 |
Hotel Minibar Ethics Question |
 |
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM   
The January 10, 2010 New York Times recently published the following interesting ethics question:When I checked into a hotel in California, I was starving, so I ate the $6 box of Oreos from the minibar. Later that day, I walked down the street to a convenience store, bought an identical box for $2.50 and replenished the minibar before the hotel had a chance to restock it. Was this proper? My view is "no harm, no foul." In fact, my box was fresher: the Oreos I ate were going to expire three months before the box I replaced them with.
DAVID LAT, NEW YORK The NYT's ethicist Randy Cohen answered that the hotel guest was in the wrong:...The hotel is providing not just a product but also a service -- the convenience of having Oreos available in your room, 24/7. To create this utopia of constant confectionery access, the hotel had to pay someone to travel the world and select the finest vintage cookies, order the Oreos and stock the minibar. You enjoyed that service; you must pay the (ridiculously high) price. For what it's worth, I've never consumed any of the items in a hotel minibar.
But I have never thought of engaging in this sort of "minibar arbitrage" either (as Tyler Cowen calls it.)
Obviously if you take the Oreos from the minibar, you must make good. The key question is whether the only way to do so is pay the $6. Or is it ethically kosher just to replace the cookies?
Feel free to post your own thoughts in the comments section!Labels: Ethics
| | |  E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink ( )  Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts  via Feed Reader  via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts  M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Sunday, February 07, 2010 |
|
Activism Recap |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:00 PM
This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
- Monday, February 1, 2010: Gorman and Schwartz on Health Choice by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Tuesday, February 2, 2010: ObamaCare Supporters Not Giving Up by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Tuesday, February 2, 2010: Canadian Premier Comes to the US For Care by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Wednesday, February 3, 2010: States Seeking To Ban Mandatory Health Insurance by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Thursday, February 4, 2010: Interview With Jared Rhoads by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Friday, February 5, 2010: Hsieh OpEd in Boulder Daily Camera: Polis And Public Option by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Monday, February 8, 2010: Quick Links: Minnesota, Virginia, Catron by Paul Hsieh, MD
This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:
Labels: Coalition for Secular Government, Health Care
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Saturday, February 06, 2010 |
|
Body Temperature: Personal Results |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
As a followup to my general discussion of thyroid function and body temperatures, I thought I'd report my own personal findings.
Since late December, I've taken my temperature three to four times per day with this basal thermometer. For greater accuracy, I don't take my temperatures for a half hour before or after eating or drinking, nor after exercise. I try to avoid breathing through my mouth (as of often do, as I have narrow nasal passages) for a while beforehand. I record the value and the time in the spreadsheet, then I calculate the average and the range each day.
During that time, my temperatures haven't changed much. That's not surprising. Even though I've seen a dramatic improvement in my other hypothyroid symptoms after starting high-dose iodine and desiccated thyroid in mid-January, I still feel cold -- not just in my hands and feet but in my innermost guts -- most of the time. Some other symptoms, like dry skin, as as bad as ever.
So let's get to the numbers. From December 21st to February 5th, my average temperature has been 96.76°F. The median is 96.85°F. The standard deviation is .69°F. The range is 4.40°F.
Here's the chart of temperature over time (click to enlarge):
Here's the chart of frequency of temperature values (click to enlarge):
As you can see, my temperature mostly ranges from 96.0°F to 97.2°F. That encompasses 68% of the readings (i.e. 101 of 148) -- meaning two standard deviations.
My low was 93.92°F on January 29th. I was sitting at my computer, on a heated pad, under a fleece blanket. I began taking my temperature as I felt myself growing colder and colder. When it got that low, I just couldn't do anything but sit. Then, as it began to rise back to 96°F, I began to feel better. Notably, that was after a few days of terrible stress over a friendship. That's reflected in the wild temperatures I got around that time in the first chart. (Perhaps my adrenal glands were going haywire.) Since then I've made a concerted effort to chill out relax.
I hope to see a rise in body temperature -- and to feel a warm glow in my belly -- if my doctor increases my dose of desiccated thyroid from 1.0 to 1.5 grains with my next round of labs later this month.
Update: I forgot to mention something. When I ate the Standard American Diet, I felt mildly cold most of the time, not just in my hands and feet but in my core. My temperatures were also low, albeit not as low as they are now. When I began eating paleo, I was amazed to feel so much warmer. I didn't need the seat warmer in my car and my office; I wore lighter clothing around the house during the winter. It was fantastic! The only time I would feel cold was after I'd been fasting for about 20 hours or more. That's one reason why I'm pretty sure that I was mildly hypothyroid before I began eating paleo, even though my TSH was in the official normal range. (I'll say more about that in another post, however.)Labels: Health, Thyroid
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Thyroid and Body Temperatures |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:00 PM
One difficulty of diagnosing and treating hypothyroidism is that many of the standard symptoms are highly variable between individuals, not well-correlated with lab values, difficult to measure, and not unique to hypothyroidism. Doh!
One useful measure seems to be low body temperature. Janie Bowthorpe of Stop the Thyroid Madness has a whole page on body temperature. She writes:
Generally, the average temperature of an adult with a healthy thyroid and a healthy metabolism is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 37.0 degrees Celsius, and that occurs around mid-afternoon or 3 pm. So if you take your mid-afternoon temp and find it in low 98's or even in the 97's, you have been given a strong clue that you may be hypothyroid. And a few report their mid-afternoon temp being in the 96's. BRRRR.
Another temperature clue is to take it before you rise from your bed in the morning. Dr. Broda Barnes, a doctor who paid attention to clinical presentation and prescribed Armour, found that a healthy before-rising morning basal temp should be between 97.8 - 98.2. If it's higher, you may be hyperthyroid, and if it's lower, you are most likely hypothyroid. He also recommended under-the-arm temperature testing, but patients have found oral to be just as effective.
Additionally, once you are on natural desiccated thyroid like Armour, and are consistently raising your doses, you will see your temps climb to healthy levels with increasing feel-good symptoms to match. In many patients, reaching 98.6 can happen before you are even on your optimal amount of Armour.
Janie also thinks that fluctuating temperatures can be a sign of adrenal fatigue. That's a controversial diagnosis, but given the abysmal failure of the standard treatment of T4-only medication for so many people, I'm inclined to side with Janie's experience.
Dr. Davis also recommends using body temperature in the diagnosis and treatment of hypothyroidism. He writes:
Is there an at-home test you can do to gauge thyroid status?
Yes. Measure your temperature.
Unlike a snake or alligator that relies on the sun or its surroundings to regulate body temperature, you and I can internally regulate temperature. The hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid glands are the organs involved in thermoregulation, body temperature regulation. While the system can break down anywhere in the sequence, as well as in other organs (e.g., adrenal), the thyroid is the weak link in the chain.
Thus, temperature assessment can serve as a useful gauge of thyroid adequacy. Unfortunately, temperature measurement as a reflection of thyroid function has not been well explored in clinical studies. It has also been subject to a good deal of unscientific discussions. He recommends taking an oral basal temperature -- meaning as soon as you wake up, before you get out of bed or do anything. What temperature are you looking for?
Though there are scant data on the distribution of oral temperatures correlated to thyroid function, we find that the often-suggested cutoff of 97.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 36.4 C, seems to track well with symptoms and thyroid laboratory evaluation (TSH, free T3, and free T4). In other words, oral temp < 97.6 F correlates well with symptoms of fatigue, cold hands and feet, mental fogginess, along with high LDL cholesterol, all corrected or improved with thyroid replacement and return of temperature to 97.6 F. Of course, hypothyroidism is not equivalent to low body temperature -- any more than it's equivalent to high TSH. It's just one sign among many symptoms and signs. And I think it's a potentially useful sign.
However, I do have some questions about body temperature, some of which Richard Nikoley touched on in this post.
First, what's the optimal range of body temperature? How much does it vary between persons?
It's easy enough to determine average temperature in a population: just take a slew of temperatures. Determining optimal temperature is a whole new ball of wax -- particularly if many people suffer from undiagnosed hypothyroidism! Plus, the optimal body temperature of a person eating a high-carb vegetarian diet might differ markedly from a person eating a high-fat paleo diet. Similarly, the sedentary person might have a different optimal temperature than the avid crossfitter, marathoner, or weightlifter. And perhaps genetic origins matter too: Inuits might differ from Polynesians. Moreover, perhaps individuals with very similar backgrounds and lifestyles vary in their optimal temperature due to random features of their biology.
In short, knowing the average body temperatures and standard deviations of seemingly healthy people is a far cry from knowing your own optimal body temperature.
Here's the standard view of normal body temperatures from WebMD:
Most people think of a "normal" body temperature as an oral temperature of 98.6F. This is an average of normal body temperatures. Your temperature may actually be 1°F (0.6°C) or more above or below 98.6F. Also, your normal body temperature changes by as much as 1°F (0.6°C) throughout the day, depending on how active you are and the time of day. Body temperature is very sensitive to hormone levels and may be higher or lower when a woman is ovulating or having her menstrual period. They also indicate that an oral temperature of less than 96F indicates low body temperature. (I've had plenty of temperatures below 96.0 lately, but I'll post on that separately.)
However, even the standard number of 98.6 is controversial. Here's a report from Harvard Medical School:
The 98.6° F "normal" benchmark for body temperature comes to us from Dr. Carl Wunderlich, a 19th-century German physician who collected and analyzed over a million armpit temperatures for 25,000 patients. Some of Wunderlich's observations have stood up over time, but his definition of normal has been debunked, says the April issue of the Harvard Health Letter. A study published years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association found the average normal temperature for adults to be 98.2°, not 98.6°, and replaced the 100.4° fever mark with fever thresholds based on the time of day.
Now, researchers at Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y., have found support for another temperature truism doctors have long recognized: Older people have lower temperatures. In a study of 150 older people with an average age of about 81, they found that the average temperature never reached 98.6°. These findings suggest that even when older people are ill, their body temperature may not reach levels that people recognize as fever. On the other hand, body temperatures that are too low (about 95°) can also be a sign of illness.
The bottom line is that individual variations in body temperature should be taken into account, reports the Harvard Health Letter. Ideally, you and your doctor should have enough temperature measurements at various times of day to establish a baseline for you. Short of this, recognize that 98.6° isn't the benchmark that we've long believed it to be. So perhaps the best way to know your own optimal body temperature would be to record a series of body temperatures when you feel well with a good-quality thermometer. I wish I'd done that a year ago.
Second, how can a person get precise and accurate measurements of body temperature?
That's a harder problem than you might think! The article "Temperature measurement in paediatrics has an excellent discussion of the problems with the various methods of measurement. (I'm omitting the citations, as well as some material relevant only to children. You can find that in the article.)
Rectal thermometry: Rectal thermometry has traditionally been considered the gold standard for temperature measurement, but some studies have revealed limitations of this method. Rectal temperatures are slow to change in relation to changing core temperature, and they have been shown to stay elevated well after the patient's core temperature has begun to fall, and vice versa. Rectal readings are affected by the depth of a measurement, conditions affecting local blood flow and the presence of stool. Rectal perforation has been described, and without proper sterilization techniques, rectal thermometry has the capacity to spread contaminants that are commonly found in stool.
Axillary thermometry: While axillary [armpit] temperature is easy to measure (compared with oral or rectal measurements), it has been found to be an inaccurate estimate of core temperature in children. This type of measurement relies on the thermometer remaining directly in place over the axillary artery, and it is largely influenced by environmental conditions.
Oral thermometry: The sublingual site is easily accessible and reflects the temperature of the lingual arteries. However, oral temperature is easily influenced by the recent ingestion of food or drink and mouth breathing. Oral thermometry relies on the mouth remaining sealed, with the tongue depressed for 3 to 4 min ... The only good news is that (high-quality, properly-functioning) digital thermometers are as accurate as mercury thermometers.
As I said to Richard Nikoley when he e-mailed me that link: "I suppose that the most accurate method is the coroner's liver temp, but I think I'd rather avoid that!"
As for my own body temperatures, I've posted that separately: Body Temperature: Personal Results.Labels: Health, Thyroid
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Questions on Hypothyrodism |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:00 AM
Dr. Eades has graciously agreed to write up a post on thyroid and iodine. Here's what he says at the end of his most recent post:
I've been so busy lately that I haven't posted a lot, but that doesn't mean I haven't been thinking about posting. I've got a number of things I've been wanting to write about that I plan to have up as soon as the Colpo deal is finished. I want to add my two cents worth on a bunch of the problems some Paleo dieters seem to develop. And I've got a post cooking on the thyroid and iodine. One on fructose, and one on saturated fat. Plus the analysis of the next stupid study that will inevitably pop up and seize the imagination of the mainstream media types who will shout it from the rooftops. Hooray! I'll definitely owe him the sous vide meatball that I promised him. Then again, he might prefer if I wrote up a post on how to make them. (I have no idea... but here's a hint.)
I know that I've been all gushy for Dr. Eades of late... but he deserves it! Dr. Eades -- as well as Dr. Davis and others -- have been extremely generous in their blogging. I've benefited so much from their medical experience -- not just in my abstract understanding of the relevant science but in my rubber-meets-the-road well-being. They've earned my respect and my gratitude in spades.
Now to the real point of this post. In requesting a post on thyroid problems, I sent Dr. Eades the following questions as fodder. I have my own preliminary views and suppositions about some of them, but I'm very interested in his answers. Here they are, with links added:
- Why did you choose to put your patients on desiccated thyroid rather than T4-only meds?
- What do you think of using synthetic T4 plus T3 rather than desiccated thyroid? (Kurt Harris claims that synthetic hormones are exactly identical to those in porcine thyroid, and that the addition of T3 is the sole reason why people do better on porcine thyroid than T4-only meds.)
- What do you think of the claim that a person can be hypothyroid despite basically normal lab results? What do you think about the concept of "Type 2 Hypothyroidism"?
- Do you recommend dosing based on symptoms -- or by TSH?
- Why do you think that hypothyroidism is so prevalent today? Why do you suspect that it affects more women than men?
- What do you think of the standard view that any dose of iodine above a few hundred micrograms is dangerous, even potentially a cause of hypothyroidism? What is a standard safe dose? Is high-dose iodine dangerous for some people?
- If a person suspects that they might be hypothyroid, what do you recommend that they do? Might iodine alone make a difference -- or stave off full-blown hypothyroidism?
- Do you think that a low-carb diet can somehow cause, reveal, exacerbate, or otherwise affect a thyroid problem? (Matt Stone claims that, as do others. [See the PaNu smackdown.]
- Do you think that adrenal fatigue is a genuine problem for some hypothyroid people? If so, what do you recommend doing to treat it?
- What sources do you recommend that people read if they have been diagnosed with or suspect they have hypothyroidism?
I doubt that Dr. Eades can answer all those questions in a single blog post, but I hope that he addresses some of them.Labels: Health, Thyroid
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Dr. Ed Locke to Lecture in Denver |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:00 PM
Mark Your Calendars! Kirk Barbera -- FRO member and president of the Auraria Campus Objectivists -- invites you to this free lecture by Objectivist Ed Locke:
- What: "Christianity vs. Objectivism" by Dr. Locke
- When: Wednesday, February 24 at 6:00 to 8:00 pm
- Where: St. Cajetan's Church at the Auraria Campus of CU Denver
Christianity vs. Objectivism: Which is the Proper Philosophy for Living on Earth?
This talk argues that only Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, provides a code of morality suitable for living successfully and happily on earth. Objectivism holds that reality is real, that reason is man's only means of knowing it and that one should act in one's own rational self-interest, with rationality being the highest virtue. Life is the objective standard of morality. In contrast, Christianity asserts that reality is governed by supernatural forces, that knowledge is based on faith and that the highest moral virtue is self-sacrifice. It will be shown that Christianity cannot be practiced consistently, destroys the integrity of man's mind, and is incompatible with living successfully and happily in the real world.
Edwin A. Locke, Ph.D., is Dean's Professor (Emeritus) of Leadership and Motivation at the R.H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, College Park. He received his BA from Harvard in 1960 and his Ph.D. in Industrial Psychology from Cornell University in 1964. He has published over 285 chapters, notes and articles in professional journals, on such subjects as work motivation, job satisfaction, incentives, and the philosophy of science.
Note: To help promote the event, you can RSVP on the Facebook event page if you plan to attend.Labels: Announcements
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Science Contaminated by Government |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
In prior posts, I've recommended this New Yorker article on the widespread problem of olive oil contamination: Slippery Business. That risk of contamination is one reason why I prefer to cook with coconut oil, lard, and butter.
This fascinating story about the possibility of massive government corruption of science might be a case when "toxic oil" was not to blame. In the early 1980s, a mysterious outbreak of illness in Spain left hundreds dead and thousands seriously injured. It was quickly blamed on contaminated cooking oil. In 1989, some oil producers were sent to prison, even though the supposed toxin in the oil was never identified. Similarly, as even supporters of the standard account admit, scientists haven't ever been able to reproduce the symptoms of the supposedly toxic oil in lab animals.
Even worse, even the epidemiological data looks like it was corrupted by a young government determined to quell the panic. The article says:
In order to demonstrate that the oil had caused the illness, government scientists needed to be able to show, for example, that families who had bought the oil were affected, whereas those who hadn't were not; that the aniline in the oil was indeed poisonous and that the victims were suffering from aniline poisoning; and, bearing in mind that such commercial cooking oil fraud had been widespread for years, just what had changed in the manufacturing process to cause the oil suddenly to become so poisonous. To this day, none of these basic conditions has been met. You'll find the details in the article. The most fundamental problem is simply that the cause and the effects don't seem to match up: many sick people didn't consume the supposedly toxic oil, many oil-consuming people didn't become sick. And that's just for starters.
Do I know what happened here? Of course not. The article might be mere conspiracy-mongering; the author might be twisting the facts to manufacture doubt and controversy where none should exist. Or perhaps the author's complaints and doubts are completely justified. I can only say that, if the article is accurate in its basic information, the government's story doesn't merely smell fishy: it's stinks to high heaven.
The simple fact is that governments cannot be trusted with science. Scientists at the government trough are often quickly wedded to grand theories based on political pressure rather than evidence. Then, because they seek to maintain public trust above all else, they cling to those grand theories as dogmas, even as contrary data accumulates. In the process, they often cause serious harm to people by preventing them from living as well as they might -- or preventing them from living at all.
Essentially, to the extent that science is affected by political pressure, it works on the principle of stare decisis -- meaning "maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established." To support their political paymasters, scientists must adhere to precedent, however wrong.
Of course, some scientists might be willing to buck political pressures, but they risk being marginalized or fired for speaking out. Others might be more remote from those pressures, and so able to do good work in quiet. But for any politically warm topic, I trust government science as much as I trust the State Science Institute on Rearden Metal -- meaning, not at all.Labels: Food, Health, Science
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Hsieh OpEd in Boulder Daily Camera: Polis and Public Option |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:00 AM
The February 4, 2010 Boulder Daily Camera has published my latest OpEd, "Polis and Health Care Reform".
My theme is that Boulder's congressman Jared Polis (a very liberal Democrat) should drop has latest proposal for a "public option" and instead support free market health care reforms -- because it would be both good policy and good politics.
Here is the introduction:Boulder's Congressman Jared Polis recently made national headlines when he and fellow first-term Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) teamed up to petition the U.S. Senate to include the so-called "public option" in its next version of health care legislation.
Polis' move was an attempt to break the political stalemate between the House and the Senate following Republican Scott Brown's upset election victory in Massachusetts. After Brown's election deprived Senate Democrats of the 60-vote supermajority necessary to pass the current version of ObamaCare, the House and Senate have struggled to bridge the differences between their respective versions of health legislation. In particular, one key difference has been the government-run "public plan" to compete with private insurance plans, which House liberals (including Polis) supported but which the Senate rejected.
Unfortunately, Polis' "public plan" is both bad policy and bad politics... (Read the full text of "Polis and Health Care Reform".)
In particular, I mention the fact that Polis' views are out of step with what Americans want. Hence, he could alienate many independent voters here in Colorado.
Could a version of the Massachusetts election upset also happen here in liberal Boulder, Colorado?Labels: Activism, Health Care
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, February 02, 2010 |
|
Refutation by Subjectivism |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:00 PM
Via BenB:
A philosopher once had the following dream.
First Aristotle appeared, and the philosopher said to him, "Could you give me a fifteen-minute capsule sketch of your entire philosophy?" To the philosopher's surprise, Aristotle gave him an excellent exposition in which he compressed an enormous amount of material into a mere fifteen minutes. But then the philosopher raised a certain objection which Aristotle couldn't answer. Confounded, Aristotle disappeared.
Then Plato appeared. The same thing happened again, and the philosophers' objection to Plato was the same as his objection to Aristotle. Plato also couldn't answer it and disappeared.
Then all the famous philosophers of history appeared one-by-one and our philosopher refuted every one with the same objection.
After the last philosopher vanished, our philosopher said to himself, "I know I'm asleep and dreaming all this. Yet I've found a universal refutation for all philosophical systems! Tomorrow when I wake up, I will probably have forgotten it, and the world will really miss something!" With an iron effort, the philosopher forced himself to wake up, rush over to his desk, and write down his universal refutation. Then he jumped back into bed with a sigh of relief.
The next morning when he awoke, he went over to the desk to see what he had written. It was, "That's what you say."
[From Raymond Smullyan, 5000 B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies. St. Martin's Press, 1983] Yes, some people really think that's a legitimate method of refutation!Labels: Funny, Philosophy
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
A Few Parallels From Shelter, Food, Epistemology, and Happiness |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Can you spot the similarities? And can you come up with your own examples?
Three views of building a shelter:A) God will provide for our needs, just like God provides for the lilies, "who neither toil nor spin". Don't worry about how.
B) Buildings collapse all the time; it's not possible for humans to build stable shelters.
C) Man can build shelters. But this won't happen automatically. "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed". To build a proper shelter, we have to know the properties of building materials, know our shelter requirements, and build according to reality-based principles. Three views of choosing what food to eat:A) Just eat what tastes good. Your body automatically knows what's good for it.
B) "Food" is a social construct. What one culture regards as a delicacy, another regards as taboo. There's no possible basis for deciding what's right to eat.
C) Proper diet is possible, but not automatic. Our food choices should be guided by the biological and nutritional requirements of our physical bodies. Hence, we must understand the nature of food, the nature of our bodies, and select our foods accordingly. Three views of knowledge:A) We can know the truth -- we just have to rely on the infallible "inner vision" provided to us by God.
B) Knowledge is impossible. Our imperfect senses and flawed minds inherently prevent us from ever knowing the truth.
C) Knowledge is possible, but not automatic. But to gain knowledge, we must consciously seek to adhere to reality, using a specific method proper to our conscious minds -- namely reason. Three views of happiness:A) Don't worry, be happy! We live in the best of all possible worlds, so success and happiness are inevitable!
B) We're doomed from the start. Life is a vale of tears, where happiness and success are impossible. Tragedy, defeat, and failure are the norm -- we just have to accept that.
C) Achievement and happiness are possible, but not automatic. To be happy, we have to seek our own good by means of rationally formed principles. Here are a few related concepts from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:Objectivity
Subjectivism
Malevolent Universe Premise
Benevolent Universe Premise
Logic
Reason Labels: Philosophy
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, February 01, 2010 |
|
Link-O-Rama |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:00 PM
Some photos of newly-discovered species. I was about to say that I liked the "slug-sucking snake" the best, but then I saw the "glass frog." You can see its innards through its transparent skin!
Yesterday's Ads Predicted Today's Tech: The ads themselves are pretty cool, and the snarky comments are even better. I like Flash Gordon as the usher in the 3-D movie theater! Also, here's The 25 Funniest Vintage Tech Ads. The comment on the Apple ad just kills me.
What Would Ayn Rand Say? -- it's an interview (text and audio) with Yaron Brook, with some detailed discussion of the financial crisis.
Yes, please! Let's use "African-American" to refer to real Africans -- of whatever skin color -- who have chosen to become Americans. Or better yet, let's just drop all those damn hyphenated labels. American citizens are just plain old Americans.
I'm not much of a fan of Richard Dawkins, but he's correct to say that Pat Robertson's odious view that the earthquake in Haiti was God's retribution for sin represents true, Biblical Christianity. (Via David McBride)Labels: Link-O-Rama
| | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
|
Ayn Rand at the Smithsonian |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:00 AM
An announcement from the Ayn Rand Center:
The Smithsonian Associates Presents
Ayn Rand: A Philosopher Who Lived Objectively
A seminar by Shoshana Milgram Knapp
Who: Shoshanna Milgram Knapp is an associate professor of English at Virginia Tech
What: A seminar examining the development of Ayn Rand's philosophy
Where: S. Dillon Ripley Center
1100 Jefferson Drive, SW
Washington, DC 20560
Metro: Smithsonian Mall Exit (Blue/Orange lines)
When: Saturday, March 20; 9:30 AM 4:30 PM
Description: Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was the author of best-selling novels that have never been out of print and seven collections of essays that explore her philosophy, Objectivism. The essence of Objectivism, she said, "is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." These ideas are evident throughout her life and her body of work. This seminar examines the development of Rand's philosophy through the course of her colorful life, including a childhood blighted by the Bolshevik Revolution; her experiences as a Broadway playwright, Hollywood screenwriter and political campaigner; and her renown as a lecturer and writer on her system of thought.
Admission: General admission $120
Discount rate for ARI/ARC donors $85 (Promotion Code 182197)
Register online or call: The Smithsonian Associates, 202-633-3030
Quick Tix Code: 1M2-495
Bio: Dr. Shoshana Milgram Knapp, who earned a Ph.D. in comparative literature at Stanford, is Associate Professor of English at Virginia Tech, where she specializes in 19th- and 20th-century fiction (English, French and Russian).
Her publications include articles on Chekhov, Dostoevsky, George Eliot, Fowles, Henry James, Hugo, Nabokov, Ayn Rand, George Sand, Herbert Spencer, Tolstoy and others. Her current long-term project is a study of Ayn Rand's life from birth until 1957 (the date of the publication of "Atlas Shrugged").
She has lectured on Ayn Rand at national conferences of MLA, NCTE and AATSEEL, and at the Smithsonian Institution, as well as at international conferences on John Steinbeck (Kyoto), Nevil Shute (Alice Springs, Australia) and Richard Wright (Paris).
More information: Visit Smithsonian Institution
Please note: This event is sponsored and organized by the Smithsonian Institution. Labels: Announcements
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Liberty Toastmasters |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
This fall, I returned to Toastmasters -- the super-effective organization of clubs for training people in the skills of public speaking and leadership -- by joining Denver's brand new "Liberty Toastmasters." The club was created by Brad Beck, a classmate of mine from the Leadership Program of the Rockies (LPR). The members include most of my favorite people from that LPR class, a number of friends from Front Range Objectivism, and various other good folks.
Liberty Toastmasters is somewhat unique, in that it focuses on "issues such as personal responsibility, individual / property rights, limited government, free markets, and a strong national defense." Of course, not all members do that effectively or consistently, but the group doesn't assume that they do. However, I hope and expect that we will all learn to be more effective advocates for liberty -- not only by cultivating our speaking and leadership skills, but also by refining and augmenting our understanding the theory and practice of individual rights in politics.
Happily, the club was written up in the Denver Examiner, with the focus on Yuriy Belits. I had the pleasure of evaluating his speech at that meeting.
If you're interested in becoming a more effective activist, I'd definitely recommend joining a local Toastmaster club. If you're already an experienced Toastmaster, you might think about creating a similar "Liberty Toastmasters" in your area. From what I've seen, it's a great way to network with -- and influence -- people interested in defending this country from the statism of left and right.Labels: Activism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Sunday, January 31, 2010 |
|
Activism Recap |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:00 PM
This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
- Monday, January 25, 2010: More California Dreaming by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Tuesday, January 26, 2010: Faux Health Reform by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Tuesday, January 26, 2010: ObamaCare Not Dead Yet? by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Tuesday, January 26, 2010: ObamaCare Finally Dead? by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Wednesday, January 27, 2010: Barro on "Scaled Back" ObamaCare by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Thursday, January 28, 2010: Obama Not Giving Up Yet by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Friday, January 29, 2010: Massachusetts' Other GOP Winner by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Friday, January 29, 2010: Not Dead Yet? by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Friday, January 29, 2010: Crawford Letter Opposing Reconciliation Trick by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Saturday, January 30, 2010: "Reconciliation" Update by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Sunday, January 31, 2010: Did We Avoid ObamaCare Because of MLK Day? by Paul Hsieh, MD
This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:
Labels: Coalition for Secular Government, Health Care
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Saturday, January 30, 2010 |
|
Thyroid Update: Desiccated Thyroid and Iodine |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 PM
After months of being lethargic, confused, fat, pained, and cold from my hypothyroidism, I'm finally on the mend! Although I'm not yet 100%, the turn-around was remarkable. Within just a few days, my worst symptoms of mental fog and lethargy were alleviated by rejecting the conventional treatment of synthetic T4 (e.g. Synthroid, levothyroxine) in favor of desiccated porcine thyroid plus high-dose iodine.
(Desiccated thyroid is dried pig thyroid; it contains the full range of natural hormones produced by the thyroid, not just T4. High-dose iodine means supplementing with 12.5 to 50 milligrams per day.)
When I was diagnosed as hypothyroid in early November, my TSH was only 3.23. That's barely abnormal, but I was suffering from most of the standard symptoms of hypothyroidism. (TSH above 2.5 suggests hypothyroidism.) My doctor put me on 50 micrograms of Synthroid, a synthetic version of the T4 hormone. Two months later, in early January, my TSH was down to 2.28, but my symptoms were somewhat worse. Also, my Free T3 and Free T4 were the same, still on the low end of the middle range.
Undoubtedly, I could have increased my Synthroid, eventually reducing my TSH to my doctor's target of around 1.0. Would I have felt any better at that point? Based on my experience on the drug for those two months -- when my lab values improved but my symptoms worsened -- I strongly suspect not. Instead, if I'd stayed on Synthroid, I likely would have been mentally and physically disabled for the rest of my life.
I'm not exaggerating. During those two months, I was unable to work, travel, or pursue any substantive projects. My weekly trip to the grocery store exhausted me, and I often couldn't muster the energy to slowly walk around the pastures with Conrad. My IQ felt about 20 points lower; I could only think at a very surface level. I was most definitely not flourishing. My mind and body seemed to be slowly shutting down.
Sadly, that's not an uncommon response to the standard regimen of T4-only medication. TSH might fall to normal levels, but the many debilitating symptoms of hypothyroidism remain. From what I've read in countless forums, too many doctors seem concerned only to treat the problem of high TSH, not the underlying problem of hypothyroidism. In particular, many doctors seem to ignore the fact that the body might not effectively convert the storage hormone T4 into the active hormone T3 -- or that tissues might not effectively use T3. Many patients on synthetic T4 medication complain to their doctor about their persistently raging hypothyroid symptoms, only to be summarily dismissed. After all, if the TSH is normal, all those classic hypothyroid symptoms simply must be due to something other than a poorly functioning thyroid -- like aging or poor diet or even hysteria. Or so they claim. (Such doctors equate hypothyroidism with elevated TSH, just as analytic philosophers equate concepts with definitions.)
The consequences of that mis-treatment are tragic. People suffer the degradation of living as a quasi-corpse for years and decades, unless they discover desiccated thyroid. (Or, in some cases, they suffer unless they find a way to return to desiccated thyroid, after some new doctor switched them from it to synthetic T4, often against their express wishes.) It's heartbreaking to read these stories. I know that, without dedicated and tenacious people like Janie Bowthorpe of Stop the Thyroid Madness, I could have suffered the same fate. Instead, I got off pretty easy with only two months of living as a semi-corpse on Synthroid.
At the time of my diagnosis of hypothyroidism in early November, I was aware that Synthroid might not work for me. However, given that I developed my hypothyroidism at the very height of a government-induced shortage of desiccated thyroid, I was willing to try it. Well, I got my answer by early January: Synthroid didn't do squat for me, except lower my TSH.
Happily, my excellent family practice doctor, Dr. Heble, was willing to switch me to one grain of desiccated thyroid, to see whether that might help. (One grain is the standard starting dose for desiccated thyroid, but it was an increase for me, based on this conversion chart.) By that time, I'd found a local source: Wise Compounding Pharmacy.
Just as I was making that switch from Synthroid to desiccated thyroid, I also began taking high-dose iodine, plus selenium. As I indicated in my first post on my hypothyroidism, I suspected that I might be deficient in iodine for three reasons.
- Seafood is the primary natural dietary source of iodine, but I hated it until my mid-20s, and even now, I don't eat more than a serving per week.
- Nearby oceans supply the soil of the east and west costs with iodine, but I've lived in the "goiter belt" for the last decade.
- Then, perhaps tipping me over the edge, I switched from iodized salt to (low-iodine) sea salt when I began eating paleo in the summer of 2009.
(I'll say more on what I suspect about the origins of my hypothyroidism in another post, including its relationship to my lacto-paleo diet.)
Back in early December, I began cautiously supplementing with 150 micrograms of "Liqui-Kelp," gradually increasing that to 600 micrograms over the next month. (150 micrograms is the government's recommended daily allowance.) I never felt any positive results from doing that. However, during that time, I was reading about much, much higher doses of iodine -- between 12.5 and 50 milligrams -- as sometimes necessary for whole-body health, including improving thyroid function.
I was intrigued by that, but also very wary. Most doctors will say that milligram doses of iodine are dangerous. However, the claims of danger seem to be sketchy, seemingly based on poor-quality epidemiological studies. Plus, most people seem to be able to handle those milligram doses just fine, and many people see remarkable improvement on them. Also, from what I read in some standard medical sources, a person with a physically intact thyroid can handle that much iodine, but a person with a damaged thyroid (e.g. partly removed in surgery) will be unable to tolerate it. Also, some people with Hashimoto's do great on iodine, but others don't tolerate it well. So, with much trepidation, I decided to try milligram doses of iodine.
On Monday, January 11th, I began taking Iosol and Lugol's, working my way up to about 16 milligrams by the end of the week -- over 100 times the government's RDA. I also began supplementing with 100 to 200 micrograms of selenium each day. (Selenium is essential for thyroid health, you probably don't want to take iodine without it, and you definitely don't want to take more than 400 micrograms per day. That upper limit seems well-established.)
(Note: I don't have any special reason for doing both types of iodine, except my own confusion. Lugol's -- or the tablet form Iodoral -- seems to be the preferred form, as it contains both iodine and potassium iodide. From what I've read, different tissues prefer those different forms. Iosol contains only iodine. The milligrams of iodine per drop for J.Crowe's Lugol's Solution is here.)
On Tuesday of that week, I began feeling better: I was able to run some errands, then attend Ari Armstrong's "Liberty in the Books" economics discussion group. That amazed me, as doing both would have been impossible just a week before. Then, on Wednesday, I switched to the desiccated thyroid. Over the next few days, I felt amazingly better. My brain fog lifted, and my lethargy disappeared. I could think again! I could concentrate! I danced around the house, singing silly songs! I wanted to exercise again! I had energy to burn! Life was good again!
Most amazingly, within just a few days on the milligram doses of iodine, a 16-month bout of totally mysterious amenorrhea came to an end. (Sorry, TMI, I know... but it's important.) I was totally floored; I never expected that kind of result, not so fast! By way of background, the problem started after I went off the birth control pill in October of 2008. My doctor did a battery of tests over the summer, but nothing seemed wrong, except that my estrogen levels were very low -- like menopausal. Initially, we thought the problem was just that my reproductive system went dormant with the shock of going off the pill after about fifteen years of nearly continuous use. Once the hypothyroidism cropped up, my doctor wondered whether there might be some connection. Hypothyroidism is known to cause menstrual problems, albeit usually causing too-heavy periods. Now I wonder what my iodine deficiency did to my estrogen levels, if that's what happened. (Oh, and I'm not the only one.)
Never in my life have I experienced such a dramatic turn-around in my health, mind, and mood as I experienced that week on iodine and desiccated thyroid. If I weren't a intransigent atheist, I would describe it as a miracle. That's what it felt like: I got my life back -- I got myself back -- in the span of just a few days.
However, I had an epistemic problem. Although I knew that the improvement began before I switched to desiccated thyroid, I wanted to sort out how much was due to the iodine supplementation versus the desiccated thyroid. So after three days on desiccated thyroid, I switched back to my old 50 microgram dose of Synthroid. I stayed on that for about five days -- enough time to allow the T3 of the desiccated thyroid to fully clear from my system.
During that time on iodine plus Synthroid, I definitely felt a decline in my energy and mental function, although I was still significantly better than when on Synthroid alone. I was eager to get back to the desiccated thyroid, and I perked up again when I switched back to it. Interestingly, I'm going without iodine today and tomorrow, to prepare for an iodine loading test on Monday. I'm definitely feeling a fuzzy-headed today, perhaps due to that lack of iodine intake.
Overall, I would say that I was functioning at about 50% while Synthroid, at about 75% while on Synthroid plus iodine, and now I'm at about 90% with desiccated thyroid plus iodine.
Oddly, my symptoms are not all better. Instead, my body's response has been somewhat mixed. My brain fog is gone, and my powers of memory and concentration are much better. I have tons more energy, such that I'm able to put in a day's work. Overall, my mental function and energy levels should be about 10% better, I think. I've stopped gaining weight, but I've not yet lost any weight. My digestion is definitely better: I'm not chronically bloated, and I'm able to skip a meal without disaster. My carpal tunnel is somewhat better, but still bothering me somewhat. However, my body temperatures are still quite low, averaging about 96.5 F. My skin is still terribly dry.
I'm also able to exercise -- but wowee, I am so out of shape! I'd been increasing sedentary for the last few months, such that I barely moved in December. Now I can exercise, but my muscles are shaky and then sore from even mild weightlifting. Also, I used to be unable to exert enough energy to get winded, but now my wind is the major limiting factor when I row on our rowing machine. That's good!
Also, my goiter -- the nodule in my thyroid -- seems to have shrunk considerably. Before, I could feel a squishy spot on my neck, and I could see a slight bulge in the mirror. Now that's all gone. I'll have an ultrasound recheck in late March, and I expect good results from that.
I'm going to have another thyroid lab panel done in early March, and I expect that I'll be increasing my desiccated thyroid dose to 1.5 grains then. Also, as I mentioned, I'm taking an iodine loading test on Monday. I'll be very curious to see my results; I expect that I'm still iodine deficient, and that I can and ought to increase my daily dose, perhaps up to 50 milligrams per day for a few months. Paul -- who has been supplementing with just the RDA of 150 micrograms for the past few weeks -- will be taking his test when he can, likely next weekend. I'll be very curious to compare my results with his.
I've come to wonder whether iodine might be like Vitamin D -- in the sense that the miniscule amounts recommended by the government might be sufficient to ward off obvious illness -- rickets, in the case of Vitamin D and goiter, in the case of iodine. Yet a much higher dose might be optimal. I'm definitely not recommending everyone start taking large doses of iodine. However, if you're suffering from the symptoms of hypothyroidism, you might investigate iodine. And for everyone else, I recommend that you make sure that you obtain the recommended 150 micrograms per day.
Mostly though, I'd like to see some solid research and writing on the subject. While I've learned a great deal from the sources I've read, I've been frustrated by the inconsistent quality thereof. I'm not competent to dig up and read the primary sources in the medical literature: I'm purely a consumer of secondary sources. That makes me exceedingly nervous, as I know just how inaccurate secondary sources can be!
I have serious reservations about the scientific judgment of some of the sources I've read on iodine and hypothyroidism -- even though I often found them fascinating and helpful. For example, Dr. David Brownstein wrote a fascinating little book on iodine -- Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It. (He's also the author of Overcoming Thyroid Disorders.) His collection of articles on iodine (often co-authored) looked good too... until I got to the belligerent argument for young-earth creationism. Seriously. I don't think that Brownstein is lying about the tests he's done and the results he's gotten, particularly given that others have reported similar results. Yet I simply cannot trust the medical judgment of someone who appeals to the Flood (!!) and Satan (!!) to explain why the soils of some inland areas are deficient in iodine.
Similarly, while I was super-intrigued by what I read in Dr. Mark Starr's book Hypothyroidism Type 2, I was dismayed to read on his web site that he practices homeopathy and "energetic medicine." I just can't regard that as anything better than mystical quackery. The only bright side is that nothing in the book seems to depend on -- or even hint at -- those views, so perhaps that's all separate from his views on hypothyroidism. However, once again, I simply can't trust his medical judgment.
My basic approach is to take whatever seems grounded in good empirical science from these folks, then then integrate it with my own experience and reliable reports from others. Happily, I can strongly recommend one very practical book on hypothyroidism, namely Janie Bowthorpe's Stop the Thyroid Madness. Mary Shomon's book Living Well with Hypothyroidism also has some helpful suggestions, particularly for dealing with doctors unwilling to prescribe desiccated thyroid. And I've often found myself searching the archives of various Yahoo Groups, particularly Coalition for Natural Desiccated Thyroid, Natural Thyroid Hormones, and Iodine.
Also, I have some hope for Dr. Broda Barnes' 1976 book Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness, but I'll reserve judgment until that arrives from Amazon.
Mostly, I'm just desperate for a good, juicy blog post from Dr. Eades on the subject of hypothyroidism, desiccated thyroid, and iodine supplementation. He's probably the only doctor (along with his excellent wife, MD) whose judgment I can fully trust on this topic. He's got the deep knowledge of the relevant biology; he's got the years of experience treating patients with hypothyroidism; and he's got a good working epistemology.
Happily, Dr. Eades dropped some useful hints in the comments of a blog post on Oprah's weight gain. He recommends an iodine loading test, plus Iodoral (12.5 to 50 milligrams) for people who are deficient. And he always used desiccated thyroid for his patients, not synthetic T4. I was so relieved to read that, as I felt like I was leaping about in the dark, particularly on the iodine.
So ... Dr. Eades ... will you write that blog post on iodine that you promised in those comments? Pretty please... with a deliciously tender sous vide meatball on top?Labels: Health, Personal, Thyroid
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Crawford Letter Opposing Reconciliation Trick |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:00 AM
As mentioned earlier, ObamaCare may not be quite dead yet.
If this report from HotAir.com is accurate, the Democrats will use the "budget reconciliation" technique to ram ObamaCare through Congress.
Basically, the House has to first approve the Senate bill without changes. Then they would use the "budget reconcilation" technique to make changes in a pre-arranged deal to satisfy the various special interest groups. This only requires 51 votes in the Senate, not 60. This tactic is necessitated by the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts which deprived them of their prior 60-vote supermajority.
The good news is that several Democrat Senators have already expressed opposition to using this method. (Whether they actually vote against it is a separate issue). So the Democrats may only have just barely over 50 votes they can count on. Which means if 1 or 2 more Democratic senators decide to oppose this tactic, then it will fail.
Hence, the important people to contact would be your two Senators, especially if they are Democrats.
Here's an example of a great letter that David Crawford sent to his Senators from Washington state (reposted with his permission):Senator XXX,
I have heard news that there is a plan to pass the Senate version of the health care bill with modifications made through "budget reconciliation", which requires fewer votes.
None of this seems to be confirmed, so I don't know what is true, but if there *is* such a plan, it seems to be a total subversion of the legislative process! Please do not support efforts that are obviously intended to force a major new set of laws and regulations on a people who are trying to make it clear that they don't want it.
The Massachusetts election was the latest of many efforts of voters to communicate that we do *not* support this massive intrusion into our health care. I believe the Senate bill was passed too early, without a real understanding of your constituents concerns.
We all want better health care, but the proposed changes may have a devastating effect on the existing system, especially at a time when the economy is still very unstable. Please listen to what your constituents are trying to tell you and vote NO on any "budget reconciliation" efforts to get ObamaCare into law.
Thank you,
David Crawford If you agree with those views, please speak out!
[Crossposted from the FIRM blog.]Labels: Activism, Health Care
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Philosophy and Sense of Life |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Back in December, Front Range Objectivism created a third FROG discussion group. 2FROG was just too large, and we're trying to keep the FROG groups at about twelve plus/minus two people. I've opted to join 3FROG. Officially, that's because I want to help steer this newer group in the right direction in my capacity as Overall FRO Leader. Honestly though, I'm not too worried about them. Mostly I'm just enthused to spend some time discussing Objectivism with some of the newer folks in FRO.
3FROG just began Ayn Rand's anthology on aesthetics, The Romantic Manifesto. I'm pleased by that choice, as that covers a great deal of material that I'm just not terribly familiar with. More particularly, the essays often concern more psychological issues -- like sense of life and emotions -- that clearly bear on my own deep interest in Aristotle's moral psychology.
On Saturday, I lead the discussion on the second essay, "Philosophy and Sense of Life." Here are questions that I posed to the group.
- What is sense of life? How is it formed? How does it function in a person's life? How does it relate to a person's explicit philosophic principles? How does it relate to psycho-epistemology?
- How does a person identify his own sense of life? Why and how might that be difficult? What might be some clues? What is my own sense of life?
- Can a person change his sense of life? Why might he want to do so? How might he do so? Why might that process be difficult or even unpleasant? How might a person psychologically retrain himself?
- How can a person learn to better identify the sense of life of other people he knows and meets? Why and how might that be important?
What would you say in answer to those questions? They seem simple, but they're actually quite involved! We discussed them for quite a while in 3FROG, and I'm happy to say that I have a better grip on the topic now than when I read the essay last week. As for my own answers, that will have to wait for some future day.Labels: Objectivism, Psycho-Epistemology, Sense of Life
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
The Christian Ideal: Suffering |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Crossposted from Politics without God.
I'm simply overwhelmed to read Tony Judt's account of a single night stuck in the prison of his body, ravaged by ALS (a.k.a. Lou Gherig's disease). Here's how he describes his basic condition:
By my present stage of decline, I am thus effectively quadriplegic. With extraordinary effort I can move my right hand a little and can adduct my left arm some six inches across my chest. My legs, although they will lock when upright long enough to allow a nurse to transfer me from one chair to another, cannot bear my weight and only one of them has any autonomous movement left in it. Thus when legs or arms are set in a given position, there they remain until someone moves them for me. The same is true of my torso, with the result that backache from inertia and pressure is a chronic irritation. Having no use of my arms, I cannot scratch an itch, adjust my spectacles, remove food particles from my teeth, or anything else that--as a moment's reflection will confirm--we all do dozens of times a day. To say the least, I am utterly and completely dependent upon the kindness of strangers (and anyone else). Please, go read the whole thing. While I don't know what Mr. Judt's own religious views are, I regard his life as a clear demonstration of the life-hating brutality of Christian doctrine. To wit:
Christianity regards suffering like that of Mr. Judt as not merely noble and elevated, but positively divine. It's not good to live fully, happily, robustly according to Christianity: it's good to suffer and die. That's what Jesus taught -- and then he lived and died by that ideal.
Christianity regards the body as a vile, despicable prison that leads a person's divine soul astray into the dark depths of sin. Mr. Judt is positively lucky, as his body really is a prison: he cannot indulge pleasures of the flesh, not even the seemingly minor ones like scratching his own itches.
Christianity regards Mr. Judt's life as God's property, not as his own. So Mr. Judt must be forbidden by law from ending his own life, if and when it becomes intolerable. If anyone attempts to help him end his life, that person should be imprisoned as a murderer. As a bonus, if Mr. Judt manages to end his own life somehow, the loving Christian God will consign him to the torments of hell for all eternity.
Of course, many Christians do not live by such dark principles. They are kind, decent people, loathe to see anyone suffering from such a tragic condition. They might even support stem-cell research, and even assisted suicide. To that extent, their values are more American -- loving science, seeking happiness, and upholding individual rights -- than Christian.
As Leonard Peikoff states in his essay Religion Versus America:
It is time to tell people the unvarnished truth: to stand up for man's mind and this earth, and against any version of mysticism or religion. It is time to tell people: "You must choose between unreason and America. You cannot have both. Take your pick."
If there is to be any chance for the future, this is the only chance there is. Amen, brother!Labels: Ethics, Politics, Religion
| | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
|
The Importance of Citizens United |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice was kind enough to post his thoughts on the significance of the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign speech in the comments on my post Freedom of Speech, Somewhat Restored. I thought them worth reproducing in a blog post of their own. Here's what he wrote:
Thanks for posting our release, Diana. I thought folks my be interested in a few additional thoughts on why this decision is so significant. No Supreme Court decision is perfect, and this one is far from it from a strict philosophical standpoint. But judging from where we were, it is a very significant step forward. The importance of this decision goes beyond its basic holding, which is that the government cannot prevent corporations from spending money on their own independent speech during elections. Corporations now have the same rights to spend unlimited sums on independent advocacy as individuals do. A corporation is simply a voluntary association of individuals. It has the same "rights" that the individuals do; no more, and no less. The Supreme Court recognized that basic point, which is very important.
But the Court's reasoning was also very good in many respects. Those who have heard Eric Daniels's excellent lecture on the First Amendment know that the Supreme Court has treated the freedom of speech primarily as a means to the end of promoting "democracy" rather than as an inviolable individual right. The history of campaign finance law has been a march toward the logical conclusion of this premise, which is complete government control over political speech. This is the reason that campaign finance jurisprudence is so important--because the consequences of the court's approach are so apparent in this area (and because elections are the path to political power, which is the reason the left cares so much about campaign finance law). (Incidentally, recall what Ayn Rand said about free speech in Censorship: Local & Express--that leftists are willing to leave speech relatively free because they want to control the material realm, while the right is the opposite. In my view, that dynamic is reversed in campaign finance law, both because it involves the regulation of money and because the left recognizes campaigns and elections as the path to political power. But I digress).
The Court unfortunately did not reject this approach, but it did emphasize much more than it ever has before that the First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to speak, to organize, and to think for themselves. The battle on this front is by no means over, but we now have some very good ammunition to use in the future.
The Court's approach was also surprisingly principled and objective. For instance, it recognized that the means of exercising one's freedom of speech (e.g., money, the corporate form) must be protected if the right to free speech is to be protected; it understood that requiring a corporation to speak through a separate legal entity that is separately funded is a denial of the corporation's right to speak as is conditioning the right on compliance with complex regulations (A is A); it rejected as irrelevant the fact that many of the Founders apparently disliked or didn't trust corporations and the fact that the "media" that existed in the founding era consisted of small newspapers and pamplets, rather than gigantic corporations. As Chief Justice Roberts put it in his concurrence, "the First Amendment protects more than the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer." (Remember Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" painting, with freedom of expression represented by a humble looking man standing in a town meeting with his hat in his hand? That is the left's view of free speech. Speak as much as you want, as long as it won't affect anything).
In sum, Citizen's United is not just a very good campaign finance decision, it is a very good First Amendment decision (in my view, one of the best ever). It gives us a great deal to use on many fronts, and we will use it all to good effect. Steve Simpson also wrote an op-ed on the case for Pajamas Media: Protecting the Marketplace of Ideas. It's a good overview and analysis of the case.
Also, Julian Sanchez wrote a biting analysis of the practical implications of the common leftist view that corporations shouldn't have the right to free speech because they're legal fictions rather than real persons. He imagines what would happen if we accepted that view fully:
Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press ... as long as they don't plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You're free to practice your religion without interference -- but if it's an unpopular one, well, let's hope you don't expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman's right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she'd better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it's easy. That's a wonderful reductio ad absurdum for precisely the reason identified by Steve Simpson said in his Pajamas Media op-ed:
Corporations are groups of individuals and have the same rights to speak as the individuals who make them up, no more, no less. The fact that state laws affect corporate status cannot be a basis for regulating them, any more than it could be a basis for deciding that married couples, partnerships, or membership organizations are not allowed to speak. Nor can it matter that any group's views may not "correlate" with the views of the public. The First Amendment exists to protect dissent. No one ever wishes to limit speech with which they agree. After so many years of political disaster, I'm enjoying these few rays of political sunshine.Labels: Free Speech, Law
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
| | |
|
