Naked Man Bales Himself

 Posted by on 30 November 2011 at 2:00 pm  Funny, WTF
Nov 302011

This video of a man putting himself through a hay baler… what can I possibly say?!?


Yesterday, my letter to the editor in support of Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s campaign finance reforms was published in the Denver Post. Here’s the letter:

Re: “Gessler pushes rules rewrite,” Nov. 24 news story.

I applaud Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s reforms of Colorado’s onerous campaign finance rules, despite his recent loss in court.

As an occasional political activist, I know that Colorado’s campaign finance regulations are burdensome and intimidating. When Ari Armstrong and I wrote policy papers against the “personhood” amendments in 2008 and 2010, I was obliged to report $20 expenditures and contributions, as well as publish the names and addresses of our supporters. I couldn’t afford to hire lawyers or accountants. I struggled to understand and comply with the law, fearing fines of $50 per day per violation.

The current rules strongly discourage ordinary people from speaking out on ballot measures, as the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized. Gessler’s reforms, while limited, are an important step in the direction of greater freedom of speech.

Diana Hsieh, Sedalia

This letter was published in the Nov. 29 edition.

You can go to the web page to leave a comment in support of free speech. I’ve already replied to two early comments. The first comment said, “Money isn’t speech, Diana, and if you have a problem with open elections and full disclosure, you’re in the wrong country.” (Lovely, no?) The next comment attempted to defend me, but wrongly, saying “it sounds as if Diana is a small political activists who is complaining about burdensome laws that are designed for political organizations, not for someone who got $20 to help offset some costs.”

Here’s my comment in reply:

I’m the writer of the letter. In the Secretary of State’s May 2011 hearing about raising the reporting threshold for issue committees, I testified about my experiences — my difficulties, rather — in attempting to comply with the law. That’s posted to my blog here:…

I support free speech for everyone, not just for small-time activists but for large groups too. However, I am a small-time activist, and the law definitely burdens me disproportionately.

As a matter of free speech, people should be able to support and assist other people to speak with their money, without having their private information posted for all the world to see. To say that “money isn’t speech” is wrong: money enables people to speak and to speak for others, and that is part and parcel of free speech. Otherwise, free speech means nothing more than my power to talk to my dogs while alone in my house.

Finally, mark your calendars:

  • Ari Armstrong and I will discuss Colorado’s campaign finance laws on Wednesday, December 7th, at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver. I’ll post a full announcement of this event in a few days.
  • Ari and I will also be speaking at the Thursday, December 15th, at the Secretary of State’s campaign finance reform hearing in Denver. You can find details about the meeting and the proposed rule changes in this PDF. I’ll post more about this hearing next week, but I’d very much appreciate anyone willing to attend the hearing in person to testify. If that’s not feasible, you can submit written testimony.

For the Coalition for Secular Government, this election cycle is quickly becoming our busiest ever. The personhood movement is on the march, and to defend abortion rights, we need to defend our right to speak freely too.

Nov 292011

In this brief clip from a 1995 interview, Steve Jobs speaks about the importance of living a life that’s fully your own, rather than accepting limits imposed by others. Implicitly, he’s drawing on the distinction between the metaphysically given and the man-made:

Here’s another short clip from the same interview on the importance of being willing to act in pursuit of what you want. I love the benevolence in the initial discussion of asking for and giving help!

Nov 292011

Thailand’s government has warned Facebook users they could face criminal prosecution “if they press ‘share’ or ‘like’ on images or articles considered unflattering to the Thai monarchy.”

Even more alarming, this was used against a Thai-born US citizen who wrote a book about the Thai monarchy while living in the US, then was arrested when he visited Thailand for medical reasons. (Via /.)

A few related stories from the NYT:

American Arrested for Insulting Thai King“, 27 May 2011
A High-Tech War Against Slights to a Centuries-Old Monarchy“, 2 Oct 2011
20-Year Sentence for Text Messages Against Thai King“, 23 Nov 2011

The closest I’ve found here in the United States is this story in Forbes: “High School Student Punished For Joking Tweet About Governor Brownback“.

She insulted Kansas governor Brownback saying, “Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked”.

In the Kansas case, the punishment would administered by the school in response to a complaint from Brownback’s office. According to the Forbes piece, she has considered submitting to the school punishment “because she didn’t want a disciplinary action on her transcripts and have it affect her ability to go to college. But she is rightfully unapologetic in real life.”

Update: Kansas governor Brownback has apologized on behalf of his staff: “My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize… Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms.” The student likely won’t have to submit to the proposed school punishment.

Bonus from Diana, because, as Justin said on Facebook, “the Thai king is a dickhead”:

Upcoming Rationing of Neurosurgery Services?

 Posted by on 28 November 2011 at 2:00 pm  Health Care, Politics
Nov 282011

Update: The website states that the American Association of Neurological Surgeons has investigated this issue and determined that anonymous caller was likely not a neurosurgeon and that the call “contained several factual inaccuracies”. More here.

Original Post

An Illinois neurosurgeon discusses upcoming new guidelines from the Obama administration restricting how doctors can deliver medical care.

A few key points with respect to neurosurgery procedures:

Patients over age 70 with government insurance will receive “comfort care”, but not the full range of aneurysm treatment, stroke therapy, etc.

Patients are referred to as “units”, not patients.

Various devices currently approved by the FDA for “humanitarian use” and widely regarded by surgeons as medically safe and appropriate for clinical use will likely have that approval withdrawn to save money.

According to this surgeon, this information is straight from Obama administration HHS officials, although not yet published.

The physician summarizes the issue quite nicely:

You know, we always joke around — ‘it’s not brain surgery’ — but I did nine years after medical school, I’ve been in training ten years, and now I have people who don’t know a thing about what I’m doing telling me when I can and can’t operate.

(Read the full blog post, “Neurosurgeon Briefed by HHS“. Link via @SonoDoc99.)

Anyone who’s read Atlas Shrugged will recognize the similarity between this surgeon’s observations and this quote from the fictional Dr. Hendricks (also a neurosurgeon):

Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward…

Many Americans (including my own and Diana’s parents) are over 70 years old yet in reasonably good health. They’d likely be denied life-saving neurosurgical care in the near future if these guidelines take effect.

But just don’t call it rationing.

[Crossposted from the FIRM blog.]

Nov 282011

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on friends with benefits, obligations to help others in need, political compromise on legal marijuana, lying to a dying person, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Whole Podcast: 27 November 2011

Listen or Download:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.

Podcast Segments: 27 November 2011

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.


My News of the Week: Happy Post-Thanksgiving Dieting! Unfortunately, my ancient horse Tara died unexpectedly on Tuesday. Ari Armstrong and I have been busy making the final edits on our paper on abortion rights for The Objective Standard.

Question 1: Friends with Benefits

Question: Are “friends with benefits” relationships a mistake? It is moral and/or wise to pursue sexual relationships with friends, even though you’re not in a romantic relationship? What are some of the benefits and/or pitfalls? If it’s a mistake, what should a person do to avoid such entanglements?

My Answer, In Brief: Sex is not some kind of hobby that you can add to friendship. It’s an inherently intimate act; it’s not compatible with mere friendship; and it often results in dishonest with yourself and your friend. The better alternative for people uninterested in a serious relationship is to date unseriously.

Listen or Download:


To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Obligations to Help Others in Need

Question: Do we have an obligation to help others in need? Many people think that the need of others creates an obligation to help. Is that right or wrong? Why? When should a person help others?

My Answer, In Brief: All the arguments for moral obligations based on need fail. Every person’s life – and hence, every person’s needs – are his own responsibility. Moral obligations arise from a person’s choices, and ought to be based on shared values and interests, not mere need.

Listen or Download:


To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Political Compromise on Legal Marijuana

Question: When is it morally right or wrong to support political compromises? The marijuana legalization initiative for the 2012 Colorado ballot also specifies open-ended taxation that circumvents the protections of TABOR (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights). It specifies that the first $40 million raised goes to government schools. Both of these taxation items are compromises added to get voters to accept the marijuana legalization. Is it ethical to support more taxation to get more freedom from drug laws? Is it okay to circulate petitions to get this on the ballot so the voters can decide? More generally, when if ever should a person support political compromises that uphold some rights but violate others?

My Answer, In Brief: With mixed legislation, you need to examine the good and the bad, with particular emphasis on precedents set by the law. Sometimes, like with this measure, you should support it because the good hugely outweighs the bad, but that’s not always the case.

Listen or Download:


To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 4: Lying to a Dying Person

Question: Is it wrong to lie to a person on their deathbed? Is lying in such cases justified so that the dying person can “go in peace”? For instance, a man might tell his fellow soldier dying on the battlefield that his heroism helped win a critical victory, even if it actually made no difference. Or a nurse might tell a dying mother desperate to make peace with her long-estranged daughter that the daughter called to tell her she loves her, even if that didn’t happen. Is that wrong? If so, what’s the harm?

My Answer, In Brief: Honesty is a virtue, even in dealings with a person dying. To die in peace means to die in harmony with the facts, not in a state of blissful ignorance or blind evasion.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions


  • What do you think of the argument that it in a modern society it is wrong to not feed everyone that is starving when we are capable of producing enough food to do so?
  • What do you think of Terry Goodkind’s novels?
  • What do you think of the term “anti-choice” to describe people who oppose abortion?
  • Have you gleaned any moral lessons from caring for Dr. Gimpy these past few months?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 55:19
  • Duration: 5:25
  • Download: MP3 Segment

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.


Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!

  • Start Time: 1:00:42

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

Activism Recap

 Posted by on 27 November 2011 at 2:00 pm  Activism Recap
Nov 272011

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

This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

This week on Mother of Exiles:

This week on the blog of Modern Paleo:

Open Thread #320

 Posted by on 27 November 2011 at 10:00 am  Open Thread
Nov 272011


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!

Awesome Dog Training

 Posted by on 25 November 2011 at 2:00 pm  Animals, Cool, Funny
Nov 252011

I’ve not done any new training with Mae for the past few months, but this inspires me!

Objectivist Roundup

 Posted by on 24 November 2011 at 8:30 pm  Objectivist Roundup
Nov 242011

The Objectivist Roundup is a weekly blog carnival for Objectivists. Contributors must be Objectivists, but posts on any topic are welcome.

Erosophia hosted this week’s Objectivist Roundup. Go take a look!

You can submit your blog article to the next edition of The Objectivist Roundup using this submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found here. If you’re an Objectivist blogger, you can get weekly reminders to submit to the carnival by subscribing to OBloggers @

Also, here are the ten most recent additions to the question queue for the Philosophy in Action Webcast. Please vote for the questions that you’re most interested in hearing me answer!

Join us for the live webcast at on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha