NoodleCast #125: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Apr 162012
 

On Sunday, 15 April 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 15 April 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:09:00
Download the Episode
Subscribe to the Feed
The Segments: Episode: 15 April 2012

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’ve been busy working on transferring NoodleFood over to WordPress on Philosophy in Action. It’s still a work in progress!

Question 1: The Morality of Breaking the Law (3:44)

When is it moral to break the law? Laws should be written to protect individual rights. Unfortunately, many laws today violate rights. When should I abide by a rights-violating law, and when is it proper to break it?

My Answer, In Brief: A person does not have any moral obligation to submit to violations of his rights. However, the proper course – whether complying with the law, breaking the law overtly, or breaking the law covertly – depends on the particulars of the situation. Mostly, get legal advice first!

Links:

Question 2: The Morality of Vigilantism (20:48)

Where is the line between justice and vigilantism? When is it moral to take the law into your own hands – meaning pursuing, detaining, and/or punishing criminals as a private citizen? Suppose that you know – without a shadow of a doubt – that some person committed a serious crime against you or a loved one. If the justice system cannot punish the person due to some technicality, is it wrong for you to do so? If you’re caught, should a judge or jury punish you, as if you’d committed a crime against an innocent person?

My Answer, In Brief: The vigilante is not an agent of justice, but a threat to innocents and to the foundations of civilized society.

Links:

Question 3: Stealing Valor (36:37)

Should “stealing valor” be a crime? Rencently, a man was arrested by the FBI in Houston and charged with “stolen valor.” This is the charge made against someone who falsely poses as a decorated soldier. Is it proper to make this a crime? Why or why not?

My Answer, In Brief: Undoubtedly, “stealing valor” is reprehensible, but not everything reprehensible should be a crime. The legal response to “stealing valor” ought to be the same as for other kinds of credentials fraud, whether protect speech, civil fraud, or criminal fraud.

Links:

Question 4: Selling Sub-Optimal Products (48:50)

What should a businessman do if he decides that his product or service is not really good? More specifically, what should a businessman do if he’s rises up in the business world on promoting a particular product or service, only to learn decades into the ventures that there are better alternatives? As a fictional example, let’s take a mattress manufacturer CEO. He has spent decades of his life trying to make the most comfortable mattresses possible, but then read scientific studies that concludes that there is no healthier sleeping surface than the solid floor, and in using his honest judgment he agrees. Being so high up and so long involved in the mattress world, what are the moral range of options for him?

My Answer, In Brief: Morality in business does not requires producing optimal products, but only good products for honest trade. In this case, the businessman has a range of options, including some moral pitfalls to avoid.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (58:52)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Why are vigilante movies so popular?

  • How is a citizen’s arrest different from vigilantism?

  • Is there a lower threshold for when it’s okay to break a regulation?

  • Given the lack of Antonin Scalia’s “New Professionalism” in police action, is the exclusionary rule is an important safeguard?

  • If a government actor has ruined your life unjustly is vengeance a moral option?

  • Is moral perfection a habit and if so is it one of yours?

  • Must a political candidate be chosen by conflating him/her with the party they happen to be running under, or is it reasonable to select a candidate but not agree with the party they run under?

  • Where does Ayn Rand talk about a “central purpose” – and what does she mean by it?
Conclusion (1:08:02)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 16 April 2012 at 8:00 am  1 Response »

NoodleCast #124: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Apr 092012
 

On Sunday, 8 April 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 8 April 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 59:30

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 8 April 2012

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 really enjoyed giving a talk on luck and responsibility at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver on Wednesday. Alas, much of my time for the rest of the week was consumed by WTFuffles. This week, I will finally complete the move of NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action!

Question 1: Cultivating Good Luck (3:04)

Can and should a person try to cultivate his own “good luck”? For example, a construction worker might leave his business card with neighbors in case they or anyone they might know happens to need his services in the future. Similarly, an investor might look to buy stock in companies with promising patents pending or forthcoming products. Is pursuing these kinds of uncertain opportunities a means of cultivating good luck?

My Answer, In Brief: Good luck is not a force in the universe that a person can cultivate. Rather, to the extent that a person extends his knowledge and control over his life, he minimizes the effects of luck in life. That’s the right approach.

Links:

Question 2: Public Breastfeeding (14:05)

Is breastfeeding children in public wrong? My wife and I want to have kids, and one question we have concerns public breastfeeding. Is it immodest or improper to breastfeed in public? Should stores permit or forbid it on their premises? Should public breastfeeding be restricted or banned by law as indecent?

My Answer, In Brief: People ought to support public breastfeeding, even if they prefer not to look at it. It’s not a sexual act, and mothers should be able to feed their babies when they’re out and about.

Links:

 

 

Question 3: National Identification Card (29:57)

Should the government institute a national id card? Periodically, politicians speak of instituting a national identification card in order to protect identify and track potential terrorists, prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants, stop welfare fraud, and more. Would such a national id card violate rights – or be unwise for other reasons? Are state-level identification cards sufficient? Are they proper?

My Answer, In Brief: A national ID card is not only unnecessary: it’s a grave threat to rights. A person should not have to show his papers to engage in ordinary activities.

Question 4: Mulling Over Memories (43:00)

Should I mull over my memories less frequently? Is it unhealthy for a person to continuously mull over previous events and specific memories? I go over past events in my mind on a constant basis. I try to recall specific details (i.e., things I was thinking at the time, etc.) and keep a perfect “image” of the memory/event in my mind as long as possible. Is this strange, unhealthy, or counterproductive?

My Answer, In Brief: You need to ask yourself: What’s the purpose and value of this practice? You need to make sure that it’s helping you live in reality, not serving as an escape from reality.

Rapid Fire Questions (49:04)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • What do you think about the EU?

 

  • What is the difference between someone who identifies themselves as rational but not an Objectivist and someone who identifies as rational and an Objectivist?

 

 

  • Isn’t life meaningless without God?

 

 

  • Why do you think that paganism has been almost entirely replaced by monotheism?

 

 

  • How do you know that God doesn’t exist?

 

Conclusion (58:35)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

 

 

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 9 April 2012 at 7:00 am  No Responses »

NoodleCast #123: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Apr 022012
 

On Sunday, 1 April 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 1 April 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:02:45

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 1 April 2012

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)

My mother has been visiting, so we’ve been having all kinds of fun. On Wednesday, I’m speaking at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver on luck and responsibility. Also, I plan to finally complete the move of NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action.

Question 1: Statutory Rape Laws (2:31)

Are statutory rape laws proper? Statutory rape laws criminalize seemingly consensual sex when at least one party is below the age of consent, but sexually mature, e.g. when an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old. Are such laws proper? Should the over-age person be convicted if he or she didn’t know (or couldn’t reasonably know) that the under-age person was under-age? What if the under-age person lied about his or her age? What, if anything, should happen legally when both parties are under-age, e.g. when two 15 year olds have sex?

My Answer, In Brief: As currently written, statutory rape laws are unjust. The law can and ought protect sexually mature minors by focusing on consent, using shifting burdens of proof, and allowing parents to use restraining orders.

Links:

Question 2: Outing Anti-Gay Politicians as Gay (27:45)

Is it wrong to “out” a hypocritical anti-gay public figure who is secretly gay? Some conservative politicians have taken strongly anti-gay positions, but are secretly gay themselves. If one learns of this, is it wrong for gay activists to publicly “out” them? What if they don’t engage in public hypocrisy, but are just quietly “in the closet”? Should activists respect their privacy in that case?

My Answer, In Brief: People who publicly advocate meddling in other people’s private choices should not expect others to respect their private hypocrisy. They should be exposed, as a matter of justice.

Links:

Question 3: Potential Employers Demanding Facebook Logins (34:58)

Should employers ask applicants for their Facebook logins and passwords? More employers are asking job applicants for their Facebook logins and passwords as part of a background check. Of course, applicants can decline, in which case they might not be considered for the job. Should employers be asking for this information? Is it proper to want to check on the online activities of potential employees? Is that an invasion of privacy? How should someone respond if asked by a potential employer?

My Answer, In Brief: For an employer to ask for your Facebook login and password is a serious invasion of privacy, breach of security, and display of distrust. An employer concerned about the online activities of its employees can and should use other methods.

Links:

Question 4: Enjoying Fantasy and Theology Literature (46:12)

Is an interest in fantasy and theology literature proper? I’m fascinated with fantasy as a literary genre. I find it easier to get excited about a fantastic story rather than about a realistic one, and I’m also really interested in fantasy with a certain sophistication: the extremely well-constructed world of Tolkien in Lord of the Rings, for example, or the mythological background of vampire stories and so on. Along the same lines, I am also fascinated with theology. For example, I found it extremely interesting to read Paradise Lost, and to read up on the many theological questions it raises and answers. Is such an interest proper – or am I indulging in some kind of evasion or escapism from reality? Does it matter that I want to become a writer? I find inspiration for my own potential stories this way.

My Answer, In Brief: A person can have wholly good reasons for an interest in fantasy, science fiction, and theology. Mostly, a person should approach such preferences not by focusing on judging himself, but rather on understanding himself.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (54:07)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • How do you know that God doesn’t exist?

  • What do you think of the idea of “guilty pleasures”?

  • Isn’t life meaningless without God?

  • If the government didn’t own the roads, who would set and enforce traffic laws?

  • What’s the proper meaning of the word “greedy”?

  • What does it mean to be selfish versus selfless?

  • What is the role of a proper government in regards to the unlicensed spectrum?

  • Happy April Fool’s Day!

Conclusion (1:01:48)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 2 April 2012 at 7:00 am  No Responses »

NoodleCast #122: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Mar 262012
 

On Sunday, 25 March 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 25 March 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:03:27

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 25 March 2012

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 was busy with SnowCon this past week… and my mother is coming to visit this week!

Question 1: Unfriendly Disputes in Online Communities (3:29)

Why are disputes so belligerent in online communities? I’ve noticed that people get into very loud and heated disputes online, whereas that doesn’t seem to happen in local communities. Disputes in local communities tend to be less frequent, less belligerent, and last for a shorter time – even when some people end up hating each other and refusing to have anything to do with each other in the end. Why is that? Also, why do people who are closest with each other (whether close friends, dating, or married) seem to agree more on hot-button issues? Are people more willing to reject a stranger’s arguments than those of a friend? Is that an error?

My Answer, In Brief: Conflicts with other people are inevitable in life. Online conflicts are often more belligerent, due to the differences between online and in-person communication. People should try to manage online conflicts in a sane way, with respect for facts about the limitations of the medium.

Question 2: Overcommittment in Projects (32:07)

How can I manage my projects better? Too often, I’m overwhelmed by the sheer volume of projects on my agenda. Because I’m overcommitted, I’ll miss important deadlines or allow some projects to be delayed into oblivion. Other times, my work is rushed and sloppy. Sometimes I feel so overwhelmed that I become paralyzed, and then I don’t get any work done. What can I do to manage my various work and home projects better, so that I keep making progress on what really matters to me?

My Answer, In Brief: If you tend to take on more projects than you can manage well, then you need to work on being more realistic and more selective. Otherwise, you’re just making false promises.

Links:

Question 3: Talking About Selfishness (44:27)

Should I use the term “selfish” in conversation without explanation? According to Ayn Rand, selfishness means acting for your own long-range life and happiness, and that’s moral and proper. Yet most people think that selfishness means brutalizing other people, lying and cheating to satisfy your desires, or at least acting like an insensitive jerk. Should I avoid using the term unless I can explain what I mean by it? And how can I best explain its proper meaning?

My Answer, In Brief: When speaking to other people, make sure that you’re actually communicating what you mean to them. Most often, that will require explaining what you mean by “selfishness” or using another term.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (56:40)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • In today’s political climate, should one bother running for office anymore?

  • Are some people born with more self-control than others? How can those of us lacking in self-control develop a more disciplined lifestyle?

  • Would selling yourself into slavery require regarding yourself as property – or just agreeing to do whatever your master commands?

  • Do you have a must-read book list (like Oprah)?

Conclusion (1:02:29)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 26 March 2012 at 7:00 am  No Responses »

NoodleCast #121: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Mar 122012
 

On Sunday, 11 March 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 11 March 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:19:23

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 11 March 2012

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)

My “Think!” lecture on moral perfection went quite well! Next week, I’ll be busy with SnowCon 2012!

Question 1: Ayn Rand’s View of Women (3:23)

Did Ayn Rand regard women as inferior to men? I admire Ayn Rand, and I’ve used her philosophy in my business and personal life, but I disagree with her view of women. In her article “About a Woman President,” Ayn Rand said that “For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man. ‘To look up’ does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority.” Yet her view seems to imply inferiority in practice: Rand says that no woman should aspire to be U.S. President because that would put her in the psychologically unbearable position of not having any man to look up to. So, does Rand’s view imply that women are inferior to men? What is the factual basis of her view, if any? Do you agree with her?

My Answer, In Brief: Ayn Rand’s arguments against a woman president are puzzling and wrong, but they’re no reason to think that she regarded women as inferior to men.

Links:

Question 2: The Proper Place of Women (24:39)

Are women subservient to men in Objectivism like in Christianity? The Bible and Christians teach that God made women to be subservient to men and not to be their leader. Ayn Rand seems to think that women are naturally subservient to men and should not be their leader. Aside from the appeal to God, what’s the difference?

My Answer, In Brief: Ayn Rand’s views on sexual psychology, even if wrong, are not merely asserted without reason, as in Christianity, but rather are based on biological facts.

Links:

Question 3: The Health of Cynicism and Sarcasm (45:16)

Are cynicism and sarcasm unhealthy? I know some very bright people who also frequently express cynicism and sarcasm towards world events, public figures, etc. Their remarks can often be quite witty and insightful. But is there something unhealthy about looking at the world in this way, or can that be an appropriate response to all the many real negative facts of reality?

My Answer, In Brief: Sarcasm is morally neutral as a form of humor, but cynicism is psychologically unhealthy and philosophically wrong.

Links:

Question 4: Offers of Prayers for Atheists (59:13)

What should I do when other people offer to pray for me? Sometimes my friends and family members offer to pray for me – whether because I’ve got some problem in my life or because they know that I’m an atheist. How should I respond?

My Answer, In Brief: You should tailor your response to the context, but in most cases, you should be clear, firm, and kind in refusing the prayers of others.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (1:13:22)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Do Ayn Rand’s views on homosexuality constitute an error of morality? If so, are there any implications as to her moral perfection?

  • Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism, does that mean that every philosopher’s ideas should have a name and a set of authorized texts? Should your philosophy have its own name?

Conclusion (1:18:03)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 12 March 2012 at 7:00 am  No Responses »

NoodleCast #120: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Mar 052012
 

On Sunday, 4 March 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 4 March 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:04:06

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 4 March 2012

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)

Happy Ten Year Blogiversary to NoodleFood today! On Tuesday, I’ll be speaking at CU Boulder on Should You Try to Be Morally Perfect?

Question 1: Giving the Benefit of the Doubt (2:52)

When should we give another person the benefit of the doubt? Often, people say that public figures facing some scandal should be given the benefit of the doubt? What does that mean in theory and in practice? When ought people give the benefit of the doubt? Is doing so a matter of generosity or justice?

My Answer, In Brief: To give someone the benefit of the doubt means that you’re not leaping to conclusions about wrongdoing, but considering their past actions and character, and hence, only condemning when the proof of wrongdoing is definitive. It’s proper to give someone the benefit of doubt when it’s likely that the person didn’t act wrongly, when you’re waiting for definitive evidence, or when your judgments are based on knowledge of character.

Links:

Question 2: Requests for Prayers (20:22)

What is the proper response to requests for prayers? A relative of mine recently had surgery to have his appendix removed. I was asked by another relative to pray for the first relative, even though everyone in my family knows that I don’t believe in God or the power of prayer. I tried to let it slide during the conversation, but she was insistent. How should I respond to such requests for prayers, particularly when I don’t want to offend anyone or seem unconcerned?

My Answer, In Brief: You should tailer your response to the context, but in most cases, you should be clear, firm, and kind in saying that you do not pray.

Question 3: Selling Yourself into Slavery (30:13)

Why can’t a person sell himself into slavery? People often decry indentured servitude, whereby people paid for their travel to America with several years of service. But this seems like a perfectly sound trade given certain assumptions about the terms of that service, e.g. you can’t starve or abuse the servant. Is that right? If so, why can’t a person sell himself into slavery? For instance, suppose that my family is poor, so I arrange with someone to give my family money in exchange for me becoming their slave, i.e. literally becoming their property. Is that possible? Should the law forbid that?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s not merely wrong to sell yourself into slavery: it’s logically impossible.

Links:

Question 4: The Depth of Ayn Rand’s Fictional Characters (37:56)

Are the characters in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged flat due to philosophic consistency? I’m reading the novel currently, and rather enjoying it. However, I’ve heard many people claim her characters are flat, one-dimensional, etc. I usually respond to this by saying that Ayn Rand’s characters are the incarnation of her ideas, the physical embodiment of her ideas: an individual is consumed with this philosophy, so much so that they are entirely logically consistent (or at least as much as humanly possible, they are human, and do make mistakes, e.g. Rearden’s marriage), thus, because of their abnormally extensive logical consistency within their philosophy, these characters merely appear to be ‘one-dimensional’. Is this an accurate understanding of Rand’s characters?

My Answer, In Brief: The criticism that Ayn Rand’s characters are flat is dead wrong, as is the response that they embody ideas.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (55:55)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Is everyone racially prejudiced, even just a little?

  • What should one do as an individual in case a war with Iran breaks out, as seems likely?

  • What’s the difference between the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim God and the “God of the Philosophers”?

  • Do you think Objectivism is ‘a’ philosophy or ‘the’ philosophy for living on earth?

Conclusion (1:03:03)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 5 March 2012 at 10:00 am  No Responses »

NoodleCast #119: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Feb 272012
 

On Sunday, 26 February 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 26 February 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:15:06

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 26 February 2012

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)

This week, Trey was visiting, but mostly I’ve ben sick. I’m also working on moving NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action – and from Blogger to WordPress.

Question 1: Consent in Sex (3:39)

What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?

My Answer, In Brief: To consent to sex requires communicating a willingness engaging in the act, whether by word or deed. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, and for the other person to ignore that constitutes sexual assault.

Links:

Question 2: Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances (45:34)

What’s the proper threshold for cutting off a digital versus in-person acquaintance? Morally, when it is wrong to end your friendly interactions with an in-person acquaintance? And when is it wrong not to do so? Does the answer differ for a digital acquaintance – meaning, for example, someone that you know only via Facebook?

My Answer, In Brief: No hard and fast rules can apply here, simply because the nature of online and in-person relationships varies so much. However, every person ought to make sure that his relationships, whether primarily online, in-person, or a mixture of both, serve his purposes well.

Links:

Question 3: Compensating the Victims of Your Negligence (51:48)

What should you do for a person that you injured in a car accident that was your fault? Does a person have moral obligations – over and above any legal obligations – to the victim, since the accident was due to your own carelessness or mistake?

My Answer, In Brief: If you’ve harmed someone by your negligence, your moral and legal obligation is to make them whole by compensating them for the harm you’ve caused.

Question 4: The Meaning of Faith (54:44)

Is it wrong to use “faith” to mean “trust and confidence in a person”? Some people talk about having “faith” in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong to use “faith” in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but is all faith blind faith?

My Answer, In Brief: The term “faith,” when used to refer to trust or confidence in a person, suggests that such is not justified or warranted based on facts. That’s why I avoid the term, and I suggest that others do the same. However, a person is not corrupt for using it.

Rapid Fire Questions (1:07:59)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Is a person rationally considered “male” or “female” based upon: (a) their genitals or other anatomical parts of their body which are involved in sexual reproduction, or (b) or their emotional and psychological wishes to be a man or a woman?Should states have referendums on gay marriage?

  • Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?

  • Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?

  • Should states have referendums on gay marriage?

Conclusion (1:13:59)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 27 February 2012 at 8:00 am  No Responses »

NoodleCast #118: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Feb 202012
 

On Sunday, 19 February 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 19 February 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:08:17

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 19 February 2012

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 visited my sister early this week, and now Trey Givens is visiting us!

Question 1: Judging Religions as Better and Worse (2:29)

Are some religions better than others? Do certain religions encourage rationality more than others? Do some promote better moral systems than others? I am curious both about different forms of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Unitarian, Mormon, etc.), as well as other religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha’i, etc.). Should rational atheists respect followers of certain religions more than others?

My Answer, In Brief: Religions are better or worse in their core doctrines and in their effects on a culture. However, due to the complexity of religions – not merely as ideologies but also as a cultural movements – they can’t be easily judged as better or worse. Also, just because a person claims to be an adherent of a given religion doesn’t tell much about what he believes or practices, nor whether they are honest.

Question 2: Telling a Friend about Romantic Feelings (22:58)

Am I obliged to tell a friend that I’ve developed romantic feelings towards her? Recently, I’ve developed romantic feelings for a platonic friend. Is it dishonest to withhold this information from her and just continue our friendship? What should I do if she asks me a direct question about my feelings? When would it be wrong to withhold this information from her, if ever?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s not wrong to keep your feelings to yourself, but lying about them can cause serious harm to your character and your friendship.

Links:

Question 3: Overfeeding a Child as Abuse (30:51)

Is overfeeding a child a form of abuse? In November, county officials in Ohio placed a third-grade child into foster care on the grounds that he’s over 200 pounds and his mother isn’t doing enough to control his weight. (See the news story.) The boy does not currently have any serious medical problems: he’s merely at risk for developing diabetes, hypertension, etc. The county worked with the mother for a year before removing the child, and it claims that her actions constitute medical neglect. Now his mother is only permitted to see him once per week for two hours. Did the state overreach its proper authority in removing the child from his home?

My Answer, In Brief: The state should only remove children from their parents when the parents are violating the rights of the child by inflicting permanent physical or psychological harm. This case of supposed overfeeding does not qualify, not by a long shot.

Question 4: Interest in a Lover’s Writings (42:22)

Should a person always be interested in the creative works of a romantic interest or lover? I’m romantically interested in a woman who writes as her career. While my admiration of her is based in her virtues and even heroic qualities, I’m don’t find the subjects of her writing to be particularly interesting. If I were to begin dating this woman, should I read everything that she’s written and writes?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s strange to be so uninterested in another person’s work at the outset of a relationship. You should be interested in your lover or spouse’s interests, not always for their own sake, but because your lover or spouse matters to you.

Rapid Fire Questions (49:29)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Should abused kids become wards of the State?

  • Where do the GOP presidential candidates stand on issues that gays might care about?

  • Is there a rational basis or explanation for “intuition?”

  • Is tax evasion or tax fraud morally wrong? What about hiding one’s money in foreign banks?

  • Are movies and TV getting better or worse over the years? What does that indicate about our cultural trends?

  • Does social media benefit introverts or extroverts more?

  • Is Objectivism some kind of cult?

Conclusion (1:07:02)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 20 February 2012 at 8:00 am  No Responses »

NoodleCast #117: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Feb 132012
 

On Sunday, 12 February 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 12 February 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:00:04

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 12 February 2012

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)

Yesterday, I spoke on the foundations of rights and then a panel at a Liberty on the Rocks / Koch Foundation Workshop. I’ll be giving a “Think!” lecture at CU Boulder on March 6th on moral perfection in Ayn Rand and Aristotle. SnowCon plans are well underway. I’m going to be moving NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action. Now I’m off to visit my sister, her husband, and their baby for few days! Busy me!

Question 1: Low Passion for Career (3:19)

What should I do if I have a good job but not burning professional ambition? I have a good job that pays well. I perform my job well to the best of my ability. But I don’t feel about it the same way that Howard Roark felt about the field of architecture in The Fountainhead or that Dagny felt about the railroad business in Atlas Shrugged. I don’t hate my job – I do enjoy the work and the people I work with. But it’s not my burning passion. On a scale of 1-to-10, my paying job (and the overall field) is a 7, but I also have various non-paying outside hobbies and activities that are more of a 8 or 9 for me. Should I try to cultivate a strong passion for my paying job? Or look for a different line of work? Or ramp up my pursuit of various hobbies and outside activities that give me greater satisfaction on the side?

My Answer, In Brief: A person’s work should serve his life, and sometimes that means choosing the one career that you’re wildly passionate about, and sometimes that means choosing a career that you enjoy, but that enables you to pursue other values.

Links:

Question 2: Patriotism as a Virtue (16:29)

Is patriotism a virtue? Is patriotism towards America a virtue? Should a person “love America” – or is that just jingoistic nationalism?

My Answer, In Brief: The value of loyalty depends on who you’re loyal to, and the value of patriotism depends on the nature of the country that you support, particularly its respect for individual rights.

Links:

Question 3: Artificial Intelligence (22:56)

Is artificial intelligence possible? Can consciousness be created on a purely logical system such as a computer? Might consciousness and even free will somehow “emerge” out of a purely logical system? Also, what do you think of the “Turing Test” as a test of intelligence?

My Answer, In Brief: The question is a scientific one, and it cannot be answered yet.

Links:

Question 4: Boycotting Chick-Fil-A (33:37)

Should people boycott Chick-Fil-A for its hostility to gays? The fast food chain Chick-Fil-A is well-known for its promotion of Christian values. In recent years, the company has actively worked against gay marriage, in alliance with other organizations promoting the imposition of biblical commands by law. More generally, the company is hostile to same-sex couples. Given that Chick-Fil-A uses money from customers and shareholders to promote theocracy and other rights-violations, should people condemn and boycott the chain?

My Answer, In Brief: If a company takes a stand on some cultural or political issue, then potential customers can and should judge them on that basis. In some cases, a boycott is the right choice.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (48:47)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Are there any other Objectivist podcasts you would recommend?

  • What should the US’s policy toward Israel be?

  • What do you think of Obamacare/contraception controversy?

  • How much weight should be given to a candidate’s words versus his past actions?

  • What do you think of Bruce Springsteen, given that he’s thrown his weight behind some liberal causes but he was also very idealistic for most of his career?

  • Is it wrong to use abortion as “birth control”?

  • What is the paleo diet? Is it roast beast for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? What are the health benefits?

Conclusion (59:09)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 13 February 2012 at 8:00 am  No Responses »

NoodleCast #116: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

 NoodleCast
Feb 062012
 

On Sunday, 5 February 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 NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

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: 5 February 2012

Listen Now


Duration: 1:07:25

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

The Segments: Episode: 5 February 2012

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’ve been busy making plans for SnowCon 2012! E-mail me if you’d like to share accommodations.

Question 1: Overcoming Perfectionism (3:30)

What is the problem with and solution to perfectionism? Lately, I’ve realized that I might have a problem with “perfectionism” – meaning that I hold myself to unrealistically high standards in some areas of my life. For example, I feel like I should be much more productive, to the point of being unrealistic about what I can do in a day. What’s the basic error of such perfectionism? And what can I do to overcome it?

My Answer, In Brief: For a person to seek perfection, based on rational standards that take account of his particular context, is often good. Perfectionism, however, means doing so based on out-of-context or unrealistic standards of perfection. A person with perfectionist tendencies needs to identify them, then think and act consistently based on standards appropriate to his purpose – whether seeking perfection, good enough, or merely adequate.

Links:

Question 2: False But Beneficial Ideas (35:13)

Should you just keep quiet when a friend’s bad philosophy works for him? If someone you know pretty well believes in something mystical, such as “The Law of Attraction” (from “The Secret”), or “The Power of Prayer,” and this has helped them move their outlook on life toward a benevolent universe premise, and they are more productive and happier, is it better to leave them with their faulty metaphysics and avoid the topic, or should you try to show them the error? What do you say when they start trying to convince you of the truth of their view?

My Answer, In Brief: People in the grip of worse ideas are sometimes helped by less-bad ideas. If you’re both willing, you can discuss even better ideas with them. However, doing so is not obligatory.

Question 3: Possessiveness in Romance (46:46)

Is possessiveness wrong in a romantic relationship? I have a drawback: I’m extremely possessive. I expect that the person who loves and understands me – he being the only one who understands me – should be mine and only mine. I can accept other women in his life and contain my jealousy on the condition that he reveals to me every single of them who was, is, or will be. But he should love me the most. And I expect that he should stay with me till the end and that we spend the last days together reflecting on the past and life. Am I wrong in expecting all that from my partner? If so, what can I do to change?

My Answer, In Brief: To be possessive means treating your partner as an object to be controlled, rather than an independent individual who wants to share your life. For this depth of problem, therapy is the best option.

Links:

Question 4: Term Limits for Politicians (54:58)

Are term limits necessary and proper for good government? Many people – usually conservatives – claim that term limits are essential to liberty. They say that the Founders never intended to have career politicians, and they blame the growth of government on those career politicians and their pork projects. Do you support term limits? Are they an important restraint on the growth of government?

My Answer, In Brief: Term limits might be part of the government of a free society, but they’re not a panacea.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (1:00:48)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Should President Obama be defeated, at any cost?

  • What’s wrong with going with your gut feelings?

Conclusion (1:06:20)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

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.

 Posted by on 6 February 2012 at 8:00 am  No Responses »
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 … 12 13 Older Entries
Home | Live Webcast | Archives | Blog | Question Queue | Connect | Support Us | About Us
Copyright 2012 Diana Hsieh | Email | Twitter | Facebook | Blog
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha