“Frans Hofmeester filmed his daughter Lotte once a week for the past twelve years and produced this time lapse film. We’ve seen this kind of thing before … but the use of short snippets of video instead of still photos adds something.” (Kottke.org)
He did the same with his son Vince too:
The video really adds so much personality!
The Forbes website has published my latest OpEd, “Just Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending?”
The theme is that America needs market-based health reforms such as Health Savings Accounts which reduce costs while preserving quality medical care, not government-mandated “bundled payments” which will harm patients and literally set a price on human life.
Here is the opening:
What simple health care reform has reduced medical costs by up to 30%, while preserving quality of care? Hint: It’s not government price controls or mandatory health insurance. Rather, it’s letting patients decide how to spend their own health care dollars…
(Read the full text of “Just Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending?“, May 15, 2012.)
I’m honored to appear on the Forbes website, and I’d like to thank readers who have shared this piece via Facebook, Twitter, blogging, e-mail, etc.
[Cross-posted from the FIRM blog.]
Unlike this dog, Conrad already has his bitch — Doggie Mae. So now he needs the book, How to Control Your Bitch. Because really, he’s failing pretty miserably, multiple times per day.
Once again, I’m experimenting with Philosophy in Action on BlogTalkRadio! My fourth radio show will be tomorrow evening — Wednesday May 16th at 9 pm ET / 8 pm CT / 7 pm MT / 6 pm PT. It will last for a half hour. Its theme will be “Guilty Pleasures”:
Do you struggle with the temptation of “guilty pleasures”? How can you overcome them — or should you indulge them? Join philosopher Dr. Diana Hsieh for a half hour discussion of the rationally egoistic approach to “guilty pleasures.”
BlogTalkRadio is audio-only, but I can take live callers, just like talk radio — and that’s what I’ll be doing for the bulk of the show.
To listen to the live broadcast, just go the page for this episode at the appointed time. The upcoming episode will always be found on Philosophy in Action’s channel.
I hope that you’ll join me tomorrow tonight!
As a follow-up to my recent webcast discussion on poking fun of friends’ ideas online, I’d say that this kind of image is objectively offensive:
It’s not just partisan tripe. It’s collectivist tripe. It’s totally unjustifiable tripe.
People deserve to be judged as individuals. Many liberals are thoughtful people, while many conservatives are flatly dishonest. Liberals tend to be better than conservatives on many important issues: separation of church and state, abortion rights, drug legalization, immigration, limiting police power, and so on. Most conservatives are utterly wrong on those issues, and many will not listen to reason.
When I saw that image in my Facebook feed, I reposted it with the following snippy remark:
I’m pretty sure that such partisan crowing and sniping never convinced anyone of anything. Also, I’m quite sure that people of every political persuasion are enamored of their own set of myths and dogmas. How about working on being more persuasive? It’s harder than you think.
More than anything else in politics, I loathe unprincipled partisan bickering. “My team is GREAT! Your team SUCKS!” is harmless enough in sports. But in politics, people’s rights — and hence, people’s lives and values — are at stake. Is it too much to ask for some concern for principle, i.e. individual rights? Alas, based on the 2012 election so far, we have every reason to expect nothing but unprincipled partisan bickering.
The Process (a.k.a. Designing The Stop Sign Video):
My mother was a graphic designer — and this seems remarkably familiar.
On Sunday, 13 May 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.
As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed:
We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!
The Podcast: Episode: 13 May 2012
Listen Now
The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!
Introduction (0:00)
I’m experimenting with moving the webcast to an audio-only stream on BlogTalkRadio, as well as experimenting with my new call-in radio show on Wednesday evening. Soon, ATLOSCon 2012!
Question 1: Self-Destructive Pleasures (3:58)
It is wrong to pursue self-destructive pleasures? Suppose that you know that drinking to excess is not good for your mind or body, but you want to enjoy the oblivion of drunkenness. Or perhaps you know that sleeping with your ex-girlfriend is a very bad idea, but you want the pleasure of sex with a warm body. Is it wrong to pursue these pleasures, if you’re willing to accept their destructive consequences?
My Answer, In Brief: To live morally means to pursue your life and your values with gusto, not jump into the gutter. To yearn for self-destructive pleasures indicates psychological problems in need of fixing.
Links:
Do you have the right to privacy with respect to information that I can gather about you from observation of you while I’m on my own property? For instance, if I have technology that allows me to gather photons or sound waves that you emit from your property while I’m sitting on my property next door, can I post that information on YouTube or Facebook? For example, imagine that I have an infrared video of your activities emitted through your bedroom wall or the audio of your personal phone conversation that can be detected by sensitive microphones from 100 yards away. Have I violated your rights by gathering and publicizing information you’ve chosen to allow to be broadcast to anyone who can detect it with the right equipment?
My Answer, In Brief: Privacy is a value, and the law ought to recognize a fact-based distinction between private and public activities. The line should likely be drawn at what’s perceptible by the unaided senses or perceptible with ordinary technology.
Question 3: Pushy Fundraising (32:56)
How should I respond to the constant demands to contribute to fundraisers from my child’s school? I am barraged with “requests” for contributions to school fundraisers. This week, for example, each student in the band is asked to put together a “buddy bag” with sweets (against my views), a toy (more plastic junk to fill the landfills), and a gift (I can’t afford that). Every week, there’s another fundraiser, for which parents are asked to spend their money on things they don’t value or aren’t a fair value. Should I refuse these requests – and if so, how should I do so?
My Answer, In Brief: Be a good role model for your kids: recognize that you’re not obliged to contribute, establish your own standards for contribution, and be firm and clear in communicating what you’re willing to do (or not) to others.
Question 4: Browsing Locally Then Buying Online (37:59)
Is it wrong to browse in a local store but then buy online? Suppose that you shop for an item in a brick-and-mortar store, taking advantage of the opportunity to browse and get recommendations from staff, but then make your purchases at a discounted online retailer – for example, browsing through a local bookstore but then buying from Amazon at a lower price. Is that wrong or unfair?
My Answer, In Brief: It’s not wrong to buy online after browsing in a local store, provided that it’s done honestly – just as it’s not wrong to check out reviews online, but then buy in a local store. Be a self-interested consumer!
Links:
In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:
Comments or questions? Contact us!
The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!
If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.
Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):
(Click to enlarge. Via George Takei.)
For anyone wishing to ask a question, make a observation, or share a link with other NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. As always, please refrain from posting inappropriate comments such as personal attacks, pornographic material, copyrighted material, and commercial solicitations.
NoodleFood’s Open Threads feature creative commons photographs from Flickr that I find interesting. I hope that you enjoy them!
