All Recent Comments
	View the latest 102050100200 comments posted to NoodleFood, regardless of the age of the post.
Comments Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010
	Hsieh in GCC: "What America Needs to Know What’s at Stake with Obama Care"
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 17:54:44 mst Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net We need to step up the pressure! A handful of "undecideds" went into the Yes column today. So far, no "no" voters (or November no voters) have switched camps, but Dennis Kucinich is expected to flip tomorrow at a 10am press conference. www.thehill.com has a running tally. The leaning noes are stuck at 37. Let's get out the effort and keep sending those messages! View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	My New Project: Modern Paleo
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 16:32:33 mst Name: Aaron Davies E-mail: agd12(at)columbia.edu note that there's nothing very "natural" about apples, or most other fruit. (have you ever tried to eat real wild strawberries? the nasty bitter things an eighth of an inch wide?) some berries might have been available to a caveman, but nothing remotely like a red delicious apple or a concord grape. (of course, he wouldn't have been eating 20% fat beef either, but that's a different discussion...) View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	My New Project: Modern Paleo
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 15:39:39 mst Name: Justin Roff-Marsh E-mail: justin.roffmarsh(at)ballistix.com URL: http://www.justinroffmarsh@ballistix.com Diana I wonder if it's necessary to add that: "... we regard Objectivism as compatible with a paleo approach"? I guess, technically, philosophy subsumes all other studies but they seem so far apart that the comparison grates on me a littl. Maybe, draw a two-part connection: Objectivism > scientific method and scientific method > paleo? Justin View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	My New Project: Modern Paleo
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 15:35:46 mst Name: Justin Roff-Marsh E-mail: justin.roffmarsh(at)ballistix.com URL: http://www.justinroffmarsh@ballistix.com I don't think that it's the case that they wouldn't have consumed these foods -- rather that they wouldn't be their staple diet. Occasional apples are hardly a problem -- but apple juice is. The latter *would* have been in short supply. I suspect fruits and honey would have been consumed opportunistically -- when people stumbled across them. Furthermore after eating a low-sugar for a long time, I've found that my tolerance to consume it is much lower. If I were to have a plate pancakes for breakfast, I'd have to take the rest of the day off to get rid of the headache and general lethargy. Justin View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 14:44:06 mst Name: William H Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com O'newbie: The wording of your question makes me wonder how many leftists you know, and how well. I know a fair number; in fact, my circle of friends mostly range from moderate liberal to outright leftist, largely because I socialize with people who share my interest in science fiction . . . and also my lifestyle liberalism and my irreligious outlook. I would say, to start, that asking about THE psychology of leftists is probably a mistake. Consider support for capitalism. You have people who are pro-capitalist because they are Objectivists, because they are libertarians, because they are classical utilitarians, and because they are religious traditionalists . . . and they don't all have the same psychology, even though the left tends to lump them all together. You really need to have a book on How To Know The Leftists. But let me talk about one of my circle with whom I've debated political issues over the past couple of years. The first time we did so, he was advocating universal government funded health care, which in fact he still believes in (though he's opposed to Obama's proposals, because he thinks it's wrong to compel people to pay for health insurance . . . he thinks the government ought to pay for it). When I explained that human life has a finite value and that sometimes it costs too much to save a life, he was even more appalled. Now what I think is going on is that he sees the value of human life, and favors preserving it; but he doesn't want to think about the other things you have to give up to achieve that. This is, for example, a man who, when his cat went outside and didn't come back, asked all his friends to contribute toward his hiring a service that would search for her with bloodhounds, at a cost of several thousand dollars . . . which quickly turned up what a coyote had left of her in his back yard. I think that a lot of leftists think in what I would call a childish fashion. They think about the immediate, visible value of something they care about, and they don't make the connections with the effort needed to attain it, or the cost of attaining it. Indeed, if you point that out to them, they feel that they are being attacked, because if you were a decent person you wouldn't become analytical and practical about what you can or can't afford. They are able to hold one concept in their minds . . . X is good . . . but not two things . . . X is good, but to get X we have to give up Y . . . and certainly not a whole range of connections between things. Do you know anything about Piaget's ideas? He talks about human mentality going through three developmental stages: preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational. The last is where you attain an abstract perspective on reality, and the ability to think analytically and demonstratively. And a lot of people just don't do that, nor does our culture give much support to doing so. Then, on the other hand, there are leftists who think more analytically, and who have decided that they want to ensure that everyone's needs are met, and that this requires rejecting any concern for individual rights . . . and who are proud of their realism. And there are leftists who are outright malevolent, like the deep greens and the people who believe in white collective guilt. I think those are different sorts, and I don't have as good an understanding of how they think. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	My New Project: Modern Paleo
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 13:56:02 mst Name: PDS It has always struck me as odd that fruit and/or honey would not be favored on the paleo-type diets. What could be more "paleo" than a random caveman plucking an apple from a tree, or raiding a bee's nest (or making his wife do it?)? View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 13:38:55 mst Name: Geoff To briefly answer your question, O'newbie, I believe leftists are driven primarily by two things: A) As you say, desire for complete egalitarianism, i.e. "It's not fair that that guy has a million dollars when I only have a hundred dollars." This usually leads to... B) Desire to control others, i.e. "If only everyone would do what I say and behave the way I want them to, THEN we as a country/society/world would be better off, and my personal view of myself as a smart, capable, and all-around great person would be validated." So, so much of what leftists think and say can be traced back to one or both of these roots. While some of them might indeed admit (to themselves) that what they're trying to do is harmful, evil, etc., they really only acknowledge it in the short term, because they continue to try to do those things. By and large, they do these things because they really do think that they know better than everyone else, and they're not looking out for anyone but themselves. Desire for power and control is the main motivator, and they chase this desire under the illusion of correcting injustice and making everything "fair" for everyone. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 12:51:48 mst Name: rrlv_frsh From Comment #25: "if our misguided allies, the most intelligent and influential of the conservatives, cannot help us preserve freedom of speech, we may well be doomed." My understanding of the Objectivist view is that we are all doomed, indeed, if altruism is not resisted and overturned. If fighting altruism is too big a battle for anyone to hope to win, then we are all doomed, indeed. I've heard it said for decades that a battle against altruism is too big for anyone to hope to win. My father used to say it while he was still living. Conservatives and Libertarians routinely say it. Objectivism certainly stands alone in challenging it. And yet, if you look at the spectacular accomplishments of the Ayn Rand Institute over the quarter century of its existence, it's hard not to harbor at least a small glimmer of hope. Leonard Peikoff has said that he is pessimistic and has been advised by his closest friends and associates to resist being too pessimistic toward younger Objectivists. Apparently his forthcoming book will make specific predictions about how much time we may have left in the face of present trends. Yes, it's a big task. But there is no other way, and the door is not quite shut completely on a brighter future. As Lib Rant himself has acknowledged, so long as complete censorship has not yet been imposed, so long as we are still relatively free to speak, we still have a chance. It may be "cold comfort," as Lib Rant puts it, but if one knows the philosophic principles and history involved, one can see that there really is no alternative. Conservatives who try to fight statism by means of altruism do not "buy time," they only shorten it, because it is really altruism (and mysticism) that is driving the advance of statism. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 12:46:49 mst Name: O'newbie I have a question as to the psychologies of Leftists. Are the Democrats/Leftists trying to destroy America deliberately? Do they actually know the evil that they are trying to implement? Or is it that they are just following the logical end of their premises? If we take someone like Johnny Blaze as illustrative of the Left - and I would bet that Leftist politicians are far more vicious than Mr. Blaze - it is apparent that Leftists are motivated by all out hatred of the productive *and* they are fiercely committed to egalitarianism no matter what the cost. I sense in them that they hate America as it currently exists and want to transform it into some imagined communitarian paradise governed by "social justice". I guess what I am trying to figure out is if Leftists/Democrats are Psychotic or evil. Also, is anyone else feeling pure hatred for today's Leftists right now? I can't look at Obama, Pelosi or any other political leftist right now without feeling a sense of rage. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 0:03:01 mst Name: Anthony R. Don't feed the troll (AKA: Mr. Blaze). View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
Comments Posted on Monday, March 15, 2010
	Thyroid Update: Do Labs Mean Much?
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 22:52:28 mst Name: Kurt Harris E-mail: paleonu1(at)gmail.com URL: http://www.paleonu.com I'll have the (non-epidemiology) papers on that effect in my iodine post. it is commonly observed clinically and makes good physiologic sense. I thought you had said labs were slightly worse than when you started despite dessicated hormone. I must have misunderstood. take care Kurt View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 22:34:54 mst Name: Liberty Rant E-mail: freebeppo(at)earthlink.net URL: http://impeach-them-all.org I am taking the liberty of re-posting this because the original post had typos and was confusing: rrlv_frsh: as you stated, "political conservatives today represent an attempt to compromise with altruism, and compromise with bad principles hastens their victory or prolongs their dominance." I agree completely, but I find I need to clarify "victory" and "dominance," which imply a whole range of catastrophes. If statist ("Progressive" and New Leftist) principles were not dominant in the universities, most schools, and the mainstream media, I don't believe Obama would have been elected in the first place. The conservatives, with their intellectual package of mysticism, altruism, and implied collectivism, can do nothing to stop that, What however, is "victory," and what is the end of capitalism and free speech? The answer to these questions, in my opinion, is crucial. Victory for statists ultimately means the victory of faith and force, as Ayn Rand pointed out: (“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”Philosophy: Who Needs It, 66.) Passage of sweeping health care putsch or "Cap & Trade" will extend the power of faith and force significantly, but not definitively. Not yet. Given enough time, it will bring about the end of capitalism, including free speech. What is the end of capitalism? As Ayn Rand pointed out, a mixed economy such as ours contains _some_ capitalism (which is an "unknown ideal") but where has it ended completely? There are many examples of such places, ranging from Pol Pot's Cambodia, through North Korea and Cuba, to fascist states like China and (one might argue) "capitalist" Singapore, where individual rights are severely circumscribed or nonexistent. Even if Obama got all he asked for, capitalism would not be completely eradicated in the USA. Then we come to the most important question, in my opinion: what is meant by the end of free speech? Were it not for free speech, I could not write this an publish it on the Internet, and you could not reply. Copies of any and all of Ayn Rand's works would be destroyed and anyone found with one would be murdered and/or tortured. True, free speech has been eroded thanks to the dominance of the "Progressives": "hate speech" and certain guest speakers are banned. Until a recent (surprising to me) US Supreme Court decision permitting corporations to fund political advertising, such advertising was banned, thanks in part to John McCain and his notorious McCain-Finegold reach-across-the-aisle bill. Why is this important? 1. Once free speech is ended by a leftist dictatorship, we are all reduced to the status of Kira in "We the Living." We'll have to leave the USA, but there will be no place to go. Not Costa Rica, not Singapore. Nowhere. 2. Objectivists, though they appear to have influenced the thought of some conservatives to a greater extent than in the days of Barry Goldwater and Whittaker Chambers, are not yet influential enough to stop the "Progressive" juggernaut. 3. Therefore, the main resistance, flawed as it is, to galloping statism, comes from conservative polemicists, including Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Steyn, etc. I view such people, as mistaken but important allies. (If I were a leftist, I would consider calling them useful idiots, but they are not idiots, merely confused, using emotion as a tool of cognition.) 4. If Western free speech is completely eradicated due to conservative altruism, I view the chances of eventual Objectivist success as minimal. On might argue that it took after 600 years the suppressed views of Christians triumphed in the Roman Empire, but for me that is no comfort at all. One might argue that it took 1250 years for Aristototelian ideas to surface in the ideas of Thomas Aquinas since the beginning of the Christian era, but my comfort about that is even colder. In other words, if our misguided allies, the most intelligent and influential of the conservatives, cannot help us preserve freedom of speech, we may well be doomed. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 22:28:40 mst Name: Liberty Rant E-mail: freebeppo(at)earthlink.net URL: http://impeach-them-all.org O'newbie: " my growing view that Leftism really is a secular religion" Absolutely. I personally do not make the distinction between religious conservatives and leftists as to who is more religious. I ask myself which is more irrational. For example, although Obama IMO is a secular leftist (ignoring his former involvement with Jerimiah Wright) I consider him much more irrational than Glenn Beck, a convert to the LDS church, who is currently tying himself in knots with a critique of "social justice." There are other religions where no god is worshiped, of which the most prominent is Buddhism. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Standing While Working
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 18:59:30 mst Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net Macworld had an article about setting up an office for working while standing: http://www.macworld.com/article/146950/2010/03/standingdesk.html View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 18:56:21 mst Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net I'm highly concerned when I hear pundits on Fox News express pessimism. The Democrats seem to be going all-in, and one Democratic strategist hypothesized that we'll see a number of vulnerable Democrats vote for the bill and then announce over the next two months that they are "retiring" from Congress. The message here is that it may not be enough to say that we'll vote against them. We need to make the moral argument. It's wrong to discriminate against legal immigrants (which this bill does). It's wrong to ignore the American people, who have used nearly every electoral opportunity since mid-2009 (including the election of Scott Brown not two months ago) to express their displeasure with the bill. It's wrong to ram it through now before the Easter recess when you know you'll hear it from the people. It's wrong to sacrifice the rights of everyone (including the 85% who are satisfied with their coverage) for the sake of a "cause." View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 16:04:05 mst Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net The most rational course of action if the bill passes is to drop our health coverage. Why bother having it if we can just pay the fine and then come running to the health insurer if we get sick? While we're at it, why stop at health insurance? Why not mandate that auto insurers have to insure everyone? That way I can wait until I have an accident to buy insurance? This is the kind of idiocy that the Democratic party is inching closer to passing. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 16:02:49 mst Name: O'newbie "YOU can help another overpaid specialist buy another Lexus SUV!" Hatred of the good for being the good. Ayn Rand's identification of altruism as mankind's great enemy is one of history's greatest accomplishments. For that alone she will be regarded as a history changing genius. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 15:56:08 mst Name: Mike E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net Oh Hi, Jonathan Blaze Ghost Rider Anonymous Coward. Surprising to see you drop by today. Since you had nothing to add, it's almost as though you didn't! View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 15:51:26 mst Name: Sajid http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1027360/woman-aims-to-become-world ... (via hotair.com) The above is about a 500 lb woman eating as much as she can to reach her goal of weighing 1000 lbs. The good news is that under Obamacare, should she suffer any health problems, it will be covered. So Jonathan, is this the society you would have? Or why don't we fight rising health costs by increasing interstate competition and allowing individuals to make their own decisions regarding healthcare. The next time you or someone close to you goes bankrupt because of a healthcare bill, just remember it was all in the good cause of the woman in the article above. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 13:43:41 mst Name: O'newbie "In my opinion, leftist atheism is generally taken as the template for all atheism, making it difficult for an Objectivist to criticize religion without alienating conservatives." This is another good point. It makes me think that Leftist atheists are not discouraging religion because they are championing reason but because they do not want any intellectual competition. It also reinforces my growing view that Leftism really is a secular religion, a secular religion which currently has cultural dominance especially over the universities. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 13:25:01 mst Name: SurahAhriman O'newbie, it could well be that it requires a higher degree of intelligence just to make it through all the mental gymnastics. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 13:15:15 mst Name: Liberty Rant E-mail: freebeppo(at)earthlink.net URL: http://impeach-them-all.org O'newbie: IMO the left promotes atheism with the argument for intimidation, which boils down to: "If you accept certain religious beliefs, you're a ridiculous idiot and should be mocked." The relgions that are excepted from their assertions include Islam, especially the militant kind, liberation theology, and anti-Israel Jewish liberalism (but not Orthodoxy). By contrast, the Objectivist argument for atheism is part of a philosophical system which does not accept epistemological mysticism or the social subjectivism of tradition. In my opinion, leftist atheism is generally taken as the template for all atheism, making it difficult for an Objectivist to criticize religion without alienating conservatives. In the Soviet Union and other places, leftist atheism is, in my opinion, not much different from Quranic Muslim theology: "Accept our views on religion or we will kill you." View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 13:00:00 mst Name: O'newbie "These phenomena, in my opinion, would account for the artifact that correlates IQ with "liberalism" and atheism, if indeed such a correlation actually exists as the study asserts." This is a good point. It would make sense that the higher socio-economic classes would be better educated and that therefore their ideologies would reflect what is currently dominant in the places of higher education - today that would be modern "liberalism" and atheism. Although atheism as such is not taught or encouraged in today's colleges (to my knowledge), I do think that Conservatism, and especially religious conservatism, is actively discouraged. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 12:50:49 mst Name: Liberty Rant E-mail: freebeppo(at)earthlink.net URL: http://impeach-them-all.org O'newbie: ["Are there any opinions on this study that argues that Liberalism, atheism, and male sexual exclusivity are linked to higher IQ?"] The article states: "The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source." I have read studies which correlate IQ with socio-economic status (sorry, I can't quote references at this time). Students of higher socio-economic status, in my opinion, are more likely to be indoctrinated with Marxist and "Progressive" ideas in the schools they attend, including secular private schools, while students of lower SES are still struggling with reading, arithmetic and dropping out of school before graduation. These phenomena, in my opinion, would account for the artifact that correlates IQ with "liberalism" and atheism, if indeed such a correlation actually exists as the study asserts. If there are Objectivist educators and psychologists reading this who can confirm or disconfirm my assertions, please comment. I will reserve comment on the purported sex discrepancy at this time. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 12:34:06 mst Name: O'newbie Are there any opinions on this study that argues that Liberalism, atheism, and male sexual exclusivity are linked to higher IQ? http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intellig ... I'm always suspicious of evolutionary psychology arguments like this. Today's atheists and "liberals" are largely nihilistic skeptics and completely irrational in so many ways. I find it hard to believe that these people are supposedly possessed of higher IQs. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 12:00:46 mst Name: Liberty Rant E-mail: freebeppo(at)earthlink.net URL: http://impeach-them-all.org rrlv_frsh: as you stated, "political conservatives today represent an attempt to compromise with altruism, and compromise with bad principles hastens their victory or prolongs their dominance." I agree completely, but I find I need to clarify "victory" and "dominance," which imply a whole range of catastrophes. If statist ("Progressive" and New Leftist) principles were not dominant in the universities, most schools, and the mainstream media, I don't believe Obama would have been elected in the first place. The conservatives, with their intellectual package of mysticism, altruism, and implied collectivism, can do nothing to stop that, What however, is "victory," and what is the end of capitalism and free speech? The answer to these questions, in my opinion, is crucial. Victory for statists ultimately means the victory of faith and force, as Ayn Rand pointed out: “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”Philosophy: Who Needs It, 66.Passage of sweeping health care putsch or "Cap & Trade" will extend the power of faith and force significantly, but not definitively. Not yet. Given enough time, it will bring about the end of capitalism, including free speech.What is the end of capitalism? As Ayn Rand pointed out, a mixed economy such as ours contains _some_ capitalism (which is an "unknown ideal") but where has it ended completely? There are many examples of such places, ranging from Pol Pot's Cambodia, through North Korea and Cuba, to fascist states like China and (one might argue) "capitalist" Singapore, where individual rights are severely circumscribed or nonexistent. Even if Obama got all he asked for, capitalism would not be completely eradicated in the USA. Then we come to the most important question, in my opinion: what is meant by the end of free speech? Were it not for free speech, I could not write this an publish it on the Internet, and you could not reply. Copies of any and all of Ayn Rand's works would be destroyed and anyone found with one would be murdered and/or tortured. True, free speech has been eroded thanks to the dominance of the "Progressives": "hate speech" and certain guest speakers are banned, and until a recent (surprising to me) US Supreme Court decision permitting corporations to fund political advertising was banned, thanks in part to John McCain. Why is this important? 1. Once free speech is ended by a leftist dictatorship, we are all reduced to the status of Kira in "We the Living." We'll have to leave the USA, but there will be no place to go. Not Costa Rica, not Singapore. Nowhere. 2. Objectivists, though they appear to have influenced the thought of some conservatives to a greater extent than in the days of Barry Goldwater and Whittaker Chambers, are not yet influential enough to stop the "Progressive" juggernaut. 3. Therefore, the main resistance, flawed as it is, to galloping statism, comes from conservative polemicists, including Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Steyn, etc. I view such people, as mistaken but important allies. (If I were a leftist, I would consider calling them useful idiots, but they are not idiots, merely confused, using emotion as a tool of cognition.) 4. If Western free speech is completely eradicated due to conservative altruism, I view the chances of eventual Objectivist success as minimal. On might argue that it took after 600 years the suppressed views of Christians triumphed in the Roman Empire, but for me that is no comfort at all. One might argue that it took 1250 years for Aristototelian ideas to surface in the ideas of Thomas Aquinas since the beginning of the Christian era, but my comfort about that is even colder. In other words, if our misguided allies, the most intelligent and influential of the conservatives, cannot help us preserve freedom of speech, we may well be doomed. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 11:57:39 mst Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net Brian, Here's the letter I sent to my "definite yes-man" Congressman: ------------------------- "I urge you to vote against the Senate health care bill and reconciliation bill that is expected to be put before you later this week. As Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4) points out, under the current Senate bill and reconciliation bill, LEGAL immigrants (who often come here with little but their hopes and dreams) would be required to purchase health insurance, but would not be eligible for the subsidies. This places yet another obstacle in the path of legal immigration and citizenship, and encourages illegal immigration. As you know, [your district] depends on the hard work and dedication of tens of thousands of legal immigrants. The health care reform bills, which purport to help people, unwittingly harms them. We cannot rely on future "fix" in the reconciliation bill or the forthcoming immigration bill. Despite their promises, the Senate will have little incentive in the reconciliation bill to make changes if the House passes the Senate bill and President Obama signs it, which appears to be a prerequisite. The only way to ensure a bill that treats all people equitably is to reject the Senate bill and start with a new House bill that can achieve broad support in Congress. The danger in one party "going it alone" is that other unintended consequences such as this one, will go unnoticed or be ignored in the rush to "do something." Please remember the first part of the Hippocratic Oath (first, do no harm) when you cast your votes this week on the upcoming health care reform bills." View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 11:55:57 mst Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net Or we can support a bill, like Jonny B, that will likely lead to further reductions in the number of doctors, while increasing total demand for health services. I'm sure Mr. Blaze realizes that by supporting the bill, he's at one with big pharmaceutical companies who made 5 times as much as the insurers and see the bill as a gold mine (more forced customers, care of the US government!). He also must like the part that mandates legal immigrants to purchase insurance but makes them ineligible for the subsidies. Why not make it $3,000-10,000 more expensive per year to emigrate to the US? View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 11:31:27 mst Name: Johnathan Blaze E-mail: j(at)blaze That's right everyone. Support the financial rape perpetrated by doctors and hospitals on the sick and injured! Make sure that the status quo of doctors artifically limiting their own supply to further prevent Americans from getting affordable health care is maintained! Write your congressman today! YOU can help another overpaid specialist buy another Lexus SUV! Remember people, 62% of all bankrupcies were caused by medical bills. (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db20090 ...) With your support, we can increase this to 80% or even 90%! All in the name of FREEDOM! View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Health Care Endgame
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 11:05:50 mst Name: brian0918 E-mail: brian0918(at)gmail.com Bah, my Congressman is one of the most vocally-supportive of the healthcare bill. I'm still gonna spam her with emails and phone calls. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 10:24:43 mst Name: Liberty Rant E-mail: freebeppo(at)earthlink.net URL: http://impeach-them-all.org/ rrlv_frsh: Thank you for your thoughtful answer, which however, has not clarified things for me. Can you send a reference in which Dr. Peikoff states without equivocation that conservative altruism will bring an end (that is, a complete end, not a mixed premises muddle) to capitalism and free speech? View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Thyroid Update: Do Labs Mean Much?
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 10:21:35 mst Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Hi Dr. Harris, Indeed, I had a single-nodule goiter when I was diagnosed as hypothyroid: 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. (I had an ultrasound.) I could feel and see a lump at the time, but now I can't feel or see anything. (My doctor wants to wait on the repeat ultrasound until my labs normalize.) Based on my own experiences with iodine, as well as the reports of others, I'm doubtful of the claim that milligram doses of iodine suppresses thyroid function. I've just seen lots of dubious epidemiology to support that claim. Perhaps I've missed something, but people's personal experience suggests exactly the opposite. I've told my doctor exactly what I'm doing with iodine, and she's not concerned. More importantly, if the iodine was suppressing thyroid function, I doubt that I would have seen such huge improvement in my hypothyroid symptoms on iodine alone, as I reported here: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2010/01/thyroid-update-desiccated-th ... View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Thyroid Update: Do Labs Mean Much?
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 10:08:37 mst Name: Kurt Harris E-mail: kgharris(at)charter.net URL: http://www/paleonu.com Going from micrograms to milligrams per day of iodine intake acts directly on the thyroid gland to SUPPRESS thyroid hormone production, so your labs are not surprising at all. You need more exogenous dessicated because you are suppressing your gland with those massive doses of iodine. It is unlikely you were originally hypothyroid due to inadequate iodine unless you had an enlarged thyroid gland on ultrasound or elevated serum thyroglobulin levels. Too late to measure the latter but your radiologist husband could easily do a thyroid ultrasound. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 9:16:53 mst Name: rrlv_frsh From Comment #12: "Conservative altruism will ultimately bring about conservative defeat, but will it bring about the end of capitalism and free speech first?" For those who may not already know, the literature of Objectivism (particularly statements by Leonard Peikoff) argues that the answer to this question is 'yes.' To be precise, political conservatives today represent an attempt to compromise with altruism, and compromise with bad principles hastens their victory or prolongs their dominance. According to one book I have read (at one time recommended by Second Renaissance Books and favorably reviewed by Harry Binswanger), the Enlightenment approach to religion represented a "watering down" of its worst elements, prompted by the overwhelming resurgence of interest in reason and man as a rationally productive living being. The Protestant Reformation in Christian religion was the result of pressure from the Renaissance view of "man at the center." (See especially Chapter 6 in *A History of Knowledge* by Charles Van Doren, Ballantine Books, 1991.) View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 8:39:09 mst Name: Sandi Trixx E-mail: sanditrixx(at)aol.com URL: http://sanditrixx.blogspot.com/ Fareed, I plan to post a rebuttal about the DDT comment. I'm really busy today so if you do any research, please post your comments. In the meantime, check out http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html for more info. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 2:05:19 mst Name: Fareed E-mail: m.kadada(at)gmail.com I have a question regarding the banning of DDT. Over at Sandi trixx's blog one commenter posted the following: http://sanditrixx.blogspot.com/2010/03/world-malaria-day-blame.html ... I am not sure how accurate his points are but it does shed light on the DDT issue further and it seems to contradict what I'v read about bringing back DDT. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Census
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 1:12:53 mst Name: Molly Personally, I see this census form as an improvement over prior years. This year's 10 questions are minimal compared to earlier census forms. I reference the 1790-1930 census forms on a regular basis, and they (particularly 1850-1930) asked far more detailed and nosy questions. The 2010 census form is basically inquiring, with only 10 questions, about each person's name, age/birthdate, address/phone, ethnicity/race, and if they own/rent. 100 years ago, the main 1910 census asked with 32 questions for name, address, relationship to head of household, sex, color/race, age, marital status, number of years married, mother of how many children born and how many children still alive, state/country of birth, father's birthplace, mother's birthplace, year immigrated to the US, if naturalized/alien, language spoken, occupation, occupation industry, whether employed or unemployed, length of unemployment, whether able to read/write, whether attended school, home owned/rented/farm, military service background, and whether blind/deaf/dumb. Of course, I dislike the government collecting "required" information about me as much as anyone, but I'm relieved the questions have improved over the years. Imagine chatting with a census taker about your stillborn children, like in 1910! I would have bet money that the questions asked in social-program-prone 2010 would be far more extensive and intrusive than 1910, but happily that is not the case. Very few government programs scale down over time -- most grow -- so this to me seems a good development in a small way. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Monday, March 15, 2010 at 0:05:12 mst Name: Liberty Rant E-mail: freebeppo(at)earthlink.net URL: http://impeach-them-all.org/ O'newbie: I believe you are right that altruism is built into the Christian metaphysics, in the sense that life on earth is believed to be temporary, that God rules a kingdom, and God commands all to be altruistic. However, the Founders were able to tap into the idea of the same God endowing each of us with unalienable rights. I heard Glenn Beck's radio speech to the effect that God wants us to use our free will to be altruistic, and not to be coerced by an all-powerful state. (He didn't use exactly that language, but he excoriated "social justice" and implied free will because he views altruist morality based on a choice to be altruistic or not.) Of course, ultimately this approach is self-cancelling and relies on a mystic concept of reality. One way of looking at this is that conservatives want to believe in free will, a benign form of rational self-interest, and a moral basis for capitalism, but they must tie themselves in philosophical knots in order justify it because they won't give up Judaeo-Christian theology and ethics. The Founders, knowing their constituency was extremely religious, nevertheless had some expectation that their "experiment" in a government with checks and balances and a respect for individual rights had a chance of success. It seems to me we are in the same predicament as the founders. The resistance to the Obama juggernaut comes mainly from those same conservatives. Can the conservatives hold the fort long enough for Objectivist philosophy to take root and grow in the general population? Conservative altruism will ultimately bring about conservative defeat, but will it bring about the end of capitalism and free speech first? View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
Comments Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2010
	Standing While Working
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 21:48:13 mst Name: Bryan E-mail: bryanhaydukewich(at)gmail.com I forgot to mention that there are sleep benefits to this. You're much less likely to suffer from insomnia if you perform your work standing all day (heard this from Eben Pagan in the Wake Up Productive video series, a man who does all his work standing as well). Sitting is a modern invention and you can see it manifest its consequences on the stork like necks of computer geeks. Sitting isn't even good for you when you go to the bathroom. We traditionally squated and this allowed us to evacuate our colons with much less pushing. That straining that we do on our porcelain thrones today leads to hemorrhoids, and there's some evidence that fecal matter remains in the colon because of its odd position when seated. This can contribute to constipation and is suspected of more serious problems. They outline some of it on this guy's site: http://www.naturesplatform.com/health_benefits.html View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Standing While Working
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 21:40:02 mst Name: Bryan E-mail: bryanhaydukewich(at)gmail.com Diana, have you gone barefoot yet? (I mean that as in being unshod 100% of the time or wearing Vibram Fivefingers or something similar). That should help but it will also take some adjusting to. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 19:03:04 mst Name: Liberty Rant E-mail: freebeppo(at)earthlink.net URL: http://impeach-them-all.org I have uploaded a blogpost calling for Barack Obama's impeachment for violating his oath to defend the US constitution. I have no illusions that such an impeachment will take place, but I felt comfortable writing what I wrote. I wonder what Noodlefood readers think about what I say. http://impeach-them-all.org/Archive/ImpeachBarackObama.html View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Standing While Working
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 15:44:04 mst Name: DavidR E-mail: user(at)server.type To find or make a standing desk but w/ something to lean against that is not a full seat might be an interesting compromise. (Something like this but as a desk: http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2010/01/30/cool-modern-outdoor-table/ ) On the more immediate practical side, IKEA has a 'make your own desk' thing where you can pick out your surface (material and size) & legs, and many can be adjusted to standing height or even inclined like a drafting table. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 14:57:59 mst Name: O'newbie John Adams, In my experience there are two types of Christians with regards to charity and sacrifice. Those that say that it is the essence of Christian teachings and those that say that it is important but that it should not be enforced by law. The latter types of Christians argue that Christianity has been perverted by modern liberalism and that just because Christ sacrificed his life for humanity does not mean that Christianity implies a socialist state or the attempt to "make Heaven on Earth". They also argue that the egalitarianism implied in Christianity has been taken out of context and that today's liberal approach to Christianity is a perversion caused by the *secularization* of Christianity. And of course all things secular are bad. Its an interesting question of what exactly is the "true Christianity" as there are so many Christian sects with so many different doctrines. But IMO altruism is built right into the Christian metaphysics and thus some collectivist political system is inevitable given Christian philosophical premises. However it should be noted that there is an army of Christian apologists that are out there spreading the message that America and Western Civilization would be impossible without Christianity, that Christianity is necessary for science and capitalism and for morality itself - i.e. that Christianity is the "soul" and the essence of the West. These people and their ideas may end up being the greatest enemies of Objectivism. In the end the Left is a nihilist movement that cares about nothing but its momentary whims. Christians on the other hand are defending something two thousand years old which they argue is the sublime. They won't surrender it quietly. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 13:40:26 mst Name: Sam I am most certainly in the fiery grip of a random comment. It's a simple legal/moral issue, but I must put it here - and hopefully have it confirmed - since my emotional stability is important. Hopefully someone else finds it enlightening or soothing. I was at a baseball field just now. Granted, it is in a public park, and there is no clear demarcation (fence) between the ball field, the "open land" areas, and the play grounds, but it's reasonable to assuming that 30 feet just beyond the infield dirt is the ball field. What happened was that myself and two other men were there, on the infield, playing catch. A man and his two or three young children showed up to fly kites. They went to the area I just mentioned. When I suggested that one guy pitch, I bat, and the last guy catch the fly balls, they agreed and even went so far as to tell the man that we were about to do that. Anyways, probably stupidly, we started our exercise before they were off the field. I hit a ball that landed about 20 feet from one of the kids. The father, obviously not doing what I assume (I was out of ear shot) he had just agreed to do (leave), happened to be behind the fence behind home plate when I hit that ball. He stood there for a moment, then walked up to the fence, and said to me, confrontationally: "Do you know where the batting cages are?" - implying that me doing something integral to the game of baseball, on a baseball field, was inappropriate. I'm mad at myself because in my emotional upheaval from nearly injuring a child, I didn't respond with the appropriate response to the man's comment. I should have said "what do you mean?", waited for him to state explicitly what he was implying, and then said something like "Do you know where the park is? I see a baseball field right here.", but all I said was "I'll stop." I don't care that his comment, as evidenced by the pause that preceded it, was also the result of a benevolent, almost understandable emotional urge to protect his children, he was in the wrong. He shouldn't have been there, he especially should have left the the moment we said we were going to use the outfield, and he definitely never should have come on the field when he saw we were there in the first place. Reason is paramount in human existence, even when kids are in danger, and that man was being unreasonable. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my life to his irrationality, even at the expense of his children. I wasn't aiming for them, so any harm that would have come to them would have been entirely his fault, not mine. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 11:15:22 mst Name: John Adams E-mail: johnscriveneradams(at)hotmail.com From the Pat Robertson thread back on February 1st. "Because they don't know that both parties share the same morality and that morality undercuts the principles of individual rights, leaving the Republicans disarmed in their ostensible goal of limiting government and protecting liberty. (I say ostensible because I think, at the core, the Republicans are afraid that the Democrats hold the moral high ground. Which by their shared morality, they do.)" So here's a concrete representation of that phenomenom. First, a video of Glenn Beck opposing Obama's neo-reparations from July of last year. The video seems to be unsynchronized with the audio but that might be an artifact of my system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RELWULoyIn0 Second, excerpts from Glenn Beck's TV and radio programs. TV: "I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!" Later, Beck held up cards, one with a hammer and sickle and other with a swastika. "Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right. That's what people say. But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. . . . But on each banner, read the words, here in America: 'social justice.' They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly, democracy." http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners- ... Radio: "I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! …" "If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing”�"I’m in the wrong place." http://blog.sojo.net/2010/03/11/glenn-beck-responds-social-justice- ... (This is from sojourners as I couldn't find a text transcription on Beck's site. There is an audio clip available there as well. And I heard Beck on his radio program when he talked about it the first week of March.) Also, from the same source. "Where I go to church, there are members that preach social justice as members�"my faith doesn’t�"but the members preach social justice all the time. It is a perversion of the gospel. … ***You want to help out? You help out. It changes you. That’s what the gospel is all about: You.***" It appears, in this issue, that Glenn Beck is one of the "better christians." That is, he feels that sacrifice is a personal matter and should not be coercive or institutionalized by the government. (I don't remember the source for the term "better christians" but it was used by an objectivist whose name I can't recall to distinguish those christians who have a significant amount of the enlightenment in their worldview.) What I think the following urls illustrate is that Beck is in the minority with this stance. And that this is the cleft stick of christian morality and individual rights that morally disarms the Republicans/Conservatives in their position on limited government. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/glenn-beck-social-justice-christians-rage- ... "The Rev. Jim Wallis, an evangelical leader who is the CEO and president of Sojourners, a Christian networking group in Washington, D.C., has been one of the loudest voices against Beck." "When Glenn Beck is asking Christians to leave their churches, the Catholic Church, the black churches, Hispanic, evangelical, to leave all our churches, I'm saying it's time for Christians to leave the Glenn Beck show," he said. "This offends Christians. This is salt, something at the heart of their faith. It's something many of us have spent our lives trying to do, to practice." "Yesterday, he went further and he said social justice is a perversion of the gospel. ... I'm saying it's at the heart of the gospel." "Wallis is in good company among leading Christians. The Rev. Canon Peg Chemberlin, president of the National Council of Churches of Christ USA, which oversees 100,000 congregations across the country and has about 45 million members, has objected to Beck's comments as well. " "I hesitated to respond," she said, "because it seemed like such a ridiculous statement. But this is really an attack ... a misunderstanding, at least, of what the Bible says. Justice is a concept throughout the scriptures. It's one that should be and must be organized around any congregation." "It's very disturbing," she added. "He's speaking on behalf of his political views and trying to take out of the biblical text the things that are going to oppose his political views. This is primarily a political motivation. ... It's not that Christians haven't been Nazis and socialists, but we're not talking about political parties here. We're talking about 2,000-year-old gospel." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/rev-jim-wallis-glenn-beck_ ... "Wallis told "Countdown" guest host Lawrence O'Donnell that not only are Beck's claims false, they're at odds with the teachings of Jesus. Contrary to Beck's claims that social justice is a perversion of the gospel, Wallis told O'Donnell that helping the poor is at the heart of the gospel." "Wallis: "The God of the Bible is the God of justice. Though the poor are in the center of God's concern... Poverty breaks the heart of God. And it breaks the heart of the church. So, this is about Christians who may disagree on politics. Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter. Left or right. We have different views on the role of government. Doesn't matter, But justice is integral to the gospel. And across the spectrum, Christians are saying Glenn Beck got it wrong." Wallis told O'Donnell that Mormon leaders have called him to apologize for Beck's comments. He hopes that Beck will call him to apologize and talk about social justice." http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/14/why-does-glenn-beck-hate ... "...Beck is now trying to walk them back somewhat, making a distinction between religious injunctions for individuals to help the poor and the broader notion that society has an obligation to care for the "least of these." But as religious scholar and blogger Mark Silk points out, that's not what Beck's own tradition--the Latter-Day Saints--believes:" "Not to belabor the point, but the Judeo-Christian tradition from which Beck's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints springs expects the poor to be provided for as a matter of public law. And indeed, in the days when the LDS Church ran its corner of North America as a theocracy, that's just what it did." "And Philip Barlow, a professor of Mormon history at Utah State University, told the New York Times that, "One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it's a vast tract on social justice," adding, "A lot of Latter-Day Saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church."" http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2010/03/social_justice_for_glenn_ ... - an expansion on Silk's comments from swampland. "What emerges is the Beckian doctrine that religious injunctions to care for the poor and do other socially just things are fine so long as they are understood as being about you. Which is to say, individuals can do all those things enjoined in, for example, Isaiah 58 for their own spiritual benefit ("the Lord will guide you always"), but are not to use such injunctions to advocate for government social welfare programs. " I think that this is a fair restatement of Beck's position on this. But then the other shoe drops. More from Silk. "...it's worth considering what those parts of Scripture that enunciate laws for society (i.e. not the Gospels) have to say. Here I'd point to the laws on gleaning laid down in the so-called Holiness Code of Leviticus (so beloved of American conservatives for its apparent condemnation of homosexual acts):" "19:10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." "23:22 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." "Now, under that distinctive Israelite species of polity that Josephus called theocracy, this is not voluntary charity undertaken for your own spiritual benefit. It is mandated welfare--social justice of just the sort that Beck despises." And there you have it. This is what disarms the conservatives in the political sphere. The idea that men should be left free to practice morality as THEY see fit is a political idea from the American Enlightenment. It contradicts the earlier christian view of the role of authority whether God or Caeser. So when the conservatives run up against the more consistent altruism of the democrats/leftists, they are reduced to making practical arguments, having already ceded the moral high ground. And for a capper, here's a commenter from the Silk blog, above, highlighting the universality of religion and sacrifice. "Supporting and promoting social justice are good Christian acts. They are also good Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, and Pagan acts. It should be obligatory for all of us if we are to be truly human. Is Glenn Beck part of humanity?" View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Open Thread #146
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 10:17:46 mst Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net I'm not being defeatist. However, I have a real concern about the arm twisting and special dealmaking that will be going on this week. The socialization of student loans is one more example of it. The Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase stemmed from last-minute arm twisting. A "wavering" Democrat who I expect will vote for the bill in the end, Luis Gutierrez, actually unwittingly raised a good point. Under the President's proposal, LEGAL immigrants who don't get coverage through their employers are required to purchase health insurance through the exchanges, but aren't eligible for the subsidies. (Gutierrez also wants illegal immigrants to be able to purchase insurance, without subsidies, which the bills prohibit). Gutierrez didn't point it out, but the proposal puts legal immigrants at a disadvantage, and thus creates a new obstacle for legal immigration into this country. That's an argument that might resonate. Here's a letter I just sent to my "definite yes" Representative that you might consider sending, if you think it will do any good on the Hill. It's deliberately vague, but on point. ---------- "I urge you to vote against the Senate health care bill and reconciliation bill that is expected to be put before you later this week. As Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4) points out, under the current Senate bill and reconciliation bill, LEGAL immigrants (who often come here with little but their hopes and dreams) would be required to purchase health insurance, but would not be eligible for the subsidies. This places yet another obstacle in the path of legal immigration and citizenship, and encourages illegal immigration. As you know, [your district] depends on the hard work and dedication of tens of thousands of legal immigrants. The health care reform bills, which purport to help people, unwittingly harms them. We cannot rely on future "fix" in the reconciliation bill or the forthcoming immigration bill. Despite their promises, the Senate will have little incentive in the reconciliation bill to make changes if the House passes the Senate bill and President Obama signs it, which appears to be a prerequisite. The only way to ensure a bill that treats all people equitably is to reject the Senate bill and start with a new House bill that can achieve broad support in Congress. The danger in one party "going it alone" is that other unintended consequences such as this one, will go unnoticed or be ignored in the rush to "do something." Please remember the first part of the Hippocratic Oath (first, do no harm) when you cast your votes this week on the upcoming health care reform bills." View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Raw Fed Beasts
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 10:00:56 mst Name: Earl E-mail: earl.parson(at)gmail.com URL: http://creaturesofprometheus.blogspot.com/ I have recently started giving my dogs raw, fist-sized beef bones from my local market, which they sell at the meat counter for 99 cents a pound. They occasionally have grass-fed beef bones too, for $1.99 per pound. One time there was a lot of meat still attached, and the bones went into the crockpot instead! But, when I do that, I share the broth with the dogs. I'm not ready to switch them completely over to raw food yet but it is something I am learning more about, gradually. I also supplement them with fish oil, about 1.5 - 2 grams per day, since my dog Todd had started developing pain in his hips. Now he is totally back to normal. The market is http://www.figueroaproduce.com/ and I highly recommend that anyone reading this in the Northeast Los Angeles/South Pasadena area check them out. I will probably blog about them in more detail in the next few weeks. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Raw Fed Beasts
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 10:00:44 mst Name: Earl E-mail: earl.parson(at)gmail.com URL: http://creaturesofprometheus.blogspot.com/ I have recently started giving my dogs raw, fist-sized beef bones from my local market, which they sell at the meat counter for 99 cents a pound. They occasionally have grass-fed beef bones too, for $1.99 per pound. One time there was a lot of meat still attached, and the bones went into the crockpot instead! But, when I do that, I share the broth with the dogs. I'm not ready to switch them completely over to raw food yet but it is something I am learning more about, gradually. I also supplement them with fish oil, about 1.5 - 2 grams per day, since my dog Todd had started developing pain in his hips. Now he is totally back to normal. The market is http://www.figueroaproduce.com/ and I highly recommend that anyone reading this in the Northeast Los Angeles/South Pasadena area check them out. I will probably blog about them in more detail in the next few weeks. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Standing While Working
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 9:48:26 mst Name: PDS I work at a standup desk. The psychological benefits actually matter as well. I had a custom built stand up desk made for my office for about 3k. Pretty steep, but worth it, in my opinion. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
	Standing While Working
	Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 9:47:49 mst Name: Kevin Copps URL: http://rationalthought.org Man did not evolve sitting in a chair all day, which I discovered the hard way. After back surgery, I followed the suggestion of my physical therapist. I now stand at work more than half the time. The majority of my work involves typing and mousing around with a computer. Now I use a height adjustable workstation by Anthro, a model called Elevate. I'm extremely happy with it. Anthro makes sturdy and tough furniture, but their industrial style is not warm and cuddly. The electric motor on the Elevate will raise and lower 300 lbs. Standing takes some getting used to. My PT recommended that I shift my weight often from one leg to another, which is best done by alternately resting one of my feet on a short stool. This is probably good for your knees too. I don't recommend a bar height stool for sitting, at least not without adequate foot rests, because they often put too much pressure on the back of your legs, reducing circulation. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment