NoodleFood

Sunday Open Thread #74

2009-07-05T00:01:00.000-06:00

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.)

Some Notes on Maine

2009-07-04T12:15:00.000-06:00

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.

Sarah Palin Resigns

2009-07-04T05:08:00.004-06:00

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.

Objectivist Roundup

2009-07-03T11:01:00.000-06:00

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

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

2009-07-03T04:54:00.004-06:00

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.

Today's X-Ray

2009-07-02T00:01:00.000-06:00

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.

Wednesday Open Thread #73

2009-07-01T00:01:00.000-06:00

Good News on Free Speech

2009-06-30T00:01:00.001-06:00

Wow, this news from the Institute for Justice is surprisingly hopeful:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 29,2009

First Amendment Blockbuster at the Supreme Court:

Court Orders New Arguments in Citizens United, Majority Appears Poised
To Strike Down Electioneering Communications and Corporate Speech Bans

First-Ever Study of Impact on Nonprofits Demonstrates Need
To Rein in Out-of-Control Speech Regulations

Arlington, Va.--The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered a new round of oral arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, the "Hillary: The Movie" case. The Court wants parties to address whether Austin v. Michigan, a case that bans certain political speech by corporations, including nonprofit corporations such as Citizens United, should be overturned. The Court also wants to consider whether part of McConnell v. FEC, upholding the so-called "electioneering communications" ban in McCain-Feingold, should likewise be overturned and the ban struck down entirely.

"The Court has set up a blockbuster case about Americans' First Amendment rights to join together and speak freely about politics," said Steve Simpson, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Citizens United v. FEC. "A majority of the High Court appears to recognize the grave threat to free speech posed by both the electioneering communications ban in McCain-Feingold and the ban on corporate political speech. This case could mark a significant advance for First Amendment rights and will have major implications for state laws nationwide."

Indeed, a study released today shows the critical need to rein in speech regulations that have flourished since the Court upheld the electioneering communications ban in McConnell. At least 15 states have electioneering communications laws, and in many cases those laws regulate even more speech by more groups than the federal ban. Indeed, just last month, in response to a lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice, a federal judge struck down Florida's law. He noted that "no court has ever upheld such a sweeping regulation of political speech."

The study is the first ever to examine the impact of speech regulations on the kind of nonprofit corporations at issue in Austin. The study shows that these laws impose on nonprofit groups a heavy regulatory burden for their speech and most lack the resources to comply. "Locking Up Political Speech: How Electioneering Communications Laws Burden Free Speech and Civic Engagement" by political scientist Dr. Michael Munger of Duke University is available at http://www.ij.org/citizensunited.

"Since McCain-Feingold, campaign finance regulation has exploded, leaving practically no room for free speech about politics," said Bill Maurer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice and lead counsel for the Institute on its Citizens United brief. "With each new regulation, more citizens are shut out of the political process. That is why it is essential for the Court to revisit and indeed overturn Austin and McConnell."

The Citizens United case came about because the Federal Election Commission banned the airing of "Hillary: The Movie," produced by the nonprofit Citizens United, on cable TV and required the group to "name names" of the film's backers by disclosing to the government detailed personal information about donors if the group ran TV ads for the film. At oral argument, justices appeared concerned that if the government could ban corporate-funded films about candidates, it could also ban books. Revisiting Austin and McConnell allows the Court to fully consider whether speech regulation has gone too far.

"The Court will now squarely confront the inevitable consequences of regulating political speech: If the government can ban ads, it can ban movies and books as well," said Simpson. "But we don't ban books in America. Once you start regulating political speech, there is no place to stop. This is exactly why the First Amendment forbids government from controlling and limiting speech in the first place."

Simpson continued, "It takes money to speak effectively, so the right to free speech must include the right to spend money and raise money to make that speech heard."

"Reconsidering Austin and McConnell is a critical start to fixing what is wrong with campaign finance regulation, but it should not be the end," said Simpson. "The root of the problem stretches back 30 years to Buckley: the belief that some speech deserves government regulation simply because it advocates for one candidate over another. In America, we have the right to try to convince fellow citizens how to vote. It's called 'political speech,' and it's exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect. We cannot fully protect First Amendment rights until the Court does away with the distinction between 'good' speech and 'bad' speech altogether."

All my hopes are with Steve Simpson and the other good folks at the Institute for Justice! I am so grateful for their hard work hard to protect our rights -- and for this ray of sunshine in the bleak landscape of American politics today.

Yaron Brook at Virginia GOP

2009-06-29T00:01:00.000-06:00

On May 30, 2009, Yaron Brook gave the following speech to the Virginia Republican Party as their keynote speaker.

He gave a strong, principled defense of individual rights, capitalism, and the separation of church and state. And he properly blamed the Repubicans for their failure to uphold these basic American ideals.

You can watch his talk here at the ARC-TV website.

His speech is also available on the ARI YouTube channel in two parts -- Part 1 and Part 2:

Recap #48

2009-06-28T14:00:00.002-06:00

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

Monday, June 22, 2009: Market-Based Reforms at Safeway by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, June 23, 2009: The Unfree Market in Health Care by Paul Hsieh, MD
Wednesday, June 24, 2009: Will on the Public Option by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, June 25, 2009: Armstrong: Reject Political Control Of Health Care by Paul Hsieh, MD

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

Thursday, June 25, 2009: Farm Policy Article in The Objective Standard by Monica
Saturday, June 27, 2009: Science vs. Dogma by Monica
Saturday, June 27, 2009: HR 2749, Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 by Monica

Sunday Open Thread #72

2009-06-28T00:01:00.000-06:00

Vegans Versus Carnivores

2009-06-27T07:01:00.001-06:00

Heh: I can't possibly summarize this delight from Passive Agressive Notes for you. You'll just have to look. (Via The Hoondat Report)

(My apologies for the light blogging. I'm insanely busy right now, and my queue is still bare.)

Gay Marriage Argument Chart

2009-06-26T14:03:00.000-06:00

Heh: a chart of arguments about gay marriage. (Via somewhere I can't recall.)

Yaron Brook and Peter Schiff

2009-06-26T00:01:00.000-06:00

I've not yet had a chance to watch Yaron Brook's many interviews posted online over the past few months, with one exception: this stellar 19 minute in-studio interview of Yaron Brook and Peter Schiff on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch. To hear The Virtue of Selfishness discussed in such a positive way was mind-blowing, but I was particularly pleased to see Dr. Brook -- once again -- hammer on the moral fundamentals, rather than merely skimming the political surface.

You can find that interview, plus tons of other multimedia goodies, collected at the new web site ARC TV. Clearly, I have lots of catching up to do!

Objectivist Roundup

2009-06-25T13:19:00.000-06:00

Rule of Reason has the latest Objectivist Roundup. Go check it out!

The Hell of Perpetual Youth

2009-06-25T00:01:00.002-06:00

Wow: Doctors Baffled, Intrigued by Girl Who Doesn't Age:

Brooke Greenberg is the size of an infant, with the mental capacity of a toddler. She turned 16 in January. "Why doesn't she age?" Howard Greenberg, 52, asked of his daughter. "Is she the fountain of youth?"

Such questions are why scientists are fascinated by Brooke. Among the many documented instances of children who fail to grow or develop in some way, Brooke's case may be unique, according to her doctor, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine pediatrician Lawrence Pakula, in Baltimore. "Many of the best-known names in medicine, in their experience ... had not seen anyone who matched up to Brooke," Pakula said. "She is always a surprise."

Brooke hasn't aged in the conventional sense. Dr. Richard Walker of the University of South Florida College of Medicine, in Tampa, says Brooke's body is not developing as a coordinated unit, but as independent parts that are out of sync. She has never been diagnosed with any known genetic syndrome or chromosomal abnormality that would help explain why.

The whole story is well worth reading. Her medical history is interesting -- albeit in a kind of gruesome way. However, I'm far more disturbed by the way in which the family, particularly the parents, have devoted their whole lives to caring for this perpetual child.

Brooke has a caretaker during daytime hours, but the family's schedule revolves around her, year after year. The Greenbergs take no vacations, have few nights out and involve Brooke in as many family activities as possible. "To go to a swimming pool for the summer, or belong to a summer club ... we tried all those things, and it's lacking something," her mother said. "Brooke's not there. We're not a family without Brooke."

And, of course, Brooke goes to school at taxpayer expense:

Brooke goes to a Baltimore County public school, Ridge Ruxton, dedicated to special education. Based on her age, she would be a junior in high school. Jewel Adiele, one of Brooke's teachers, said she wonders sometimes what Brooke is thinking or perceiving.

Brooke's whole life is a strange kind of tragedy. It's abhorrent to think of her parents caring for her as a perpetual infant until the end of their days, but I cannot see what else they might do. And what will happen to her if she outlives them? Will her siblings inherit the burden, as often happens with severely autistic children? Even worse, the parents seem in the grip of warm and fuzzy feelings for their daughter, not guided by an honest recognition of the degradation and sacrifice involved in caring for a perpetual infant. They're spending their one and only lives on the care of a creature that -- by its very nature -- is more like a pet than a daughter. That's a terrible waste of a life.

Nixon on Abortion

2009-06-24T12:01:00.000-06:00

These revelations about Richard Nixon are morally repugnant on so many levels:

On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family." But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases -- like interracial pregnancies, he said.

"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," he told an aide, before adding, "Or a rape."

UGH. (Via Ari Armstrong, who sent me the link in e-mail with the subject line "i hate nixon part 981." Seriously.)

Wednesday Open Thread #71

2009-06-24T00:01:00.000-06:00

Moose!

2009-06-23T13:27:00.001-06:00

Wow, this is undoubtedly the best moose story ever. (Via Amy Mossoff.)

Another Doctor "Goes Galt"

2009-06-23T00:01:00.000-06:00

Psychiatrist-blogger "Dr. Sanity" explain why she's stopped fighting against socialized medicine. Here are some excerpts from her June 13, 2009 blog post:

THIS TIME, I DON'T CARE ANYMORE...LET THE ZOMBIES TAKE OVER MEDICINE

...My entire professional life as a physician and psychiatrist I have been exceptionally vocal about the prospect of government medicine here in the US. I have given impassioned speeches (when I was younger); written essays in medical journals and elsewhere; and talked until I am blue in the face to anyone and everyone about the horrors of socialized medicine and government interference in the health care system of this country. Once it would have seemed impossible that I would ever want to quit medicine; to stop practicing psychiatry.

I have watched with dismay as every year we have inched closer and closer to the Democrats and the left's goals; goals which I firmly believe will completely destroy American medicine. I have watched up close and personal the utter soul-destroying consequences to both patients and doctors alike, of the pervasive cultural collectivist and looter thinking in my specialty. Every time this madness is killed, it just doesn't stay dead. Like some kind of putrefying zombie, the left just keeps resurrecting it. Logic doesn't matter. Facts don't matter.

Let's face it. To the zombies of the left, reality doesn't matter. With President Postmodern in office, aided and abetted by zombie hordes in Congress; why should I pretend anymore that it does?

This time around, I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE. If that's what people want, so be it.

I'm done. If Congress passes Obama's destructive zombie health plan in any form, I quit.

I will simply not practice medicine anymore. I will take my psychiatry books and my years of experience and do something else. I used to wait tables when I was in college. It's an honest living and Obama isn't interested for the time being in nationalizing restaurants--yet.

Let me be clear. I don't believe that people have a "right" to health care; because, what advocating such a "right" basically means is that you believe you have a "right" to my mind; you have a "right" to my professional competence; i.e., you have a "right" to enslave me.

Read the whole thing.

This doctor understands the central moral issue -- namely, that "guaranteed" health care enslaves the physician.

If Obama's health care plan passes, we'll see more doctors taking her approach and quitting the field.

And yet another "prophecy" from Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged will have become true. In the words of the character Dr. Hendricks:

Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything -- except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the "welfare" of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only "to serve."

...I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind -- yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?

(Cross posted from the We Stand FIRM blog.)

On Nudism

2009-06-22T00:01:00.001-06:00

Katie Granju on the fundamental problem with nudism:

I used to know a man who did restaurant health inspections for the state, and one of the food service establishments on his regular route happened to be the cafeteria at some "naturalist" colony in Middle [Tennessee]. I'll never forget his story about how odd and vulnerable and unattractive all the nudists seemed when he would encounter them pressed up against the protective glass on the salad bar line, or queued up for a second helping of banana pudding. Really, nobody, and I mean nobody can pull off looking good au naturel when illuminated by flourescent bulbs and clutching a plastic cafeteria tray topped with a sloppy joe.

Heh.

I'm not stuffy about my own nudity, in the sense that I don't much care if other people see me naked. However, I presume that other people don't wish to see me naked, hopefully just as much as I really don't want to see them naked. Even if a person is not repulsive, I'm just not interested in observing them in all their glory. Rolls of fat, saggy breasts, and/or a shriveled frank and beans don't augment a person's appeal to the eye. So outside a sexual context, I'd much, much rather admire even the most attractive person in flattering clothing than naked. They'll surely look better. Conversely, if someone other than Paul did want to see me naked, that would be creepy. It would indicate a most unwelcome kind of interest in me.

In any case, the point about all that is to say that (1) I'm not prudish about nudity but (2) nudism completely baffles me. Why do some people -- mostly men, it seems -- feel a need to put their usually less-than-attractive bodies on display? I just don't get it.

(Just to be clear, I have no objections whatsoever to women breastfeeding in public. The objections to that practice strike me as prudish, precisely because the practice of breastfeeding is good and proper.)

Recap #47

2009-06-21T14:36:00.000-06:00

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

Monday, June 15, 2009: Another Doctor "Goes Galt" by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, June 16, 2009: Informative Links by Paul Hsieh, MD
Wednesday, June 17, 2009: Five More Reasons To Oppose ObamaCare by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, June 18, 2009: Catron's Warning by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, June 19, 2009: Harrington on the Public Plan by Paul Hsieh, MD

Sunday Open Thread #70

2009-06-21T00:01:00.001-06:00

Blood Pressure

2009-06-20T15:56:00.001-06:00

I was at my doctor's office not long ago to address a long-neglected problem. My blood pressure -- which had risen to around 130/90 for some time before my change in diet -- was 94/72. My doctor said that blood pressure in that low range is not a problem unless a person is suffering from symptoms like dizziness. Since I'm suffering no such symptoms: Hooray!

Macronutriets

2009-06-20T12:04:00.001-06:00

Of late, mostly out of curiosity, I've tracked my eating on FitDay. The numbers are definitely approximate -- not only because the food quantities inputted are mere educated guesses, but also because all foods vary in their composition more than the numbers given suggest. Moreover, some of the foods I eat aren't in the database or labeled. So I'm not sure what the average fat composition of my raw milk is, nor the amount of carbohydrates left after fermenting it into kefir.

Despite that, I've seen a consistent trend in macronutrients. I eat about 20% carbohydrates, 25% protein, and 55% fat. Right now, I'm only eating about 1500 calories per day because I'm in weight-loss mode. (I'd probably eat about 2000 calories otherwise.) Consequently, I'm eating an average of 77 g of protein, 90 g of protein, and 96 g of fat every day.

Let's compare my numbers with those of two other approaches to diet I've tried, without success:

	Diana	The Zone	USDA Food Pyramid
Carbs	20%	40%	45-65%
Protein	25%	30%	10-35%
Fat	55%	30%	20 to 35%

Nearly a year later, I'm still completely happy with my diet. I've strayed from it on rare occasion, usually for something sweet. However, I've almost always found the pleasure not worth the pain. I've not felt like I've given up anything of genuine value to me. And the benefits have been huge. I've lost 19 pounds of fat so far, meaning that I have just one more to lose to reach my goal of 130 pounds. I'm stronger than ever before, and my energy levels are consistently high. When deciding what to eat for a meal, the question is often of the form "Which of the many delicious things that I love to eat will I enjoy now?"

Life is good!