Maggie's Farm

Yet one more manufactured, over-hyped  crisis is being debunked.

Nowadays you can define anything you want as pathological. And this whole new fashionable category of "at risk" silliness expands things to include everybody.

For example, at middle-age I am "at risk" for obesity. Not wanting to be fat, I decided not eat carbs and I do a tough daily workout. It's not too complicated.

Prosperous nations have lots of fat people. More of them than poor nations, although poor nations have plenty of them too. The reason is that humans have a weakness for carbs. Thus being trim and fit is a sign of self-control, but being heavy is a time-honored sign of prosperity.

If you want to see fat people, go to Disneyworld and get grossed out. There are Americans there so fat that they have to ride around in motorized chairs, like King Kamehameha. God bless 'em. The world needs more fatties, in my opinion. It means people have plenty to eat, but I don't like to have to look at them. To be evenhanded, however, I find anorectics even more disturbing.

I happen to feel that excess fat in women is unattractive, slovenly, and unsexy. Somewhat less so in men: some stout men are cool, like Teddy Roosevelt was. Anyway, we have been subject to much brouhaha about obesity in recent years. Big health crisis, etc.

You have surely read the news that being overweight is not such a big deal, from a medical standpoint. Even the WSJ covered the story, amusingly. Obesity - and that means much more than ordinary fatness and pudginess - is often quite benign.

And being overweight is fine, from a health standpoint.

Just like the the AGW fad and all such fads that governments are suckered into, there is fat money to be made from the obesity silliness. Follow the money: you know that somebody always wants some of yours. Careers. Respect. Pensions. Fat City.

Fact is, when I was an intern in NYC, I saw plenty of skinny, athletic guys in their 40s come into the ER and crap out with massive heart attacks. Also, skinny guys with insulin resistance. The reasons to be relatively thin are to be fully functional - and aesthetic. If an American lady wishes a decent sex life, it behooves her to be trim. Not so in some countries, however, where they prefer us gals Biggie-Sized.

Here's a good food story, from the Englishman:

His typical breakfast order from Pete's Grille in Baltimore, Maryland:

Start with three [white bread] sandwiches of fried eggs, cheese, lettuce, tomato, fried onions, and mayonnaise; add one omelet, a bowl of grits, and three slices of French toast with powdered sugar; then wash down with three chocolate chip pancakes.

According to his autobiography, growing up, lunch also consisted of 1 pound of pasta, 2 large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo and 1,000 calories of energy drinks. Dinner’s another pound of pasta and a whole pizza and 1,000 calories more in energy drinks. No food hang-ups with him. He gets it. Food is fuel, not endowed with magical or evil effects.

What a fat slob he must be, bet he can barely get up from the sofa to get to the fridge, something ought to be done to prevent our youths ending up like him...

Let's all be relaxed and tolerant: being fat is a "life-style" choice. Let them eat cake.

Addendum: At Pajamas, Fast food restrictions fatten government

Here's an answer. Are men's nipples "sensitive"? Yes they are. Gals take note, for when in a playful mood.

There's a book with that title too: Why Do Men Have Nipples? Hundreds of Questions You'd Only Ask a Doctor After Your Third Martini

This is a re-post from 2006 -

What? Me worry? - Alfred E. Newman

The pursuit of happiness is a most ridiculous phrase; if you pursue happiness you'll never find it. - C.P. Snow

Last week, Yahoo News reported this from Britain:

LONDON (AFP) - Some 2,000 pupils at English state schools are to have special classes in happiness under a pilot scheme aimed at cutting depression, self-harm and anti-social behaviour.

"Schoolchildren will take self-esteem classes to raise standards and cut crime," according to the Independent on Sunday newspaper.

"Lessons in happiness are to be introduced for 11-year-olds in state schools to combat a huge rise in depression, self-harm and anti-social behaviour among young people.

"Special behavioural techniques imported from the US will be used from September next year in an attempt to make children more resilient in the face of the pressures of 21st century living."

Gee - d'ya think 21st Century living is tougher than 20th Century living, or 19th, or 18th, or 8th? Please! Life has never been "easier" or "better" in human history, which is why we can waste time and money on such frivolous and immature subjects.

We have posted on the subject of happiness in the past, in Happiness Traps, and The Economists Take on Happiness. It's a subject I dislike writing about, because it is an undefinable word except as a passing emotion: it is much easier to talk about kinds of unhappiness. However defined, though, there is one thing I know for certain and that is that Happiness cannot be taught in school. It is interesting, however, that Britain has become so secular, and so relatively materially comfortable, that they would even consider that happiness might be something that a government could provide along with all of its other wonderful and efficient "services". It sounds like Kim Sung Il. Which reminds me, we ought to do a summertime re-post of our Valentine's Day Manifesto for the amusement of new readers.

In my opinion, self-respect is more valuable than self-esteem; accomplishment and satisfaction are more important than pleasurable ease; the pursuit of happiness is a scam; giving and receiving love, affection and friendship are the finest and only enduring things in life, and Government cannot replace God or defeat human nature.

Even shrinks will deny that they offer happiness as a product. Freud spoke for all of us that psychiatry can, at the best, offer the hope of replacing neurotic (eg abnormal) unhappiness with normal unhappiness. "Life is difficult," as Scott Peck pointedly begins his wonderful and inspiring The Road Less Traveled. There is no way out of that, other than temporary escapist joys like vacations, a tennis game, a book, or a couple of nice glasses of wine. Well, a tennis game can put you through some heavy stuff, I guess: I am halfway through Ian McEwan's Saturday,  which is a sort-of Day in the Life, and the squash game chapter is a minor masterpiece in itself.

Pleasure is easy to pursue - it's like falling off a log. Heroin, I am told, provides excellent self-esteem, well-being, serenity, and happiness, and it is far cheaper, effortless, and far more effective than shrinks, or any other path.

Anyway, some clever Music Man salesman sold the Brits on this thing. My guess is that the kids will take it about as seriously as they take Sex Ed, so they will not be harmed by involuntary government intrusions into their psyches. Hey, teacher - leave us kids alone.

I realize that this is classic blog rambling...I will try to come back to it when I have a little time.

Our Editor forwarded me this 1992 paper by Tooby and Cosmides, The Psychological Foundations of Culture, (here in pdf, without the typos), which he found at Overcoming Bias. I wish I had known about this paper years ago.

It's a dense and scholarly critique of what is known as "The Standard Social Sciences Model." The authors argued that this dominant model is obsolete and failing, resulting in a reactionary anti-scientific movement in the social sciences.

I found it particularly interesting that the authors suggest that the clinging to an obsolete model has more to do with emotion than logic - a "fear of falling off the world." Similarly, they indicate that social scientists are emotionally attached to their blank-slate, meliorative views of human nature (there is no "human nature" - environment is everything, and thus people, culture, and society can be perfected - by them, natch). Their desire to hold on to that illusion causes them to resist many sorts of new information which conflict with their ideas. That is very human, but it ain't science.

Indeed, what goes on in the social sciences would make for a fascinating sociological study.

How many of you fellows out there are on statin medicines, like Lipitor or the others? Raise your hands.

Well, it's a good idea to take them. It may turn out to be a good idea even if your cholesterol and triglyceride levels are in the normal range.

Why? Because the way they seem to reduce arterial disease leading to heart attack and stroke may not be just - or even mainly - so much by altering cholesterol and triglyceride blood levels, but by stabilizing the endothelium (inner lining) of arteries. Here's a technical paper on the subject. One quote: 

Several clinical trials including Heart Protection Study (HPS), Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) and Treating to New Targets (TNT) Study have suggested that statins can offer protection to patients with normal lipid levels through various nonlipid-lowering effects.

The inflammation, clots, and plaque on arteries are the main cause of terrible events. American males already have visible arterial disease in their 20s. I saw it and touched it when doing autopsies in medical school, in young people who died of other causes.

Everybody dies. Statistically, if you reach maturity and don't die in a car crash, the odds are that half die of cancer and half of heart/arterial disease. So, if you can postpone that arterial disease, you get to die from a cancer.

That's today's cheery medical news.

Dr. Helen mentioned a new book, Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend. Cute titles sell books.

There are indeed evil, destructive, and unimaginably self-interested people out there in the world who behave with "shocking disregard for the people around" them. It's important to be aware, because they look just like ordinary people, and act like them until the chips are down. They only show their true exploitative colors at calculated moments.

The first review of the book at the Amazon link above gives a good sense of what the book is about. I am not recommending the book, just noting that it is an interesting topic.

These usually pleasant - if not charming and seductive - folks build careers and lives by preying on the innocent, the naive, and the gullible. They cannot help it, because they are deranged in a certain sort of inhuman way (which often works effectively in this world). They talk a good game, plenty of them go to church, do good deeds, and get by by wearing a "mask of sanity."

These folks cannot be truthful to themselves or to others, do not give a damn about anybody except themselves, and inhabit a guilt-free zone. Even their intimate confessions are calculated.

Only God can help them. We shrinks do not have the power.

Over the transom. This spoof of my profession is making the email rounds in Shrinklandia:

We of the psychotherapeutic and medical professions feel kindly and respectful towards our clients/patients, and genuinely care about their well-being. Occasionally, however, we will have an impatient or non-therapeutic thought, because we are human, not machines.

These are often best kept to ourselves, of course, but sometimes such thoughts help lead us towards useful comments - when presented constructively. Here are a few client comments (CC) and the unspoken responses (UR) accumulated over the years:

CC: Do you think I should follow my heart?
UR: Yes, I think leaving your wife and kids and running off with the 18 year-old Swedish au pair is an excellent life plan.

CC: Do you really think I should stop drinking this much?
UR: Definitely not. You should keep doing this until your life is ruined and your liver shrinks down to the size of a pea.

Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner is known for his work on mutiple intelligences - the idea that there is not one kind of "intelligence," but up to seven of them.

It's an interesting approach. IQ, which is an individually stable and inherited tendency, likely measures your linguistic and logical-mathematical "intelligences." His books are also on that link above.

Neuroanthropology linked to a speech he gave in Bogota about his personal intellectual history and his views on science and life, Multiple Lenses on the Mind.

Here's a short list of some of the books I recommend regularly:

Surviving Schizophrenia: A Manual for Families, Consumers, and Providers

Surviving Manic Depression: A Manual on Bipolar Disorder for Patients, Families, and Providers

An Unquiet Mind: A Memoir of Moods and Madness

Understanding the Alcoholic's Mind: The Nature of Craving and How to Control It

Stop Walking on Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone You Care about Has Borderline Personality Disorder

People of the Lie. (by Scott Peck. It's about sociopaths.)

The story of amphetamines since their discovery to their current enormously popular use - including in the military. From Life in the Fast Lane, in Chronicle of Higher Ed.:

The war bolstered the confluence of medical and commercial interests that made amphetamine the first antidepressant. The British and American forces adopted speed because it made soldiers more confident, despite authorities' knowing that by 1941 the German military had sharply curtailed its use of methamphetamine (a slight variant of the drug) because of its addictive qualities. The Allies administered the drug as a morale booster, notwithstanding a charade that the drug counteracted fatigue better than caffeine (two years of testing actually found amphetamine no more effective).

The drug helped win bloody, pivotal battles such as El Alamein and Tarawa. But the military's embrace of speed had serious side effects. An entire generation of young men had been turned on to the new pharmaceutical. There is evidence that the sanctioned use of amphetamines promoted drug abuse not only in the service but presumably after the war, too. That pattern repeated itself during the Vietnam War, when the military again distributed enormous quantities of amphetamine to American troops.

Speed is powerful stuff. Read the whole thing.

I have no problem whatsoever with physicians easing terminal peoples' path out of life with merciful doses of morphine, but I have great problems with the Brave New World of government rationing of medical care, and the hustling of people into death to save money as they seem inclined to do in the UK, Canada...and in Oregon.

Dr. Bob discusses. One quote:

We have, at last, arrived. The destination was never much in doubt — once the threshold of medical manslaughter had been breached, wrapped as always in comforting words of compassion and dignity, it was only a matter of time before our pragmatism trumped our principles. Once the absolute that physicians should be healers not hangmen was heaved overboard, it was inevitable that the relentless march of relativism would reach its logical port of call.

In my view, easy abortion was the first big step in the direction of removing the annoying inconvenience of a human life. Perhaps it would be most expedient - or utilitarian - to do us in the minute we stop paying income taxes...assuming our function is to serve the "common good." Or at the moment of our birth, because it is certain that we will become expensively ill someday.

And when it comes to medical treatment in general, I like TigerHawk's idea much better than any governmental idea. WallMart! Just as long as I have my own doc who knows me and cares about me first.

Addendum: Father of Canada's medical system rejects what he created. "Woops. I goofed. So terribly sorry."

Part 2 of the Pew study of religion in America has been issued. It shows that there is a lot of non-dogmatic religious thinking going on, which is no surprise really. An excerpt from the piece on the subject in the CSM:

On some basics, the American faithful are much alike. Ninety-two percent believe in God, including 70 percent of those not connected with any religion. Three-quarters believe in life after death, and 79 percent believe in miracles.

Prayer is a widespread practice, in which 75 percent engage at least weekly and 58 percent daily. Thirty-four percent say they have experienced or witnessed a divine healing of an illness or injury.

Yet divergent perspectives coexist within many traditions. In regard to the conception of God, 60 percent of Americans believe in a personal God, while 25 percent believe in an impersonal force or universal spirit. Eastern Orthodox Christians split 49 to 34 percent on this question, while Muslims divide evenly, 41 to 42 percent. Among Jews, 25 percent believe in a personal God and 50 percent in an impersonal force.

We have posted in the past about the role of natural Vit D - and the role of Vit D supplement, in cancer prevention.

Here's a piece at Pajamas on the subject. The take-home message is, I believe, get tan but not burned.

It's good news, because those of us who are pasty-white Anglos look better with some healthy color.

Something I stumbled on: My worst date ever. A fairly bad date, but if that's his worst, I won't worry about him too much.

My best first date was a blind date. (Future) hubbie picks me up and takes me sledding at night in New Hampshire. 12 degrees (F). Had his toboggan tied to the roof of his old wreck of a Jeep, and a six-pack of beer on the back seat. You just had to like the guy. Tall, dark and handsome too, with plenty of interesting quirks. 

I guess it was a test of my gumption, but, to his credit, the toboggan on the steep hill made me end up holding on tight to him - a total stranger (well, with the introduction by a close family friend). But it did feel pretty good.

Only the beer was wrong. For nightime sledding, brandy is the thing, but he was a poor student at HBS at the time.

In commercial societies, everybody wants you to buy their stuff.

Even though retailers lose a bit of their profit in their credit card fees, credit cards make it so easy to spend money painlessly and impulsively that, overall, they are a boon to retail commerce.

The average American received 15 credit card mail solicitations last year, so they're making plenty of money on this too. Good for them.

Spending discipline, thrift, saving, and "making do" are traditional American virtues, but, like so many valuable traditional virtues, they seem to be gradually going by the wayside in the face of our prosperity and growth. As David Brooks discusses, Seduction of borrowed money is making U.S. a nation of debtors.

The Frontal Cortex has a piece on Credit Cards and the Brain. Predictably, spending cash and spending via plastic have different impacts on the brain.

Financial suicide is painless. My rule is that all of my credit cards must be paid in full each month.

Advocates for the "disabled," however defined, want them "mainstreamed" and "normalized" while, at the same time, they advocate for special treatment and "accommodations" for the disabilities. How can you have it both ways?

In the UK, the Disabilities Discrimination laws define "disability" as:

‘A physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’.

Everybody has strengths and serious weaknesses, and deserves respect for their efforts and for their humanity despite their frailities or unappealing characteristics. A nice cheerful young gal with Downs bags my groceries every week at my market. Meanwhile, I have patients with reasonably-controlled bipolar disorder who hire lawyers to help them get on Social Security Disability. (I do not approve of that one bit. I do not approve of "working the system," nor do I think it is good for them: it is terrible for them and for their dignity.)

Anyway, you may read a short essay at Spiked here which addresses these issues.

Editor's note:

Dr. Bliss' post leads to a typically-fine post by David Thompson on modern socialistic ideals titled Details, Details. Quoted by Thompson in his post:

Well, I’m not aware of a British political party that wants to abandon the welfare safety net – the “social state” as Bauman prefers to call it – let alone abandon “human solidarity,” and the arguments I’ve heard tend to centre on whether long-term welfare dependency is a desirable state of affairs for any human being. It’s one thing to rail against the “rule of capitalism” in abstract and fanciful terms; it’s something else entirely to address particulars – such as those of a soused, if amiable, woman drinking beer by the road. Is Bauman suggesting that this woman should be steered away from her morning refreshments? These do, after all, affect her employment prospects, finances and health, and thus make her one of society’s “weakest members”. Or does the professor believe that she should be compensated indefinitely by the state for being an unemployable alcoholic and not terribly bright? How, I wonder, is her life to be brought closer into line with mine or yours? Does she have a say in the matter? Do those of us who would have to pick up the tab?

I do not enjoy picking up her tab, but I would never leave her to die in the gutter. I'd be inclined to give her an educational kick in the butt and a few weeks in a drunk tank. Still, such questions keep life interesting, and force us to clarify our thinking.

However, I have yet to be convinced that government is the best agency for human mercy. Small "d" democratic government is about votes, jobs, money, perks and power - regardless of the virtue or venality of its practioners.

Women often can be heard adopting the passive-aggressive victim posture, and bitching about how easy and good men have it in life. Fortunately, there are plenty of wise women out there who appreciate how tough it is for a boy child to become a man: it is so tough that many never manage to do it. 

Think about it: we women have far more latitude in how we can be, and in our respectable choices in life.

From the Daily Mail, a book review: The Return of Real Men: Ladies, get ready to meet Mr. Retrosexual.

They're back? I didn't know they ever went away.

Let's bring some politics into this, just for fun. McCain is the Retrosexual: he knows guns, wouldn't back away from a fight and can use his fists, bait a hook, and can mess with an old Chevy carburetor. Obama: pure Metrosexual, with clean nails, probably never used a chain saw or shot a handgun in his life, and probably hires illegal Mexicans to do his gardening. "I'll have a chardonnay spritzer, please, when you have a chance."

Photo: Atticus Finch, a portrayal of a real American man.

Columbia's Brain and Mind Symposium has archived (on online video) a wonderful and relatively non-technical series of lectures by the world's greatest neuroscientists.

These talks were presented in 2004 as a part of Columbia University's 250th Anniversary. (h/t, Neurophilosophy)

Politics is irrational because people are only partially rational, and even less so when it comes to politics and other peoples' money. We recently linked to a piece by Stumbling, who asked:

...what role should empirical evidence have in policy-making? Here’s a theory - very little.  Evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) is a sham. I say so for four reasons:

You can read his reasons here.

Case in point: The Polar Bear story. An entirely healthy bear population is put on the Endangered List for purely political reasons: Who wants a sound bite out there claiming "He or she refused to protect the cuddly Polar Bears."? It makes you sound heartless and evil, and nobody is going to listen to the statistics. It's about sentiment.

However, many of my central beliefs about life are about sentiment too. My belief in the freedom of the individual from the power of the state and of the collective, for example, represents my emotional attachment to our Constitution, its vision, and its cultural underpinnings. To me, a self-evident truth, but some would claim that Resistance is Futile to the power of the Borg.

Courage to tell the truth is rare in politicians, of course, because they have their sinecures to look after (which is rational, if cowardly). I give McCain credit for telling the truth about Ethanol, but it's going to hurt him in the corn states: they want to stay on that gravy train (which is rational on their part, if venal and ignoble). Thus people can be most rational when self-interest is directly involved, and sometimes most irrational when it is not.

Image: Polar Bear with a fresh seal dinner. Cute, cuddly-looking Polar Bears are believed to kill over 40% of the cute cuddly baby seals born each year in the Arctic regions in which they dwell. They do catch adult seals, too. Polar Bears eat the skin and the blubber, and leave the rest.

Editor's note:  There is talk going around that the real reason the bears emerged as an issue was as a sentimental proxy issue for preventing drilling in the Arctic, comparable to the familiar "It's for the children..." The thought occurs to me - would this work as well if the bears were black?  Is there a racial subtext here? Inquiring minds want to know.

We said this a month ago. Will you believe it if it comes from Instapundit?

MORE VITAMIN D NEWS: "New research shows that people who regularly use sunscreen and avoiding sunlight may be sacrificing important vitamin D, which is made by the skin when it's exposed to sunlight. Now, the recommendation is to get 15 minutes of sun at the peak of the day three times a week to help avoid a vitamin D deficiency. . . . For years, Americans have been taught that as summer approaches, they should reach for sunscreen to protect themselves from a scorching burn - and the skin cancer it might trigger. But new research shows that by covering up, they may be sacrificing important vitamin D, which is made by the skin when it's exposed to sunlight. . . . Vitamin D deficiency is associated with reduced bone strength and risk of fracture; a twofold increased risk of some cancers such as colon, breast and prostate; an increased risk of both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes; worse control of diabetes for those who have it; decreased immune function; and possibly also heart disease."

Which do you believe? Last year's expertise, or this year's? I am inclined to trust this year's, or God would have put sunscreen on our skin.

Donald Boudreaux considers his colleague Bryan Caplan's much-discussed book, The Myth of the Rational Voter. One quote:

Each of us has muted incentives to study the facts and issues carefully -- and to reflect upon them dispassionately -- because no one of us is responsible for deciding which policies the government will implement.

But Bryan Caplan explains another reason why each of us as a voter generally exercises less wisdom than we do in our private affairs. This other reason springs from what Caplan calls our "preferences over beliefs." Each of us wants to believe certain things. Each of us gets satisfaction simply by holding certain beliefs firm to our hearts. Just as many of us enjoy feeling loyal to our favorite sports teams, many of us enjoy believing that our favorite political party is an especially wise steward of the public interest.

Many of us enjoy believing that our troubles are caused by foreigners. Many of us enjoy believing that if the rich pay higher taxes, middle-class and poor people will be better off. We resist rejecting these beliefs even if the evidence before us suggests that they are mistaken.

Indeed, people are only sometimes rational, and even less often rigidly logical. We are not computers, or Mr. Spocks. In most things humans do, we engage our souls, hearts and our minds, and it is the challenge of adulthood to monitor, critique, and to balance those things in ourselves. For example, were it not for our hearts and souls, it might make sense for us to vote for a thoroughly pragmatic, efficient, and logical Brave New World. 

Wisdom is not the same thing as logic, and logic is not the same thing as virtue.

Therefore I am in favor of a degree of irrationality in voting. And, anyway, who is the Grand Arbiter who gets to define "rational voting"? People like Thomas Frank, who believe that it is "rational" to vote yourself other peoples' money? Or "values voters" like me?  Politics, government - and life itself -is messy and complicated, and even more so with freedom.

Books that need to be written:

"The Myth of the Rational Human" (well, Freud covered a lot of that ground already)

"The Myth of the Rational and Virtuous Government"

"The Myth of the Rational and Virtuous Politician"

"The Myth of the Rational and Virtuous Bureaucracy"

and

"The Myth of the Rational Expert"

Editor's Comment: Great blog minds think alike. Bainbridge today on The Imperfectibility of Human Institutions. He quotes:

The Framers understood that the self-interest which in the private sphere contributes to welfare of society — both in the sense of material well-being and in the social unity engendered by commerce — makes man a knave in the public sphere, the sphere of politics and group action. It is self-interest that leads individuals to form factions to try to expropriate the wealth of others through government and that constantly threatens social harmony. John O. McGinnis, The Original Constitution and Our Origins 19 Harv. J.L.& Pub. Policy 251, 253 (1996).

I know that it is trite to tout exercise, but it is worth mentioning that we keep learning more about its health benefits. I recently attended a talk on breast cancer in which daily exercise compared favorably with several widely-used chemotherapy protocols.

Humans were not designed to sit on their butts all day watching TV or reading ephemeral stuff on the Internets.

You name it, and exercise helps it, in the NYT by Jane Brody.

Is recreational sex a good thing? Good for whom? And how do I define "good"? Does our pop culture contain any sexual morals anymore? Are women naturally as sexually predatory and opportunistic as some men can be? And what does "natural" have to do with it anyway, since we are humans, not monkeys?

Were I a smarter person, I'd have all the answers.

Anchoress on Prudery, Virginity, and Do-Me Feminism

And Harvey Mansfield reviews Hook Up or Shut Up

It's about "nudging," and our blog friend Dr. Helen discusses it here, with a podcast.

Of course, our government nudges already in innumerable ways - mortgage deductions, for one. Pension deductions and charitable deductions for more on the plus side, and gas and tobacco taxes on the negative side. I happen to be a flat-taxer, on principle: I will give you 13% of my income to pay you off and to preserve our civilization, and I will do whatever I want with the rest.

What principle? The principle that I do not need or want anybody else to "improve" me: My life is my gift from God and nature. It is my problem, my challenge, my adventure, and presents my own dilemmas, my own choices, my own consequences. That is the core and the meaning of human dignity in a free society, and I expect everybody else in my vicinity to buy into that revolutionary and inspiring idea.

The reason I would not waste my time on the book is that, while I respect Sunstein as a smart guy, I do not generally regard him as wise. In this case, the premise that government or government-acquired or politically-processed "expertise" is something that "we the people" want or need - or wish to pay for with our tax money - is absurd. Are we retarded?  Everyone in the world these days gets advice from other people, and can get it from anywhere. From Oprah to my doctor to my pastor to the politicians to the internet, everybody seems to be sure that they know how I ought to live.

We are swamped by the Advice du Jour, which usually turns out to be wrong - whether from the government or from anyone else. For one example, if I followed our government's dietary recommendations, I would weigh 300 lbs and resemble the revolting American happily-overfed blimps at Disney World.

What people want, I believe, is a government that has the humility to stay out of our personal lives. That's the way to grow strong, self-sufficient people who do not turn to the government in a dependent, whining, or entitled manner. God, the internet, the library, and our brains are all that we need to take charge of our own lives. Plus we need to know the laws, so we don't break them, because breaking laws is a bad idea.

The arrogance of the Government-Academic Complex never ceases to amuse and to exasperate.

Does Cass run his life better than I run mine? I doubt it. Are his investments doing better than mine? I doubt it. Does he run more miles per week than I do? I doubt it. Is his marriage more fun than mine? I seriously doubt it. Does he have a more interesting life than mine? I doubt it. Is his worship more heart-felt than mine? Doubt it. Does he view me, his fellow Citizen, as somehow pitifully deprived of the wisdom and knowledge of my betters (despite government schools which are supposed to prepare us)? No doubt.

Government is no font of wisdom, and everybody knows that. Here's my message to the condescending experts:

"Shut the hell up, because when it comes to running a life, we are all on training wheels."