"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Sunday, December 30, 2007

A Better Use of Justice Department Resources

As many of you might know, the U.S. Government has a multi-trillion (yes, trillion) dollar debt, the interest payment of which is 200 billion dollars a year. As I read an article in my morning newspaper about mortgage fraud I thought of how the resources of the Justice Department could be put to better use. First, to the stats on mortgage fraud.

In 2002 banks reported 5,623 incidents of mortgage fraud. In 2007 banks reported 47,717 such incidents. Mortgage fraud is a form of larcenous behavior. It is the behavior of profiting through deceit, by telling lies. Banks use other people's money (your money) to secure loans. When the banks are defrauded the general public suffers from higher banking costs and harder to obtain mortgages by honest people. Mortgage fraud also leads to more defaults and foreclosures which, in turn, leads to lower prices for houses that honest people are trying to sell. Mortgage fraud is just stealing and it hurts all the honest people.

The article (As mortgage fraud multiplies, investigators can't keep up, the Fresno Bee, Sunday, December 30, 2007) noted that due to the "eightfold" increase in mortgage frauds "government agencies that investigate and prosecute [these frauds] cannot keep up,. . ." The government needs to re-focus its resource allocation to vigorously go after real, rights-violating secular crimes, such as mortgage fraud and other rights-violating behavior.

How can they do this without a budget increase, without increasing taxes? It's very simple. Take the money out of the so-called war on drugs and use it to go after real crimes. Use the personnel now involved in the so-called war on drugs to investigate these mortgage frauds.

Why do I say "so-called war on drugs"? Because, as I have consistently stated in my blogs, the so-called war on drugs is actually a war on rights. Adults--if they have the right to the ownership of their bodies and minds and if they have inalienable rights and if they have true freedom and liberty--have the right to use drugs that may be addictive and harmful to their health. My proof?--alcohol and tobacco. Those two "legal" drugs cause far more harm, death, and destruction than the "mere" use of the presently illegal ones. Almost all of the violence and real rights-violating behavior related to the presently illegal drugs come from that fact that they are illegal. Once upon a time those drugs were legal to adults and there was no criminal justice problems associated with their manufacture, sales, or use. If adults have a right to use alcohol and tobacco then why don't they have an equal right to use less harmful drugs?

We, "the people", need to tell our legislators and government officials at all levels to stop violating the rights of otherwise honest adults and uphold the principle of inalienable rights. We need to tell them to use scarce government resources to go after real criminals, those whose behavior actually violate the rights of others. After all, using a drug is a moral issue, which comes under the general heading of religion. Stop prosecuting "sinners" (who don't believe in or accept your version of morality or go to your church) and focus on the "criminals" whose behavior is wrong because it harms, physically or financially, innocent others.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Oh Wonderful Woman (a poem)

Oh wonderful woman,
So winsome,
But so wily;
You wear upon my will
And tear upon my thrill
Of seeing you and me
Flesh to flesh,
Lips locked in love,
Legs twined
Like fingers in a glove;
And fingers, too,
Touching gently
Our passioned places;
Our bodies writhing with
Sensuous embraces.
All that we can give . . .
This moment . . .
We give now.
Time has stopped,
For all intent,
And we are now.

(Originally published on Monday, July 30, 2007)

Monday, December 24, 2007

Alcohol v. Heroin

Before I get to the meat of this article, I want to make it very clear that I do not promote the use of any mind-altering, possible addictive, possible dangerous drug, alcohol included and the laws to prevent minors from having access to such drugs are good and valid, as minors do not have full adult rights. But adults, having full adult rights, have the right to use or abuse any drug they wish just so long as they do not violate the rights of others in so doing. (But for the so-called war on drugs, few if any of "the rights of others" would be violated by people merely using any of the presently illegal drugs.)

Everyone knows that heroin is really bad stuff, right? So I would like to show you a couple of examples of how heroin and alcohol can affect both the user and innocent others.

It is medically verified that if you take a hardcore heroin addict, one who is using large amounts of his drug every day, and you lock him up and he can't get his heroin, he will go through withdrawals. He will feel like he is going to die, but he won't. If you take a hardcore alcoholic, one who is legally drunk every day, for most of the day, and lock him up and he can't get his alcohol, he will go through withdrawals. He will feel like he is going to die and quite possibly could. A heavy-duty alcoholic, who tries to quit "cold turkey" or who is forced to do so, can and quite often will go into convulsions and die. This fact is, as I said, medically proven. So, in this respect, alcohol is a worse drug than heroin.

If a female heroin addict gets pregnant and continues her heroin use, her baby can, and probably will, be born as a heroin addict and go through withdrawals. But it will get over them and, if given proper nurturing and nutrition, will go on to live a healthy life. If a female alcoholic gets pregnant and continues to abuse alcohol her baby can, and probably will, be born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and it will never get over that. All of its life it will be emotionally and intellectually challenged, no matter how much good nurturing and nutrition it gets. So, once again, we see that alcohol, in this respect, is worse than heroin.

If one of the Constitutionally legitimate purposes of our government is to enforce certain moral codes and to prevent adults from harming themselves with drug use, then why isn't the government waging a "war on alcohol" as it did in the 1920's? From the two examples above you can clearly see that alcohol is a worse drug than heroin. Further, just in deaths per year from the use or abuse of certain drugs, shows that heroin is not nearly as bad as alcohol. There are between 7,000 and 8,000 deaths per year related to heroin. There are between 85,000 and 100,000 alcohol related deaths per year. So, in respect to deaths per year, alcohol is 10 times worse. But it should be pointed out that up to 45% of all heroin overdose deaths are actually caused by using alcohol along with the heroin. (Another 30% are caused by using another central nervous system depressant, besides alcohol, with the heroin. Pure heroin use overdose deaths are rare.)

Here is another interesting fact about heroin.
Unlike alcohol or tobacco, heroin causes no ongoing toxicity to the tissues or organs of the body. Apart from causing some constipation, it appears to have no side effects in most who take it. When administered safely, its use may be consistent with a long and productive life. The principal harm comes from the risk of overdose, problems with injecting, drug impurities and adverse legal or financial consequences.

That quote was taken from Drug War Facts at paragraph 20.

I emphatically disagree with the political principle that the government is legitimately, by the powers granted to it in the U.S. Constitution, our moral master and has the legitimate power to stop people from harming themselves by using addictive and dangerous drugs. But, if that was a fact, then it would only be logical for the government to stamp out the pernicious and much more harmful practise of making, selling, and using alcoholic beverages rather than heroin. An analogy is that a person has a broken thumb (heroin) and a broken leg with the bone sticking out through the skin (alcohol) but the government all but ignores the broken leg in order to attempt to fix the broken thumb.

Of course, it all makes sense if you understand that I am talking about logic, and that the government--the people running it--are anything but logical. I have hope, however, that enough politicians will, one day, pull their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and do the right thing. It's a very small hope, but a hope none-the-less.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Comic Strips

I mentioned in my last post that I read the daily paper. I also like to read the comic strips. Some of them are actually funny, or make a good point. Today I read "Zits" and the character "Pierce" (because of all his body piercings) had a question that I think is relavant . . . it also made me laugh. Maybe you will find it to be humorous too.

"If a dude says something and his girl friend doesn't hear him, is he still wrong?"

Is that a tree I hear falling in the forest? :)

I Guess Ann Coulter Isn't a Christian

I don't read Ann Coulter articles but every now and then I will see a quote by her that just amazes me. Take today, for example. I read in my daily newspaper (yes, I am old enough that I actually like the print medium) the following quote by Ms. Coulter: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." She was talking about the Islamic nations.

I have read the Bible; the Old Testament twice and the New Testament once. And I was raised as a Christian, although I am no longer one . . . but then I really do try to use logic rather than emotion to analyzed the world in which we live. The thing that gets me about the above quote by Ms. Coulter is that it is so very un-Christian.

I don't have a Bible handy right now, but I do remember quite clearly that Jesus was supposed to have said something very close to this: "Bless those who vilely abuse you." And no where in the teachings of Jesus do I remember him saying go out and kill the enemy. As John Pryne said in his Vietnam protest song, American Flag Decal, "Jesus don't like killing no matter what the reason for." I believe that is one of the foundations of being a true Christian, because his kingdom is not of this Earth. So true Christians aren't supposed to be too attached to wordly things and they are supposed to try (even though they can't achieve it completely) to behave as Jesus would, or would want them to.

I also wonder if Ms. Coulter wants to force everyone in the world to become a Christian? That's very un-Christian too. As I understand it, Jesus wants each individual to come to him of their own free will. Ms. Coulter sounds like a tyrannical terrorist when she makes statements like that.

So, I guess that Ann Coulter isn't a Christian, at least not by what she says. But then, all things considered, neither is King George II, although he claims to have been "born again."

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Sweet Memories of Susan . . . a poem

How I ache at the loss of you.
But, oh, the memories that I keep.
How I hate you for becoming my enemy,
Taking from me that which was sweet.

Never more shall I hold you, hear you,
See you, smell you . . . or taste your lips.
Never more shall I dream of you and me
And Bunny Ranch. That's gone now; rest in peace.

But I have my memories,
Slightly tinged with bitter over the sweet.
I have my memories still,
Which, overall, are good and I shall always keep.

Oh Susan my love! Oh Susan my enemy!
How I hate you, but mostly, oh, how I love you,
And ache with memories of other times;
Memories that are happy; memories that are sweet.

(February 1998)

Monday, December 17, 2007

A Foundation for True Personal Freedom and Liberty

In the news today, reported several times in an hour on several news programs, was a report how the king of Arabia pardoned a 19-year-old woman. She had been sentenced to six months in jail and 200 lashes* (upped from 90 lashes because she appealed her sentence and, according to the Saudi Justice Department, tried to use the media to sway the court). The woman was a married woman. She met with a man who was not from her family. She was not escorted by a male member of her family. In Arabia, as in most of the strict Muslim nations, that act was tantamount to adultery. She was seen in the car of the man she met and she was taken by several men and raped. The Saudi court, following religious law, said that she instigated the rape by her immoral actions of meeting with the man in the first place.

We in the West think that the punishment was wrong . . . completely and absolutely wrong. But then we believe in something that the Saudis don't and that the Muslim religion disagrees with: women are people in their own right and not the possessions of their husbands, or their fathers, or some other male member of their family if not married. The Muslim world is ruled by the Muslim religion . . . and men.

In the West we also believe in something that the Muslims don't: the principle of individual, or inalienable rights. At least most Western governments, the United States included, give the principle of individual rights lip service. (Quite often what is taught in schools and what the politicians and leaders say is different from what laws they pass and enforce, as we shall see, below.)

The Muslims believe that it is okay for a man, if he can afford it, to have as many as four wives. We believe that is immoral. We believe that it is okay to make, sell, and drink alcoholic beverages. The Muslim religion, and therefore the laws of their governments, such as in Saudi Arabia, believe that is immoral and strictly forbid alcohol, punishing severely anyone caught making it, selling it, or drinking it.

Because I am a product, if you will, of the West, I believe that our tradition of individual rights, when it is actually upheld, is the only logical and correct way for a society to be truly free, with liberty and justice for all. There is a problem, however, as I have indicated. Quite often the principle of individual, or inalienable rights is only given lip service. The so-called war on drugs is an important example of the violation of the rights of otherwise honest citizens by the government.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is no definite legal--or socially accepted--definition of what an inalienable right is. That is why I have proposed my own definition:
Any and all non-violent, non-coerced, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm others or their property, that is not a direct and immediate threat to others and their property, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance is an inalienable right.

Therefore, if a person grows, sells, or uses, say, marijuana, that is that person's right. The government, of course, has the legitimate power to regulate the growing, selling, and even use . . . to some extent, as it does with alcohol and tobacco. And this right extends to all of the presently illegal drugs, also.

I should not have to remind you that alcohol is a true narcotic drug. It is also the drug that (the mere use of which) causes about 50% of all violent crimes, including murders. And its abuse by pregnant women causes Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, the greatest cause of retardation in newborns. Yet this drug is legal and marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and so forth, are illegal. Those drugs, combined, the mere use of them, doesn't cause one-tenth the problems that alcohol does. And tobacco is even worse (in terms of premature deaths per year, medical costs, lost work time, and so forth). Yet they are legal.

Well, in Saudi Arabia it is legal for a man to have four wives. It is legal to kill a woman who has committed adultery . . . or even fornication. Several years ago one of the Saudi princesses was caught in a sexual affair with a man. She was not married. She was condemned and publicly beheaded . . . so was her lover. Does that shock and disgust you? It should. But there are people in the United States who have not violated any one's rights either and they are on death row, or serving life in prison, or just serving 20 to 30 years . . . for non-violent, non-coerced, non-larcenous, consensual adult drug behavior. That should shock and disgust you too. It should shock and disgust you that our supposedly free and liberty-loving nation, the people of it, allow the government to pass laws that violate the rights of otherwise honest people.

You don't have to agree that using certain drugs or substances is moral, but to agree to allow the government to put people in prison for using them is immoral also. Vices aren't crimes. The use of "recreational" drugs is a vice; that includes alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, and heroin, among others. If you say that it is right that heroin sellers and users should go to prison, then what about the alcohol and tobacco makers and users, as those two drugs are much, much more harmful to indviduals than the presently illegal ones. And I wish to make it clear that I am talking only about adults, never minors. Besides, under a system of regulated re-legalization it would be harder for minors to obtain the drugs that are now illegal but available nearly everywhere and anywhere by anyone who wants to buy them, adults or minors. .

If we don't have a solid foundation on which to place the principle of inalienable rights (such as my definition), then we are no better than the Saudis and the other religiously-ruled Muslim nations. If a person does not have the right to use his or her body and mind in any way he or she chooses, where such use does not violate the rights of others, even if it brings a person to ruin (as alcohol does to so many), then we are not truly free and do not truly have our liberty. We only have the right to do whatever the government allows us to do. And that is not acceptable to me. I hope with all my heat that it is not acceptable to you either. Remember, America, the so-called land of the free, with only 5% of the world's population, has 25% of the world's imprisoned population. We have over two million people in our prisons and jails, nearly half of whom are there for drug behavior that did not violate the rights of others. That is an outrage and an obscenity . . . but it is legal.

* Two hundred lashes, administered with a proper whip and as they are supposed to be administered, can and, quite often, will kill the recipient of the lashes, especially a 19-year-old woman.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

A Few Words by Micheal Crichton on Global Warming

How many of you knew that Micheal Crichton, the famous novelist, had graduated from Harvard Medical School and that he was a "fellow" at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, after having finished his doctoral thesis? What does that mean? It means that he is well studied in scientific method. He's not just some loony writer who spouts his mouth off about controversial subjects.

Here is some of what he said in a speech he gave in 2003 about global warming and weather predictions:

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're being asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon….

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it."

The above was quoted in an excellent article entitled Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in Balance, by Mary Ellen Tiffany Gilder. You might want to read that article and look around the site a bit. (I had the URL here, but it no longer works, but if you type "Diagnosing Al Gore" into your search bar, you should come up with "Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in the Balance - Man Made Global Warming." This is a "siteweave.net" site and by clicking on the title you should get to the article. Then, on the right, in the blue box, click on "Unlikely CO2 . . . ." and go to the bottom of that section for the Michael Crichton quote.)

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Obedience or Support: Adult, Child, or Slave

In the essay Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship, by Hannah Arendt (found in her book Responsibility and Judgment), Arendt states:

The only domain where the word [obedience] could possibly apply to adults who are not slaves is the domain of religion, in which people say that they obey the word or command of God because the relationship between God and men can rightly be seen in terms similar to the relation between adult and child.

Arendt was discussing the difference between "obeying" and "supporting" a person, idea, principle, or law in a political and moral context. To obey is to suggest you are a slave (or a child). To support is to say that you agree and go along with whatever it is that is being asked or demanded of you.

Therefore, to obey a law that violated the rights of others, when you are neither a slave or a child, means that you must support that law . . . or you have lost the ability to think logically, along with your moral compass.

With that in mind, do you obey, that is, support the anti-drug-use laws where the imbibing of a narcotic drug (alcohol) is seen a socially acceptable and legal, but the inhaling of the smoke of a marijuana cigarette is seen as criminal and morally wrong. The use of alcohol or marijuana (among other drugs) does not, in and of itself, violate the rights of others. Yet the rights of a marijuana smoker can be violated by his or her arrest, confiscation of property, and loss of care of his or her children, as well as imprisonment; all for not violating the rights of others.

The government is not God. It is supposed to be a secular organization dedicated to the protection of rights and not the purveyor of correct moral standards where no one's rights are being violated by other private citizens. The war on drugs, the anti-drug-use laws are the greatest quasi-religious violation of the rights of all adult citizens of the United States in the history of this once great nation. And the majority of those citizens support this violation of rights.

Drug War Facts

One of the sites that I have saved in my "favorites" is Drug War Facts. Here are a few of the facts that everyone should know.

A U.S. Department of Justice report, dated April of 1998, indicated that "for more than 40% of convicted murderers being held in either jail or State prison, alcohol use was a factor in the crime." Paragraph 16, of the Drug War Facts regarding crime. Also read paragraph 1 and see the chart about the rise and fall of murder in the U.S. It is directly related to prohibition--of alcohol, in the 1920's, and of other drugs, from the 1970's to the present.

In another Drug War Facts report, on alcohol (from the same U.S.D.J. report as above), it stated that "[o]n an average day in 1996, an estimated 5.3 million convicted offenders were under the supervision of criminal justice authorities. Nearly 40% of these offenders, about 2 million, had been using alcohol at the time of the offense for which they were convicted. That is at paragraph 3, but also see paragraph 4.

Finally, from Drug War Facts, in a report about annual causes of deaths, the chart shows that the three leading causes of premature death in the U.S. are: Tobacco at 435,000, Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity at 365,000, and Alcohol at 85,000. The figure given for All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect is 17,000.

I have a bit of a problem with the above figures. It is not clear, but I believe that I am right when I say, that the figure for alcohol should be increased by at least 8,000, as the number of verifiable homicides committed by people who had been drinking when they committed their crime is 40%. (Just check the links I gave you and you can see that this is true.) Therefore, the figure for alcohol should be, at the very least, 93,000. (But a CATO report from 1989, Policy Analysis 121, Thinking about Drug Legalization, by James Ostrowski [May 25, 1989], puts the deaths from alcohol per year at 200,000. Click on the link and go to Table 4 and sub paragraph b.)

Then there is the fact that the figure for all drug use includes deaths not caused by the mere use of the drugs, but by the effects of trying to prevent their manufacture, sales, and use: murders, as well as, HIV and hepatitis infections mainly. So the 17,000 could be several thousands less were those drugs to be re-legalized.

In any case, it is extremely clear that the two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, are several times more harmful than the presently illegal ones when it comes to just premature deaths per year. The combined figure for alcohol and tobacco, in deaths per year, is 435,000 plus 93,000 (my adjusted figure for alcohol), or 528,000 versus 17,000 (but probably less). This means that alcohol and tobacco use are 31 times more harmful than the presently illegal drugs.

If the purpose of government is to be our parent and religious/personal moral standards leader (which it most definitely is not) and to protect us from our own bad choices (bad being a subjective word), then why doesn't Big Daddy Government ban the two most harmful drugs--more harmful by far--instead of spending billions and billions of your tax dollars on the much, much less harmful drugs?

But more, if you and I, as adults, have right to use and even abuse two such harmful drugs as alcohol and tobacco (just so long as we do not violate the rights of others in so using or abusing), then why don't we have an equal right to use or abuse the other, less harmful drugs (again, just so long as we do not violate the rights of others)? The so-called war on drugs is not about drugs, it is about the violation of the rights of otherwise honest adults to chose how to live their lives, whether for better or worse, without the illegitimate interference of a quasi-religious government trying to force us to be moral by the standards of some of the people. That is tantamount to the government saying to me and you that we must go to a particular church, even though we don't practice that faith.

And you thought that we were a nation of personal freedom and true liberty.

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Mixed Bag

I recently came across two U.S. Supreme Court cases (I'm editing a book on ineffective assistance of counsel) in which the defendants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Also, they both suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. For the uninitiated, alcohol abuse by pregnant women and the resulting fetal alcohol syndrome is the number one cause of retardation in newborns. I have never heard of or seen anything that could point to marijuana as having such a damning and damaging effect. But, of course, alcohol is legal, marijuana isn't. Which just goes to show once again that legal cannot be equated with justice. Fifty percent or more of federal prisoners are in prison for marijuana law violations. Producers and sellers of alcohol, in the mean time, are considered honest, honorable, upstanding citizens.

When an idea is promoted by politicians and other influential people, especially if it gets enacted into law, and the public--trusting souls that they are--believe that, because the government has adopted this idea, it must be right and good, they take to it as if it was written in stone . . . even if it is a bad idea . . . and it is all but impossible to stop it. (Examples: The war on drugs, welfare, nationalized medicine (coming soon), and that the government must restrict your liberty in order to ensure your security.)

If you, as an individual, choose to eat a poor diet and live an unhealthy lifestyle, including smoking and drinking alcoholic beverages, and if you become seriously ill years later because of your choices, whose fault is it? And do your neighbors, through their taxes, have an obligation to pay your medical bill, in full or in part. You have the right to harm yourself. I have the right to refuse to help you when you do. Or, as a wise man once said, "let them die in the desert." (He was organizing a bike tour from Phoenix to Tucson and had made detailed maps and instruction when one of his helpers suggested that some people might need to have a real person at a couple of the junctions in order to keep them from getting lost.)

I believe that all sex should be consensual. What to I mean by that? I mean that the people involved (masturbation is, by definition, a consensual act) should be old enough, mature enough, and knowledgeable enough to understand the emotional as well as the physical risks, and accept those risks. By this definition some fifteen-year-olds could have consensual sex, and some fifty-year-olds could not.

the Golden Compass is catching some static from the religious community, especially the Catholics. That's a bit hypocritical. The Bible clearly states that we (the believers in the Bible as the word of God) are not to have "graven images." I've seen enough "good" Catholics praying to statues to know that they are idolaters. And, as to Narnia, written by C. S. Lewis, who was a Christian apologist, well, to have animals portrayed as being human-like, speaking, reasoning, and so forth, also goes against the teachings of the Bible. But this is all about fantasy and emotion--which is a good definition of religion. For a little logic, you might want to ask yourself what the good lion king in Narnia ate. After all, lions are pure carnivores. They must eat meat to survive. So which of his subjects did he eat when he was hungry?