Find on all DianaHsieh.comjust NoodleFood / Most Recent Comments / NoodleFood RSS Feed

Monday, October 31, 2005 Today's Catering-To-The-Irrational Story By Paul @ 10:48 PM "British banks are banning piggy banks because they may offend some Muslims." Really. Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here. Muslims do not eat pork, as Islamic culture deems the pig to be an impure animal. Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, backed the bank move. "This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers," he said. (Via Linkfilter.) E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Happy Halloween! By Diana Hsieh @ 8:04 AM In the spirit of Halloween, from the folks carving Extreme Pumpkins, I give you the most wonderful and fantastic Cannibal Pumpkin! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, October 30, 2005 TiVo Upgrade By Diana Hsieh @ 9:22 PM Back in June, Fred Weiss recommended the TiVo upgrade from WeaKnees. Although I ordered the additional drive right away, I didn't get around to installing it until just tonight. (Finally!) It was quite an upgrade for my beloved TiVo, from just 35 hours to 163 hours of recording time! I'm happy to report that the upgrade was astonishingly easy. The instructions were excellent, perhaps the most clear and accurate that I've ever enjoyed in all my years of computer upgrades. However, I wouldn't recommend the do-it-yourself install unless you are reasonably comfortable swapping out the guts of your computer. WeaKnees has a speedy professional upgrade service for the hesitant. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Social Metaphysics in Action By Diana Hsieh @ 12:45 AM This Dear Abby is such a lovely example of social metaphysics that I couldn't pass it over: DEAR ABBY I have been married to "Grant" for eight years. Soon after our marriage I learned he was a compulsive liar. Grant told me while we were dating that he had a sister. I later learned the woman was a friend. He said he was divorced from his second wife when we met. They weren't divorced until one month before our wedding, something I discovered only when I found his divorce papers. Grant's first wife swears they are still married. He says they're divorced, but he lost the divorce papers. A year ago, I found out my husband was never in the Marines like he said, and after eight years of believing he had a BA in business, I just learned he dropped out of college after his freshman year. I have just about had it with his constant lying. He has also cheated on me. I want a divorce, but I don't want to look like a failure to my family and friends. Grant is begging me to stay. He promises he'll change, but I have heard that all before. What should I do? -- WIFE IN CRISIS This woman has every reason in the world to leave her husband. She knows that he's a compulsive liar. She knows that he's unfaithful. She knows that his promises to change are meaningless. She even rightly suspects that he might still be married to his first wife. Still, she's not sure what to do. Why not? Because she doesn't "want to look like a failure to her family and friends." Her knowledge that her supposed marriage actually is a failure incapable of improvement isn't all that important to her, not when weighed against the possibility that others might think ill of her. (Of course, they'd likely think even worse of her for staying for such reasons, but that's just more awful social metaphysics.) In other words: "Facts schmacts! Who cares about my own life and happiness when the opinions of others are at stake!" Abby's advice is good on the proper plan of action, despite yielding too much to her social metaphysics in speaking of "solv[ing] your problem": DEAR WIFE: Consult a lawyer. Tell him or her exactly what you have told me. Because your husband misrepresented himself before your marriage, you may have grounds for an annulment. Your attorney should also check to see if there is any record of his first divorce, because if there isn't one, you and Grant are not married, which solves your problem. Cross your fingers. This woman needs some small committment to the facts of reality, not luck! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, October 28, 2005 Beyond Creepy By Diana Hsieh @ 11:16 PM This web site is perhaps the creepiest thing I've ever seen on the web. I'm really quite disturbed that I was able to make a man dressed up as a chicken do a cartwheel. Granted, it's just a program of footage tied to keywords, but still... (Via Oakes.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis A Constitution... If You Can Keep It By Don @ 7:51 AM As I mentioned in the comments, I will be flying out to Colorado this March for the Weekend Conference on Law. While I'm not particularly interested in law, I am interested in the question of how a Constitution functions in a free society, and specifically, what should be the role of a jurist in interpreting it. I must confess that for a long time, I could not see past the activist/original intent dichotomy that has defined mainstream debate on this issue. I thought that the only alternative to letting judges rule however they wished was to restrict them to ruling based on the meaning of a given Amendment, law, or statute based on an historical analysis of what such meant when it was enacted. Then Tara Smith went and blasted that dichotomy out of existence. In that article, she explains that "judicial activism" is a package deal. The question is not whether a jurist is "activist" but what their activism consists of. Proper judicial activity, she says, should involve the interpretation and application of abstract legal principles -- fundamentally, the basic principle of "rights." It seems so obvious, and perhaps it is if we are talking about an ideal society based on Objectivist principles, but advocating it in the United States today is not. After all, Smith is not saying a jurist should be a strict constructionist. It would seem, therefore, that she is advocating a jurist should rule based on his or her personal convictions. Now, let me make it clear that from this point forward, I'm speaking only of my own views. While Smith developed hers more fully at this year's OCON, I was not present for her lectures and have no idea of their content. She may agree with what I'm going to say or she may not (I look forward to raising some of these issues with her in March). That said... Since the role of a jurist necessarily involves the interpretation and application of principles, strict constructionism is a nonstarter. You cannot look at an abstract statement, no matter how clearly written, and determine what it means or how it applies to a specific case. Knowledge is contextual, so to grasp the meaning of any given principle, you have to understand its full context. This means, to interpret a constitution, you have to identify the basic principle of which its various clauses are expressions. Lucky for us, there is no need to guess what principle the constitution was designed to express -- the Founding Fathers told us explicitly. This country was founded on the principle of individual rights. It was founded on the principle that a government exists only to protect man's rights, and that the government, therefore, must be strictly limited in its proper functions. To understand and apply the Constitution, we have to keep this fact in mind. I came to this realization during a recent conversation with my brother where he said in exasperation, "The Constitution says, 'Congress shall make no law.' You can't get any clearer than that!" He's right, of course -- unless you drop the context of the principle the Constitution was intended to express. Suppose, for example, that the purpose of the Constitution wasn't to restrain the government in order to protect individual rights. Suppose its purpose was to guide the government in the attempt to achieve the common good. In such a case, someone might very persuasively argue, "Since this particular form of speech doesn't lead to the common good, it is not part of your freedom of speech. The government therefore not only can abridge it, but must." In fact, this is precisely what we've seen happen in this country. To justify an act of government, an advocate must appeal to some higher principle, and so nothing matters more than what principle he appeals to. And whether people recognize that principle as legitimate. This is how altruism undercut this nation. So long as those who wished to expand government power could appeal to sacrifice, "the common good," or any other similar principle, the Constitution could only act to retard capitalism's destruction. It was only a matter of time before our freedoms were stripped away, precedent by precedent. To establish a proper government, a constitution is vital -- but to establish and maintain a constitution, a society committed to the principle of individual rights (and its egoistic moral foundation) is indispensable. E-mail Don    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, October 27, 2005 Yaron on CNBC By Diana Hsieh @ 11:58 AM An announcement from ARI: ARI executive director Dr. Yaron Brook is scheduled to appear on the CNBC program "Closing Bell" today, October 27, 2005. The program airs at 3:00 PM Eastern time, 12:00 noon Pacific. The topic will be: Do the oil companies have a moral right to their massive profits? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Pull Peddlers By Diana Hsieh @ 8:06 AM The big ballot issue in Colorado in November is Referenda C and D. It would be a major expansion of the welfare state, coupled with a substantial tax hike. It deserves to be defeated by an overwhelming margin, although I think the polls show that it's about evenly split right now. My friend Ari Armstrong has been tirelessly working to defeat it. (His web page on it is here.) So when I received this pro-C&D message in my rarely-used CU Boulder account, I forwarded it to him. His reply is below it. From: vote@savehighered.org Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:37 PM To: Diana.Hsieh@Colorado.EDU Subject: Voting is critical to future of the University of Colorado If you won't be able to vote on Nov 1, then vote early or get an absentee ballot. Early Voting opens Monday Oct 17. Last day to request an absentee ballot is Friday Oct 21 (must arrive by 25) and in person is the 28th. Information/downloads at http://www.elections.colorado.gov The following is a message from Katie Collins, Student Body Co-Executive, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Dear Students and Staff of the University of Colorado, Higher education in the state of Colorado is in crisis. In the past few years we have all experienced that crisis through staggering tuition increases, closing programs and the downsizing of faculty and staff. If something is not done to save higher education, many students will be unable to afford to attend college in Colorado. We will continue losing our best and brightest to other states that do support higher education. Luckily there is a solution to help higher education: Referenda C&D. It is critical that voters pass these referenda on November 1st. We must all do our part by voting either in person or via absentee ballot. Please contact your local county to ensure that you are eligible to vote. Coloradans have affirmed their support for K-12 education through the passage of Amendment 23, now we must affirm our support for higher education through the passage of Referenda C&D. As college students/staff, and the future leaders of our state, we must lead the charge to support higher education in Colorado. Sincerely, Katie Collins Let us know where you stand, and take our survey: http://www.savehighered.org/nabo/vote_1page.php?surv=1 If you care about the issues but are not eligible to vote, talk to your friends and neighbors that can vote. *************************************************************************** It is not permitted to use State (hence university) email to send messages supporting particular views on ballot issues. All email addresses were obtained through public information sources. This non-partisan political message was send using outside resources from www.savehighered.org Nonpartisan message, my foot! In any case, here's what Ari said in reply: The pro-C camp is making an extraordinary get-out-the-vote effort. Another letter I saw argued that, if you oppose eminent domain, you need to vote for C and D, because that will provide money for roads, thus eliminating the need for private toll roads (which would, it is argued, use eminent domain). The fact that both eminent domain and Ref. C violate property is conveniently ignored. Similarly, the pro-C camp has made specialized appeals to veterans, the elderly, parents with children in schools, environmentalists, and I'm sure I'm missing several. The effort to raise taxes is extraordinary. I even heard that, in the Springs, pro-Cers are trying to link the (state) tax hike to support for the (nation's) troops! I'm confident that, if every voter first read the material available on my web page, Ref. C would go down in flames. I'm also confident that far less than a percent of all voters will read anything on my web page. Ref. C a juggernaut. The fact that, statistically, we're still tied, says a lot about the resilience of American liberty. But people's vague feelings in favor of liberty are easily overcome. With this kind of measure, it's not surprising that the pull-peddlers are out in full force. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to help out in the anti-C&D effort much. I want to get more involved in Colorado politics, but I need to finish my coursework first. I did at least manage to procure a sign for the end of our driveway -- my first ever. It just says "If C wins, you lose!" That's not terribly informative, but it might spur someone to investigate the issue. So please encourage your Colorado voter friends to vote no on C&D. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Ha-Ha-Ha-Harriet Show By Diana Hsieh @ 7:35 AM I'm increasingly amused by the ongoing train wreck that is the Harriet Miers nomination. I'm amused rather than dismayed because it now seems extraordinarily unlikely that she'll be confirmed. This John Fund article was filled with revealing bits of insider information. This section was particularly insane: Ms. Miers has never published anything of note other than vanilla op-ed pieces, and her memos to President Bush are protected by executive privilege. In trying to find clues as to her judicial philosophy, I have called all over Texas and Washington in search of people she might have talked with about that topic. No luck. In fact, it became clear Ms. Miers is a complete mystery. "We spent about 1,200 hours together and had in excess of 6,000 agenda items, and I never knew where Harriet was going to be on any of those items until she cast her vote," Jim Buerger, a former Miers colleague on the Dallas City Council, told the Washington Post. "I wouldn't consider her a liberal, a moderate or a conservative, and I can't honestly think of any cause she championed." In other words, Harriet Miers is not even principled enough to be a pragmatist! I found that article on the Volokh Conspiracy, along with the comment: "A friend of mine made the interesting observation that perhaps the best evidence of the continuing problems with the Miers nomination has been the willingness of so many inside and close to the White House to leak so much negative information to John Fund, from a White House that has been able to control such matters in the past." Just for the record, John Fund does obviously have far more general respect for George W. Bush than I could ever muster. This whole nomination reeks of a serious impairment of common sense judgment. Update: Wow, the nomination is dead already. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, October 26, 2005 Oh, It's Just So Sweet! By Diana Hsieh @ 11:18 PM I love it: Cows milk themselves with the help of robots! Here's the whole dang article, as found via GeekPress: They are the cows that milk themselves. Farmers have teamed up with scientists to create a farm where the cows choose when they want to be milked using automated booths. The new parlour, developed in Holland, is already in use on several British farms. Manned by robots, the system is said to be so efficient that the farmer can even go on holiday and allow the animals to look after themselves. Supporters of the system say it not only saves time and money but shows "respect" to the cows by allowing them to manage their own lives. Opponents claim it is the ultimate in "factory farming". "The cows set their own agenda," said Neil Rowe, manager of Manor Farm at Marcham in Oxfordshire which has switched to the system. "It's about autonomy, it's about enrichment, it's about stepping back and allowing the cows and the system to develop a relationship." On the farm Rowe manages, cattle wander from field to parlour when they want to be milked. They find their own way into automated milking stalls, where a computer scans a microchip implanted in the animal's collar which holds information on its milking history and health. Robotic milking machines, based on car assembly lines, then locate the cow's udder guided by lasers and ultrasound. The equipment prepares the cow by washing, sterilising and massaging its teats before collecting the milk -- which is instantly cooled and stored. The animals are lured into the parlour with inducements including a hair-brushing and scratching device which they can turn on themselves using a "nudge trigger" and a fan to blow away flies. They also get a choice of hot and cold water. "It is amazing how the cows take to it," said Rowe. "They're very organised. Three or four cows will wait patiently to be milked, while the rest are chewing the cud or grazing. Given the choice, I think nine out of 10 cows would want to be here. They're now a lot less stressed and more content." Other perks include an hourly mechanised "mucking out" system and even piped music. If a cow develops a problem while being milked, the system alerts the farmer on his mobile phone. There are now more than 30 farms in Britain using the automated system, which has been investigated by the Institute for Animal Health and the Nuffield Farming Scholarships Trust. Rowe, 46, who manages 100 organic cows, has been awarded a two-year scholarship by the trust and will publish a thesis next year. Earlier this year Rowe used his laptop to manage his herd from a hotel room in Pennsylvania, America. "I could change the fields the cows were grazing in by opening electronic compressed-air gates," he said. John Stones, director of the Nuffield farming trust, said: "It's an exciting thought that cows can choose to be milked and that there is no coercion." John Webster, professor of animal husbandry at Bristol University, said the system indicated a basic intelligence in cows. "Most cows adapt to it very quickly," he said. "Although you will find a few cows who can't be bothered, and they have to be culled." Joyce D'Silva, director of Compassion in World Farming, said: "This system can bring relief to the cow's bulging udder, but she is under such pressure because we have bred her to produce so much milk. We are worried that this development will lead to an increase in factory farming." Augh! Only an animal rights activist could manage to oppose such a fantastic innovation! It's great for the farmers, since they save countless hours of daily hands-on work. And its great for the cows, who get to be milked and massaged whenever they please. (But sheesh, what's up with "the cows who can't be bothered" to be milked?!? Are they retarded, lazy, insensitive to pain, or what?) Although the article doesn't indicate one way or another, I do wonder whether this system also increases milk production. If a cow can be milked when it pleases, such that its udder is never super-full, it might just make more milk. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, October 25, 2005 Credit Where Credit Is Due By Diana Hsieh @ 10:42 PM Although I'm not exactly a fan of SOLO, I do need to give some credit to Linz. A few weeks ago, he published a fairly positive review of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, despite much dismissive skepticism at first. More recently, I was happy to see him kicking ass in response to an awful article claiming that Ayn Rand was actually a fan of the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek. (It's author, Michael Stuart Kelly, is perhaps the most transparently dishonest contributor to SOLO.) Unfortunately, Linz doesn't come out smelling like roses for these articles, since it's his forum that offers a friendly platform to Michael Stuart Kelly and too many other dishonest critics of Objectivism. Still, I'm glad that someone on SOLO has bothered to read Ayn Rand. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Ayn Rand's Butlers By Diana Hsieh @ 8:14 AM This "Strange Bedfellows article first caught my attention for its bizarre understanding of Ayn Rand. Here's how it starts: In the mid-20th century a brash author, Ayn Rand, wrote two best selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943), and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Rand was the consummate economic conservative. In her world the good guys were entrepreneurs, tycoons who bought land, built factories, and lived in lush splendor. She hated taxation, hated government, hated anything that stood in the way of strong people who got what they wanted. Billboards and smiling butlers were the symbols of virtue in Rand's world. There were no other. Her bold, courageous capitalists slept around at will, as promiscuous as pit bull terriers. Mom and dad, church on Sunday, or anything that smacked of charity was for liberal do-gooders. I love the bit about "smiling butlers," since nary a butler appears anywhere in Ayn Rand's fiction, as far I recall. (I searched the Objectivism Research CD-ROM for the term "butler" but came up with no hits.) Just for the record, I should say that Ayn Rand opposed coercive taxation, advocated limited government, and championed the individual rights of all, including producers. That's a far cry from "hat[ing] taxation, hat[ing] government, hat[ing] anything that stood in the way of strong people who got what they wanted." Although I'm not exactly sure how promiscuous pit bull terriers are, none of Ayn Rand's heroes were "casual and unrestrained in sexual behavior" by any stretch of the imagination. The article is equally inaccurate in its characterization of capitalism. However, the delicious irony is that its basic point -- that the altruism of Christianity is inconsistent with capitalism -- is from Ayn Rand herself. But don't get too excited... it advocates abandoning capitalism for Christianity. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, October 23, 2005 Game... theory? By Don @ 10:15 PM This evening I purchased Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A. Highly Recommended. Surprisingly (at least to me), the most fascinating entry was regarding Rand's distaste for chess. I could never play chess. I resent it on principle. It involves too much wasted thinking. Chess is all "ifs," and if there's one thing I cannot do mentally, it's handle anything more than two "ifs." In chess, you must consider hundreds of possibilities, it's all conditional, and I resent that. That is not the method of cognition; reality doesn't demand that kind of thinking. In cognition, if you define the problem clearly, you really have only one alternative: "It is so" or "It is not so." There is not a long line of "ifs" -- and if your opponent does this, you will do that. I can't function that way, for all the reasons that make me a good theoretical thinker: it's a different epistemological base. [ARA 170] What (pleasantly) surprised me was that Rand was stating the principle that explained my total disdain for game theory and much of modern economics (I'm speaking of the economics that tries to analyze all individual decisions in terms of cost/benefit analyses). Such theories do not refer to anything in reality. Take the classical prisoner's dilemma. Two suspects A, B are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and having separated both prisoners, visit each of them and offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution (turns King's Evidence) against the other and the other remains silent, the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence and the betrayer goes free. If both stay silent, the police can only give both prisoners 6 months for a minor charge. If both betray each other, they receive a 2-year sentence each. In every analysis I've ever read, one question is never even considered let alone addressed: is the person in question guilty? Is this not an aspect relevant to man's decision-making? And this goes to the root of the issue. A proper epistemology focuses on the "it is." Is the prisoner guilty or innocent? The prinsoner's dilemma ignores that question and views man's epistemology as completely cut off from reality, concerned only with a churning of odds, incentives, desires, and tactics. Just as symbolic logic represented the final step in philosophy's attempt to divorce logic from reality, so game theory represents the attempt to dispense with reality as a factor in decision-making. This is not to say that there aren't legitimate uses for game theory or symbolic logic. But they are specialized fields of study, applicable in game like chess or poker. What's disgraceful is the modern economists' attempt to substitute game theory for cognition. As evidence, I offer you Steven Landsburg's musings on the "economics of sex." If that's not rationalism run amok, I don't know what is. Modern economics has veered sharply from the task of identifying the nature of economic activity. It now operates on the premise that all human choices are economic choices: whether one is choosing between guns or butter, or between this potential lover and that one. The question that interests me, and which I have not fully answered, is: where specifically has modern economics gone wrong? What is the proper starting point for economics... and its proper ending point? How do people actually make economic choices... and how do these choices differ from their non-economic ones? Feel free to opine. E-mail Don    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, October 22, 2005 The Face of Evil By Diana Hsieh @ 10:15 PM I just watched a segment on Inside the NFL on Bill Romanowski's punch to the face of Raiders teammate Marcus Williams. The unexpected hit over a trivial slight (if that) during practice shattered Williams' eye socket -- and ultimately ended his career. From what I could tell, Romanowski outright lied about the incident in his new tell-all book, so as to make himself look not so bad. (Honestly, I'm so glad that Inside the NFL discussed that issue from that perspective, rather than just oohing and aahing over the revelations in the book.) In his interview for the segment, Romanowski came across as a seriously creepy and dangerous guy. He was self-controlled in an evasive, repressed kind of way. And his behavior on the field shows a strong enjoyment of inflicting pain and suffering upon others. Honestly, I feared for the life of the woman interviewer when she asked him some pointed questions. The contrast with the friendly, likable, and normal person of Marcus Williams was particularly striking. After the segment, the four hosts discussed it for a time, as usual. Chris Carter, an upright and honorable man, got so disgusted merely talking about Romo's dirty play that he flat out refused to discuss the matter further. It's hardly surprising: Romanowski used to tell Carter at the beginning of games that he'd kill him -- or at least hurt him so bad he'd end his career. Blech. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Three Quick Reviews By Diana Hsieh @ 7:05 AM My friend Greg Perkins just posted this review of Andy Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto to Amazon: Bernstein does an excellent job, and The Capitalist Manifesto is now my favorite book to hand to friends who, most likely due to cultural osmosis, happen to think that the mixed economy is a nice idea. (It is probably too much to handle for those with the authoritarian impulse who gravitate to socialism, communism, and fascism.) His case is fresh, thorough, and delightfully crushing, drawing on diverse sources all through history and all over the planet for the historical and factual evidence, from which he then extracts the important principles to lay out the philosophical case for laissez-faire. Reading The Capitalist Manifesto and coming face-to-face with the facts and their implications, I expect most honest people will be left wondering how the vast majority of intellectuals got it (and continue to get it) so tragically wrong: supporting and defending ideas that have caused the brutal deaths of hundreds of millions of people and held down billions in conflict and grinding poverty -- while evading and maligning what has lifted billions of people out of a truly Hobbesian existence ("poor, nasty, brutish, and short"). That stands as the most outrageous disconnect in human history, and Bernstein makes it viscerally real. I'm glad that Greg posted the review, particularly since he's been gushing about the book in our phone chats for weeks now! Don Watkins also recently posted these comments on Ayn Rand Answers, edited by Robert Mayhew, to the Front Range Objectivism discussion list: I probably don't need to convince anyone on this list, but I just picked up a copy of Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A and having read a significant portion and skimmed the rest, allow me to say: highly recommended! This book has a number of virtues. Much of this material will be new to many readers. (Only those who have listened to all of Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum lecture Q&A's will be familiar with the bulk of what's included in the book.) And even those who have heard Rand's answers, it is helpful to see them in print, alongside her answers to similar questions. Best of all, we can now locate and reference Rand's Q&A with ease. (I hope Phil Oliver will include this book in a future edition of his CD-ROM.) Interestingly, the section that I found most fascinating was Rand's discussion of her reasons for disliking chess. Her explanation has explosive implications for much of modern economics and game theory -- implications that confirm and explain my long-held suspicion of those fields. (I will be expanding on this issue hopefully in the near future, probably on Diana's blog.) Augh! Amazon tells me that I can only pre-order it for a November 1st release. So how did Don get his hands on a copy so early?!? In any case, Don's comments on game theory are waiting patiently in the NoodleFood queue for publication early next week. Just yesterday, I finished The Abolition of Antitrust, the anthology edited by Gary Hull. I was impressed by many of the essays in this anthology; some offered intriguing new insights on topics related to antitrust. Richard Salsman on the economics of profit and Tom Bowden on the philosophic foundations of contract particularly stood out for me. I also appreciated the examinations of particular antitrust cases, if only because the horrible injustice against the businessmen was glaringly obvious. The book is well worth reading for those gems. However, I do worry that the anthology isn't really appropriate for the intelligent layperson, unless already familiar with both Ayn Rand's philosophy and the basics of antitrust. Introductory chapters on the basic nature of capitalism and antitrust would have helped set the context too often presumed in the essays. Personally, even I felt a bit bewildered jumping into the first essay, a detailed analysis of economic arguments about antitrust. (To be clear, the essay itself was very good. I just felt like I was jumping into a debate midstream.) Even without such introductory chapters, my sense is that the final essay of the book, Gary Hull's "Antitrust is Immoral," would have served readers better as the first essay. Also, I wonder why Ayn Rand's mind-blowing essay on antitrust "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" was not included in the volume, even as an appendix, although perhaps that was not possible or appropriate for reasons unknown to me. I do not wish to gripe too much, as I'm very glad that the book was published. And perhaps I've misconstrued the intended audience. In any case, I'm very happy to recommend it to the readers of NoodleFood. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, October 21, 2005 Two Colorado Talks by Craig Biddle By Diana Hsieh @ 6:27 PM Please forward this announcement to anyone who might be interested in these exciting lectures! Craig Biddle on "Ayn Rand's Morality of Selfishness" Date: November 3rd, 2005 Time: 7:30 pm Location: Math 100, University of Colorado at Boulder URL: http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/cal/2005-11-3 Ayn Rand's morality of selfishness, or rational egoism, is the only morality that is conducive to human life, personal happiness, and social harmony. It is the only moral code that provides people with a system of principles to guide their choices and actions in pursuit of their life-serving goals and values--from career, to love life, to friendships, to recreational activities. And it is the only moral code that provides an objective foundation for the protection of individual rights--and thus for the establishment and maintenance of a fully free, fully civilized society. This talk introduces the principles of rational egoism, concretizes them with real-life examples, and shows why everyone who wants to live happily and freely needs to understand and embrace them. Craig Biddle is a popular Objectivist speaker and writer on ethical and epistemological issues. He is the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. He is currently writing a book on the principles of rational thinking. This lecture is free and open to the public. It's sponsored by the Boulder Objectivist Club. The Boulder Objectivist Club is a student group at the University of Colorado dedicated to studying Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and how it relates to today's world. (The Boulder Objectivist Club is independent of Front Range Objectivism.) If you have questions, please contact Jared Seehafer at seehafer@colorado.edu. Craig Biddle on "Living Purposefully" Date: November 5th, 2005 Time: 6:00 pm (Social Hour), 7:00 pm (Buffet Dinner), 8:00 pm (Lecture and Q&A) Location: West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado RSVP: Please RSVP by November 2nd to Lin Zinser at lin@zinser.com or 303.431.2525. Mail check to FROST to 8700 Dover Court, Arvada, CO 80005. Cost: $50 for dinner and lecture ($30 for students) Link: http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/cal/2005-11-5 Objectivism holds that one's success in life depends on one's choosing and achieving three cardinal values: reason, purpose, and self-esteem. While much has been said about reason and self-esteem, relatively little has been said about purpose. What exactly is this value? How does one embrace it? What does it mean to live purposefully? This lecture examines the nature and importance of purpose, surveying its place in the Objectivist ethics, its role in both motivation and thinking, its relationship to the virtues, and potential misconceptions of the value (such as the error of freezing "purpose" at the level of "central purpose" or "career") which can retard one's life. The lecture aims to expand one's understanding of this vital concept and thus to enhance one's ability to live fully selfishly. Craig Biddle is a popular Objectivist speaker and writer on ethical and epistemological issues. He is the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. He is currently writing a book on the principles of rational thinking. Please RSVP with Lin Zinser by November 2 for this motivating and practical talk. (You can mail your reservation and check to 8700 Dover Court, Arvada, CO 80005.) Also, please note the price for the entire evening is $50, $30 for students. To sit at the head table and converse with Craig Biddle during dinner, please contact Lin Zinser directly by phone (303.431.2525) or by e-mail (lin@zinser.com). FROST (Front Range Objectivist Supper Talks) brings nationally known and respected Objectivist speakers to Denver for delicious dinners and stimulating lectures on a variety of topics about five times per year. Anyone is welcome, including people unfamiliar with Objectivism. If you awish to receive announcements of FROST events, please join the mailing list. If you have questions, please contact Lin Zinser at lin@zinser.com. Also, I've posted a bit more information on the March Weekend Conference on Law. Most exciting is the confirmation of Dana Berliner as a lecturer. So the four main speakers will be Dana Berliner, Eric Daniels, Amy Peikoff, and Tara Smith. As I've already said, this conference is a fantastic reason to travel to Denver. Remember that March is a great time to ski or snowboard in the Colorado Rockies! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Even More Good News By Diana Hsieh @ 12:32 PM Ian Hamet reports that The Fountainhead has recently been published in Chinese! China certainly needs a good dose of "individualism versus collectivism, not in politics, but in man's soul." E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, October 20, 2005 The Capitalist Manifesto By Diana Hsieh @ 10:23 AM Lin Zinser just announced: I just received word from Andy's publicist team -- The Capitalist Manifesto has sold out its first printing and is in the process of its second printing -- which will not be available for 4-5 weeks. I think this is really great news. They did not say how many were in the first printing, but I think it is 5,000 or less. That's fantastic news! I haven't read the book yet, although I will soon, as 1FROG will be discussing it over the course of several meetings, starting in December. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Fate of Albus Dumbledore By Paul @ 12:22 AM Those who have read Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince know that there was a major surprise plot development involving wizard Albus Dumbledore. After analyzing numerous clues, Dave Haber argues that things may not be what they seem. (If you haven't read the book but intend to, do not click through since the web page contains huge spoilers.) E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, October 19, 2005 Not To Do List By Diana Hsieh @ 9:08 AM Paul recently sent this "Not To Do List" to a friend of ours working on developing a business plan. (It's really just a funny version of white tennis shoes.) This is a not-to-do list. You don't need to check anything off, because these are things YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO. Do not check your email. Do not go to nytimes.com. Do not decide to organize your cd rack. Do not turn on the television. Do not clip your nails. Do not stare at your bald spot in the mirror and begin to calculate how much time your hair has left. Do not start catching up on the DVDs that have arrived from Netflix. Do not update your Netflix queue. Do not Google all your Exes. Do not Google yourself. Do not dust the house. Do not sweep the floors. Do not take out the trash. Do not get sucked into the argument when your significant other starts screaming about the fact that you drank the last of the milk and even though you said you would get more you didn't. Just apologize, apologize, and then apologize again. (But don't be tempted to apologize "for being such a horrible person" -- that is a sign that you are getting drawn into a bigger dust-up. Stay on target with your apology, explain that you have serious work to do, and get back to your project.) Do not decide to make yourself an elaborate lunch. Do not take a nap. Do not change the cat litter. Do not decide to figure out the calorie count of your recent meals. Do not pay your bills. Do not balance your checkbook. Do not freak out that you have no money. Do not go into the bathroom and give your Academy Award acceptance speech. Do not put on Prince and party like it's 1999. (Well, okay, maybe ONCE, just to get you fired up about your project.) Do not start going through your closet. Do not decide to floss. Do not organize your spice rack. Do not update your address book. Do not make a list of things to do. Do not watch Oprah. Do not listen to NPR. Do not start to think you don't have what it takes to actually do your project. Do not read any further on this post -- caught you! Stop reading now and get to work on your project. Do not check what time the movie is playing later. Do not decide to send an angry email to that annoying friend who recently pissed you off. Do not play with the cats. Do not clip your nose hairs. Do not start trying to organize a dinner party. Do not start wondering if that mole that seems a little bigger than the last time you checked it might be skin cancer. Do not start going through all the papers on your desk. Do not make a list of all the things you have to get done at work. Do not start thinking you are never going to finish. Do not make a quick run to the grocery store. Do not search for gray hairs. Do not start fantasizing about sex. Do not decide to make a call to your significant other to tell him or her that you don't think you've been getting any, and that you better damn well get some tonight (you know, because that one works every time). Do not go to IMDB to see who that actor was in that movie you saw the other night. Or what that girl from that show from way back when is doing now. Do not start perusing your own bookshelves. Do not organize your computer files. Do not clean out your inbox. Do not click into the online gossip sites. Do not pick your nose. Do not start reading old letters from old flames. Do not crack open a beer. Do not pluck your eyebrows. Do not to give yourself a facial. Do not start going through your photos. Do not return your phone calls. Do not start reading your old journal entries. Do not start thinking about how your project is lame. Do not scrub the tub. Do not clean the toilet. Do not open a bottle of wine. Do not start wading through all the magazines you subscribe to but never read. Do not decide to start a screenplay (unless, of course, that is your project). Do not post to your blog. Do not pull the ATM receipts out of your wallet and start entering withdrawals into your checkbook. Do not get up and keep getting yourself a glass of water. Do not refill the ice trays. Do not do the dishes. Do not start picking off the wax on your candle holders. Do not start worrying about all the time you've already wasted. There are a million more things that could be on this list, but remember, it's not a to-do list, so it doesn't matter if something is missing -- you are NOT supposed to be doing these things. Just get to work on your project. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, October 18, 2005 Serenity In 2000 Words Or Less By Paul @ 9:14 PM This is funny, but it contains lots of spoilers. Don't click through if you haven't seen the movie yet. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, October 17, 2005 Love Love Love By Diana Hsieh @ 11:19 PM For a while, I've thought that I might be in love with Peyton Manning, the absurdly smart and ambitious gentleman quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. But after tonight's awe-inspiring game crushing the Rams like small and puny bugs, I know that it's more than love. It's Holy Worship for The Most Glorious Godly Quarterback of Football. Please excuse me now, as I'm going to go swoon. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis No Comment By Diana Hsieh @ 11:57 AM I just received this announcement from my department: "Michael Tooley [one of Boulder's eminent professors of philosophy] will be debating Bill Jack, on the topic 'Creation or Evolution... Which belief benefits our society?' on 10/23, 6-8 pm, Northglenn Recreation Center." I would say something about that, but I think I might give myself a concussion by banging my head against the wall if I try. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Rational Decision-Making By Don @ 7:20 AM In her essay, "Causality versus Duty," Ayn Rand indicates the general pattern of rational decision-making: In order to make the choices required to achieve his goals, a man needs the constant, automatized awareness of the principle which the anti-concept "duty" has all but obliterated in his mind: the principle of causality -- specifically, of Aristotelian final causation (which, in fact, applies only to a conscious being), i.e., the process by which an end determines the means, i.e., the process of choosing a goal and taking the actions necessary to achieve it. In a rational ethics, it is causality -- not "duty" -- that serves as the guiding principle in considering, evaluating and choosing one's actions, particularly those necessary to achieve a long-range goal. Following this principle, a man does not act without knowing the purpose of his action. In choosing a goal, he considers the means required to achieve it, he weighs the value of the goal against the difficulties of the means and against the full, hierarchical context of all his other values and goals. He does not demand the impossible of himself, and he does not decide too easily which things are impossible. He never drops the context of the knowledge available to him, and never evades reality, realizing fully that his goal will not be granted to him by any power other than his own action, and, should he evade, it is not some Kantian authority that he would be cheating, but himself (PWNI 99). Decision-making is the process of selecting goals and the means to achieve those goals. As a living organism, man must make decisions constantly. He must continuously select ends and means, and the quality of his selections will determine the quality (and quantity) of his life. Moral principles identify man's broadest ends and means, his most fundamental values and virtues. "'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it" (FNI 121). To act on principle means to select your values according to the proper standard of value (Man's Life), and to choose your actions according to the proper standard of virtue (Rationality). But Man's Life and Rationality are very abstract, and it takes mental effort to apply them to specific cases. Man must act in accordance with moral principles, but moral principles do not automatically tell man how to act. Within a valid principle lies a range of legitimate options. Philosophy tells you that you must work, for example, but whether you will be a waiter, a doctor, or a philosopher is up to you. When choosing among legitimate options, it's imperative to identify the costs and benefits of each option, but it's a mistake to conclude that all decision-making involves this sort of cost/benefit analysis. Moral principles play an essential role, and just as it's wrong to dispense with moral principles altogether, so it's wrong to say that man merely uses moral principles to identify costs and benefits, thereafter weighing those costs and benefits in order to make a self-interested choice. This is the David Kelley error. Responding to Kelley's view, Peter Schwartz writes: Moral judgment, and not some pragmatic calculation of losses and gains, is what must precede any decision about whom to associate with. As Dr. Peikoff makes clear (in his lecture "Why Should One Act on Principle?" and, much more extensively, in [OPAR]), there cannot be any "cost-benefit analysis" of justice versus injustice, or of not sanctioning versus sanctioning evil (or of the alleged pro's and con's of any proper moral principle). The moral is the practical. No matter what the short-range appearances may be, there are no real "benefits" in acting unjustly, and no "losses" in acting justly. There can be no value in pretending that the irrational is rational. The moral principles of Objectivism identify the kind of action -- the only kind of action -- that is in accord with the demands of reality and therefore beneficial to man's life. If an action is consonant with moral principles, then and only then can the question of costs versus benefits legitimately arise. Only then can various alternative courses offer genuine advantages and disadvantages that need to be compared. But the immoral -- the unjust, the dishonest, the irrational -- is by its nature the anti-life and can offer no value. Decision-making, according to Schwartz, consists of two stages: first, a man uses moral principles to determine his valid options, and, second, he examines the costs and benefits of each valid option to determine the best course of action. What Schwartz doesn't say (because it's outside the scope of his article) is how to determine the costs and benefits of a given course of action, and how to weigh them against each other to determine the best course of action. The answer isn't obvious. On the contrary, many people have a skewed picture what constitutes a cost and what constitutes a benefit. Kelley, for example, says "A benefit is a value, and a cost is a disvalue" (T&T 21). Decision-making, in this view, consists in pattern of the following: Say Gary is trying to decide whether to stay up late to read Atlas Shrugged. Many people would assume that Gary, if he wants to be rational, should say to himself, "Reading Atlas Shrugged would be a value, but being tired tomorrow would be a disvalue. So let me think: does the value of reading Atlas Shrugged outweigh the disvalue of being tired?" But this question represents an improper understanding of what costs and benefits are. It is based on the Kelley premise that man should pursue the "best mix" of values and disvalues. But that's precisely what Schwartz proved man shouldn't do -- the very purpose of moral principles is to rule out the pursuit of disvalues. A disvalue is not a cost; it's something actively destructive to human life. If life is the standard, man must never pursue destruction. So if a cost isn't a disvalue, what is it? Consider the thing most closely associated with the concept "cost" -- money. When you pay five dollars for a sandwich, that five dollars (the cost) is not a disvalue. You aren't trading a disvalue for a value: your trading a value (money) for a value (the sandwich). Costs are values -- the values you give up and forego in order to gain a different value. Weighing costs and benefits doesn't consist of assessing values and disvalues, and trying to maximize the former and minimize the latter. Instead, it consists of identifying your legitimate options and the values each option offers, then consulting your hierarchy of values and (if your rational) pursuing higher values rather than lower ones. The costs of a decision are actually opportunity costs -- the values surrendered and foregone as a result of making a particular decision. Cost is opportunity cost -- the cost of anything, whether you buy it or produce it, is what you have to give up in order to get it. The cost of an A on a midterm exam for one of my students may be three parties, a night's sleep, and breaking up with his current significant other. The cost of living in my house is not only taxes, maintenance, and the like, it also includes the interest I could collect on the money I would have if I sold the house to someone else instead of living in it myself. (David Friedman, Hidden Order, 32) So, for example, the opportunity cost of staying up late to read Atlas Shrugged is the value of the additional sleep Gary missed out on. He's not trying to weigh reading Atlas against being tired the next morning: he's weighing the value of reading Atlas that night against the value of more sleep. A cost/benefit analysis proceeds by translating each option into the values it makes possible, and then identifying which option leads to your highest values. So how do you decide which is a higher value? In a lot of cases it's obvious. The differences are apparent. It doesn't take much thought to realize that you prefer, say, taking your dog for a walk to watching the latest episode of Punk'd. But in some cases it's not obvious, such as the previous example where Gary is deciding whether to read Atlas Shrugged or go to bed. Is the rational solution for Gary to plot out his entire hierarchy of values and determine which option is slightly more preferable? If it were, few of us would be rational. We make plenty of decisions like this without in-depth analysis, and we do so for a very good reason: choosing to think about which option is preferable has its own opportunity cost. After all, it's generally preferable to do either activity rather than think about which to do. As General Patton put it, "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow." In cases where it's difficult to distinguish the hierarchical standing of various values, we can, with certain exceptions, safely choose either option. The exceptions are cases where the decision involves crucial values, e.g., choosing which college to attend. There the relative value of your prospective choices can be excruciatingly difficult to discriminate, but given the values at stake, you have to take the time to do it. Consider a case that calls for this type of scrupulously rational decision-making. Suppose Pamela just graduated from college and she's trying to decide between two potential jobs. Job One requires that she move to a part of the country she's unfamiliar with and pays slightly less, but it will put her in a better position to ultimately do what she really wants to do. Job Two doesn't require that she move and pays better, but is not as geared toward the work she eventually wants to do. Both Job One and Job Two have their advantages and disadvantages. It's not obvious which one Pamela should select. So how does she choose between the two? Her first question needs to be: what is her primary goal? What higher value is the job intended to serve? Is she trying to make as much money as possible as quickly as possibly? Is she trying to gain prestige? Is her primary purpose to network? Most decisions involve several competing purposes, so it's necessary to be clear on what you're really pursuing -- that's the only way to know what's most important in a given context. Pamela's primary goal is to pursue her long-range productive purpose. It's against this standard that she'll be defining and weighing the costs and benefits of each option. Does her standard imply an obvious choice? Well, Job One is better geared toward what Pamela ultimately wants to do, but say what she wants to do is very competitive, and she'll need to know people in the field. It might be better to take Job Two if it helps her network. There is no clearly better choice. Pamela will have to analyze the costs and benefits of choosing either job. To perform such an analysis, she's going to identify the values each job offers (with the standard of value being her long-range purpose), and consider the means to getting each job, as well as which other values she must forego in making each choice. (This last includes, not only the values inherent in the other job (e.g., more money, better location), but all the values Pamela will miss out on by making her choice. For example, if she takes a job that requires her to move, her opportunity cost includes her current friends.) Pamela will make her final decision by identifying all the values each job has to offer, accounting for the opportunity cost of each job, and choosing on the basis the highest values she can gain relative to her goal. To make a rational decision, then, you must choose a life-affirming goal, use moral principles to identify the various valid means of achieving that goal (including any constituent sub-goals), translate each valid means into the positive values it promises, and then evaluate those values within the context of your hierarchy of values, choosing the course of action that will yield the biggest payoff. E-mail Don    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, October 16, 2005 Genetic Lines By Diana Hsieh @ 7:41 AM New Scientist has a nice article about recent research into the lineage of the thoroughbred horse. It indicates that almost all thoroughbreds descended from just 28 ancestors, with a stunning 95 percent of all male racehorses descending from a single stallion, the Darley Arabian. (To my surprise, I do actually remember reading a historical novel about the Arabian origins of the thoroughbred as a kid. In fact, I ran across it recently, while looking through old books at my parents' house. It's King of the Wind by Marguerite Henry.) Although thoroughbreds are best known as racing horses, they are also the most common breed for English riders of all kinds. Due to the combination of their large size and athletic ability, they do very well in eventing, hunter/jumper shows, foxhunting, and the like. (Lots of the thoroughbreds in those ordinary uses were bred for the track, but found to be too slow.) The major drawback of thoroughbreds is that they tend to be a bit high strung, some more so than others. Some of that can be tempered with training, but not all of it. Although my mare Tara is a thoroughbred and even a former "polo pony," she's definitely on the more sensible end of the continuum, happily enough. I only wish she were younger! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, October 15, 2005 A Silly Joke By Diana Hsieh @ 9:23 AM A friend recently sent me this silly joke: Two women friends had gone for a girl's night out. Both were very faithful and loving wives, however, they had gotten over-enthusiastic on the Bacardi Breezers. Incredibly drunk and walking home they needed to pee, so stopped in the cemetery. One of them had nothing to wipe with so she thought she would take off her panties and use them. Her friend however was wearing a rather expensive pair of panties and did not want to ruin them. She was lucky enough to squat down next to a grave that had a wreath with a ribbon on it, so she proceeded to wipe with that. After the girls did their business they proceeded to go home. The next day one of the women's husbands was concerned that his normally sweet and innocent wife was still in bed hung over, so he phoned the other husband and said, "These girl nights have got to stop! I'm starting to suspect the worst... my wife came home with no panties!" "That's nothing" said the other husband, "Mine came back with a card stuck to her ass that said, 'From all of us at the Fire Station. We'll never forget you.'!!!" E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, October 14, 2005 A Handgun For Home Defense By Paul @ 10:20 PM On the ObjectivismOnline.net discussion group, someone asked for advice on a home defense firearm. I posted a response there, but I thought I'd also share my response with NoodleFood readers: I also would recommend a shotgun as the primary home defense weapon, provided one receives adequate instruction in its proper use, because of its greater effectiveness relative to a handgun in stopping any bad guy(s). But if you are specifically interested in a handgun, I'd like to make a plug for the classic old-fashioned revolver. A good quality revolver chambered for .357 magnum will stop an intruder very well. Plus it has the advantage that in a stressful situation, if you happen to have a misfire, you simply have to pull the trigger once again. My wife and I are proficient with both revolvers and with Glocks, and I like my Glock 30 a lot. However, I've chosen to use the revolver as our middle-of-the-night-there's-an-intruder-in-the-house home defense handgun for the reason I've given above. I don't want to have to remember on very short notice what to do if I get a Type 2 "stovepipe" malfunction or a Type 3 "doublefeed" malfunction, even though I've practiced these drills multiple times at the firing range. With a revolver, if it doesn't fire, the only thing you have to remember is pull the trigger again. I definitely acknowledge that a revolver holds fewer rounds than most modern semi-automatics and that it takes longer to reload. However, given that most home defense situations will require fewer than 6 shots (usually fewer than 3), I therefore believe that these drawbacks are more than outweighed by the simplicity of the revolver. Plus the revolver can be kept loaded indefinitely in the nightstand (or in a lockbox by the bedside), without stressing any magazine springs. One advantage of a revolver chambered in .357 is the versatility of the ammunition. You can practice with light .38 special rounds at the range (with a few .357 just so you know what to expect), then load it with anywhere from .38 special, or more powerful .38+P, or even more powerful light .357 (such as the Remington Golden Saber) or full strength .357 rounds. The best choice would depend on a number of factors in your personal context, including whether you live in a house (separated from neighbors) or an apartment with thin walls, as well as your own personal tolerance for recoil. Specific models for home defense include Smith & Wesson 686 or Ruger GP-100, assuming you want 6-round capacity, and that you don't intend it for concealed carry out of the house. Some models of the S&W 686 carry 7 rounds, which may come in handy sometime. I also agree that you should know the laws in your state with respect to use of deadly force, and how to deal with the legal aftermath. I have a couple of additional points for NoodleFood readers. Firearms are only a part of our home defense strategy. The first line of defense is our two large German Shepherd dogs, who would alert us very quickly to the presence of any middle-of-the-night intruders. Plus once we determined that the threat was real, we would of course call 911 ASAP. But assuming that things got ugly and we had no alternative but to resort to deadly force, Diana and I have worked out a rapid-response drill where she goes for the revolver, whereas I go for the 12-gauge shotgun, and we cover the door to the bedroom. In this sort of emergency, it sure is nice to have two people who can can safely and competently handle a firearm! If one is interested in a handgun for concealed carry (as opposed to purely home defense), then a different set of considerations would also apply, including size, light weight, and concealability. We are fortunate to live in Colorado, where any honest citizen can obtain a concealed handgun license, after meeting some reasonable and objective qualification criteria. But that's a subject for a different post. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)