His wife Shin Suk-ja was horrified by the idea of going to the North and opposed it from the start. “Do you know what kind of place it is?” she asked. “You have not even been there once. How can you make such a reckless decision?”

But Oh replied that the Northerners were Koreans too – they “cannot be that brutal”, he told her.

So at the end of November 1985, Oh, his wife and two young daughters travelled via East Berlin and Moscow to Pyongyang.

When they arrived at Pyongyang airport, Oh began to see he had made a mistake in coming. Communist party officials and children clutching flowers were there to meet them. But despite the cold of a North Korean December, the children were not wearing socks and their traditional clothes were so thin that they shivered. “When I saw this I was really surprised and my wife even started to cry.”

Oh Kil-nam was able to escape, but as of his last contact with his wife and daughters in 1991, they were in a labor camp. They’re probably dead now — or so I hope, based on what I’ve read of North Korea’s labor camps.

At the end of the article, Oh Kil-nam says:

I hope there will come a day when I can meet my family again, hug them and embrace them, and cry tears of happiness. If it does happen it will be the happiest day of my life.

The man couldn’t possible deserve that, not in a million years. The evil that he did to his family is simply overwhelming: he delivered his reluctant family into the hands of the world’s most brutal dictatorship. He could never make amends for that. He could never earn forgiveness. He could never be redeemed. No suffering that he could endure in this life could possibly compensate for what he did to his family.

A person can overcome most moral wrongs… but some evils are just too heinous for that.

• 22 May 2012: Hsieh PJM OpEd: Dr. Orwell Will See You Now by Paul Hsieh
  
• 23 May 2012: Quick Links: Canada, Nanny State, MLR by Paul Hsieh
  
• 23 May 2012: Catron: Catholic Institutions Revolt Against HHS by Paul Hsieh
  
• 24 May 2012: Scherz and Armstrong: There Will Never Be Another Mayo Clinic by Paul Hsieh
  
• 25 May 2012: Quick Links: Stossel, Wolf, Pharma Cronyism by Paul Hsieh

• 23 May 2012: Weekly Quote by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela

• 22 May 2012: How To Have Perfect Teeth and Healthy Gums By Saturating Your Mouth With Lots Of Sugar Every Day AFTER Lazily Brushing For Just 2 Minutes In The Morning by David Lewis
  
• 25 May 2012: Question of the Week: Bitter Greens by Diana Hsieh
  
• 25 May 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #112 by Diana Hsieh
  
• 26 May 2012: Philosophy Weekend: Q&A Radio Preview by Diana Hsieh
  
• 27 May 2012: Hsieh PJM OpEd: Dr. Orwell Will See You Now by Paul Hsieh

For anyone wishing to ask a question, make a observation, or share a link with other NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. As always, please refrain from posting inappropriate comments such as personal attacks, pornographic material, copyrighted material, and commercial solicitations.

NoodleFood’s Open Threads feature creative commons photographs from Flickr that I find interesting. I hope that you enjoy them!

I discuss the various forms of deceptive language ObamaCare advocates in and out of the government are now using to sugarcoat and obfuscate its true nature.

Terms like “affordable”, “protection”, “autonomy”, “marketplace”, and “coverage” all take on new meanings for ObamaCare supporters. They even have their own version of Orwell’s famous “Slavery is Freedom”.

Don’t be fooled by their health care Newspeak!

See full text: “Dr. Orwell Will See You Now“

His song about it is darn funny too:

I made up that pithy phrase in response to the idiotic “Obama Eats Dog!” flap, but really, it’s suitable for almost every dispute between Democrats and Republicans in America today. I’m sure that you can find lots of uses for it as the election draws near.

Is doing activities just to pad you application or resumé dishonest? Some people work on mastering playing the violin, competing in tennis tournaments, learning calculus, and other activities – not because they have any interest in them or because they think they might develop an interest once tried, but rather because they think these activities will look good on an application or resumé. Is that dishonest? Is it unwise?

I’ve already given my answer, but Rachel Garrett wrote up the following comments that I thought pretty interesting and worth posting here. She wrote:

My answer is premised on the idea that you have a purpose and a career that you’re serious about. Peter Keating, of course, was merely into architecture to gain social prestige. So he had no problem with the idea of striving to master badminton (“the game of kings and earls”) in order to kiss up to a potential client. If someone is second-handed in choosing a career, of course they will choose second-hand hobbies that will look good to the clients or colleagues whom they seek to please.

By contrast, I have a hard time imagining a career first-hander pursuing any long-term, systematic course of action (including hobbies) for the sake of a mere resumé blurb or interview talking point. Maybe that’s how they account for the origin of their interest, or they semi-joke about it in conversation (“I’m only doing it for my resumé.”) But calculus? Tennis? Violin? Seriously? I can’t see how that’s practical or effective.

“I’m going to spend hours of leisure time every week keeping advanced mathematics fresh in my mind, working problems, and reading math textbooks and journals — not because I actually want to or because the knowledge is required for my chosen career, but because at the intervals every few years when I change jobs, I think there’s a chance that the line about calculus on the Hobbies/Interests section of the second page of my resumé will make a positive impression on the HR admin who’s screening applications. If I’m lucky, maybe the person who interviews me will also notice it and think nice thoughts about me.”

*sigh* “I guess I’ll go practice that Brahms sonata again. I’m getting good at the solo on the second page. Too bad I don’t actually like playing violin. I hope I get an interview at PharmCo. I heard the vice president of the division I want to work in likes classical music. Maybe if I get interviewed, he will see that part about violin on my resumé and get a warm fuzzy. We might even casually chat about it before we get down to the actual business of the interview. Yeah, that would be real nice. Crap, I’d better buy tickets for the symphony concert next week. I hate to go — there’s a violin concerto on the program — but the VP might mention it as we’re chit-chatting, and it would look weird if I claim to be into violin but hadn’t gone to see that famous soloist when they were in town.”

Let me generalize and take the question less literally. You have an objective need to signal your positive qualities to people who will make decisions about whether they want to be your friend, marry you, hire you, etc. Is it ever OK to engage in activities for the sake of sending the right signal to people who you want to befriend, work for, etc.? I already indicated that I thought this was impractical for learning-intensive, lifelong hobbies. But what about ordinary activities that don’t take that kind of investment? Are they legitimate “padding” candidates? Some of the questions you have to answer are:

1) Are you telling the truth? E.g., are you taking on a nonprofit project in order to showcase organizational skills on your resumé, when in fact you have pitiful organizational skills and it’s your professional Achilles’ heel?

2) What’s your motive for wanting the other person to have this information about you? Do you think they really need it in order to make an objective decision? Does it open up the door to conversations about shared interests and values? Or do you merely want to bask in their approval?

3) If you think you have a positive quality, you must already have supporting evidence from your own life. Why can’t you share that evidence with the other person? Why do you have to take the indirect route? You’re proposing doing an activity in order to have evidence suitable to give to someone else about something about yourself that you already know – it’s circituitous. I’m not saying it’s impossible or improper. But you might be overlooking something or making erroneous assumptions about how well the other person can evaluate you based on already-existing evidence.

Sticking to hiring, here are some further considerations. If you are assessing your professional qualifications, and you realize that you’re deficient in some area, it’s not wrong to look for a volunteer activity or hobby to fill that gap. For instance, volunteering at a local nonprofit might result in developing your leadership or project management skills. Maybe the nonprofit will let you run a big project end-to-end, while at work you’re in a junior, coordinating role under a senior project manager.

But if you are really doing it “just for the resumé,” I would question the wisdom of that. If you want to add an activity or project to your resumé, it’s because you want to show potential employers that you have a particular skill or strength. There’s two logical possibilities:

1) If in reality you don’t yet have that skill or strength, or you haven’t reached your desired level, then you want to develop it. Naturally and secondarily, you’d follow up by putting the developmental experiences on your resumé. But if this is the case, you’re not just “doing it for the resumé” – you’re doing it for development.

2) If you do have the skill/strength already, and you feel that you have to go do something extra outside of work so that people will see it, that’s a red flag. It says that here’s a characteristic that you want potential employers to find in you, but you’re not using it in your current job. You need to find or create aspects of your job that would use that skill. Then you can figure out how to frame it on the resumé.

Thank you, Rachel!

Breckenridge Brewery will look to build its new brewery on the East Coast, taking with it 50 to 75 jobs that otherwise would have been created in the Denver area, because of the Colorado Legislature’s failure to pass a bill that would have changed state law to allow it to expand, its president said Monday.

Ed Cerkovnik said without House Bill 1347 — a bill that passed a House committee unanimously but that House leaders will allow to die without a vote this week because of opposition that mounted to it from several industries — the brewery cannot hold a license to operate several brewpubs at the same time it holds a license to operate a manufacturing plant that produces more than 60,000 barrels a year in Colorado.

Gee thanks, Colorado! We wouldn’t want those jobs created in our state!

This week, I’ll be broadcasting live from ATLOSCon 2012. Alas, I’ll be without Greg, but I’ll have a live in-person audience.

• What: Live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio


• Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins


• When: Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET


• Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

• Question 1: Disclosing Atheism to Babysitters: Should I mention we are atheists when interviewing babysitters? I am looking for a babysitter. The question is: How do I handle the fact that many of the candidates will be very very strong Christians? Should I bring up the fact we are atheists right away or would that be creating an issue when there could be none? I definitely have to set some boundaries like “No praying with my children,” but what is the appropriate way to handle it?


• Question 2: Outing Yourself to Bigots: Am I obliged to disclose that I am gay if I know that the person then wouldn’t wish to do business with me? Let’s say that I have a job that I enjoy, but I find out that my boss does not like gay people and would refuse to hire or would fire anyone that she knew was gay. Somehow, she doesn’t know that I am, in fact, gay. Should I tell her knowing that she would want to fire me – a decision that I think is wrong, but nonetheless something she should be free to do? Assume that in every other regard I enjoy my work and job and sharing her discriminatory view is by no means a requirement for my work.


• Question 3: Spousal Sabotage: How can I stop my spouse from sabotaging my self-improvement? Over the course of my 15 years of marriage, I’d gained over 100 pounds. After feeling disgusted with myself for too long, I decided to change my habits. So I switched to a paleo-type diet and started lifting weights. So far, I’ve lost 40 pounds, as well as shed some health problems. My husband still eats what he pleases, and I don’t pester him about that, although he needs to eat better too. However, he’s constantly attempting to undermine my efforts – for example, by bringing home and encouraging me to eat doughnuts. I want him to celebrate and support my new-found success, but he seems to want me to be fat, unhealthy, and miserable. What should I do?


• Question 4: Skipping Advertisements: Is it wrong to skip over advertisements? Many people use plug-ins that block advertisements on web sites, and many more people skip advertisements on television by recording shows with the DVR. Is this moral? Is it a failure to act as a trader?

If you attend live, you can share your thoughts and ask questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode’s archive page: Q&A Radio: 27 May 2012.

Also, don’t forget to Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Show Archives, where you can listen to the audio from whole episodes or just selected questions. And visit to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming broadcasts.

I hope to see you in the chat on Sunday morning!

Many progressives had a free-floating, unprincipled, pathological hatred of George W. Bush. Increasingly, as the 2012 election approaches, I see the same damn thing from conservatives: a free-floating, unprincipled, pathological hatred of Barack Obama. These men could smile at a puppy, and their haters would go ballistic. As a result, the genuine and serious evils of these men are lost in a frothy sea of overpowering vitriol. That’s not good. So I urge you… be discriminating!

Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio is a live, hour-long internet radio show, broadcast every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET via BlogTalkRadio. In each episode, I answer questions from the queue, applying rational principles to the challenges of real life.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live show, you’ll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode’s archive page: Q&A Radio: 20 May 2012.

To automatically download every new episode, just subscribe to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed in your music player:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
  
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

The Podcast: Episode: 20 May 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:06:50

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (16.2 MB)
  
• Download the Standard MP3 File (15.4 MB)

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I’ll be travelling, then broadcasting from ATLOSCon 2012 next week! Due to those travels, I won’t be broadcasting my “Advice Radio” show on Wednesday evening.

Philosophy in Action’s broadcasts are available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing them, but they’re not free to produce: they require our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar!

Question 1: Warning Others about Dangerous People (3:05)

Question: Should you warn others about vicious people in your community? If you know a person to be dishonest, but that person is well-regarded in your community, should you tell others in that community what you know? Does it matter if the person is in a position of authority (perhaps over an organization’s finances), such that he could do a whole lot of damage? What kinds of immorality would be serious enough to warrant warning others?

My Answer, In Brief: If you know of a wolf in sheep’s clothing threatening your values and your community, don’t remain silent. You need to speak and act – but do that carefully.

Question 2: Responding to an Unjust Firing (21:37)

Question: Should an employer have to explain and justify his firing of an employee? Should an employer be able to fire an employee for some alleged misconduct, even though the employer never bothered to verify the misconduct, nor asked the employee for his side of the story? For example, suppose that when the employee shows up for work he is simply told that he’s been fired because someone made a complaint about him. The employee could easily prove the complaint to be false but the employer isn’t concerned with proof or lack thereof. The employee’s reputation in the eyes of possible future employers is damaged, even if the employer never discusses the firing with anyone else. In such a case, should the employee be able to sue for having been fired without proper cause?

My Answer, In Brief: In a free society, absent a contract, employers are entitled to fire employees at will, including for unjust reasons or in unjust ways. An employee wrongfully fired should move on with his life, stating the facts about what happened as necessary to protect his reputation.

Links:

• Wikipedia: United Breaks Guitars

Question: What is the difference between “investment” and “sacrifice”? In your February 26, 2012 webcast, you indicated that you regard sacrifices as something very different from investments. But doesn’t sacrifice just mean giving up something? In that case, don’t investments in the future require sacrifice now? Or: What’s the difference between sacrificing some ease and comfort for your goal versus investing time and work to achieve a goal?

My Answer, In Brief: The term “sacrifice” is a confused mess that conflates loss for its own sake with loss for the sake of greater gain. A person ought to pursue his own life and happiness, which means pursuing investments, not sacrifices.

Question 4: Downloading Music After Hard Drive Failure (51:50)

Question: Does respecting intellectual property require me to re-purchase my music collection lost due to hard drive failure? Over the years I have purchased quite a bit of digital music and have built quite a large library. Recently, due to a computer crash and lack of backup, a large segment of that library was erased. Since I paid for all of the music that was lost, I would like to restore it, whether by copying from my friends or by downloading illegal copies from the internet. But I am not entirely sure what I have the right to do based on my original purchases. What do you think?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s perfectly moral to obtain new copies of intellectual property that you’ve lost, but be careful about your choice of means: obtain the lost files from friends, not piracy-peddling web sites.

Rapid Fire Questions (1:01:07)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• What’s the proper meaning of the word “greedy”?

Support Philosophy in Action

Philosophy in Action’s broadcasts are available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing them, but they’re not free for us to produce: they require our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly

Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to our tip jar! You make our work possible, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about Philosophy in Action to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming episodes.

• 14 May 2012: Roy: Will Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines Reduce Costs? by Paul Hsieh
  
• 15 May 2012: Heib: ObamaCare and the Road to Serfdom by Paul Hsieh
  
• 15 May 2012: Quick Links: Scherz, Catron by Paul Hsieh
  
• 16 May 2012: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending? by Paul Hsieh
  
• 17 May 2012: Wolf Unleashed by Paul Hsieh
  
• 17 May 2012: Reliability of Clinical Practice Guidelines? by Paul Hsieh
  
• 18 May 2012: Good News On Personal Genetic Testing by Paul Hsieh

• 16 May 2012: Crossing Your Fingers with Abstinence-Only Sex Education by Diana Hsieh

• 14 May 2012: Image of the Week by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 15 May 2012: France Facing a Brain Drain by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 16 May 2012: Weekly Quote by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 17 May 2012: Real Clear Markets Gets It Right! by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 18 May 2012: Famous Immigrant of the Week – Cesar Millan by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela

• 15 May 2012: High Heels and Sex Appeal by Diana Hsieh
  
• 18 May 2012: Question of the Week: Roast Chicken by Diana Hsieh
  
• 18 May 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #111 by Diana Hsieh
  
• 19 May 2012: Philosophy Weekend: Q&A Radio Preview by Diana Hsieh
  
• 20 May 2012: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending? by Paul Hsieh

For anyone wishing to ask a question, make a observation, or share a link with other NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. As always, please refrain from posting inappropriate comments such as personal attacks, pornographic material, copyrighted material, and commercial solicitations.

NoodleFood’s Open Threads feature creative commons photographs from Flickr that I find interesting. I hope that you enjoy them!

I took that [photograph] just before my SuperSlow workout… in which I nearly died because my trainer moved the seat of the leg press forward a bit. She lessened the weight by 25 pounds too, but the bottom turn-around was horrific. At the end, I was yelling things like “OH MY GOD! NO, I’M NOT HOLDING! THAT WAS THE WORST THING EVER!” My trainer — and everyone else in the facility — was highly amused.

Of course, I plan to do that same awful leg press next week. I refuse to be beaten!

Well, I did that awful leg press the next week, and this time, we took video. It’s pretty awesome. Now, I must admonish you: Don’t hit the play button, then go browse some other web pages or switch to another program. You must watch the picture! I won’t explain further; you’ll hear what I mean.

This was the last machine of my workout, and I was so exhausted that I couldn’t manage to walk the 20 feet required to get to the waiting area all at once. I’m serious: I had to stop and sit down on the bicep machine for about five minutes!

Interestingly, I found the video genuinely helpful, as I can really see when I’m moving too fast or wiggling. That’s remarkably hard to feel at the time. I wonder if I could help correct my form problems on the row machine by recording and then watching video with my trainer. Video would probably be even more helpful for CrossFitters: I probably could have vastly improved the form of my Olympic lifts if I’d watched some video of them with my trainer.

So just how bad are heels for your feet? Consider these two x-rays. First, a normal foot, standing flat on the ground:

Now, a foot in high heels:

The abnormal stress and weight on the ball foot is glaringly obvious — and we’re not even seeing how the toes are jammed into the narrow point of the shoe. Of course, feet are not the only causality of high heels, as the whole point of heels is that they change a woman’s posture — thereby affecting ankles, knees, hips, and back too. The article High Heels and Back Pain explains the basics nicely:

For over a century, the biomechanical effects of heels in everything from running shoes to stilettos has puzzled researchers and fired controversy. When standing barefoot, the perpendicular line of the straight body column creates a ninety degree angle with the floor. On a two-inch heel, were the body a rigid column and forced to tilt forward, the angle would be reduced to seventy degrees, and to fifty-five degrees on a three-inch heel. Thus, for the body to maintain an erect position, a whole series of joint adjustments (ankle, knee, hip, spine, head) are required to regain and retain one’s erect stance and equilibrium.

The slope or slant of the heel, rear to front, is called the ‘heel wedge angle’. The higher the heel, the greater the angle. On the bare foot there is no wedge angle. The bottom of the heel is on a level one hundred and eighty degrees, with body weight shared equally between heel and ball. Inside the heeled shoe, the wedge angle shifts body weight forward so that on a low heel, body weight is shared forty percent heel, sixty percent ball; and on a high heel ninety percent ball and ten percent heel.

Check out the article for more details, including some illustrative drawings.

Undoubtedly, modern high heels aren’t as damaging as Chinese foot binding. Happily, heels can be worn only on occasion, and I don’t see any problem with that. However, I can’t see wearing high heels regularly as anything but self-destructive. Sure, they’re sexy, but do you need to exude sex appeal at work? Probably not, unless you’re a stripper. More, to court chronic pain and disfigurement in order to feel a bit sexier seems like a cruel joke on yourself and your sex life. In my view, that’s a sign that you need to rethink your standards for sexy, preferably before you cause your body permanent damage.

A woman who is healthy, happy, warm, and engaging can exude plenty of sexy … with her feet flat on the ground.

• What: Live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio


• Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins


• When: Sunday, 20 May 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET


• Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

• Question 1: Warning Others about Dangerous People: Should you warn others about vicious people in your community? If you know a person to be dishonest, but that person is well-regarded in your community, should you tell others in that community what you know? Does it matter if the person is in a position of authority (perhaps over an organization’s finances), such that he could do a whole lot of damage? What kinds of immorality would be serious enough to warrant warning others?


• Question 2: Explaining a Firing: Should an employer have to explain and justify his firing of an employee? Should an employer be able to fire an employee for some alleged misconduct, even though the employer never bothered to verify the misconduct, nor even asked the employee for his side of the story? For example, suppose that when the employee shows up for work he is simply told that he’s been fired because someone made a complaint about him. The employee could easily prove the complaint to be false but the employer isn’t concerned with proof or lack thereof. The employee’s reputation in the eyes of possible future employers is damaged, even if the employer never discusses the firing with anyone else. In such a case, should the employee be able to sue for having been fired without proper cause?


• Question 3: Investment Versus Sacrifice: What is the difference between “investment” and “sacrifice”? In your February 26, 2012 webcast, you indicated that you regard sacrifices as something very different from investments. But doesn’t sacrifice just mean giving up something? In that case, don’t investments in the future require sacrifice now? Or: What’s the difference between sacrificing some ease and comfort for your goal versus investing time and work to achieve a goal?


• Question 4: Downloading Music After Hard Drive Failure: Does repecting intellectual property require me to re-purchase my music collection lost due to hard drive failure? Over the years I have purchased quite a bit of digital music and have built quite a large library. Recently, due to a computer crash and lack of backup, a large segment of that library was erased. Since I paid for all of the music that was lost, I would like to restore it, whether by coping from my friends or by downloading illegal copies from the internet. But I am not entirely sure what I have the right to do based on my original purchases. When purchasing intellectual property am I paying for the right to only the original individual copy or am I paying for the right to access that intellectual property even when the original copy is damaged or lost? In other words, am I morally and legally obliged to purchase new copies of my music or can I replace what was destroyed? Also, does it make any difference if my original copy was from a CD versus an MP3 download?

If you attend live, you can share your thoughts and ask questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode’s archive page: Q&A Radio: 20 May 2012.

Also, don’t forget to Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Show Archives, where you can listen to the audio from whole episodes or just selected questions. And visit to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming broadcasts.

I hope to see you in the chat on Sunday morning!

Topics Discussed

• The problem with guilty pleasures


• Techniques for dealing with guilty pleasures


• Sugar as my guilty pleasure


• Asking for help when overwhelmed with a new baby


• Staying up too late surfing the internet


• Snapping at people when in a bad mood

Listen Now

Duration: 36:28

Download the Episode

• Download the Standard MP3 File (7.0 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

In all likelihood, I won’t be broadcasting a new show on Wednesday May 23rd, as I’ll be on the road. We’ll resume on May 30th. The theme of that show will be “Guilty Pleasures.” I hope that you’ll join us… and better yet, call in!