walsh

My own personal favorite is just mild to hard calisthenics, coupled with half an hour on an exercise bike 3-5 times a week. Plus I just try to watch the fats a little bit. But seriously, if you're looking for a nice easy way to get started, try a good calisthenics program (John Basedow, who advertises often on ESPN, has one that is effective, according to a few friends of mine).

CNN had an article online today about the cancer-preventative effects of coffee. Apparently (in a study done in Japan) the incidence of liver cancer was halved in those who reported at least one cup of coffee a day. And the incidence decreased for increased coffee consumption! This, apparently, isn't just one of those flash-in-the-pan studies that newsmen like to bring up every now and then, because it appears the effects of caffiene have had the same effects on rats, which is what prompted the study. http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/...r.ap/index.html

CNN had an article online today about the cancer-preventative effects of coffee. Apparently (in a study done in Japan) the incidence of liver cancer was halved in those who reported at least one cup of coffee a day. And the incidence decreased for increased coffee consumption! This, apparently, isn't just one of those flash-in-the-pan studies that newsmen like to bring up every now and then, because it appears the effects of caffiene have had the same effects on rats, which is what prompted the study. http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/...r.ap/index.html

This is fascinating. Thomas Stanley is a demographer that has done a series of studies on millionaires in America, and by far (like 88% to 15% or so) they chose integrity/honesty over a high IQ to account for their success. There's quite a bit more data to support Objectivism, but that's neat that it shows up in Ayn Rand. edited to correct spelling.

Wow. That author is completely confused. That's a trashy way of paying a compliment.

In case either of you (A is A and Inspector) would like to see another view of some of this information, including a view refuting the more Puritanical stance on relationships, Dr. Hurd wrote an essay on Sex and Morality you can get from his website for like 5 bucks. And he's a real, live, accomplished psychologist, not just some guy who talks to girls and reads books.

Don, just so you know, I'm enjoying the hell out of this discussion. This thread isn't populated solely by people who want to pick apart minutia. For everyone else, this kind of thing is not very new. That Al Kufr suggested a site, and in my memory there's a guy on Askmen.com who has very similar (although, not the same) ideas as Don. I understand the differences between what they advocate and what Don is saying, but it may be helpful for those who want to destroy Don's ideas to find out at least what the literature's ideas are, and to understand where they differ from Don's. Anyway, thanks Don.

I might have something to add. I'm not sure if the particular addiction being discussed is chemical in nature, but if so, that lends another dimension to the process of removal. I recently kicked a nicotine habit, which is a chemical addiction that quickly and insidiously becomes a mental/psychological addiction. While I have not written anything on my experiences, the process (similar to my own) is documented at Don Watkin's Anger Management. It is an interesting, more epistemological, study of addiction, particularly nicotine.

This is a fascinating discussion. I have a roommate with whom I don't get along (for a number of reasons, but that's beside the point) and before she began the process of moving out, she told me in an argument that I was always condescending. I heard from a second source who was around at least some of the time that that was their perception too. And now I find out that it is at least fairly widespread. I appreciate the responses, perhaps they'll help me deal with her in the far more limited dealings we'll have in the future.

I'd like to point out that Dr. Hurd tackled this same issue (abstinence among Objectivists and students of Objectivism) in a paper entitled Sex and Morality, available on his website for a nominal fee. I bought and downloaded it a while ago, and in true Dr. Hurd fashion, it is well thought out. I would recommend it highly.

House is fantastic, but I keep missing it. I hope they don't cancel it in the meantime.

I don't know if you are specifically looking for Objectivist teachers, but there are two at the University of Texas, although they are not graduate history teachers. Ultimately, your choices for colleges with explicitly laissez-faire focus are limited. If you are willing to attend a college that is oriented that way, without being principled, the Chicago school is famous for Friedman's laissez-faire ideas. And while I do not know how laissez-faire Stanford is as a whole, Thomas Sowell holds the Milton Friedman chair in Economics there. At the very least, you would potentially be able to associate with what amounts to a top flight laissez-faire intellectual. I don't know of any colleges or universities in America with a specific Austrian bias, but should you find one, you will probably find it more inconsistent with an Objectivist stance than the University of Chicago. Edited for web links: Chicago Stanford

To him, a dollar is worth a dollar, and everything that is not a dollar is worth zero dollars. Time with family? Worth zero. Playing in a great baseball town? Worth zero. Winning games? Zeeeerrrooooo. A legacy? Well, that’s worth…let’s see…one, two, three…nope, still zero. His philosophy appears to be – if it ain’t worth a dollar, it ain’t worth sh*t. -Jose Melendez (keystothegame.blogspot.com) Sorry about the profanity, but this quote is one I've kept because it reminds me of the money speech. It's about Scott Boras, a particularly effective agent for baseball players who is basically in charge of the best players this offseason. He is famous for having his players sign for the absolute most amount of money the market can bear. This blogger does not like his style.

I have a very limited-use litmus test. Because I am in college and meeting people is a generally large part of the experience, one rule that I have found is that I really only get along with those who have a job. That doesn't mean that I get along with everyone who has a job (I have a roommate who works with Americorps, and we've already had a fight about me paying indirectly for her rent). The ones who do have a job may have some contradictory ideas, but generally don't try to deny Reason, etc. Usually, they at least have their heads on straight.

Wow, thanks for recommending My Chemical Romance. I enjoy them. I'm usually into a bit more screaming, but they work for me.