By Paul Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
The New England Journal of Medicine (hardly a right-wing rag) reports a recent poll showing:
46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
24% of physicians think they will try to retire early if a public option is implemented.
21% of physicians would try to leave medicine if a public option is implemented, even if not near retirement age at the time.
Maybe our politicians need to read Brian Schwartz's talking points on why ObamaCare is wrong and won't work.
Update : The NEJM has updated the text of the page to reflect that the poll data comes from The Medicus Firm.
They note:
The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.
My theme is that ObamaCare would fatally compromise doctors' ability to uphold their Hippocratic Oaths to treat their patients according to their best judgment and ability.
This is adapted from my forthcoming article in the Spring 2010 issue of The Objective Standard. I'd like to thank Craig Biddle for giving me permission to excerpt and adapt more than the usual 600 words from that article to use in this PJM piece. In exchange, PajamasMedia included a link back to the TOS website at the end of this piece.
Here is the introduction:
ObamaCare vs. the Hippocratic Oath
President Obama's health care "reform" plan has been criticized for being economically unsustainable, politically unpopular, and constitutionally suspect. But for many practicing physicians like myself, his plan contains an even greater but seldom-discussed flaw that overshadows those others. ObamaCare would fatally compromise doctors' ability to uphold their Hippocratic Oath to treat their patients according to their best judgment and ability.
Whenever the government attempts to guarantee "universal health care," it must also control that service, if only to control costs. Hence, it will inevitably seek to control how doctors practice. Accordingly, the White House Council of Economic Advisors has recommended controlling costs through "performance measures that all providers would adopt." Physicians who strayed too far from government "comparative effectiveness” practice guidelines would be punished as "high end outliers."
This will place your doctor's medical conscience directly on a collision course with government bureaucrats...
"If the government takes over health care, I will refuse to buy their package, refuse to pay the fine imposed, and make them arrest me. I will broadcast my refusal to cave to socialism on my website, on Facebook, to my students, in my lectures, and on the radio. I will fight this in the courts--or will the DC Fascists suspend the right to trial by jury? I suspect--and hope--that millions of Americans will do the same."
Jared Rhoads of the Lucidicus Project has a new OpEd, "All Talk, No Debate".
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:00 PM
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
My hunch is that Google Buzz will continue to grow because, after nearly a decade of social-networking experiences (its great-granddaddy, Friendster, started in early 2002), Internet users have grown accustomed to informational exhibitionism. The default setting for a Buzz message is public, and Buzz-ers using mobile phones are prompted to disclose their locations.
Norms are changing, with confidentiality giving way to openness. Participating in YouTube, Loopt, FriendFeed, Flickr, and other elements of modern digital society means giving up some privacy, yet millions of people are willing to make that trade-off every day. Of people with an online profile, nearly 40 percent have disabled privacy settings so anyone may view it, according to a Pew Internet survey released a year ago. The percentage is probably higher today.
Then he discusses some of the benefits of more sharing online:
"As a social good," says Richard Posner, the federal judge and iconoclastic conservative, "I think privacy is greatly overrated because privacy basically means concealment. People conceal things in order to fool other people about them. They want to appear healthier than they are, smarter, more honest and so forth." That isn't a defense of snooping as much as a warning of the flip side of privacy--concealing facts that are discreditable, including those that other people have a legitimate reason for knowing.
The truth about privacy is counter-intuitive: less of it can lead to a more virtuous society. Markets function more efficiently when it's cheap to identify and deliver the right product to the right person at the right time. Behavioral targeting allows you to see relevant, interesting Web ads instead of irrelevant, annoying ones. The ability to identify customers unlikely to pay their bills lets stores offer better deals to those people who will.
Anyone who's spent a moment reading comments on blogs or news articles knows that encouraging participants to keep their identities private generates vitriol or worse. Thoughtful discussions tend to arise when identities are public. Without that, as Adam Smith wrote about an anonymous man in a large city in The Wealth of Nations, he is likely to "abandon himself to every low profligacy and vice."
I think that's right, in general. (Obviously, some people can and do behave well whether anonymous or not.)
Personally, I've always been fairly open with the world about how I live my life. I don't have anything shameful to hide, not even when I make serious mistakes. More positively, I can filter people by being more open about myself. I've got strong values and a strong personality. People can see that in my doings online. Those who like it will be drawn to me, and those who don't will be repulsed. That's good!
Plus, when people are open about their values and interests online, they need not awkwardly grope for some common interests to discuss when they meet for the first time in person. Instead, they're meeting a person they already know. (Sometimes people know tons about me but I know nothing about them. That can be strange, although even that's gotten easier over time. I'm not entirely sure why.)
As part of my online openness strategy, I refuse to use pseudonyms, handles, or otherwise conceal my identity online: I'm always completely myself. Diana Hsieh is the only person that I ever want to be. (I love being me!) Notably, I don't think it's wrong to use a pseudonym: a person might want to separate his work life from his other pursuits, for example. Yet I think that a person should use just one pseudonym in all relevant forums, and that pseudonym should be an open secret among his friends. Otherwise, a person is likely concealing his identity to evade responsibility for what he's doing and saying.
Personally, I've definitely noticed a shift in my own "privacy settings" in the past few months. I've abandoned any and all sense of my own personal privacy, except with regards to my sex life. Yes, that will remain private.
I wasn't pushed into that change that by social media, although social media definitely helps me share personal stuff with greater ease. More than anything else, I think, my decision to blog on what I eat over the past two years, then to report on the nitty-gritty details of my hypothyroidism has affected me. Even answering some of the crazy questions on FormSpring has pushed my privacy boundaries. (Yes, I'm going to start posting the more substantial Q&As here on NoodleFood soon.)
I'm now committed -- in principle, I'd say -- to extreme openness about my life. That still feels a bit strange to me, but I like it.
What's your online privacy strategy? (I'm definitely going to get a skewed sample in the comments!)
By Paul Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
The Gold Coast Chronicle, a Florida-based publication, recently solicited opinion pieces from physicians opposed to ObamaCare. I'm glad to report that on March 15, 2010, they published my piece, "What America Needs to Know What’s at Stake with Obama Care". (Title theirs.)
Here's the opening:
President Obama is now determined to ram his health care bill through Congress by any means necessary, despite the fact that it will drive the government hundreds of billions of dollars further into debt and despite the fact the polls consistently show a majority of Americans opposed to his plan.
Why is this?
In a speech to Congress, he piously declared that health care was "a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
President Obama is right, but not in the way that he means. Thousands of Americans at Tea Parties across the country have rallied precisely to oppose the fundamental principles behind the President's plan.
These protests were not just about health care, but about the proper scope of the government -- and ultimately, the future of America...
Modern Paleo offers writings and other resources by Objectivists on the principles and practices of nutrition, fitness, and health most conducive to human flourishing.
Here are the highlights:
This Modern Paleo Blog contains writings on those topics by people who seek the best that modern life has to offer, informed by a broadly paleo approach. It is managed by Christian W., and its contributors are paleo-eating Objectivists. (Christian will introduce himself in the next few days.)
I've written a fairly detailed list of core paleo principles, each with a slew of links for additional reading.
We'll be adding more resources to Modern Paleo with time.
What does Modern Paleo advocate?
We -- the contributors to Modern Paleo -- advocate a "paleo" perspective on nutrition, fitness, and health. We use the evolutionary history of mankind, plus the best of modern science, as a broad framework to guide our daily choices about diet, exercise, supplementation, and medicine. The core of the paleo approach to health is the diet: we eschew grains, sugars, and modern vegetable oils in favor of high-quality meat, fish, eggs, and vegetables.
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
We live by that philosophy. We do not seek to return to the past: we want to fully enjoy the amazing benefits of modern life. We do not cling to dogmas or submit to authority: we think and act for ourselves, based on our best grasp of the relevant facts. We do not sacrifice our judgment or our values to others, nor ask others to sacrifice to us. We seek the best for ourselves by producing and trading voluntarily with other rational, productive people. We reject government controls and welfare on principle: every person should be free to live as he pleases, so long as he respects the rights of others.
As a philosophy, Objectivism is silent on scientific questions about nutrition, fitness, and health. Yet we regard Objectivism as compatible with a paleo approach.
To recreate the faces of our early ancestors, some of whom have been extinct for millions of years, sculptor John Gurche dissected the heads of modern humans and apes, mapping patterns of soft tissue and bone. He used this information to fill out the features of the fossils. Each sculpture starts with the cast of a fossilized skull; Gurche then adds layers of clay muscle, fat and skin. Seven of his finished hominid busts will be featured at the National Museum of Natural History’s David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, which opens March 17. They are perhaps the best-researched renderings of their kind.
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
This upcoming week will be the critical week in the health care fight. Speaker Pelosi is expected to start the process for the House to hold its final vote to approve the Senate bill. The vote will probably take place at the end of this upcoming week.
Right now, they are probably still a few votes shy of the majority they need:
This is an extremely risky move by the Democrats. Normally, a Speaker wouldn't plan on voting on such major legislation unless he or she was sure of having enough votes.
But the Democrats are also (correctly) concluding that time is not on their side. They have made the calculation that if they push for it now, then maybe then can squeeze out the last few votes via a combination of political carrots and sticks. For example, they have "sweetened" the deal for the wavering moderates by promising billions of dollars of new student loan subsidies.
On the other hand they recognize that if they wait much longer, then when these wavering Congressmen go back home for the Easter recess, they will get an earful from their constituents who are strongly opposed to the bill, and they'll lose even more support.
Hence, from the Left's perspective, it's now or never.
If you (like me) support free-market health reforms, this means three things:
1) We are winning. We have a chance to defeat this terrible bill.
In particular, do not uncritically accept the inevitable news stories about how the Democrats are "close to getting the votes" or how Pelosi is "confident she'll have the votes". She has to exude an aura of public confidence, otherwise her coalition will quickly unravel.
Polls repeatedly show Americans opposed to ObamaCare:
If they had the votes, they'd have already passed it by now.
2) We must keep up the pressure.
The Democrats are pulling out all stops to find some way to get this through now, before the critical Easter recess.
At this point in time, the single most important thing you can do is contact your Congressman and tell him or her what you think: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
This is especially important if your Congressman is one of the undecided or swing votes on these "Code Red" lists:
Even if your Congressman is a firm "Yes" and you disagree, it's still important to let them know where you stand. If even the liberal Democrats from "safe" seats consistently hear that their constituents are against it, it will give the wavering moderates more political cover to vote "No". They can then tell Pelosi, "Even your constituents hate this thing -- there's no way I can support it".
*** Our counter-pressure is our best weapon against the pressure that the statists will exert on these wavering Congressmen. ***
Your letter doesn't have to be long or eloquent. It just has to convey certainty, passion, and moral conviction. One short letter that I've seen against ObamaCare runs something like this:
"Please vote NO on this terrible health care plan! If you vote yes, you will destroy the ability of me and my family to receive good health care in the future. This is personal! If you vote yes, we will never forgive you for hurting our lives and trampling on our basic freedoms."
(Of course, you should express your opinion in a fashion that reflects your own style and values.)
Feel free to use all contact methods -- phone, fax, and e-mail. And please feel free to contact them multiple times over the upcoming week. In this context, repetition is a virtue!
And of course if you agree with your Congressman's position, then thank him or her. They also need our moral support.
3) If you have friends or family in other parts of the country, tell them to contact their Congressmen.
If you need intellectual ammunition for them, one of my personal favorites is from the AFCM website:
I personally think that the most important thing we can do in the next few days will be to directly contact our Congressmen and have friends/family do the same. LTEs and OpEds will still be important, but not as much as before. (That said, I'm still going to continue writing and/or disseminating some of my earlier writings to people I know around the country.)
This is the endgame, folks. Most political observers regard the health care bill as a 50-50 "toss-up" or "too close to call". It really could go either way. What happens this week will determine the course of this great country (for good or for ill) for decades to come.
Your voice could be the critical difference in swaying the right one or two minds. If you value your lives and your freedom, the time to speak up is now!
(Anyone is welcome to forward or repost this to any appropriate recipients or venues.)
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:00 AM
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:00 PM
Last weekend, Dr. Mary Dan Eades posted on the effects standing and moving while working, rather than remaining sedentary: You Could Stand To Lose a Few Pounds. She writes:
For quite some time now, this very idea -- standing more -- has been something that Mike [Eades] and I have discussed at length in our ongoing search for what changed in our lives (and the lives of our peers) during the quiet slide from 40 to 60. What happened that could account for the difficulty so many of us clearly experience in holding the line against weight gain (let alone losing weight) as we age, even in the face of a eating about the same amount of food and doing about the same amount of exercise as we did in our younger years.
Then Dr. Eades describes the vast difference in daily movement when working as doctors in a busy medical practice versus working as writers and researchers. Finally, she discusses how that might relate to a person's weight. It's not so simple, but standing versus sitting might be part of the picture.
Here's the comment I posted:
Funny, I just posted to OEvolve about working while standing yesterday... I suspect you've hit on the next paleo "let's try this" meme.
Normally, I'm not active like you were as a doctor, but my pattern is to move around a fair bit during the day, both inside and outside. However, when I was seriously hypothyroid this fall, I was sedentary in the way that Gary Taubes describes in obese people in Good Calories, Bad Calories: I simply didn't move unless really necessary. (Even walking across the room was a chore; walking for five minutes with the dog made me want to lay down to rest.) That lack of ordinary movement destroyed my conditioning in just a few weeks; the effect was far greater than just not working out regularly. So perhaps wiggling around in an ordinary way has a greater impact on our fitness than most people suppose.
In any case, I do want to try converting my workspace to standing, and I've temporarily rigged it up to do that. However, my feet don't seem to be up to the task yet. They're tired! I think I need to ease into it.
I'm none too fond of my desk, so I'd love to put together a new setup, preferably so that I can stand most of the time, but perhaps with a bar stool to allow me to sit if I'm tired.
I tried a temporary set-up with boxes last weekend, but that didn't work well. To do work, I need a desk-sized solid surface, so that I can deal with papers, books, notes, etc.
The school lunches served in America are downright scary -- particularly when compared with the far better lunches served in other civilized countries. Compared to the pictures on that blog, the school lunches when I was a kid were gourmet feasts!
Notably, the problem isn't just that we're feeding growing children disgusting junk that will have a lasting impact on their health -- or that we're training them to eat such junk for the rest of their lives. These school lunches send a very clear message to children: "We don't give a shit about you." That attitude pervades government schools in a million ways, many far more damaging. Yet to see it so plainly written on your plate would be particularly degrading.
What's in your fridge? The Anti-Fridge discusses the history of the refrigerator -- and alternatives to it. (The pictures are amazing too!)
I'm fascinated by traditional methods of storing and preserving foods. I don't wish to adopt them myself, absent some compelling reason to do so. I'm curious about the science behind them though.
I am seriously thinking about building a small root cellar in the barn, as that would be helpful for making fermented foods like sauerkraut. Then again, perhaps I can use the super-well-insulated "camping closet" in our basement for that purpose, once I move its contents to the new storage room in the barn. That would be easier!
Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: A guest post by Joel Salatin on the slew of inane regulations affecting his work as a food producer. It's obscene.
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Although I regard standard pet food as junk unsuitable for canine or feline consumption, I loved this ad for Pedigree:
As I might have mentioned before, I've been feeding my dogs and cats a prey-model raw diet for nearly two years, with excellent results. Despite my vet's worries about bacteria, I've had far fewer gastro-intestinal problems with raw food than I did with supposedly high-quality wet food and kibble. They're all fit and trim, and their teeth and coats are fabulous. You can learn more here:
Basically, a prey-model raw diet is the diet that dogs and cats are adapted by evolution to eat. And boy oh boy, do they ever love to eat it!
In terms of purchases, my staple is the super-convenient six-packs of good-quality chicken thighs at Costco for $1 per pound. They come four thighs per pack; Conrad eats two per feeding. I'll also buy pork and occasionally beef when on sale, almost always for $1 per pound or less. I like to add chicken backs to the mix, particularly for the cats. Sometimes I'll cut up a whole chicken. Oh, and I feed canned salmon from Costco once per week too.
To prepare that, I spend about thirty minutes cutting up and mixing meat, bones, and organ meats for the beasts while I watch television or listen to a podcast about once or twice per week. My biggest constraint is freezer space when I find some good meat on sale.
If raw feeding seems unworkable for your lifestyle, then you might try grain-free kibble and wet food. However, that's really quite expensive, particularly for a large dog. Also, if you have a carb-addicted dog or cat, the kibble might not be a good option. Our cat Oliver was growing obese on a standard diet, despite my attempts to limit his intake. (He was pretty grumpy about that!) On raw food -- eating as much as he wants -- he's perfectly trim. However, a few months ago, I put the cats on grain-free kibble and grain-free wet food for a few weeks. Oliver got fat rather quickly. Oh, and he'd routinely up-chuck his food in the morning -- on the carpet, of course. So raw is definitely the best option for Oliver. But Conrad and Elliot did fine on grain-free food.
If you switch to raw feeding, I strongly suggest reading a bit about it beforehand. You don't want to feed ground meat to cats, for example, as that reduces much-needed taurine. You want to feed only raw bones: cooked bones are dangerous because they're brittle. You don't want to neglect organ meats or bones. And you might need to gradually adjust cats to raw food, as they're often rather persnickety.
If you've been feeding raw, tell us about it in the comments!
Too many people seem eager to blame Amazon for the termination of its "Associates" program.
I've been an Amazon Associate for years. I learned that my account was closed in the wee hours of Sunday morning. At the time, I was hard at work on a new website -- a labor of love that I hoped would earn me some money by links to relevant Amazon products.
I was horrified. In an instant, so much of my work was wasted and so many of my future plans were destroyed.
Yet I don't blame Amazon. I blame our Colorado politicians for enacting an unjust law. They've made business through affiliates impossible in Colorado by imposing a mess of costly red tape and taxes. Amazon is not just a victim in this mess, but the primary victim.
Honest people do not blame business for the sins of government.
Repeal the "Amazon tax"!
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
However, consider the lead letter:
I've heard Amazon.com's talking points about how horrible Colorado is for taxing people who do business online but don't pay sales or other taxes to the state where they derive their revenue. They say nexus legislation will cost us jobs. The reality is online predators such as Amazon.com don't pay their fair share of taxes and suck dollars out of local communities that normally go to funding parks and park maintenance, police services, local jobs, and other programs that improve our quality of life.
The real issue is how international online retailers continue to get away with tax-dodging while our local businesses -- companies that do pay local taxes, create local jobs, hire local people, and fund local services -- can't compete with these online giants. These predators have sold books and other products below wholesale cost to dominate a market while being subsidized by the U.S. government and states with outdated tax laws. Fair taxation helps level the playing field for independent business people and helps local communities survive.
Next time you hit a pothole your city can't fix, thank Amazon.
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 PM
Last week, I totally blew past the NoodleFood blogiversary. As of March 4th, 2010, I'd been blogging for eight years. (EIGHT YEARS!!!) In that time, NoodleFood has published 4,125 posts. (4,125 POSTS!!!) That's pretty awesome.
Hooray for me! Hooray for my co-bloggers! Hooray for my commenters! Hooray for my readers!
I'm highly indifferent to race, but I have noticed that Paul's and my racial mix is somewhat unusual. It's far more common to see Asian women with Causasian men. Still, I'm really surprised to learn that "Asian husband/white wife marriages are about 60% more likely to divorce as white/white marriages." I wonder why that would be... perhaps most of the wives don't have the fabulous in-laws that I do!
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
Due to a horrible new law (HB 1193) recently passed in Colorado, Amazon terminated all of its "Amazon Associates" accounts in Colorado. (Amazon Associates is an affiliate program: members earn a small commission on Amazon sales via their links.) Much to my dismay, I found out about this change in the wee hours of Monday morning, while working on a new web site. I received the following e-mail from Amazon:
Dear Colorado-based Amazon Associate:
We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to inform you that the Colorado government recently enacted a law to impose sales tax regulations on online retailers. The regulations are burdensome and no other state has similar rules. The new regulations do not require online retailers to collect sales tax. Instead, they are clearly intended to increase the compliance burden to a point where online retailers will be induced to "voluntarily" collect Colorado sales tax -- a course we won't take.
We and many others strongly opposed this legislation, known as HB 10-1193, but it was enacted anyway. Regrettably, as a result of the new law, we have decided to stop advertising through Associates based in Colorado. We plan to continue to sell to Colorado residents, however, and will advertise through other channels, including through Associates based in other states.
There is a right way for Colorado to pursue its revenue goals, but this new law is a wrong way. As we repeatedly communicated to Colorado legislators, including those who sponsored and supported the new law, we are not opposed to collecting sales tax within a constitutionally-permissible system applied even-handedly. The US Supreme Court has defined what would be constitutional, and if Colorado would repeal the current law or follow the constitutional approach to collection, we would welcome the opportunity to reinstate Colorado-based Associates.
You may express your views of Colorado's new law to members of the General Assembly and to Governor Ritter, who signed the bill.
Your Associates account has been closed as of March 8, 2010, and we will no longer pay advertising fees for customers you refer to Amazon.com after that date. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to March 8, 2010, will be processed and paid in accordance with our regular payment schedule. Based on your account closure date of March 8, any final payments will be paid by May 31, 2010.
We have enjoyed working with you and other Colorado-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program, and wish you all the best in your future.
Best Regards,
The Amazon Associates Team
On reading that, I just wanted to cry. My new project is a labor of love -- as you'll see when it's launched on Monday. But dammit, I was hoping to be compensated somewhat for my past and future hours of work by those small commissions from Amazon. The same applies to other projects of mine. In an instant, the new law meant that so much past work was wasted and so many future plans derailed.
As if that's not bad enough, the media and the leftists in Colorado are blaming Amazon for closing the program, rather than Colorado Democrats for enacting the law. Consider the opening of Mike Litwin's column: Amazon's use of human shields evil:
I don't like to say that Amazon is evil, because I'm not in the corporations-are-people legal camp.
But it turns out that Amazon is evil. And now that Amazon has fired all its Colorado affiliates — mostly mom-and-pop outfits, and who can resist an outfit with a mom or a pop? — I find I have no choice.
In a sales-tax war between Amazon and the Colorado legislature, Amazon has dropped the big one on the innocent affiliates, who have done absolutely nothing wrong except get caught in the crossfire.
No one seems sure exactly why Amazon fired its Colorado affiliates — people who, after all, send business Amazon's way — unless it was simply to enjoy watching the ensuing chaos. Amazon has done something like this before. That's why, before passing the new law, Colorado legislators specifically exempted affiliates from the battlefield.
The affiliates, numbering in the thousands, are angry — either at the legislators or at Amazon or, probably, both.
...in a move leaders from around the state have called 'tyrannical' and 'pure duplicity,' Amazon, with no warning, closed the accounts of Colorado website owners--many of whom are individual bloggers and nonprofit organizations--in protest of routine collection of state sales taxes. What they've done won't allow them to evade the new law. All they have done is punish our neighbors in order to score cheap political points.
In fact, Amazon did not decide to terminate its Colorado affiliates on a lark or for revenge: they did so because the existence of those affiliates would have subject them to an onerous and expensive confusion of red tape, such that the program was no longer of value to them.
Democratic legislators have disingenuously claimed that the tax law is merely about equalizing the tax standing between local retailers and online retailers. Such claims stray far from the truth.
A local retailer is located within a particular set of tax zones (state and county, and possibly city and various special districts). Within that location, the percentage of the tax is exactly the same for each purchase. The retailer calculates the percentage, tacks on the fee to the sale, and the customer pays it. Then the retailer pays the various taxes to the various taxing entities at the alloted times.
That is most certainly NOT what the Amazon Tax requires of online retailers. Here's what the final version of Bill 1193 actually says:
"Each retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax shall notify Colorado purchasers that sales or use tax is due on certain purchases made from the retailer and that the state of Colorado requires the purchaser to file a sales or use tax return."
Failure to do so results in a $5 fee per infraction. Retailers must also submit an annual tax report to customers, stating that they owe the Colorado taxes. "The notification specified... shall be sent separately to all Colorado purchasers by first-class mail and shall not be included with any other shipments."
Furthermore: "Each retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax shall file an annual statement for each purchaser to the Department of Revenue on such forms as are provided or approved by the Department..."
The bill is also quite vicious in its enforcement: "If any retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax refuses voluntarily to furnish any of the information specified in [another part of] this section when requested by the executive director of the Department of Revenue [etc.], the executive director, by subpoena issued under the executive director's hand, may require the attendance of the retailer" at a government hearing. Moreover, the director is authorized by the bill "to apply to any judge of the district court of the State of Colorado to enforce such subpoena by an appropriate order..."
Obviously, this scenario is nothing like what local retailers must endure. Consider: if Amazon makes a $10 sale to somebody in Colorado, under the law Amazon is required to send out tax documents to the customer (via first-class mail) as well as to the state, and the customer is required to pay the sales tax. The postage and time required to comply with this bureaucracy --for both Amazon and customers -- could easily overwhelm any profit that Amazon makes from the sale, and it would add considerably to the total purchasing price (including the value of time spent complying with the controls).
As Amazon recognized in its letter to Associates, the obvious intent of the bill is to make doing business in Colorado living hell unless retailers "voluntarily" collect the sales taxes directly.
In other words, the bill is a vicious combination of blackmail and threat of physical force.
Ari Armstrong and I are frantically putting together a campaign on this issue. People need to recognize that Amazon is the victim -- the primary victim -- of very destructive legislation. The repeal of this awful law should be first on the agenda after the election in November, presuming that the Republicans gain control of the legislature again.
I'll have a very basic web site up and running at RepealTheAmazonTax.com later today. [Now done!] I've also created a low-volume, moderated e-mail list. To stay informed about the battle against the "Amazon Tax," subscribe to NoAmazonTax @ GoogleGroups.
Honestly, I do not want to fight this fight. I've got a dozen other projects that I'm really desperate to develop. I've got career plans that I want to get underway. Instead of doing something positive, I'm battling some already-passed tax insanity. As if that's not depressing enough, I'm seriously worried about burning myself out, given that I'm not yet fully recovered from hypothyroidism. However, I cannot afford not to fight this fight. So many of my future plans are derailed by this law that I cannot ignore it and hope for the best.
In a recent New York Timescolumn, Frank Rich attacked and smeared the nascent tea party movement. While most of his diatribe received the fiskings it deserved, one significant fallacy went unchallenged. Perhaps it was overlooked because the left has committed it for so long now that it seems unquestionable. All the more reason to bring it to light.
The fallacy is the equation of violence with force. The error and its consequences are manifest in what the left condemns and condones...
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:00 PM
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
What Do I Think of Trans-Folk?: A good blog post from Trey Givens on transsexuality, with comments from Objectivist transsexual Rachel Maegan. My thoughts on the subject exactly mirror Trey's. I don't understand it, but I believe the problem is very real, enormously difficult, and not subject to moral judgment.
Definitely good for a smile: bed jumpers. Some are quite clever too!
The Internet? Bah!: In 1995, Clifford Stoll told us why "no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works." Even better:
Then there's cyberbusiness. We're promised instant catalog shopping—just point and click for great deals. We'll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obselete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month? Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet—which there isn't—the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.
Um... wow.
The best part of the laugh is that we'd never know about this delightful bit of god-awful prediction if the Newsweek archives weren't online. (I saw Clifford Stoll speak in high school; I found him hugely interesting and entertaining. This column wasn't his brightest moment.)
The whole thing is worth reading, but here is one excerpt that stood out for me:
North Korea is so broke that it can't even expand its prison system. Currently, there are six main work camps, holding 200,000 prisoners. The camps run factories, mines and farms, but to build additional camps requires cash and resources the government doesn't have. So food for the camps is being cut, to encourage the weaker prisoners to die, and make room for the many new "economic criminals" (especially those sneaking food in from China.)
There is also paralysis at the top when it comes to resuming negotiations with the U.S. and neighboring countries, that are willing to provide food and other aid, if the north will abandon nuclear weapons. Many North Korean officials are willing to make the trade, but refuse to allow the inspections demanded.
The big fear is that the outsiders will find out how bad off North Korea really is. This, despite the fact that this is not much of a secret anymore.
Fortunately, it looks like the Obama Administration is not in a hurry to agree to more negotiations and talks with such a weakened (yet unrepentant) enemy.
Given that I oppose so many of the current President's policies, I do wish to give him credit on those occasions where I agree with him.
What I especially liked about her piece was that she cut to the heart of the health care policy debate:
Medicine often focuses only on the physical act of living -- breathing in and out, keeping the heart beating. But human life is more than the functioning of the moving parts. Although healthcare may be the only requirement for a brain-dead accident victim on life support, it is not the only requirement for the rest of us. To live, we need food, we need shelter, we need companionship and work, and hundreds of other material and spiritual requirements. Healthcare is a necessity -- and after a car accident, or during a flu infection, it may be the most important necessity. But it is not the only requirement for life.
When people talk about a 'right' to healthcare, they mean an entitlement to healthcare. They mean that unlike other goods and services that must be earned through individual work or trade, healthcare should be provided for free.
Medicine is not the only industry that fulfills a necessity for life, so what entitles us to the products of this particular industry, and not others? Why not food or clothes? And why not those products that provide a good life -- feather beds or paintings or tickets to the movies? Or are we entitled to those as well?
The issue goes far beyond healthcare. It is a question of what the government's role should be in providing for its citizens. Should the government collect taxes to provide citizens with whatever goods and services they deem 'necessary?' Or is it the responsibility of individual citizens to work for whichever products and services they can independently earn -- with the government existing to secure their freedom to pursue these ends?
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
As a reminder, my ever-growing OList.com empire includes the following e-mail lists:
OActivists: OActivists is an informal e-mail list for Objectivists committed to fostering positive cultural and political change. Its purpose is to facilitate and encourage effective advocacy of Objectivist ideas in non-Objectivist forums by facilitating communication with other Objectivist activists. Posts to the list alert subscribers to opportunities to speak out, recommend sources of information, discuss effective arguments and principled strategies, reproduce op-eds and letters written by subscribers, announce events, and more.
OBloggers: OBloggers is an informal mailing list for Objectivist bloggers. Its basic purpose is to facilitate communication about matters of mutual interest, such as upcoming events, posts of interest, best blogging practices, and the like.
OAcademics: OAcademics is a forum for Objectivist academics to discuss teaching, research, coursework, dissertations, job prospects, publication, and all other aspects of life in (or after) academia. The list is basically a means of sharing knowledge and experience as ever more Objectivists enter academia.
OGrownups: OGrownups is an informal mailing list for Objectivists interested in raising and educating children well. Its basic purpose is to facilitate discussion about child development, discipline techniques, education methods, parenting resources, and more.
OEvolve: OEvolve is an informal private mailing list for Objectivists and others interested in the proper application of evolutionary principles to diet, fitness, and health. Its basic purpose is to facilitate discussion and information-sharing amongst Objectivists about the science of cooking, nutrition, exercise, supplements, health, and more.
If you're interested, please be sure check out the list's membership requirements. Also, I have some new OList e-mail lists in the works, so ... get ready!
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
On Saturday morning, I gave my first speech to Liberty Toastmasters. I was very pleased with it -- more so than expected.
The speech wasn't brilliant or deep, but it was perfect for the audience. I was able to use my notes as nothing but a rough outline, then ad lib around that. (Although I never write out speeches in full, I'm usually too dependent on my notes.) My delivery felt good too. In fact, I'm happy to report that I won the "best speaker" award -- by a unanimous vote! Hooray! My strength in Toastmasters has always been evaluations: I can give a kick-ass evaluation at the drop of a hat. So I'm really hoping to develop my skills at impromptu speaking and prepared speeches.
Honestly, the speech went so well that I wished that I'd recorded it. However, I decided to do the next best thing: I recorded a video of it when I got home.
I've been wanting to try video for a while, but I just couldn't carve out an opportunity. Finally, I had one! So I recorded it with my iSight webcam on my iMac, plus the good condenser microphone that I use for podcasting.
As you'll see, it's rather rough, not just because I did it on a lark, but also because I allowed myself just one take. Next time, I'm going to have to work on keeping eye contact with the camera. I'm used to roving my eyes around the room while speaking, so focusing on the video camera is something new. I need to find ways to position my notes, so that they're not a distraction to my eyes. I need to adjust the light in my office. And I want to try shooting the video with my new camera, then perhaps with a real video camera.
However, I'm pleased by how much more of me is captured in video than in blog posts and podcasts. I'm really fascinated by that, and I'm going to think about how to best use that.
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:00 AM
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 PM
A few weeks ago, I took the iodine loading test and bromine test from Hakala Labs. I've been meaning to report my results, as they were pretty surprising, but I've just been too busy. First though, let me tell you about the test.
The test requires that you take a 50 mg dose of Iodoral, then you collect your urine for 24 hours. You send the lab a sample of that urine, along with a report of the total amount of urine collected. The lab reports back your iodine and bromine levels in a few days. (You can test just for iodine, if you like.)
The test was relatively easy to do. You have to be at home for 24 hours to take the test -- unless you wish to carry your jug of urine in a cooler to the grocery store. (No? I didn't think so.) The jug of urine has to be refrigerated, so going to the bathroom requires some advance planning. Next time, to make the process easier, I'll likely set up the jug in a cooler in the bathroom. Of course, you have to make sure to remember to collect every last drop of your urine. (That's harder than it sounds.) Oh, and I discovered that my bladder had just slightly more capacity than the 16 ounce cup provided. (That was awkward!)
I had to stop taking my usual 20 mg per day dose of iodine for the two days before the test. The results were surprising: my digestion became sluggish almost immediately, and I felt like a bloated whale again for the first time in weeks. That disappeared shortly after I took the 50 mg dose of iodine for the test.
When I took the test, I'd been taking more than one milligram doses of iodine in the form of Iosol and Lugol's for 19 days, working my way from 1.8 mg to 24.7 mg. On average, I took nearly 19 mg per day.
So ... without further ado ... what were my results?
I excreted 46.2 mg of the 50 mg loading dose, over 90%. That's supposed to mean that I'm totally iodine sufficient.
That result made no sense whatsoever to me. Clearly, I have been iodine deficient, based on the remarkable improvements I've felt from supplementing with iodine. Yet I'd not been supplementing long enough to reach whole-body sufficiency, as that takes about 3 months of 50 mg of iodine per day. Plus, I felt the effects of just two days without iodine. So I can't be sufficient.
So what in the heck was going on? Here's what the lab report says:
If you excrete 90% or more, and are not taking iodine supplementation, this may be caused by:
1. A symporter defect in which iodine is absorbed but not taken into the cells properly.
2. An iodine organification problem where the iodine gets into the cell but does not attach to the lipid complex for activation.
3. Bromide may be interfering with the body's utilization of iodine.
I'm not sure about the first two possibilities, but I did have my bromine levels checked. And I excreted 37.8 mg of bromine in that 24 hours. That's quite high: the upper normal value is 10 mg.
The halides are a group of elements that share a similar size and shape. ... Fluoride, bromine, iodide, chloride and astatide make up this family. Iodine and chloride are the only halides that have therapeutic effects in the body. Bromide is a toxic element that has a chemical structure very similar to iodine. This similarity can cause bromine to bind to iodine receptors and possibly interfere with iodine transport in the body. Bromine is found in many food items such as bakery products, and some sodas, as well as many prescription items. In addition, bromine is found in many fire-retardant chemicals added to furniture, carpets, etc. Crops are sprayed with bromine as a fumigant for agriculture. When there is iodine deficiency present, bromine toxicity will be exacerbated. (Iodine, pg 82-3, citations omitted)
What are the effects of bromine on a person?
Bromine intoxication (i.e., bromism) has been shown to cause delirium, psychomotor retardation, schizophrenia, and hallucination. Subjects who ingest enough bromide feel dull and apathetic and have difficulty concentrating. Bromide can also cause severe depression, headaches, and irritability. It is unclear how much bromide must be absorbed before symptoms of bromism become apparent. Recent research has demonstrated that symptoms of bromide toxicity can be present even with low levels of bromide in the diet. (Iodine, pg 98, citations omitted)
Dull and apathetic? Difficulty concentrating? Depression? Gee, that sounds familiar! Those symptoms definitely improved with high dose iodine for me.
Also, Dr. Brownstein reports that fluoride has similar harmful effects on thyroid function. When added to drinking water, it doesn't affect rates of dental cavities. I'm dubious of its benefits when used topically, e.g. in toothpaste. My teeth and gums were in terrible shape, despite using a prescription-strength fluoride toothpaste for some years. I've enjoyed huge improvements in dental health with eating paleo, plus supplementing with cod liver oil and butter oil -- without that high-fluoride toothpast. So fluoride for dental health seems overrated, at best.
Exposure to high levels of bromine and fluoride in modern society might be why many people seem to need so much iodine -- about 12 mg per day as a maintenance dose -- for optimal health.
Notably, I'm definitely not endorsing these claims about the effects of bromine and fluoride and their relationship to iodine as the gospel truth. While they seem to fit my own experience, I'm hardly qualified to judge the underlying scientific claims. (I hate being a layperson, particularly where my very capacity to live a meaningful life is at stake!)
So... supposing that bromine and fluoride toxicity is a genuine problem for me, what do I do?
Mostly, I take my daily dose of iodine, in the form of Iosol and Lugol's. I'm currently varying between 24 and 50 mg per day, somewhat at random. Dr. Brownstein's tests of his patients show that high-dose iodine supplementation enables the body to excrete bromine over the course of several months, until levels fall to normal. Fluoride seems to be excreted with iodine supplementation too, but more quickly. Happily, that supplementation is super-easy and super-cheap.
As an extra preventative measure, I've been trying to identify and eliminate sources of fluoride and bromine in my diet and environment. We bought an under-sink reverse osmosis system for our drinking water. That filters out everything -- including the natural fluoride in our water (2 ppm average), as well as pesticides, herbicides, and the like. I've stopped brushing with toothpaste with fluoride. (I use what I used as a kid: baking soda.) Tea apparently contains some fluoride, but I don't think the cup per day that I drink poses much of a problem.
I've not been able to identify many clear sources of bromine in my diet or environment. It's in hair dye, and I've dyed my hair continuously for the past few years. (That's now stopped, at least temporarily.) I don't eat bread any longer, and I've never drunk Mountain Dew or other sodas. My father never used bromine in our swimming pool when I was a kid. I don't know whether it might be in our carpets or my clothing, but if so, I can't do much about that. I could switch to organic vegetables, but I'd like to avoid that hassle and expense, if possible. (But I hope to grow plentiful vegetables in my own garden this summer!)
I do wonder -- as a super-sketchy hypothesis -- whether my own fat stores might have been a major source of bromine. Bromine seems to be stored in fat tissue. Perhaps I'd accumulated it from various sources over the years, then retained it in fat tissue due to insufficient iodine intake. Losing about fifteen pounds over the course of six months in 2008 on a paleo diet might have released a good amount of bromine into active circulation in my body. Due to my super-low iodine intake at the time, I couldn't excrete it. Instead, it took the place of iodine in my body, and that interfered with thyroid function. Notably, I had low-grade symptoms of hypothyroidism before I switched to a paleo diet, so I'm sure that was in my future, but perhaps the bromine contributed to my hard crash this past fall. Mostly though... I have no clue!
In any case, I plan to repeat the iodine and bromine test in a few months. Hopefully, I'll see lower levels of bromine excretion and greater iodine uptake.
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
I'm starting to think that thyroid lab values mean very little, at least in some cases.
I got my latest thyroid labs on Thursday:
TSH = 3.24 (above 2.5 is hypothyroid, goal to be 1.0)
Free T3 = 2.6 (normal range 2.0-4.4, goal to be high in that range)
Free T4 = 1.0 (normal range .82 to 1.77, goal to be in the middle of that range)
That's not what I expected!
Basically, these lab values are the same, if not slightly worse, than they were when I was originally diagnosed as hypothyroid in November. Back then, I was pretty much a senile corpse, but the labs indicated only very mild hypothyroidism.
Now I'm doing pretty darn well, thanks to desiccated thyroid and iodine, as I reported in this blog post.
I still have some symptoms -- I'm still cold, my cholesterol is still high, my skin is terribly dry, and I'm not quite at full strength for weightlifting. Overall though, I'd have to say that I feel pretty darn fabulous.
Yet... the labs are the same. So basically, I've gone from night to day on the inside, yet my lab values haven't budged. At least in my case, my thyroid lab values don't correlate with my well-being in the slightest!
Why would that be? Speaking purely as a well-read layperson, I suspect that many of my worst hypothyroid symptoms were due to the inability of my body to make proper use of its own thyroid hormones, likely due to iodine deficiency. In this good article on the reliability of conventional thyroid tests, Dr. Briffa writes:
Another reason why TSH may not reflect true thyroid status relates to the fact that the brain and peripheral tissues (outside the brain) can sense thyroid hormone levels different. Imagine, for a moment, that the tissues in the periphery are somewhat resistant or 'numb' to the effects of thyroid hormones (in a way similar to the situation when tissues become resistant to insulin). But let's imagine there is no such problem in the brain. Then what can happen is the brain thinks there's enough thyroid hormone around, while the rest of the body is in fact deficient in thyroid hormone and therefore exhibiting the symptoms and signs of hypothyroidism.
That's the "type 2 hypothyroidism" that Dr. Mark Starr discussed in his book Hypothyroidism Type 2.
Of course, my labs and symptoms indicate some "type 1 hypothyroidism" too, meaning that I'm not producing enough thyroid hormone. Perhaps my thyroid will fully recover with more iodine supplementation, but I'm not holding my breath. For now, my doctor has raised my medication from 1.0 to 1.5 grains of desiccated thyroid, with another thyroid blood panel scheduled for eight weeks. Hopefully, that extra half grain will be all that I need to feel completely fabulous!
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:00 PM
I've found a new musical obsession to temporarily displace my beloved Lady Gaga: Mika. (That's pronounced "me-ka.") He's an up-and-coming British pop singer. His music is super-happy-fun-complex pop -- which I love love love. I'm most myself when in a state of crazy, wild joy at the mere fact of my own fabulous existence, and I connect with that feeling with Mika's music. Oddly, Vivaldi's Violin Concertos and String Symphonies give me the same feeling. (In college, I bought the fantastic ten-disc Vivaldi Collection by Shlomo Mintz and Israel Chamber Orchestra. I still adore it.)
In this post, I'll tell you how I came to acquire Mika's albums. The story is rather awesome for hooray-for-technology reasons. However, if you hate super-happy-fun-complex pop, please don't torture yourself by hitting any of the "play" buttons below.
I first read about Mika in a post on Trey Givens' blog: Straight Privilege. The post wasn't even about his music, but instead about his sexuality. For some unknown reason, I googled him, then listened to the first track that came up: "Grace Kelly."
I liked the song quite a bit from the get-go. That's unusual for me, as I'm almost always somewhat slow to warm up to music that I like. I can tell the stuff that I don't like immediately, such as Rush.
After I decided that I wanted to buy some of his music, I checked his discography on Wikipedia, and then bought his two albums -- "Life in Cartoon Motion" and "The Boy Who Knew Too Much" -- on iTunes. Then I thanked @TreyPeden on Twitter. (Trey might not be a fan; I don't know.)
Since then, I've been listening pretty obsessively, as I always what I do with a new album that I like. Like with Lady Gaga, I enjoy every song on these two albums; that's definitely a rarity. I'd only call a handful of the albums in my rather vast collection "perfect" in that way. So far, my favorite song is "One Foot Boy":
So why is that story remarkable? Just fifteen years ago, I couldn't have done any of that. Back in those stone ages of the internet...
Blogs didn't exist.
Google didn't exist.
Lala didn't exist.
YouTube didn't exist.
Wikipedia didn't exist.
iTunes didn't exist.
Twitter didn't exist.
As depressed and worried as I often get about the direction of this country, I'm so happy that the fabulous innovators, capitalists, and workers of this country make my life so much more awesome on a regular basis.
In particular, she challenges the popular misconception that the irrational actions of men like Tiger Woods and Bernie Madoff were "selfish". Here's an excerpt:
By its most basic definition, to be selfish is to be interested in attaining something for oneself, to act in pursuit of one's own needs or desires.
But observe what these men attained for themselves: Madoff will spend the rest of his life behind bars, his stolen wealth lost, while Woods, once the highest paid athlete in the world, has lost his endorsements, his reputation, and possibly even his family. Clearly, such were not the desired outcomes.
This raises a question: can these men, whose actions led not to their success and happiness but rather to their self-destruction, really be characterized as selfish?
Basu is completely correct. Woods and Madoff were self-destructive, not "selfish". Lying, cheating, and stealing are tremendously self-defeating behaviours (even if their practitioners might temporarily delude themselves into believing that they are "getting away" with some short-term illusory gains.)
The truly selfish person thinks and acts in the long range. This requires living according to rational principles, which in turn requires a commitment to cultivating virtues such as honesty, integrity, independence, justice, productiveness, pride, and rationality. This may seem counter-intuitive to those who equate "selfishness" with a willingness to violate such moral principles. But a deeper examination of the genuine requirements of the pursuit of long-range rational self-interest reveals that living according to these moral principles is essential for a selfish life.
On a related note, I want to observe that the Undercurrent writers are generating some consistently good current affairs and cultural commentary from an Objectivist perspective and getting this material in the hands of college students across the country for free.
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
