areas are deficient in iodine.

Similarly, while I was super-intrigued by what I read in Dr. Mark Starr's book Hypothyroidism Type 2, I was dismayed to read on his web site that he practices homeopathy and "energetic medicine." I just can't regard that as anything better than mystical quackery. The only bright side is that nothing in the book seems to depend on -- or even hint at -- those views, so perhaps that's all separate from his views on hypothyroidism. However, once again, I simply can't trust his medical judgment.

My basic approach is to take whatever seems grounded in good empirical science from these folks, then then integrate it with my own experience and reliable reports from others. Happily, I can strongly recommend one very practical book on hypothyroidism, namely Janie Bowthorpe's Stop the Thyroid Madness. Mary Shomon's book Living Well with Hypothyroidism also has some helpful suggestions, particularly for dealing with doctors unwilling to prescribe desiccated thyroid. And I've often found myself searching the archives of various Yahoo Groups, particularly Coalition for Natural Desiccated Thyroid, Natural Thyroid Hormones, and Iodine.

Also, I have some hope for Dr. Broda Barnes' 1976 book Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness, but I'll reserve judgment until that arrives from Amazon.

Mostly, I'm just desperate for a good, juicy blog post from Dr. Eades on the subject of hypothyroidism, desiccated thyroid, and iodine supplementation. He's probably the only doctor (along with his excellent wife, MD) whose judgment I can fully trust on this topic. He's got the deep knowledge of the relevant biology; he's got the years of experience treating patients with hypothyroidism; and he's got a good working epistemology.

Happily, Dr. Eades dropped some useful hints in the comments of a blog post on Oprah's weight gain. He recommends an iodine loading test, plus Iodoral (12.5 to 50 milligrams) for people who are deficient. And he always used desiccated thyroid for his patients, not synthetic T4. I was so relieved to read that, as I felt like I was leaping about in the dark, particularly on the iodine.

So ... Dr. Eades ... will you write that blog post on iodine that you promised in those comments? Pretty please... with a deliciously tender sous vide meatball on top?

Read more...

Food-O-Rama

By Diana Hsieh

  • A handy flow chart for figuring out whether to eat the food that you just dropped on the floor.

  • Just because you're slender doesn't mean that you're healthy. People who are "skinny-fat" might be at greater risk of heart disease. Drs. Mike and Mary Dan Eades discuss the problem of such visceral fat -- and what to do about it -- in their excellent recent podcast interview with Jimmy Moore.

  • Gretchen's postprandial diet experiment reports on a fascinating 24-hour test of blood glucose and triglycerides on a high-carb/low-fat diet versus a high-fat/low-carb diet. The Heart Scan Doc has more on why these kinds of tests suggest that the hunter-gatherer mode of infrequent eating is healthier than the "grazing" that many people advocate.

    I've got a big thyroid update post to write, so look for that later today!

    Read more...
  • Friday, January 29, 2010

    Multi-Track A Capella Lady Gaga

    By Diana Hsieh

    Wow, I love the whole concept, and the choice of songs!

    Read more...

    Crawford Letter Opposing Reconciliation Trick

    By Paul Hsieh

    As mentioned earlier, ObamaCare may not be quite dead yet.

    If this report from HotAir.com is accurate, the Democrats will use the "budget reconciliation" technique to ram ObamaCare through Congress.

    Basically, the House has to first approve the Senate bill without changes. Then they would use the "budget reconcilation" technique to make changes in a pre-arranged deal to satisfy the various special interest groups. This only requires 51 votes in the Senate, not 60. This tactic is necessitated by the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts which deprived them of their prior 60-vote supermajority.

    The good news is that several Democrat Senators have already expressed opposition to using this method. (Whether they actually vote against it is a separate issue). So the Democrats may only have just barely over 50 votes they can count on. Which means if 1 or 2 more Democratic senators decide to oppose this tactic, then it will fail.

    Hence, the important people to contact would be your two Senators, especially if they are Democrats.

    Here's an example of a great letter that David Crawford sent to his Senators from Washington state (reposted with his permission):

    Senator XXX,

    I have heard news that there is a plan to pass the Senate version of the health care bill with modifications made through "budget reconciliation", which requires fewer votes.

    None of this seems to be confirmed, so I don't know what is true, but if there *is* such a plan, it seems to be a total subversion of the legislative process! Please do not support efforts that are obviously intended to force a major new set of laws and regulations on a people who are trying to make it clear that they don't want it.

    The Massachusetts election was the latest of many efforts of voters to communicate that we do *not* support this massive intrusion into our health care. I believe the Senate bill was passed too early, without a real understanding of your constituents concerns.

    We all want better health care, but the proposed changes may have a devastating effect on the existing system, especially at a time when the economy is still very unstable. Please listen to what your constituents are trying to tell you and vote NO on any "budget reconciliation" efforts to get ObamaCare into law.

    Thank you,
    David Crawford
    If you agree with those views, please speak out!

    [Crossposted from the FIRM blog.]

    Read more...

    Philosophy and Sense of Life

    By Diana Hsieh

    Back in December, Front Range Objectivism created a third FROG discussion group. 2FROG was just too large, and we're trying to keep the FROG groups at about twelve plus/minus two people. I've opted to join 3FROG. Officially, that's because I want to help steer this newer group in the right direction in my capacity as Overall FRO Leader. Honestly though, I'm not too worried about them. Mostly I'm just enthused to spend some time discussing Objectivism with some of the newer folks in FRO.

    3FROG just began Ayn Rand's anthology on aesthetics, The Romantic Manifesto. I'm pleased by that choice, as that covers a great deal of material that I'm just not terribly familiar with. More particularly, the essays often concern more psychological issues -- like sense of life and emotions -- that clearly bear on my own deep interest in Aristotle's moral psychology.

    On Saturday, I lead the discussion on the second essay, "Philosophy and Sense of Life." Here are questions that I posed to the group.

    • What is sense of life? How is it formed? How does it function in a person's life? How does it relate to a person's explicit philosophic principles? How does it relate to psycho-epistemology?

    • How does a person identify his own sense of life? Why and how might that be difficult? What might be some clues? What is my own sense of life?

    • Can a person change his sense of life? Why might he want to do so? How might he do so? Why might that process be difficult or even unpleasant? How might a person psychologically retrain himself?

    • How can a person learn to better identify the sense of life of other people he knows and meets? Why and how might that be important?
    What would you say in answer to those questions? They seem simple, but they're actually quite involved! We discussed them for quite a while in 3FROG, and I'm happy to say that I have a better grip on the topic now than when I read the essay last week. As for my own answers, that will have to wait for some future day.

    Read more...

    Thursday, January 28, 2010

    Photo Du Jour: Conrad

    By Diana Hsieh



    (26 January 2010)

    Read more...

    Objectivist Roundup

    By Diana Hsieh

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

    Read more...

    The Christian Ideal: Suffering

    By Diana Hsieh

    Crossposted from Politics without God.

    I'm simply overwhelmed to read Tony Judt's account of a single night stuck in the prison of his body, ravaged by ALS (a.k.a. Lou Gherig's disease). Here's how he describes his basic condition:

    By my present stage of decline, I am thus effectively quadriplegic. With extraordinary effort I can move my right hand a little and can adduct my left arm some six inches across my chest. My legs, although they will lock when upright long enough to allow a nurse to transfer me from one chair to another, cannot bear my weight and only one of them has any autonomous movement left in it. Thus when legs or arms are set in a given position, there they remain until someone moves them for me. The same is true of my torso, with the result that backache from inertia and pressure is a chronic irritation. Having no use of my arms, I cannot scratch an itch, adjust my spectacles, remove food particles from my teeth, or anything else that--as a moment's reflection will confirm--we all do dozens of times a day. To say the least, I am utterly and completely dependent upon the kindness of strangers (and anyone else).
    Please, go read the whole thing. While I don't know what Mr. Judt's own religious views are, I regard his life as a clear demonstration of the life-hating brutality of Christian doctrine. To wit:

  • Christianity regards suffering like that of Mr. Judt as not merely noble and elevated, but positively divine. It's not good to live fully, happily, robustly according to Christianity: it's good to suffer and die. That's what Jesus taught -- and then he lived and died by that ideal.

  • Christianity regards the body as a vile, despicable prison that leads a person's divine soul astray into the dark depths of sin. Mr. Judt is positively lucky, as his body really is a prison: he cannot indulge pleasures of the flesh, not even the seemingly minor ones like scratching his own itches.

  • Christianity regards Mr. Judt's life as God's property, not as his own. So Mr. Judt must be forbidden by law from ending his own life, if and when it becomes intolerable. If anyone attempts to help him end his life, that person should be imprisoned as a murderer. As a bonus, if Mr. Judt manages to end his own life somehow, the loving Christian God will consign him to the torments of hell for all eternity.

    Of course, many Christians do not live by such dark principles. They are kind, decent people, loathe to see anyone suffering from such a tragic condition. They might even support stem-cell research, and even assisted suicide. To that extent, their values are more American -- loving science, seeking happiness, and upholding individual rights -- than Christian.

    As Leonard Peikoff states in his essay Religion Versus America:
    It is time to tell people the unvarnished truth: to stand up for man's mind and this earth, and against any version of mysticism or religion. It is time to tell people: "You must choose between unreason and America. You cannot have both. Take your pick."

    If there is to be any chance for the future, this is the only chance there is.
    Amen, brother!

    Read more...
  • Wednesday, January 27, 2010

    Bomb-Proof Wallpaper

    By Diana Hsieh

    This wallpaper is not for the homes of ordinary folks, I don't think.



    Wow.

    Read more...

    Open Thread #133

    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...

    The Importance of Citizens United

    By Diana Hsieh

    Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice was kind enough to post his thoughts on the significance of the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign speech in the comments on my post Freedom of Speech, Somewhat Restored. I thought them worth reproducing in a blog post of their own. Here's what he wrote:

    Thanks for posting our release, Diana. I thought folks my be interested in a few additional thoughts on why this decision is so significant. No Supreme Court decision is perfect, and this one is far from it from a strict philosophical standpoint. But judging from where we were, it is a very significant step forward. The importance of this decision goes beyond its basic holding, which is that the government cannot prevent corporations from spending money on their own independent speech during elections. Corporations now have the same rights to spend unlimited sums on independent advocacy as individuals do. A corporation is simply a voluntary association of individuals. It has the same "rights" that the individuals do; no more, and no less. The Supreme Court recognized that basic point, which is very important.

    But the Court's reasoning was also very good in many respects. Those who have heard Eric Daniels's excellent lecture on the First Amendment know that the Supreme Court has treated the freedom of speech primarily as a means to the end of promoting "democracy" rather than as an inviolable individual right. The history of campaign finance law has been a march toward the logical conclusion of this premise, which is complete government control over political speech. This is the reason that campaign finance jurisprudence is so important--because the consequences of the court's approach are so apparent in this area (and because elections are the path to political power, which is the reason the left cares so much about campaign finance law). (Incidentally, recall what Ayn Rand said about free speech in Censorship: Local & Express--that leftists are willing to leave speech relatively free because they want to control the material realm, while the right is the opposite. In my view, that dynamic is reversed in campaign finance law, both because it involves the regulation of money and because the left recognizes campaigns and elections as the path to political power. But I digress).

    The Court unfortunately did not reject this approach, but it did emphasize much more than it ever has before that the First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to speak, to organize, and to think for themselves. The battle on this front is by no means over, but we now have some very good ammunition to use in the future.

    The Court's approach was also surprisingly principled and objective. For instance, it recognized that the means of exercising one's freedom of speech (e.g., money, the corporate form) must be protected if the right to free speech is to be protected; it understood that requiring a corporation to speak through a separate legal entity that is separately funded is a denial of the corporation's right to speak as is conditioning the right on compliance with complex regulations (A is A); it rejected as irrelevant the fact that many of the Founders apparently disliked or didn't trust corporations and the fact that the "media" that existed in the founding era consisted of small newspapers and pamplets, rather than gigantic corporations. As Chief Justice Roberts put it in his concurrence, "the First Amendment protects more than the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer." (Remember Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" painting, with freedom of expression represented by a humble looking man standing in a town meeting with his hat in his hand? That is the left's view of free speech. Speak as much as you want, as long as it won't affect anything).

    In sum, Citizen's United is not just a very good campaign finance decision, it is a very good First Amendment decision (in my view, one of the best ever). It gives us a great deal to use on many fronts, and we will use it all to good effect.
    Steve Simpson also wrote an op-ed on the case for Pajamas Media: Protecting the Marketplace of Ideas. It's a good overview and analysis of the case.

    Also, Julian Sanchez wrote a biting analysis of the practical implications of the common leftist view that corporations shouldn't have the right to free speech because they're legal fictions rather than real persons. He imagines what would happen if we accepted that view fully:
    Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press ... as long as they don't plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You're free to practice your religion without interference -- but if it's an unpopular one, well, let's hope you don't expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman's right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she'd better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it's easy.
    That's a wonderful reductio ad absurdum for precisely the reason identified by Steve Simpson said in his Pajamas Media op-ed:
    Corporations are groups of individuals and have the same rights to speak as the individuals who make them up, no more, no less. The fact that state laws affect corporate status cannot be a basis for regulating them, any more than it could be a basis for deciding that married couples, partnerships, or membership organizations are not allowed to speak. Nor can it matter that any group's views may not "correlate" with the views of the public. The First Amendment exists to protect dissent. No one ever wishes to limit speech with which they agree.
    After so many years of political disaster, I'm enjoying these few rays of political sunshine.

    Read more...

    Tuesday, January 26, 2010

    Conrad via My New Camera

    By Diana Hsieh

    My new camera -- a Panasonic Luminex DMC-FZ35 -- arrived today. Of course, I had to take some pictures of doggie Conrad. I love the new camera already, and I'm looking forward to playing around with it. Yup, Miranda Barzey has inspired me to try to learn a bit about the art of photography! (As usual, click to enlarge.)









    Read more...

    Party with Keynes, Sober Up with Hayek

    By Diana Hsieh

    Despite my initial skepticism, I was totally won over by this awesome rapping duel between Keynes and Hayek.



    I love the whole visual story of the video. The lyrics are here.

    (Via Glenn)

    Read more...

    Deism in the Declaration

    By Diana Hsieh

    Crossposted from Politics without God.

    My husband Paul Hsieh (of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) recently pointed me to an essay by Eric Raymond entitled Deism and the Founding Fathers. I'd definitely recommend reading the whole essay, but I wanted to except a few critical passages:

    Religious conservatives are fond of replying by pointing excitedly at the references to "Nature's God", "Divine Providence", and the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence.
    Raymond then quotes the relevant passages of the Declaration:
    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights;

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
    Raymond then cites some other passages in Jefferson's writings where he displays as obvious hostility to Christianity. So Raymond asks, "Of what 'God', if not the Christian one, was Jefferson speaking?" He replies:
    The answer to this question -- which also explains the references in the Declaration of Independence -- is that Jefferson, like many intellectuals of his time, was a Deist. The "Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, and the God of Jefferson's altar, is not the intervening Christian God but the God of Deism.

    Deism was an early attempt to reconcile the mechanistic world-view arising from experimental science with religion. Deists believed in a remote sort of clockmaker-God who created the universe but then refrained from meddling in it afterwards. Deists explicitly rejected faith, revelation, religious doctrine, religious authority, and all existing religions. They held that humans could know the mind of God only through the study of nature; in many versions of Deist thinking, the mind of God was explicitly identified with the laws of nature.

    Thus "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God"; in Deist thought these concepts blurred together. The phrase "endowed by their Creator" could be rendered accurately as "endowed by Nature". In modern terms, this is an entirely naturalistic account of human rights.
    That's exactly right. Finally, Raymond notes:
    Jefferson’s "altar of God" quote and the references in the Declaration of Independence are easy to misconstrue today because Deism did not long outlive the Founding Fathers. In their time it functioned as a sort of halfway house for intellectuals who rejected traditional religion but were unwilling to declare themselves atheists or agnostics. As the social risk of taking these positions decreased, Deism waned.
    Given the bravery of the early Americans in opposing the British Empire, I doubt that intellectual cowardice was the reason for their deism. I suspect -- although I've not much researched the subject -- that they accepted some version of the Argument from Design. Absent a solid grasp of the fact that physical laws are the necessary expression of the identity of entities and absent an explanation for the great diversity and complexity of living organisms, the Argument from Design would seem quite plausible. It's still flawed, purely on philosophic grounds, but the mistake was understandable in the 18th century. Deism was the rather benign result of that mistake.

    Today, people have far less excuse for believing in God's existence on such grounds, as the scientific and philosophic objections to the Argument from Design are well-known and devastating. They have no excuse for leaping from such arguments to claims about the truth of Christianity. The Argument from Design, even if sound, could not lend the slightest bit of support to the myths and dogmas of Christianity.

    For more, see my three podcasts on the Argument from Design: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Part 4 is forthcoming.

    Read more...

    Monday, January 25, 2010

    Serenade

    By Diana Hsieh

    I absolutely love this serenade by Derek Bourgeois.



    William Green pointed me to it on Twitter. I'd like to find a good recording of it. Any recommendations?

    Read more...

    Link-O-Rama

    By Diana Hsieh

  • A conservative Christian reads and criticizes Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Hey, at least she notices the conflict between Christianity and Objectivism!

  • God's Control Buttons. Too perfect!

  • Jim Valliant and Jennifer Burns are discussing her book on this thread and this thread on SoloPassion. I won't post in that forum after being declared immoral six ways to Sunday by its owner, but the debate might be worth reading.

  • Most part-time actors are lowly waiters or somesuch, but the guy who played David Wallace on The Office is a wealth management advisor.

    Read more...
  • NoodleCast #26: Explore Atlas Shrugged, Session 9

    By Diana Hsieh

    These discussion questions and podcast were prepared by Diana Hsieh for ExploreAtlasShrugged.com for people interested in creating their own Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, as well as for anyone wishing to study the novel in more depth. They may be freely used for the study and discussion of Atlas Shrugged, provided that this paragraph remains intact in any reproduction.

    Readings


    Atlas Shrugged, Part 2, Chapter 5 - Part 2, Chapter 6
    • Part 2: Chapter 5: Account Overdrawn
    • Part 2: Chapter 6: Miracle Metal
    Or:

    Podcast


    Listen Now

      81:14 minutes
    Download This Episode
    Learn More

    Discussion Questions


    (Note: The listed page numbers are for the larger edition, softcover or hardback.)

    Part 2: Chapter 5: Account Overdrawn

    Section 1 (496-517)
    • What is the state of the world by February 15th?  What are the causes of the ever-faster decline?  How and why are people at the mercy of nature?  How and why do the leaders in industry and politics respond as they do?  (496-501)
    • Who is Mr. Weatherby?  What is his purpose at the Taggart Transcontinental board meeting?  How and why do the board members treat him as they do?  (502-11)
    • Why does Dagny refuse to express any opinions about what Taggart Transcontinental should do?  Why does the board want her to kill the John Galt Line?  Why are they unwilling to do it themselves?  (506-11)
    • What lesson does Francisco want Dagny to draw from the story of Nat Taggart's battle to build the railroad?  Does she draw that lesson?  What does he learn about her state of mind?  (513-5)
    Section 2 (517-521)
    • Why do Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden want to be present at the last run of the John Galt Line?  What does the closed Marsh factory mean to Dagny?  (518-9)
    Section 3 (521-525)
    • How do James Taggart and Lillian Rearden interact in this lunch meeting?  What does the meeting accomplish for them? (521-4)
    • What is Lillian's plan for Hank Rearden?  How does she intend to trap him with her gift of flowers?  What was her expected versus unexpected opportunity?  (524-5)
    Section 4 (525-531)
    • Why is Lillian so shocked and dismayed to discover that Dagny Taggart is Hank Rearden's mistress?  What does she grasp about its significance?  Why does she insist that he give her up?  Why does he refuse?  (526-9)
    • What does Hank realize about his own prior views on hearing Lillian's comments about Dagny?  Why is that significant? (530)
    Whole Chapter
    • What is the significance of the title of this chapter?
    Part 2: Chapter 6: Miracle Metal

    Section 1 (532-549)
    • What is the purpose of the meeting between these men -- Mouch, Lawson, Taggart, Thompson, Boyle, Ferris, and Kinnon? What do they reveal about themselves?  How are they similar to and different from one another? (532-49)
    • What is the content of Directive 10-289?  What is the purpose and likely effects of each point?  Why is it so evil? (538-9)
    • Why are the looters concerned about what Rearden might do?  What could he do to them and by what means? (547-8)
    Section 2 (549-554)
    • Why does Dagny resign immediately in response to Directive 10-289? Why can't Eddie Willers follow, even thought he wants to do so? (552-3)
    Section 3 (554-566)
    • What is the response to Directive 10-289 at Rearden's mills?  In particular, why does Tom Colby quit?  Why does the Wet Nurse want to help Rearden to break the law?  (554-6)
    • What does Rearden learn about himself and the looters in his conversation with Dr. Ferris about the Gift Certificate?  (559-66)
    • Why does Rearden choose to sign the Gift Certificate?  Is he right to do so?  Why or why not?  (565-6)
    Whole Chapter
    • What is the significance of the title of this chapter?

    Read more...

    Sunday, January 24, 2010

    Activism Recap

    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:
    Here's a quick note that I posted to FIRM's "News" e-mail list that summarizes my views of the health care debate:
    Don't miss Dr. Paul Hsieh's op-ed -- Brown's Victory: The Declaration of Independents -- published by Pajamas Media on Thursday.

    Happily, ObamaCare seems to have been stopped dead in its tracks by the election of Scott Brown. Hooray!

    However, defenders of free market medicine cannot be complacent. Democrats might team up with pragmatic Republicans to pass piecemeal measures, such as outlawing "discrimination" by insurance companies based on pre-existing conditions and expanding Medicare and Medicaid. Also, individual states might attempt to create "universal coverage" at the state level, just as Massachusetts did under Republican Mitt Romney a few years ago -- with disastrous results.

    Many Republicans, including Scott Brown, oppose further federal takeover of medicine, but they support the state-level socialized medicine. They aren't advocates of free markets -- nor even opponents of socialism. They simply prefer more local sources of tyranny. Yet socialism is morally wrong and practically disastrous wherever implemented, whether in cities, states, or the whole nation.

    So we need to be vigilant, even while we pause to enjoy this victory. As always, I recommend writing your representatives -- federal and state, Republican and Democratic -- with a clear and succinct statement expressing your opposition to any forms of socialized medicine and advocating free market reforms. You can do that via Congress.org. Write letters to the editor. Talk to your friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

    Finally, my heartfelt thanks to everyone who mustered the time and energy to stand up to the seemingly invincible juggernaut of ObamaCare. Thank you, thank you!!

    -- Diana Hsieh

    Read more...

    Open Thread #132

    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, January 23, 2010

    Food-O-Rama

    By Diana Hsieh

  • Some young scientists discovered that the DNA of food doesn't always match its label. I've mentioned the huge problem with fraud in olive oil before, but I wonder how widespread this kind of fraud is. I suspect that -- just as with other regulations -- food labels induce complacency in consumers, such that people suppose that food is whatever the label says, nothing more and nothing less. That might be even more misguided than I thought -- perhaps with disastrous consequences to people with food allergies. (Via Dr. Eades)

  • Only vegans need support groups. Heh.

  • For many years, my favorite way to make cabbage has been using this super-simple Frizzled Cabbage recipe. I make a whole head at a time, in a small stock pot, with plenty of butter. It takes about 30 minutes to cook. Be careful not to burn it!

  • Raw milk herdshares win a victory in Canada. Hooray!

    Read more...
  • Friday, January 22, 2010

    How Do You Know What You Know?

    By Greg Perkins

    How do you know what you know? And why should you care?

    Objectivism isn't just a bunch of conclusions to collect and apply -- there's a distinctive methodology that emanates from the very core of the epistemology which shapes the entire philosophy and its ultimate effects in every realm. At the center of it all is the Objectivist account of just what concepts are, and how we properly acquire and use them. This is central because it goes to the essence of how we humans navigate reality: we're the rational animal, i.e., the conceptual animal. Leonard Peikoff explains it nicely:

    For man, sensory material is only the first step of knowledge, the basic source of information. Until he has conceptualized this information, man cannot do anything with it cognitively, nor can he act on it. Human knowledge and human action are conceptual phenomena.

    Although concepts are built on percepts, they represent a profound development, a new scale of consciousness. An animal knows only a handful of concretes: the relatively few trees, ponds, men, and the like it observes in its lifetime. It has no power to go beyond its observations -- to generalize, to identify natural laws, to hypothesize causal factors, or, therefore, to understand what it observes. A man, by contrast, may observe no more (or even less) than an animal, but he can come to know and understand facts that far outstrip his limited observations. He can know facts pertaining to all trees, every pond and drop of water, the universal nature of man. To man, as a result, the object of knowledge is not a narrow corner of a single planet, but the universe in all its immensity, from the remote past to the distant future, and from the most minuscule (unperceivable) particles of physics to the farthest (unperceivable) galaxies of astronomy.

    A similar contrast applies in the realm of action. An animal acts automatically on its perceptual data; it has no power to project alternative courses of behavior or long-range consequences. Man chooses his values and actions by a process of thought, based ultimately on a philosophical view of existence; he needs the guidance of abstract principles both to select his goals and to achieve them. Because of its form of knowledge, an animal can do nothing but adapt itself to nature. Man (if he adheres to the metaphysically given) adapts nature to his own requirements.

    A conceptual faculty, therefore, is a powerful attribute. It is an attribute that goes to the essence of a species, determining its method of cognition, of action, of survival. To understand man -- and any human concern -- one must understand concepts. One must discover what they are, how they are formed, and how they are used, and often misused, in the quest for knowledge. This requires that we analyze in slow motion the inmost essence of the processes which make us human, the ones which, in daily life, we perform with lightninglike rapidity and take for granted as unproblematic. [OPAR p.74]

    Rand offers just such an analysis in her monograph, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. In doing so she better equips us to do business in reality while repelling deadly threats that can sometimes be quite subtle. For, "What is at stake here is the cognitive efficacy of man's mind."
    As I [Rand] wrote in For the New Intellectual: "To negate man's mind, it is the conceptual level of his consciousness that has to be invalidated. Under all the tortuous complexities, contradictions, equivocations, rationalizations of the post-Renaissance philosophy -- the one consistent line, the fundamental that explains the rest, is: a concerted attack on man's conceptual faculty. Most philosophers did not intend to invalidate conceptual knowledge, but its defenders did more to destroy it than did its enemies. They were unable to offer a solution to the 'problem of universals,' that is: to define the nature and source of abstractions, to determine the relationship of concepts to perceptual data -- and to prove the validity of scientific induction .... The philosophers were unable to refute the Witch Doctor's claim that their concepts were as arbitrary as his whims and that their scientific knowledge had no greater metaphysical validity than his revelations." [ITOE Forward]

    The Objectivism Seminar is about to start its journey through Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Expanded Second Edition). We hope to thoroughly digest the main work as well as all of the supplementary material. The meetings will feature several fairly seasoned Objectivists trading off on moderation, and we especially encourage those who are newer to the ideas or maybe a little fuzzy on them to bring their most challenging questions and puzzles! (And for those who are more acquainted with the material, this offers the challenge of grappling with helping others find their way through those questions and puzzles -- as well as the surprisingly common bonus of finding unexpected fuzziness of their own. :^)

    We'll be meeting weekly, in a one-hour conference call hosted at TalkShoe.com. You can participate online with just your computer, or via a regular phone (or you can listen in later via the podcast recordings). The series begins on Monday, February 1, 8:00 pm Mountain time.

    Please visit www.ObjectivismSeminar.com to learn more and join in!

    Read more...

    Productivity-O-Rama

    By Diana Hsieh

  • Writing Five-Year Goals: John Drake tells us why we should know our five-year goals -- and how to formulate them. Then he tells us how he wrote his. Writing my own five-year goals is on my to-do list!

  • Jason Crawford has a new-ish blog "about startups, technology, entrepreneurship, business, leadership, and management." I really liked his November post entitled Query for Judgment.

  • Prepare for 2010 by learning from failed experiments: "This month, I'm trying out new stuff, going back and doing maintenance on previous failures, and watching things explode fairly spectacularly. Why? Because if I figure out all the failure points now, while I can mentally group all the failures in the bucket of 2009, then by the time I move into 2010, I'll already have figured out where the landmines are." I'm a bit slow in starting 2010, so I think that February will be my January. Or something like that.

  • GTD for Academics by Aeon Skoble. I implemented GTD in much the same way he outlines while in graduate school.

    Read more...
  • No Kindles on Campus: All Must Be Blind

    By Diana Hsieh

    Despite the good news of late, the inmates are still running quite a few wings of the asylum.

    Three colleges seeking to experiment with using the Kindle rather than expensive textbooks have been forbidden from doing so by the Justice Department. Why? Because they're not fully functional for blind students. Of course, the Kindle offers a good text-to-speech reader, so that makes it superior to an ordinary textbook for a blind student. However, the problem is that the menu functions of the Kindle require sight to navigate at present.

    According to the Justice Department, blind college students are so profoundly disabled -- despite reaching college without the benefit of sight -- that they cannot possibly find any way around this problem. It would be impossible, for example, for them to ask a fellow student or a roommate for help with locating the right file. Of course, that wouldn't be ideal for them. I'd love to see the Kindle updated so as to read out the menu items for the sake of blind users. Yet the idea that a blind person couldn't manage this problem -- despite overcoming so many difficulties to get to college -- is absurd... and offensive.

    According to the Department of Justice:

    Under the agreements reached today, the universities generally will not purchase, recommend or promote use of the Kindle DX, or any other dedicated electronic book reader, unless the devices are fully accessible to students who are blind and have low vision. The universities agree that if they use dedicated electronic book readers, they will ensure that students with vision disabilities are able to access and acquire the same materials and information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students with substantially equivalent ease of use.
    That's demanding the impossible, particularly in a college setting. Blind students necessarily lack the easy access to visual information available to any sighted person. They will have to work harder to read a textbook or handout than a sighted student. Some forms of information, like PowerPoint presentations or writing on the chalkboard, might be largely inaccessible to them. The simple fact is that blind people have to work harder to educate themselves. Technology can make that process easier, but blind people cannot be made equal to sighted people -- except by blinding sighted people.

    Notably, conservatives often oppose such policies. They reject the ideal of "equality of outcomes" in favor of "equality of opportunity." Yet notice that the Department of Justice appeals only the "equality of opportunity" to justify their interference. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said:
    Advancing technology is systematically changing the way universities approach education, but we must be sure that emerging technologies offer individuals with disabilities the same opportunities as other students. These agreements underscore the importance of full and equal educational opportunities for everyone. [Emphasis added.]
    People's opportunities in life often depend on factors beyond their control -- meaning, on bad luck. A person might be born with a congenital disorder. He might be born to stupid, poor, or amoral parents -- or in a backwards, irrational culture. He might suffer a terrible injury in an accident. A person can be the victim of bad luck, such that he must work harder than others to live well. Undoubtedly, that's unfortunate, perhaps even pitiable. Such people are often worthy of benevolent help. They are often admirable for overcoming their misfortunes by courage, determination, and hard work.

    However, justice does not oblige anyone to help to unlucky people so that their opportunities in life are the same as everyone else's. A person is responsible for making his own life as good as he can, whatever misfortunes he might suffer. That's his basic job as a human person. Other people are only obligated to leave him free to do that, by respecting his rights. That's what a person needs -- more than anything else -- to overcome any kind of bad luck: he needs the freedom to act according to his own best judgment, for the sake of his own life and happiness. Moreover, the unlucky person needs other people, whatever their luck in life, to enjoy the same freedom. The freedom of others will enable them to be most productive, and the unlucky person will thereby benefit in trade. In addition, although far less important, that freedom will enable others to more easily help him through charity, if they wish to do that.

    The Justice Department rejects that approach based on each individual's right to his own life and responsibility to live it as best he can. They prefer to deny everyone, rather than permit some people to enjoy the benefit of a technology that others cannot fully enjoy at present. In other words, everyone must be held down to the standards of the least capable -- in the name of equality of opportunity.

    That's not moral, and it's not just. It's insane.

    Read more...

    Thursday, January 21, 2010

    Hsieh PJM OpEd: A Declaration Of Independents

    By Paul Hsieh

    The January 21, 2010 PajamasMedia has just published my latest OpEd, "Brown's Victory: The Declaration of Independents".

    My theme is that the recent election in Massachusetts (as well as the earlier November 2009 elections in NY, NJ, and VA) show that independent voters want limited government. Specifically, they want "the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms."

    Here's the opening:

    In the aftermath of Scott Brown's stunning upset election victory in Massachusetts, pundits will be debating the meaning and political implications for weeks to come. However, one fact is incontrovertibly clear. The race hinged on the independent voters.

    In Massachusetts, 50% of the registered voters are independent, as opposed to 37% Democratic and 12% Republican. In this week's election, independents voted overwhelmingly for Brown, giving him a 52-to-47% victory -- in a state where Barack Obama easily won 62% of the vote in 2008. This enormous swing shows that the independents represent a powerful political force that neither party can take for granted.

    Independents are also the driving force behind the tea party rallies. Many tea party supporters have been quite explicit in warning that their opposition to the policies of our current Democratic president and Congress should not be mistaken as automatic support for the Republicans.

    So what do the independents want? In a word, limited government...
    (Read the full text of "Brown's Victory: The Declaration of Independents".)

    Read more...

    Objectivist Roundup

    By Diana Hsieh

    Erosophia has the latest Objectivist Roundup.

    Here's how Jenn Casey of Rational Jenn recently explained the Objectivist Roundup -- and what you might do to promote it -- on OActivists :

    In case you're not familiar with the Objectivist Round Up, a "blog carnival" is a regular compilation of blog posts by different authors on a particular subject or theme or other criterion. The only requirement for participation in the Objectivist Round Up is that the author of the blog post be an Objectivist. (That requirement also applies to the weekly hosts.)

    Bloggers take turns hosting the carnival each week, and the edition goes up on Thursdays. The topics vary from week to week, based on the posts submitted by the bloggers who choose to participate that week. Some bloggers participate pretty regularly; others infrequently. A typical edition of the carnival has about 16 - 25 entries.

    Check out the Objectivist Round Up if you haven't had a chance to before now! And pass the links along to others--either a specific post that may have captured your attention, or the link to the carnival edition itself. I know that many of us OBloggers have non-Objectivist readers who enjoy reading the carnival. So in that way, I think the carnival might be considered an activism tool. We generally announce the new edition of the carnival on our own blogs, and post links to Facebook and Twitter, too--where we all have non-Objectivist friends, family, and followers. So if you'd like to do the same, that would be wonderful!

    If you have a blog and are interested in participating in the carnival, you can find more information at our carnival homepage. Or you can email me personally, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

    Thanks for reading, and thanks for spreading the word!

    ~Jenn Casey, administrator of the blog carnival
    Again, here's the latest edition of the latest Objectivist Roundup.

    Read more...

    Freedom of Speech, Somewhat Restored

    By Diana Hsieh

    Wow, this Supreme Court decision sounds like very good news for free speech. Direct campaign contributions are still limited, but the decision "removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns." Wowowowow. That's huge.

    It's a sad sign of the times, however, that the decision was 5-4.

    I look forward to hearing what the good folks at the Institute for Justice -- and Eric Daniels -- have to say about the decision.

    Update: Here's the e-mail about the case that I just got from IJ:

    U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech In Citizens United Case

    Today's Ruling Lets Corporations Speak, But Other Battlefronts Remain

    Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a landmark victory for free speech, making clear in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that under the First Amendment the government cannot stifle dissent by restricting the right of corporations to spend money on independent political speech.

    Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, emphasized that the government's ban on corporate speech was censorship, pure and simple: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful." He added, "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

    "This is the most significant First Amendment decision from the Supreme Court in more than a decade," said Steve Simpson, an Institute for Justice senior attorney who authored the Institute's amicus brief in Citizens United. "The Court has finally struck down blatant censorship that masquerades as campaign finance reform. Slowly but surely, the Court is prying Americans' free speech rights away from the hands of government bureaucrats. The words of the First Amendment--'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech'--demand nothing less."

    The Court overturned a case that had severely limited corporate political speech: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which said that governments could ban corporations from independently speaking out about political candidates. It also overturned parts of McConnell v. FEC, which upheld a ban on "electioneering communications"--corporate- or union-funded broadcast ads that merely mention a candidate shortly before an election.

    The Court did so because it recognized, as the Institute for Justice explained in its brief in the case, that speech bans like these inevitably embolden politicians and self-styled "reformers" to call for even more censorship, such as banning corporate-funded films about candidates, like the nonprofit Citizens United's Hillary: The Movie, or even corporate-funded books if they attack or support a candidate.

    In today's opinion, the Court ruled that everyone, including corporations, has the right to speak out about issues and candidates. The government may not restrict the marketplace of ideas: "The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it." In other words, the First Amendment rejects government paternalism, instead "entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false."

    "Politicians hate criticism and so they sought to heavily regulate--if not ban--the most effective political speech against them," said Chip Mellor, IJ's president and general counsel. "Governments have aimed the campaign finance laws at corporations precisely because they can speak effectively. By overturning Austin and McConnell, the Court has taken a critical first step to restoring robust constitutional protections for free speech."

    In today's decision, although the Court upheld the disclosure provisions that applied to Citizens United, it cited the amicus brief of the Institute for Justice in noting that the "threats, harassments, or reprisals" that disclosure of donors' identities can generate are a "cause of concern." Thus, the Court left open the possibility that other groups engaged in debate on controversial issues could successfully challenge the disclosure provisions.

    So-Called "Fair Elections Now Act"

    Anticipating today's ruling, those advocating campaign finance restrictions have already begun promoting new regulations to "deal with" the freeing of more Americans to speak about politics. One proposal, the "Fair Elections Now Act" in Congress, would publicly fund the campaigns of those who run for federal office, while imposing a host of complicated regulations on candidates and their supporters. (For a 72-second video on FENA, visit: www.ij.org/FENAvideo.)

    "Today, the Court made clear that under the First Amendment, free speech is not a problem to be solved with government bans and red-tape; it is a fundamental right enjoyed by all Americans," said Simpson. "This is a message that congressional proponents of the so-called Fair Elections Now Act--yet another proposal by politicians to stifle speech that threatens their re-election--need to hear."

    Moreover, as IJ Senior Attorney Bert Gall noted, there is nothing to fear from corporate political speech: "Companies do not speak with one voice; instead, they represent a wide variety of viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. So while Wal-Mart may speak out in favor of politicians who support health care reform, other retailers such as Whole Foods may do the opposite. And if Chrysler runs ads on behalf of candidates who won it favorable bankruptcy treatment, institutional investors whose bonds were rendered worthless can now criticize those same politicians. The result is a free-wheeling and uninhibited debate, which is just what the First Amendment is meant to provide."

    The Next Big Free Speech Cases

    Two other cases will give the courts the opportunity to take additional steps toward freeing speech from burdensome and unnecessary campaign finance laws. SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which will be argued in front of the entire D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on January 27, 2010, involves a challenge to a federal law that forces people to sacrifice the First Amendment right to associate in order to exercise the First Amendment right to speak. SpeechNow.org is a group of citizens who wants to band together, pool resources and run ads favoring some candidates and opposing others. But while each person on his own could spend as much as he wants, the law says no one can contribute more than $5,000 to the joint effort. Along with the Center for Competitive Politics, IJ represents SpeechNow.org.

    In Sampson v. Buescher, a group of neighbors who were sued for speaking out against the annexation of their neighborhood into a nearby town have challenged Colorado's burdensome campaign finance regulations of ballot issue advocacy. Under Colorado law, groups that spend as little as $200 speaking for or against a ballot issue must register with the state and disclose the identities, addresses and often employers of anyone who contributes more than $20 to their cause. IJ represents the neighbors in the case, which is currently before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The Institute for Justice defends First Amendment rights and challenges campaign finance laws nationwide. In May 2009, the Institute secured a federal court ruling striking down Florida's electioneering communications law, and IJ previously won a ruling in the Washington Supreme Court that stopped an attempt to regulate media commentary as "in-kind" political contributions. IJ is currently challenging laws in Colorado that suppress speech about ballot issues by grassroots groups and nonprofit organizations, as well as Arizona's "Clean Elections" law for funding political campaigns with taxpayer dollars. For more information, visit www.ij.org/FirstAmendment.
    Hooray!

    Read more...

    Armentrout's Letter

    By Paul Hsieh

    In the wake of the Massachusetts special election, Bryan Armentrout sent the following letter to his elected officials (reposted here with his permission):

    I oppose any effort by the government to control my healthcare and I hope that the developments in Massachusetts will serve as a clear wake up call at your office. No one wants this legislation and the elections and polls strongly support this assertion.

    I urge you to reverse your support and publically oppose healthcare legislation in any form.

    If you continue your support for nationalized healthcare, I will actively work to remove you from office during the next election cycle.

    Thank you for your time.

    Bryan Armentrout
    Thank you for speaking out, Bryan!

    If you wish to tell your elected officials what you think, you can find their contact information here:

    http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

    Read more...

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010

    Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

    By Diana Hsieh

    I'm definitely a fan the various "Hitler Finds Out..." videos, but I'm downright ecstatic about this one: Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat.



    That's just too perfect! Thank you, Massachusetts!

    Read more...

    Open Thread #131

    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...

    Massachusetts Miracle

    By Paul Hsieh

    Now that Scott Brown has been elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, pundits will be discussing the reasons and the significance for weeks to come.

    However, the fallout for the health care debate has begun as Democrats in Congress are starting to shy away from ObamaCare. Even Barney Frank has expressed his doubts about its eventual passage.

    Although we're still a long ways away from genuine free market reforms, last night's election may have halted the momentum towards a seemingly-inevitable government takeover of medicine. Perhaps now, some genuine free market reforms can be part of the health care debate.

    I would like to highlight the fact that the Massachusetts election confirms what Duke University professor John Lewis observed in his superb article in the Fall 2009 issue of The Objective Standard entitled, "Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda":

    ...This is the clarity that Obama has brought to the American political scene. To see a president’s clear and principled commitment to an ideology -- any ideology -- is precisely what America has needed for decades. This sight has helped many people understand the issues at a more fundamental level than they ever have.

    Obama and his congressional allies have unwittingly launched a grass-roots movement that is actively questioning the role of government in our lives. Although a large portion of the protesters remains confused about the principles at stake, an increasing number are gaining clarity. They are coming to see the Democratic proposals for health-care "reform," for instance, not as a matter of new programs backed by good intentions, but as an attack on individual rights and an effort to impose a dictatorship -- as signs at tea parties attest. And many are beginning to see that the Republicans as well have been guilty of such attacks.

    ...Many Americans are now able to see Obama's plans as an assault on the founding principles of this nation. In addition, many Americans realize that time is running out -- that the future is here, today. These two factors are energizing otherwise nonpolitical Americans to literally rally around the flag, to confront their elected representatives, and to turn against the administration in droves.
    Last night, the people of Massachusetts spoke loud and clear to express their rejection of ObamaCare and the underlying ideology.

    Brown may not be a perfect candidate, but his election will buy supporters of free markets and individual some valuable time to promote our ideas.

    Thank you, Massachusetts!

    Update: Barney Frank has apparently gone back on his earlier statements.

    (Cross-posted from the FIRM blog.)

    Read more...

    Tuesday, January 19, 2010

    Telephone Prank Gone Wrong

    By Paul Hsieh

    Yet another reason husbands should not play telephone pranks on their wives:

    Read more...

    Sales in France

    By Paul Hsieh

    Although economic regulations in the US have become increasingly onerous, they're still relatively mild compared to other Western countries.

    For example, I just learned that stores in France must abide by a variety of insane laws in order to hold a sale.

    On January 5, 2010, blogger "DirkBeauregard" in France wrote:

    Hooray, the sales start tomorrow in France. A chance to pick up a few bargains, if you actually have any cash left after Christmas. There again, you can always spend the credit note you got when you took your Christmas presents back, or you can spend all the money you made selling your unwanted gifts on E-Bay.

    So, sales in France. Like everything else in this country, there is specific legislation relating to sales - laws designed to stop unfair competition and protect small shopkeepers from those "all year" sales by large stores who can afford to sell some items at a loss.

    In France out of the sales period, it is actually an offence to knowingly sell goods at a loss, again a measure designed to protect small shopkeepers from large retail groups

    Trading laws stipulate that there are two periods for sales in France. Winter sales from January to February and summer sales from June to July. In each case, the sales last for five weeks. All goods on sale must have been in the shop for a minimum of thirty days prior to the sale date - no buying in cheap stock and selling it as a sale item. Reuctions must be visibly displayed in percentage terms. Labels must also show the old pre-sale price and the new sale price. Retailers are allowed to reduce their prices three times in the sales - after the first fortnight, and again in the final week.

    Outside the official sale periods, retailers are allowed two weeks in the year, to use at their discretion, for extra sales such as pre-Christmas sales or spring sales.

    Shops are allowed to run "special offers" on certain items of stock throughout the year i.e. - a rack of cheap "end of line" clothing.

    Shops that are closing down, or refitting are allowed to hold sales - "everything must go" with written permission from local authorities.
    (I corrected a few typos in the original post, but otherwise quoted it verbatim.)

    How nice of the French government to protect consumers from the danger of being able to purchase goods from willing merchants at low prices year-round!

    (Via Tyler Cowen.)

    Read more...

    Monday, January 18, 2010

    Link-O-Rama

    By Diana Hsieh

  • Funny: When the automatic sink turns off.

  • My inner rationalist wants calendar reform. I like the idea of twelve regular 28-day months, with some weekday-less holidays sprinkled throughout the year.

  • Halfway through watching this collection of videos on The Top 10 Worst Attempts At Cutting Down A Tree, I lost all respect for the human race. You have been warned!

    Read more...
  • The Lucidicus Project

    By Paul Hsieh

    [This a special guest post from Jared Rhoads highlighting the work he's done for The Lucidicus Project. I hope other Objectivists find this as informative and inspiring as I did. -- Paul]



    NoodleFoodler Paul Hsieh recently invited me to write about the healthcare activism that I do under the banner of The Lucidicus Project.

    For those who haven't heard of it before, The Lucidicus Project is a small educational initiative that I started back in 2005. Our mission is to help med students learn more about the moral and economic case for capitalism.

    (This, of course, is done with the selfish hope that they will go on to become better defenders of their own rights -- and in so doing, help create a freer system in which they can deliver the type of high-quality care and innovative treatments from which everyone can benefit.)

    We engage in a variety of activism, including publishing editorials on Lucidicus.org, getting involved in Tea Parties, writing LTEs, and so on. But by far what we enjoy most is sending out our "self-defense kit" to med students.

    The kit we have put together contains an assortment of pro-capitalism books and materials, including Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's article "How Not to Fight Against Socialized Medicine."

    One of the biggest hits with recipients is the audio CD of Dr. Peikoff's Ford Hall Forum speech, "Medicine: Death of a Profession." It's a very stirring overview, and it's perfect for busy med students to listen to on the go. It also demonstrates the power of thinking in principles, since it was delivered nearly 25 years ago yet every word is still relevant today.



    On January 2nd, we awarded our 50th kit. It's a proud achievement for a grassroots project with such a niche focus. As you can imagine, med students are about as challenging a demographic as one can choose. For starters, there are relatively few of them and they are extremely busy with courses, labs, and rotations. Many are not interested in politics. Some believe that philosophy is nothing more than the hogwash that their freshman-year humanities professor taught.

    To make matters worse, the culture in med school is thoroughly altruistic; the desire "to help people" and "to serve others" is often pushed as the only valid reason for entering medicine.

    Despite the challenges, though, each med student we reach represents a potentially tremendous gain. Imagine how beneficial it would be to have 100, 200, or 1,000 doctors stand up and defend their right to practice medicine free of coercion, controls, and social welfare programs. Big-government advocates pushing socialized medicine wouldn't stand a chance.

    So that's what we're shooting for. Chipping away at the unearned guilt; ending the sanction of the victim.

    I'm thrilled that there are multiple groups out there with similar values and goals -- namely AFCM, FIRM, the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. We have lots of different angles covered, including different niches, issues, geographies, you-name-it. In a world where conservatives don't know what they believe, and the Tea Party movement is at risk of drifting away, we need all the help we can get.

    Lately our focus has been on health reform. We've been writing letters to Congress, LTEs to newspapers, Tweeting, and more. Typically we concentrate on long-term philosophy rather than narrow politics, but these health reform bills are not your average pieces of legislation. In 2010, we'll be getting back to our core focus on getting more kits out to med students.

    Please -- if you're interested in healthcare as an issue -- get involved. There are lots of ways to do so.

    If you have the time and can put pen to paper, consider writing a guest editorial for Lucidicus.org. If you don't have the time, but have the money, consider making a donation. (In case you're curious, it costs us roughly $37 to send out a kit, but donations of any size are always a big help.) If you have neither time nor money, but have a blog, then give us a link and send some traffic our way.

    Or go solo. Or help out with one of the other organizations mentioned above. The point is, if you enjoy doing it and if you think it makes a difference, then give it a shot. More people are listening than you think.

    Read more...

    Back to TOP