« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Eat Your Frozen Green Beans
Kids just need vegetables, not fresh vegetables. Daniel Engber on Slate on the food snobbery behind the near-fetishization of fresh produce:

Take a close look at the policy approaches listed above--farm-to-school programs, foodstamp discounts at green markets, and tax credits for grocery produce sections--each one is designed in large part to improve access to fresh produce. Not just any old produce, but fresh produce--unprocessed, uncooked, and untarnished by industrial machinery. School cafeterias already have frozen carrots and canned peaches. Our kids need fresh, fresh, fresh!

This strategy may seem unobjectionable. Why challenge this devotion to plants just tugged from the warm soil? A single-minded focus on fresh produce distracts us from the bigger problem: Our children are suffering from a lack of any fruits or vegetables whatsoever. Canned, frozen, dried, juiced--anything would help. Here's a simple dictum for public health, endorsed by nutritionists across the land: All forms of fruits and vegetables matter.

I know it sounds weird. A crisp salad of watercress and red onions must be more wholesome than, say, a pile of defrosted spinach and some canned beets, right? Not according to any practical measure of nutritive content. Researchers have been studying this question for a long time, and the results are clear. According to a 2007 review paper from UC-Davis,* levels of vitamins, minerals and fiber are similar across fresh, canned, and frozen products. It's worth noting that the Davis study, and some others like it, were conducted with grants from the canned-food industry--but their findings have not been discredited.

In fact, most public health experts will tell you that frozen produce can be more nutritious than locally grown crudités. That's because processed foods are harvested at peak quality then packaged so as to arrest the natural processes of respiration and spoilage. A few nutrients may be lost--canning is particularly hard on vitamin C, for one--but the rest are more or less locked in. A fresh bunch of spinach, by contrast, starts bleeding vitamins from the moment it comes out of the ground, and continues to wilt over the course of its long journey to your refrigerator.

...By insisting that food from the farmer's market tastes better and improves your health, our fruit-and-vegetable policies mix up science and culture. Under the guise of evidence-based public health, they export a set of values from one social class to another. They're reinforcing the idea that fresh is the only kind of produce worth eating--even though it's more expensive and less accessible than canned and frozen. In that sense, fresh subsidies may be self-defeating: They improve access to one kind of health food while stigmatizing the sensible alternatives. What will happen if children learn to thumb their noses at frozen corn and canned beans? Will that shrink the fruit-and-vegetable gap, or will it only make things worse?

I buy frozen green beans all the time. I prefer them. They don't take as long to cook and they're already washed, detopped, and sliced -- and less time-consuming to prepare.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

McCracken On Capitalism
Loved this blog post by Grant McCracken, which quotes from Peter Robinson's WSJ interview with Gary Becker, the Nobel-winning economist, that I posted the other day. An excerpt from what Grant wrote:

I am always a surprised that no one much bothers to tell the story of capitalism.

No, the stories we prefer to tell our children is that capitalism is a dangerous, soulless, relentlessly exploitative exercise. Indeed, this story is so preferred as our received wisdom, that it is exceedingly rare to here anyone recite Adam Smith's magical insight, that good things can and do come from people pursuing their own, sometimes narrow, objectives.

The anti-capitalism view is an ideological fixture of our education systems at every level, from grade to graduate school. We could call it orthodoxy if it were not so much like boilerplate. It's not so much argued as assumed.

...Capitalism is, as Becker says, counterintuitive. It tells a bad story. In fact, it isn't a story. It is anti-storyish.

Capitalism doesn't have heroes. It doesn't have people called to higher motives. It doesn't have noble sacrifices for the good of others. It doesn't, usually, have daring action on a public stage.

No, capitalism is just has some guy who owns a handful of dry cleaning outfits in a small town in New Hampshire. He works hard, supplies a service, pays off his loans, coaches Little League, goes to church, gets his kids through college, and spends his very few disposable hours on the golf course.

...It doesn't matter that out of these mundane activities in lots of towns big and small, played out by millions of people across the US, something remarkable will come. This just isn't a story anyone wants to listen to. So no one much wants to tell it.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Nerd Like Me
Peggy Hageman had a tweet that made me laugh the other day:

@Greenpointless Got to work and realized I had Higg's bosons stuck to the back of my coat all during my commute. How embarrassing!

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
Harris talks at TED:

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Realism Unpopular Among The Soccer Moms
A woman named Jan left this comment on Thick And Tired Of It, my column responding to a woman who gained 40 pounds in two years, and whose boyfriend no longer wanted to touch her:

I read this column and the responses and must throw in my two-cents. A while back, I noticed my husband of 19 years was "just looking around" a lot. So I took a good look at myself and then took the Advice Goddess's advice concerning men and their visual sexuality. I dropped 15 lbs.

At a birthday/pool party for a classmate of my youngest child I was complimented on my improved shape by the other moms in attendance. When asked what motivated me, I responded "I want to be the only one my husband leers at!"

This set off a firestorm of caustic comments. It seems my husband was a complete pig for wanting to ogle any woman including his wife and I was little more than a brainwashed enabler for working myself back into shape.

According to my fellow mid-life moms we are all at an age where we can be real women and relaxed (20-30 lbs. overweight) with who are. We should all be loved and cherished for what we are on the inside. The men in our lives should just deal with this without complaint.

When I told them I not only wanted to be loved and cherished by my husband, but lusted after as well I was booed. Seems if I were a "real mom" I would be too busy with my kids to be interested in sex with my husband.

I spent the rest of the party running around with the kids while the moms sat, talked and ate. I don't socialize with this crowd anymore. It seems I received a few to many mentions by their husbands concerning how well I "keep myself up", and am no longer welcome.

You're way welcome here, and let's hope your thinking starts to catch on.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Smart Couples Getting Married Agree On A "Diamond"
See here. That way, they'll maybe have a downpayment instead of a "downpayment."

Me? All my jewelry's plastic and paste, the bigger the better.

"A girl's best friend," in my mind? Her brain. The part of her she uses to recognize that diamonds are very expensive, heavily marketed, worthless bullshit.

(And, by the way, here's how diamonds became diamonds, in the commercial sense.)

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Just Wait Till You Get Seriously Ill
And let all the people who've been paying into HMOs and other health insurance companies for eons cover the cost of your care. Cool, huh? You can continue to put your money toward luxury items while dumb suckers like me fork over every month for our care (and eventually, yours).

That's right. There's no need for anyone who doesn't now have health insurance to buy health insurance under Obamacare. On Big Government, Morgen Richmond writes:

...As the law is written the federal government has no legal authority to enforce this mandate, nor will it have any recourse to collect any penalties that go unpaid!

This issue was actually the subject of a very amusing exchange between Rep. Anthony Wiener and Bill O'Reilly on Wednesday. While the facts seem to vindicate Rep. Wiener who argued repeatedly that the bill would not criminalize non-compliance with the individual mandate, this is actually the worst possible news for those who believe in the merits of the mandate and the bill in general.

Because without an effective mechanism of enforcing the individual mandate, the entire system is likely to collapse. (The individual mandate is the "third leg of the stool" as many a liberal has been pointing out for months.) Given that the bill also bans insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, WHY WOULD ANYONE OBTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE PRIOR TO NEEDING IT? This was already going to be a problem with the relatively low cost of the penalty, but take away any meaningful enforcement of it and it is a complete and total joke.

The net result will be an ever increasing shift of healthcare costs on to those who remain in the insurance system (or to tax payers), and possibly even the bankruptcy of the insurance industry. Given all the double-talk the past year over the public option, and the demonizing of private insurers, it is hard not to wonder whether this was by design. But let's give our Democratic friends the benefit of the doubt, in which case this represents an inexcusable level of incompetence from the people we have just entrusted with overseeing one-sixth of the economy. Nice job guys.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

These Boots Were Made For Crawling
Darling baby gift we got for my friends whose adoption just went through:

Here, at Amazon: Robeez Infant/Toddler Lollipop Monster Soft Sole.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Mr. Clairol
Opinions on men who dye their hair?

Some men like to do it themselves, thinking that they don't want anybody to see them in a salon getting their hair dyed (as in, then people will know). So, they do it themselves -- fooling no one with that hair the color of fresh shoe polish or hair the color of baby eggplant.

Me? I like guys whose hair is the color of confidence (not dyed) -- or whose shaved heads are, if they're losing their hair.

Guys who still want to dye theirs should probably buck up, go to a salon, and open your wallet for a pro. And see to it you manage those roots, dude. If you do dye your hair, women really don't want to know.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Big Screaming, Squawking Move Across The Country
A friend needs advice from you parenting experts -- basically, on how to take his baby on a plane without making everyone else on it want to leap to their death at 30,000 feet:

My wife and I are relocating from New York to California. I am very sensitive to your argument that screaming children shouldn't be on planes and that parents shouldn't inflict such children on others (particularly so, since I was one of those "others" not too long ago and felt that way myself.)

In this case, though, it seems we have little choice. We have a 15 months old who is, frankly, a yeller and a squawker and I can imagine that he will do one or the other for at least 4.5 hours of the 6.5 hour flight.

I booked seats in the back of the plane to minimize the number of people he will annoy, and we are experimenting with sedatives, but its unlikely we'll find any that will mitigate his likely behavior for any lengthy period of time (Benadryl makes him wired).

Driving him to California seems virtually impossible, considering time constraints and other family obligations. Other than feeling guilty for the entire trip and dreading the
experience, what other advice could you offer?

I turned to my neighbor, who's a wonderful mom, who weighed in with this:

Amy, I completely feel for these parents. Sometimes, there's no easy way to avoid a situation where you fear your child will misbehave. My suggestions are as follows:

1. Book the flight for the hours that the children are usually best behaved - i.e. my kids usually do better in the morning, (9-10A) than late afternoon when they're tired out, so start the flight then.

2. Make sure the kids get a good nights sleep the night before, and a good meal with protein before they leave.

3. Have each kid bring a bottle to fill up with water after security, and a comfort object like a favorite stuffed animal or blanket.

4. Pack snacks and toys in a carry on bag.There's nothing worse than kids who are cranky because they're bored or hungry. I usually take way more than I need. Fun snack treats, and a few new novelty toys can have a big impact. My kids are usually really excited to find out what is in the bag. My son is into legos, so he might get a new SMALL lego set, and my daughter might get some new small art supplies. When they were smaller, it might be a new travel game we could play together, one time it was a stamp set. Things to make, like playdo and drawing supplies are good. Lately, I've also started packing my computer and a couple movies. Most important - DON"T PULL THEM ALL OUT AT ONCE! Pull them out a little at a time.

5. Take walks every hour down to the bathrooms just to get up and stretch, and talk to the flight attendants.

6. At landing time, pull out a treat to eat, it really helps equalize the pressure.

7. Talk about the trip before hand, and how much fun it will be, so the kids are mentally prepared.

Good luck. I know most of these suggestions sound so common-sense, but it's surprising how many parents don't come prepared. --Kelly

Any other suggestions?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Grim Video And Photos Posted By Moscow Commuters



More here in the NYT.

via Walter Olson

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

All Good Things Must Be Paid For
Transportation secretary Ray LaHood, writes the NYT, proclaimed a "major policy revision" to give walking and biking the same policy and economic consideration as driving:

"Today I want to announce a sea change," he wrote on his blog last week. "This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized."

Lest anybody think I'm some anti-bike/pro-pollutioneer, I drive a hybrid (a 1900 lb., 2004 Honda Insight), and spent a whole $198 on gas last year. All last year. Total. Before I moved to LA, I used to bike and roller skate all over New York City (and would bike my way around here, but for all the nimrods behind the wheel yammering into cell phones).

Bike lanes are great, and protect cyclists, which I'm all for and then some, but there isn't exactly a pot of money on every street corner to pay for them. Somebody might mention that to Mr. LaHood.

Not surprisingly, the common sense LaHood lacks was found in the common man commenting below the NYT piece:

Commenter Hubbycap writes:

The bad ole automobile paid for the roads that the pedestrians and bicycles claim such a right to. Since there is no fuel involved to walk or cycle, how about an extra $100 for sport/walking shoes and an extra $1000 per bicycle to pay for all these bike lanes and sidewalks that will be built for those specific uses. As the evil gasoline powered vehicle fades into the sunset so does its billion$ in tax revenues. If you want these nice paved pathways, cough up the cash folks. Gas or cash, no one rides for free.

Geolama echoes Hubbycap's thought:

If you want bike paths everywhere then you should be willing to pay hundreds of dollars a year to license your bikes. We car drivers have to pay road taxes and licensing fees and bike riders should be willing to pay $200 a year in registration fees to pay for the upkeep of your bike paths.

While we're at it anybody caught not wearing proper gear would be issued tickets just like Click It or Ticket It for cars. Caught more than three times in a year would mean you would have your bike confiscated and banning from the bike paths. You would have to a bicycle insurance in case you run some other cyclist of the path and cause them injury.

(See how more government leads to even more government?)

And finally, commenter rhbcazny weights in:

Yes, great idea, Where can I get a bigazz bicycle to carry my ladders to a job 25 miles away?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

What They Don't Want To Believe
From the how men are/how women are files, a tweet by @alaindebotton:

Gender differences: yet to be born: the man who slept with a woman principally because she had written a book he liked.

De Botton is the author of a book I liked a lot, The Consolations of Philosophy.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Legalizing Weed: Criminals' Worst Nightmare
Steve Chapman writes at reason about how legalization would affect the Mexican drug cartels, America's biggest pot supplier, and the violence in their wake -- more than one drug-related homicide in Mexico every hour:

Legalizing weed in this country would be their worst nightmare. Why? Because it would offer Americans a legitimate supply of the stuff.

Criminal organizations would no longer be able to demand huge premiums to compensate for the major risks that go with forbidden commerce. If the referendum passes, some 39 million Californians will have access at lower prices, from regulated domestic producers.

So the drug cartels would see a large share of their profits go up in smoke. Those profits are what enables them to establish sophisticated smuggling operations, buy guns and airplanes, recruit foot soldiers, and bribe government officials. Those profits are also what makes all those efforts--and the murderous violence the merchants employ--worth the trouble.

By now, it should be clear that using force to wipe out the drug trade is a task on the order of bailing out the Atlantic Ocean with a teaspoon. Law enforcement can interdict shipments and imprison dealers, but the success is invariably short-lived.

Each seized cargo is an opportunity for another seller to fill the gap. Each arrested trafficker is an invitation for a competitor to grab his business. The more vigorous and successful the law enforcement campaign, the higher the prices drug suppliers can command--and the more people will be enticed to enter the market. It's a self-defeating process.

All this would be academic if Americans (and Mexicans) would simply lose their taste for illicit drugs. But we might as well hope the Sahara Desert will run out of sand.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

You're Racist If You're Against Spending Money We Don't Have?
And other fiscally idiotic and otherwise idiotic moves? According to Charles Blow you are.

Oh, and P.S. You also must be a horrible person if you believe in enforcing our immigration laws instead of rewarding those who break them with free school and medical care ("free" because they're paid for by U.S. taxpayers).

Blow writes in The New York Times:

President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

I'm not an "extremist," and neither are the people I know and read who are scared for what this country is becoming.

A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill's most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It's enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

I don't know any of those (good old boys, that is) but I know what a mess government makes out of anything that it runs, and I think Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker's suggestions for actually reforming health care (as opposed to "reforming" it), make sense.

Blow continues to play identity politics:

Hence their anger and frustration, which is playing out in ways large and small. There is the current spattering of threats and violence, but there also is the run on guns and the explosive growth of nefarious antigovernment and anti-immigrant groups. In fact, according to a report entitled "Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism" recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, "nativist extremist" groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office, and antigovernment "patriot" groups more than tripled over that period.

Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party's passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don't want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

...You may want "your country back," but you can't have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

Newsflash: Everybody opposed to Obama isn't some hater-extremist, just as not every Democrat is some far-left Alinsky-worshipper.

Me? I'm a fiscally conservative, free minds/free markets libertarian, anti-Iraq war, pro gay-rights/gay marriage, and a "personal responsibilitarian."

I voted for Bob Barr, who I generally refer to as "the execrable loser Bob Barr," but I preferred him to Obama and the old man running on the Republican side, and Obama was taking California anyway.

Oh, and I think it's good to be against the government, because I don't see government as the solution to everything, but much of the problem. (Whoops, does that make me a hater, or merely, I dunno, "classically liberal"?)

I liked Florida55's comment below Blow's piece. An excerpt:

The current schism in this country has nothing to do with racism, demographics, or education. We have a fundamental disagreement as to the role of government with respect to the individual. One group supports limited government believing government should promote equality of opportunity, not equality of result. Generally this group believes in a small hands off government that is limited to the express powers delineated in the Constitution. This group opposed the recent health care bill due to a fundamental philosophy that health care is an individual responsibility and not a government imposed service.

The other group believe government should intervene in the private sector and lives of individuals to pursue what are considered by that group to be societal needs or goals with the ultimate end of ending inequalities or promoting what that group perceives is the common good. The recent health care bill is an example as is climate change legislation which seeks to limit or tax the activities of companies and individuals.

These two fundamental philosophies are currently irreconcilable. Essentially the "conservatives" don't want government intervention in their lives and are prepared to accept the consequences of living without a government safety net. They believe they should be entitled to the fruits of their labors.

The "liberal" philosophy has a vision of the common good determined through the political process. The majority determines what is right for all and the majority can determine how much of the fruits of the individual's labor can be taken from the individual to redistribute or use for the common good. In addition, the state can limit activities of individuals and take property of individuals for the common good.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Discrimination On Campus
Not necessarily what it seems. Tony Judt writes on the New York Review of Books blog:

The student's lawyer pressed hard: "Were you not prejudiced against my client because of her transgendered identity preference?" "I don't see how I could have been," I replied. "I thought she was a woman--isn't that what she wanted me to think?" The university won the case.

On another occasion, a student complained that I "discriminated" against her because she did not offer sexual favors. When the department ombudswoman--a sensible lady of impeccable radical credentials--investigated, it emerged that the complainant resented not being invited to join my seminar: she assumed that women who took part must be getting (and offering) favorable treatment. I explained that it was because they were smarter. The young woman was flabbergasted: the only form of discrimination she could imagine was sexual. It had never occurred to her that I might just be an elitist.

via aldaily

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Those Journalism Jobs Must Be Easier To Hang Onto In Detroit
Detroit News Columnist Marney Rich Keenan writes a column off 20-year-old statistics sent to her in an Internet forward.

Recently, my brother sent out a group e-mail. Since he is most definitely not the inspiration-of-the-day type, I figured it must be good.

In many ways it is powerful because of what it lacks. It's not propaganda, it's not a petition, and it's not a political movement.

My brother prefaced the item, titled "Global Village," by saying:

"I don't know if these facts are correct, but even if they are half right, it is worth digesting."

It read:

"If the world were a village of only 100 people, there would be:

"60 Asians,

"14 Africans,

"12 Europeans,

..."5 people would possess 32 percent of the entire village's wealth, and these would all be from the USA.

"The poorest one-third of the people would receive only 3 percent of the income of the village.

"The village would have buried beneath it enough explosive power in nuclear weapons to blow itself to smithereens many times over. These weapons would be under the control of just 10 of the people. The other 90 people would be watching them with deep anxiety, wondering whether the 10 can learn to get along together, and if they do, whether they might set off the weapons anyway through inattention or technical bungling. If they ever decide to dismantle the weapons, they worry where in the village they will dispose of the dangerous radioactive materials of which the weapons are made."

As stunning as these statistics are, they are all the more moving considering the substantial science behind them.

After a bit of research, I found the author of these statistics (originally compiled in proportions of 1,000 people in 1990) is Donella H. Meadows, a Dartmouth College professor of environmental studies for 29 years and author of the influential "The Limits to Growth" (1972). While controversial at the time, the book has sold 9 million copies and was translated into 28 languages.

Her bio is important because of the credibility it brings to the Global Village e-mail. She held a doctorate in biophysics from Harvard. She was a Pew Scholar, a MacArthur Fellow, a recipient of the genius grant ($320,000) from the John D. and Catherine MacArthur Foundation.

Her bio is important because it allows you to justify writing a column off some old e-mail that's been going around. Or so you think.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

How To Reform Health Care "Reform"
Nobel winning economist Gary Becker lays it out quite neatly in a piece by Peter Robinson in the WSJ:

I begin with the obvious question. "The health-care legislation? It's a bad bill," Mr. Becker replies. "Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses. This bill doesn't address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It's going to increase health costs--not contain them."

Drafting a good bill would have been easy, he continues. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets.

"Here in the United States," Mr. Becker says, "we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only about 12% of total health-care spending. In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that."

Despite the damage this new legislation appears certain to cause, Mr. Becker believes we're probably stuck with it. "Repealing this bill will be very, very difficult," he says. "Once you've got a piece of legislation in place, interest groups grow up around it. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. Originally, the American Medical Association opposed Medicare and Medicaid. Then the AMA came to see them as a source of demand for physicians' services. Today the AMA supports Medicare and Medicaid as staunchly as anyone. Something like that will happen with this new legislation."

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

UK Recorded Phone Greeting
Sent to me via e-mail:

"WELCOME TO THE UNITED KINGDOM. Press '1' if you speak English. Press '2' to disconnect until you can."

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Puzzles Of Online Dating
One of them is people who post pictures of themselves that aren't current -- pictures that show a substantially different (and sometimes altogether different) person than the person the other person will meet.

There's serious cognitive dissonance going on here -- sanded down in the person's mind with the notion that if they can just get somebody to meet them...

...but, of course, this never ends well.

People don't want to have sex with you because you seem like a really nice person.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

"Live Free Or Die" (Of Regulation)
The "Live Free or Die" state, otherwise known as New Hampshire, is just another nanny state -- one with a board of "esthetics," that's banned the trendy fish pedicures as too dangerous.

What are the dangers from these pedicures -- where tiny fish nibble off dead skin? Nobody in New Hampshire would or could tell reason, which produced this video, narrated by Ted Balaker, featuring an immigrant woman whose $6,000 investment is now kaput, thanks to the regulation:



I can see how there might be sanitary concerns, but why not let grown adults decide fopr themselves whether they'll risk them?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

A Doctor's Response To Obamacare
Daniel Foster posted the letter on NRO from Linda Johnstone, an M.D. in family practice, written upon Obamacare becoming law. She says that 100 percent of her patients who've contacted her support her and accept the new conditions. An excerpt from her letter:

The new law provides for about 150 new government agencies, many of which are designed to be 'oversight' bureaucracies which will have the right to decide what medical care is legal to provide through insurance. Among other things, they will have the right to review my medical care of you and read your medical record. Now, as soon as you submit our economic transaction to your insurance company for reimbursement, you have involved me in these regulations and put me in the jurisdiction of government for my activities, decisions and behavior as your doctor.

No one can have two masters. Either I can serve you as my patient or I can serve the government. Either I can continue to make your welfare and health my only concern, including the protection of your privacy and medical records, or I can abide by ever-increasing amounts of government regulations and dictates to my decisions. I can't do both. I choose to continue to follow my conscience and practice medicine to serve you.

For this reason, I am responding to the situation created by this new law by exercising my right not to participate in any health insurance program. I will still provide you with the same medical services that I always have, but the interaction will be exclusively and privately between you and me. This means that I will provide you only with a receipt for the services you have paid for, but without the additional information that is required to submit your receipt for reimbursement to your health insurance company. That is the only way I can make sure there will be no conflict between following the law and serving you. Because the law is now in effect, so must these changes be to my practice.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

"I Have Repented..."
These were the words of one of the pedophile priests, Rev. Lawrence Murphy, of Wisconsin, who wrote to the Pope.

Well, how lovely for you, Mr. Priest. I'm sure your "repentence" has done wonders for the kids you molested.

Nicole Winfield writes for the AP:

Murphy worked at the former St. John's School for the Deaf in St. Francis from 1950 to 1975. His alleged victims were not limited to the deaf boys' school. Donald Marshall, 45, of West Allis, Wisconsin, said he was abused by Murphy when he was a teenager at the Lincoln Hills School, a juvenile detention center in Irma in northern Wisconsin.

"I haven't stepped in a church for some 20 years. I lost all faith in the church," he told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday. "These predators are preying on God's children. How can they even stand up at the pulpit and preach the word of God?"

Church and Vatican documents obtained by two lawyers who have filed lawsuits alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee didn't take sufficient action against Murphy show that as many as 200 deaf students had accused him of molesting them, including in the confessional, while he ran the school.

While the documents -- letters between diocese and Rome, notes taken during meetings, and summaries of meetings -- are remarkable in the church officials' repeated desire to keep the case secret, they do suggest an increasingly determined effort by bishops, albeit 20 years later, to heed the despair of the deaf community in bringing a canonical trial against Murphy.

Ratzinger's deputy, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, though, shut the process down after Murphy wrote Ratzinger a letter saying he had repented, was old and ailing, and that the case's statute of limitations had run out.

"I have just recently suffered another stroke which has left me in a weakened state," he wrote Ratzinger. "I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably in northern Wisconsin for 24 years. I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood."

"I ask your kind assistance in this matter," he wrote the man who would be pope within a decade.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

"Take A Vegan Hunting Day"
What's Michigan's governor doing, meddling with what's on people's plates? Jennifer Granholm, perhaps being under the mistaken impression that those were large, four-legged, cud-eating, tail-swishing blocks of tofu in all those fields around the state, called for a "Michigan Meat-Out Day." Yes, as in, urging people to go without meat. Here's the video:

From Lansing's WLNS, hundreds rallied against the day:

The resolution says eating less meat significantly decreases a person's exposure to infectious bacteria

So does eating nothing. But, per people with actual science backgrounds like behavioral ecologist Marlene Zuk, we co-evolved with parasites, and there's evidence pointing to them being essential to our immune systems ("the hygiene hypothesis").

People who don't eat pork (Muslims and Jews), for example, seem to have a higher incidence of Crohn's disease, and treatment with pig whipworm (which typically doesn't infest in humans) in a Gatorade solution has led to a remission in a large number of Crohn's patients. (See J.V. Weinstock.)

Other research suggests kids exposed to dirt and germs have healthier hearts.

As for Michigan's governor, Chad Love has a better suggestion:

In the interest of fairness, however, here is a proposal. Let's create a "Take a Vegan Hunting or Fishing Day" as a means to highlight the benefits of a wholesome, organic, sustainable, eco-friendly wild game diet. I promise to observe Meatout and experience the vegetarian world for one day if vegetarians in turn are willing to experience mine.

I'm not being facetious here. In the long run it might be more productive to engage those with philosophical differences than it is to simply disparage them, and I say that as someone who admittedly does a whole lot of the latter. The world changes one mind at a time, and showing a willing Vegan what hunting and fishing is truly all about might be the best way to help that process along.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

And God Sneezed, And Created Lake Michigan
Michael Shermer on the creationists:

"Forty percent of Americans believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago -- about the time the Babylonians invented beer."

Can it really be 40 percent of Americans? Apparently, there was a poll, writes Robin Lloyd at LiveScience:

Christian creationists believe God created animals, humanity, Earth and the universe in their original form in six days about 6,000 years ago, a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Muslim creationists have similar beliefs, based on the Quran, though they tend to be open to a wider range of interpretations. Scientists say, however, that evolutionary theory (the idea that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor) and the mechanism of natural selection explain the diversity of life on the planet. The theory is well-supported by evidence from multiple fields of study. Evolution not only explains how early primates evolved to become human, but how one species of bird becomes two, and how viruses morph over time to resist drugs.

Scientists can only speculate on where and exactly how life began on Earth, but fossil evidence dates the earliest life to about 3.7 billion years ago.

Hameed's essay, meanwhile, comes on the heels of an ABC "Nightline" interview this week with President Bush during which he said that he doesn't think that his belief that God created the world is "incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution," as well as a Philadelphia Inquirer story quoting EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson as saying he does not think there's a "clean-cut division" between evolution and creationism.

Now, three years after the end of the Dover trial (the upshot: U.S. District Judge John E. Jones barred a Pennsylvanian public school district from teaching "intelligent design" in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise), U.S. residents remain divided on evolution. A Harris poll conducted in November found 47 percent of Americans accept Darwin's theory of evolution while 40 percent believe instead in creationism.

Scientists worry that those who ignore or dismiss the strong evidence for evolution might also be prone to a worrisome lack of critical thinking, and that over time, support for science and medicine in general could erode.

Speaking of which, from the people who believe cuckoo shit files, a virtual tour screenshot from the creationist museum in Kentucky, showing some early human frolicking with...the dinosaurs!

Hmmm, slight issue of timing:

Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrate animals for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous period (about 65 million years ago), when the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event caused the extinction of most dinosaur species.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Letters From The Cellular Front
And related fronts. A reader writes:

Not so long ago, I called a friend of mine who lives in Seattle. Part way through our conversation, she burst out laughing. I asked what was so funny, and she allowed as how she really shouldn't tell me. Of course, this wasn't good enough. So I pressed her and she admitted she was on her cell phone and stuck in traffic. Ahead of her was a pickup truck with a loaded gun rack in the rear window. Also in the rear window, she said, was a large sticker that read, "If that cell phone was up your ass, you'd be a better driver." At that point, I suggested we might be wise to carry on our talk later when she got into the office.

A friend and co-worker in my office related the story of going recently to the nearby ATM in a bank lobby and becoming more and more disturbed by a man who, despite plenty of room, was waiting his turn, about a foot behind her. She said she got about half way thorough her transaction and decided enough was enough. She turned, stood up on her toes, put her face in his and shouted, "Back off!" She said he was so startled he almost fell down backing up. Then, she said, she smiled sweetly, turned back to the machine and finished her withdrawal.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

When The Whole Country Is On Welfare
Holman Jenkins asks the right question in the WSJ: "Now, can we have health care reform?"

(WellPoint CEO Angela Bray) was recently hauled before Congress to justify her company's proposed 39% rate hike in California. She explained the source was two-fold: rising medical costs and healthier customers dropping their coverage, forcing the sick to pick up the tab.

Now this sounds like two problems, but for WellPoint and other insurers it's really only one problem. Once everyone is required by government mandate to buy insurance, the industry's survival is no longer threatened: It can just pass its skyrocketing costs along to customers. Once customers can no longer refuse to buy the industry's product, the problem of costs won't be fixed, but it no longer is the insurance industry's problem.

There, in that one sentence, we give you the failure of ObamaCare, the failure of the congressional health-care debate, the failure of health-care politics in this country.

...Under the law just signed, employers have even more incentive than they did yesterday to lavish excessive health insurance on their high-end employees. They have less incentive to cover low-end workers, or even hire them.

For the young, healthy or anyone not stumbling into a giant tax handout, buying insurance at the inflated prices available in the marketplace would be an even crazier financial decision today than it was yesterday--because now you can wait and buy it when you're sick.

For insurers, the check is in the mail: So watered down is the individual mandate that it must accelerate the industry's death spiral if not for the massive subsidies the government now has obliged itself to provide to keep the industry afloat and allow insurers to continue scalping their 15% off the top for serving as gatekeeper to a tax loophole.

When all is said and done, with unerring accuracy, ObamaCare has ended up doubling down on the system's existing perversities. The one thing it doesn't do (though it would be perfectly consistent with the Democratic goal of universal access) is incentivize a health-care marketplace based on competition in price and quality.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Fun With Obamacare
The face of things to come. From Investor's Business Daily, 20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms, by David Hogberg. A few of my personal favorites:

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712)

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

"Male Lust Usually Has A Weight Limit"
That's a quote from me from my column about the woman who gained 40 pounds in two years and thought her boyfriend "should" still want her same as he did before. Comments -- and the entire column -- are at this link.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Quantum Physics Made Relatively Simple
Three easy-to-understand lectures by the Nobel-winning physicist Hans Bethe, an inspiring and adorable man who can barely contain his glee when talking about transistors and all the rest. They're a bit long compared to what you're used to on the net -- the first is 49 minutes, and I'm not through it yet, but I've loved watching every minute.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Obamacare -- Not For Obama
Nor for the American politburo. James Lewis writes at PJM:

The most important amendment Republicans must propose for Obama's Medi-Grab bill is a very easy one:

Resolved: that all federal and state employees must enroll in ObamaCare, without exception.

Any violation of this amendment will be punishable by a fine, imprisonment, and/or loss of federal or state employment. Enforcement of this provision will be overseen by a popularly elected commission, whose proceedings will be open to the public via the worldwide web.

"All federal and state employees" includes every member of Congress and the executive branch -- those who currently have the finest medical insurance available in the country today (courtesy of you and me).

This is the key test for the Medi-Grab bill. Any member of Congress who votes against it reveals his or her true stand on America's founding principles. Anyone who votes for it shows that he or she actually gets it. There are many terrifying parts of this Medi-Grab bill, but this is the simplest litmus test.

It's so simple that everyone in the country can understand it. It's do-or-die in terms of the integrity and honesty of the takeover of one-sixth of the economy that Obama is so determined to drive through Congress.

Socialist regimes reveal their true nature by the special treatment they give to their permanent ruling class; they deny such treatment for ordinary schlubs like you and me.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Nobody Wastes Money Better Than Government
This time, it's at the price of veterans' recovery. Grace Vuoto writes at Reflections Magazine:

Something is rotten at the Veterans Administration. Neurologist Robert Van Boven has been waging a one-man campaign for more than two years against waste, fraud and abuse of power at the VA.

In January, 2009 he was ousted as physician-Director of Veterans Affairs' Brain Imaging and Recovery Laboratory (BIRL) for traumatic brain injury (TBI) research in Austin, Texas. The neurologist has since continued to provide care for wounded warriors, but remains dismayed and outraged by what he saw and experienced: Millions in public funds designated for brain imaging research which could help troops suffering from blast-related head injuries were shamelessly and brazenly squandered. Not a single veteran was seen at the BIRL in more than three years, despite the expenditure of almost $3 million. Moreover, when he sounded the alarm bells up the chain of command, he was retaliated against repeatedly. Ultimately, he was dismissed--despite the fact that he had never received a negative job evaluation. These events are now under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, a federal investigative unit tasked with protecting federal employees from reprisals for whistleblowing. The VA refuses to comment on Dr. Van Boven's case, stating it does not discuss personnel matters.

Such is the sad result of what began as a project full of hope and promise. In 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs opened a new lab in Austin, allocating $6.3 million to conduct research into blast-related head injuries afflicting more than 300,000 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. When Dr. Van Boven assumed his position as program director in July 2007 he was proud and enthusiastic. Yet, he soon concluded that a vast fraud was being perpetrated on American taxpayers: More than half of the money had been spent in what he regarded as a suspicious manner. A July 2008 report by the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) confirmed that the facility had spent $2.1 million without treating a single soldier. "The allegation of waste and mismanagement in BIRL expenditures is substantiated," said the report.

In the summer of 2009, shortly after the scandal came to public attention, the VA announced it would close the lab in Austin and promised to reopen it at a hospital in Waco, Texas; the plan was to combine the research center established in Austin with a Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Unit. VA representatives claimed this was justified in order to avoid duplication, make use of better MRI machines and place the lab in an ideal location. Nearly one year later, no TBI brain imaging research has occurred. Dr. Van Boven insists that the move is simply another smokescreen to obscure the misallocation of funds and to protect the wrongdoers. In his view, the VA has been working steadfastly to protect their bureaucrats, cover up the gross mismanagement he discovered and to discredit and silence a whistleblower.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Shooting Home Porn Just Got So Much Cheaper
March 24 Deal of the Day at Amazon, the Creative Labs Vado HD 8 GB Pocket Video Camcorder, 2nd Generation (Black Gloss with Maroon Accents), $99 ($100 off!).

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Strangers On A Plane
Ever had one of those spill-all conversations with the stranger seated next to you on the plane, and really, really connect on the plane, but never speak to them again? Some seatmates continue their relationship down the jetway, but most people have broken up by the time they hit the terminal.

Sometimes, in retrospect, it feels like the 30,000 feet up conversational equivalent of getting drunk and getting a little too naked, or maybe they feel the other person knows so much about them that they can never see them again, or maybe the plane door opens and the "magic" goes poof.

Your experience?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Get Ready For Government Health Care
Theodore Dalrymple writes at City Journal that government does what government does best -- waste money. An ex-minister named Lord Warner admitted that spending on Britain's National Health Service was up 60 percent, while its output had decreased four percent:

...While the service has taken on 400,000 new staff members--that is to say, one-fifth of all new jobs created in Britain during the period--continuity of medical care has been all but extinguished. Nobody now expects to see the same doctor on successive occasions, in the hospital or anywhere else.

This is what a Canadian commenter all but said the other day. He was all "no biggie" about Canadians not being able to get primary care doctors. He bragged that they could get into clinics so they wouldn't die. But, clearly, they see different doctors each time. Not quite the same as what I have at Kaiser, where my primary care doctor had her nurse call to nag me to come in for a Pap smear and a physical, because I hadn't been in for a while.

Also, very importantly, my doctor knows my history -- very well -- and you often cannot get that in short order from reading somebody's records. Some doctors aren't very good at keeping records, especially, I'd imagine, when they have big patient quotas to fill.

I've been impressed with my care at Kaiser because, while I rarely go to the doctor, when I do, I get whatever time I need to present my concerns; I don't feel rushed. Also, I've gotten a number of tests that aren't standard (like a bone density test, which they normally only give to women in menopause) when I've presented good (family history) reasons for it.

I got into Kaiser in my 20s, because I'm a middle-class newspaper columnist and needed catastrophic care and preventive care that wouldn't skyrocket in price, but that would also be adequate or good care. I chose carefully, and have been paying into the system all those years, and taking almost nothing out of it. So, now, I'm expected to pay for all those people who never paid in, but get some disease at 45? Fair, huh?

Unfortunately, government health care is eventually likely to put private health care out of business (a hidden goal of Obama-care, I believe, getting us on on the government teat) -- after increasing costs and decreasing service.

Dalyrmple continues about the British minister's words:

But his explanation for this state of affairs was superficial and self-exculpating, to say the least: he said that the NHS received more money than it knew what to do with because of managerial inexperience. "It was like giving a starving man foie gras and caviar," he said.

As it happens, the NHS knew exactly what to do with the money: give it to its staff, new and old. British doctors, for example, are now the second-highest-paid in the world, though not necessarily the happiest. They have accepted the money on condition that they also accept--as quietly as mice--increasing government interference in their work. When you go to a family doctor in Britain, he is more likely to do what the government thinks he ought to do and will pay him a bonus for doing than what he thinks is right. This is sinister, even when what the government thinks is right happens to be right.

There is a possible explanation other than managerial inexperience for the waste, namely that the waste was intended and desired: indeed, that it was the principal object of the spending. Experience has long shown that further spending by state-monopoly suppliers of services (if services is quite the word I seek) benefits not the consumers but the providers. And they--ever more numerous--naturally vote for their own providers, the politicians. Thus the NHS has become an enormously expensive method of ballot-stuffing. Personally, I would rather have outright electoral fraud. It would be less expensive and slightly more honest.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

No Law Against Too Much Legislation
But, that's one of the few things there isn't a law against in the UK. An English bishop says the excessive number of new laws in the UK has created a climate of fear. Richard Savill writes in the Telegraph:

Rt Rev Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells, said that many well meaning laws were destroying society and that while individual rights had increased, equivalent responsibility has decreased.

..."The effect of many of these new laws is to place responsibility for cleaning up the mess of society upon educationalists, doctors and health workers, social services, the police and other institutions and structure.

..."There is always someone or something to blame, whether it is background, social status or environment," he said. "Fault and accountability for one's own actions has been significantly diminished.

"Rights are no longer an individual's defence against the state; they have become a claim by the individual on the state."

The bishop said that much of what created community was in the practice of social virtues: giving to people in need, visiting the sick, comforting the bereaved, offering solace and help to a neighbour who has lost a job, respecting the dignity of the 'other.'

"Historically, churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras provided places where simple human virtues of support, care, as well as conversation, shared standards, civility and politeness were practiced," he said.

"These are under threat today from much well meant, but ultimately communally destructive legislation that has seen risk in every human activity from home made sandwiches being served in village halls, to the somewhat ludicrous training day I heard of recently for police officers of teaching them to climb a small step ladder.

"When churches, where smoking has not been a major issue are defaced with notices stating 'It is illegal to smoke in this building', and where wine served to 'gladden the heart' can no longer be served without licence at a village function, we have to wonder what we are doing to ourselves."

Oh, and it isn't just the Brits. In New York, there's now the bake sale Gestapo. Pam Lobley writes on NewJerseyNewsroom.com:

A New York City board is about to vote on a regulation that will basically outlaw bake sales in the schools. You can't bake a bunch of brownies or cupcakes any more to try to raise money for your classroom. Forget about selling home-baked goodness.

You can, however, sell Doritos! Those are much healthier than your dumb old cookies!

The regulation is designed to curb obesity among children, a known epidemic. However, the city board imposing the regulation realizes that alot money is raised through bake sales, and many field trips and book lists are paid for on the backs of chocolate chip cookies. So as not to damage the fundraising efforts, you can still sell food, it just has to be healthy food. Like Doritos.

To be fair, it's not all Doritos, it's just two varieties of the lower fat types of Doritos. The rules also allow one type of Pop Tart, because the serving size has just 200 calories.

All food for these sales must be in marked, single serving packages with less than 35 percent of the items' total calories coming from sugars or fat. They must also have at least 2 grams of fiber and no artificial sweeteners. Doesn't that sound like a fun bake sale?

The kids are also allowed to sell fresh fruits and vegetables. Hm. In response to that I can only quote my nine year old son: "A banana? That's not a snack!"

My New Jersey town also has rules limiting bake sales and food brought in for class parties. No store-bought stuff where the first ingredient is sugar; you can bring in some homemade stuff, like cupcakes, but they can't have frosting. No frosting? That's not a cupcake. That's a muffin.

When the rules in our town went into effect a couple of years ago, all of our mothers just rolled our eyes. Yes, there is way too much snacking going on. But do you really think you're going to change that by serving mini bagels and fruit cup at the class Halloween party?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Andrea Dworkin Home Security
johnhawkinsrwn tweeted:

These Brinks home security commercials are disturbing: The message -- That great guy you just met is a violent rapist.

Both the Brinks spot and the SNL parody are here.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Health Care Costs Will Be Lowered, But Only In Your Dreams
CIGNA CEO speaks:

Where were you when the Republic died? Matt Patterson writes in American Thinker:

Health insurers -- once private companies -- are now organs of the federal government. Every citizen is a ward of the state, which can now compel you to have insurance, punish you if you don't; determine if your insurance is acceptable, punish you if it isn't. Thousands of new federal bureaucrats will soon spill from the D.C. Beltway and flood the country, scrutinizing our finances to verify compliance with this new law.

A government that grants itself this kind of power over us can conceivably do anything to us. For our own good, of course. Such a country is in no meaningful sense "free."

...Public option will soon appear as prelude to single payer, as was the intent all along. Soon, Americans won't even have the illusion of a choice -- the government will move from subsidizer to provider, and it will be the only game in town.

So what's next? Some look to the states as possible saviors. Please. The states long ago surrendered their sovereignty, and they are now junkies on federal monies, which they need for schools, roads, Medicaid, and much else. If the citizens are now wards of the federal government, then the states long since preceded them in that sorry servitude.

The individual? What are we going to do, not pay the taxes to support this beast? Oh, they'll take that from you before you ever get your check; we gave them that power to them long ago, remember. March on Washington, en masse? Lot of good that's done thus far.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Morbidly Obese Woman Has Yet To Sing
In other words, it ain't over until the lawsuits against the health care bill are. Or as Michael Flynn writes at BigGovernment:

Buckle up, because if they manage to cobble together enough votes to pass the Senate Health Bill today, we're set for weeks and perhaps months of a constitutional and political crisis the likes of which we haven't seen in our lifetimes.

In a matter of hours after House passage of the Senate Bill, the state of Virginia will file suit in federal court. The Commonwealth will be joined in the suit by a dozen other states. I expect a flood of additional lawsuits. The suits will be based on the provision that requires every American to purchase health insurance. (This is how the Dems 'crack down' on the insurance industry; by requiring everyone to buy its product?) Because this is an individual mandate, virtually every American has standing to file suit against this provision. Also, it is in direct conflict with state law in at least two states, Idaho and Virginia.

While the legal battles wage on, expect an enormous public backlash against the Democrats. Longtime political observers will recall the backlash after Democrats passed a "catastrophic health care" bill in the 80s. That event pales in comparison to what is brewing. Yesterday, around 30,000 people protested on the steps of the Capitol, an event that was organized in just a little over 24 hours. In cities throughout the country, protests and rallies broke out, each attended by hundreds of citizens with only a few hours notice. This kind of spontaneous public outcry has never happened in any of our lifetimes.

...I have told my Democrat friends-yes, I have many-that they are missing the simple fact that people are really scared today. The economy is nowhere close to recovering and, in some places, may be getting worse. Millions of people have been unemployed for a very long time and untold millions more live in fear of it. Spending, deficits and debt have grown beyond the hypothetical world of economists and into a realm that the average person understands. Against this, the Democrats are now steaming towards the greatest expansion in government ever and, more importantly, into the part of our lives that commands our deepest fears, our health and mortality. That they have done so in an openly corrupt manner, with side deals, special exemptions, special interest favors and patronage (a judgeship, really?), betrays a contempt for the legislative and political process that is almost unfathomable.

Me? I'm horrified, terrified, outraged and disgusted about the passage of this bill, and the way it was done, but is the description just above of dirty dealing any less fitting of the Republicans at other times or even this time? The political animal is an ugly one, and anybody who can call their side of the political aisle clean -- if they have a side -- is probably lying or at least biased.

via reason

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

This Studdy Makes Sense
Now research shows the hot car really does make the stud.

As I've written over and over and over in my column, men and women are biologically and psychologically different. Across cultures, men, for example, prioritize looks in women, while women prioritize men with money and mojo.

Not surprisingly, you'll find plenty of powerful men who will date a hot waitress or barrista, but not a lot of powerful women who will pick up the barrista boy or the valet.

Knowing that, this study's findings don't come as a bit of a surprise to me -- that expensive cars make men better-looking to women, but not vice versa when the woman's in the driver's seat. From the Vancouver Sun, Misty Harris writes:

"Around the 1970s, everyone in behavioural sciences assumed that as the wage gap between men and women decreased and women shattered the glass ceiling, you'd get equality of mate preferences, with men starting to pay as much attention to wealth as women traditionally did," says Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico.

"While that was a reasonable expectation, it hasn't quite worked out that way."

Michael Dunn and Robert Searle -- both of the U.K.'s University of Wales Institute -- affirm this in their study, which appears in the February edition of the British Journal of Psychology.

The researchers showed 240 randomly selected people, aged 21 to 40, photos of an average-looking man or woman (pre-tested to be of similar attractiveness) seated inside either a costly Bentley Continental or a reasonably priced Ford Fiesta.

Women were significantly more likely to rate the man as more handsome when he was pictured in the high-status car than the one of neutral status. No such effect was seen when men were rating the woman pictured in the same two scenarios.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Squeeeeeaky!
My mom wouldn't let us have a dog when I was growing up. I finally got a hamster, and named him Squeaky. I taught him how to do tricks, like somersaults over a pencil. He was very talented. And then my sisters took him outside and the neighbors' little girl sat on him.

This Kia Soul commercial reminded me of little Squeaky. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the 30-second version, which I liked better; just this one-minute version.

My favorite bit is when you see the little hamster paw tapping the side rest to the music.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Good Deal For People With Really Big Heads
The XX Large size of this thing is $12.08 at Amazon. (Regular $49.99, it says.) (Pinheads will pay much more.)

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

BW Bug
Snazzy!

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Why She's No Longer A Vegan
Great, very honest interview with an ex-vegan on Let Them Eat Meat by Rhys Southan:

What made you realize that you needed to quit veganism?

I was so depressed I couldn't laugh at funny things or smile anymore. I had always been depressed, but always able to at least smile. This was a new low.

I discovered I was deficient in a multitude of different nutrients that are readily available in animal products. (b12, zinc, iron, magnesium, vit D, Retinol Vit A). I also found out I had hypothyroidism, and when I did some research I found the link between raw cruciferous vegetables and soy blocking thyroid function. Protein and pre-formed Vitamin A from animal products are critical for thyroid health. When you have a slow thyroid you cannot convert beta carotene into Retinol Vitamin A, the form you need for healthy thyroid function.

Before I was vegan I had ONE cavity. I developed eight new cavities in the first two years of being a vegan.

There's a lot of myth about vegans getting all the protein and nutrients you require from plants. I ate spinach, watercress, spirulina, chlorella, E3 Live -- all supposedly high protein sources for vegans. But how can you possibly get enough fat soluble nutrients for your brain/glands when plants rarely contain fat soluble nutrients? Harvey Diamond, David Wolfe and Paul Bragg would like you to believe you can get everything you need from a raw food vegan diet, but try it out for 10 years and watch yourself turn into a neurotic, nervous, hyper sensitive and adrenally burnt-out mess.

You feel safe on the vegan diet, though, because you're not eating the so-called fattening/carcinogenic foods the media warns against.

...Then after doing some research on traditional diets I discovered that I was actually doing more harm to the environment by eating a vegan diet than by eating a 100 percent local diet.

I live in Ontario, Canada and during the winter the only local vegan foods left to eat are frozen berries, carrots, potatoes, squash, parsnips, turnips, yams and other root vegetables. Sustaining on those foods all winter would be impossible. So you start importing coconut oil, gojis, cacao, maca, avocados, green salads, etc. I realized that driving half a mile down the road to buy some eggs is a better option ecologically than buying all these expensive imported "superfoods." And when you do the research, the pastured, local egg has more nutrition than any of the superfoods I was paying 10 or 20X more for. So after awhile I felt pretty counterproductive and hypocritical in my vegan stance.

via Diana Hsieh

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

How To Talk Human To Your Customers
Great post by my friend Jim McCarthy, CEO of the discount tix company Goldstar.com. First, he takes on a company's apology e-mail, which starts out with a brag about what a great company they are:

Here's what I hate in the first email. The first line says, "to bring our members luxury products and experiences that exceed their expectations, all at exclusive prices." If you're about to apologize, it's best not to go on about how awesome you are. "Honey, I work tirelessly to to exceed your expectations as a husband, but I completely forgot our anniversary last week." If you knew somebody who spoke to you like that, you'd slap them in the face. If you've got bad news for your customer, spit it out. Give them the facts as directly as you can, apologize fully and sincerely if you've screwed up, and save the speeches about how great you are for another time. You can tell them how you TRY always to do this or that thing, but now's not the time to brag.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Campus Speech Codes
They're still in place, writes Greg Lukianoff at FIRE -- the Foundation For Individual Rights In Education.

Indian River Community College, a public institution, tried to ban a Christian group from showing Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ at their meeting -- at virtually the same time the school was hosting a skit called "Fucking for Jesus," a piece about jerking off to an oil painting of him:

While FIRE was exceedingly clear that the both the skit and The Passion were fully protected expression and could not be banned on a public college campus, the school's double standard was jaw-dropping. After months of public pressure from FIRE the college relented, ceased its punitive actions against the CSF and allowed them to show The Passion. This case is far too typical in FIRE's experience and reveals how speech policies are used to silence certain disfavored views on campus, while seriously misinforming students about their basic speech rights. It also highlights the fact that, despite some reports that speech codes died off in the 1990s, these codes remain the rule rather than exception on America's campuses.

But the most common type of speech code comes in the form of absurdly overbroad "harassment policies." For example, Western Michigan University's harassment policy actually bans "sexism," which it defines as "the perception and treatment of any person, not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex." The University of Iowa, meanwhile, defines sexual harassment as something that "occurs when somebody says or does something sexually related that you don't want them to say or do, regardless of who it is." Davidson College's Sexual Harassment Policy prohibits the use of "patronizing remarks," and, heartbreakingly, goes on to explicitly prohibit "comments or inquiries about dating."

Wait, let's take this bit again:

"sexism," which it defines as "the perception and treatment of any person, not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex."

So, when Gregg asks me if I'd like him to carry my heavy bag, because people in my category generally have less muscle mass than people in his category (and because that's how his mother raised him), he isn't being a gentleman; he's being a sexist pig?

What makes speech codes so hardy?

Ideology: Political correctness is still alive and powerful on our college campuses. The belief that some students (and, indeed, some administrators) have a right not to be offended plays a part in dozens upon dozens of incidents every year in which FIRE must come to the defense of a student or faculty member who said "the wrong thing." "The wrong thing" can range from publishing an "insensitive cartoon," to sending out an overly ironic Halloween invitation, to an attempt to satirize or protest any number of issues, from affirmative action to terrorism and religious extremism.

...Liability: This is the factor that I believe gets the least attention from the critics of campus political correctness. An ever-growing industry of university lawyers and "risk management" experts has left universities in a panic about avoiding lawsuits. Unfortunately, some poorly decided harassment cases, as well as case law indicating an increased legal duty on the part of campus administrators to police the behavior of students, seems to have encouraged many plaintiffs. At the same time, the risk management industry has a vested interest in exaggerating how serious and complex the state of the law actually is, and in this process free speech and due process often lose.

Genuine ignorance of the law, the principles of modal liberty, and the reality of speech codes: ...While there are notable exceptions, I have been routinely surprised by how much misinformation and lack of understanding there is among both college administrators and university counsels regarding basic principles of free speech and academic freedom.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Scary Report
From Harper's Index (Source: Policy Exchange, London):

Percentage of British Muslims aged 16 to 24 who advocate death for Muslims who convert to another faith: 36

Percentage who say they "admire organizations like al-Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West": 13

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

When In Quebec...
Do as the Saudi Arabians do?

Um, not quite. Not anymore.

First, writes Graeme Hamilton in the National Post, there's the insurance board:

"From now on, for a woman who is veiled with a niqab or a burka and comes to our office asking to be photographed by a woman, the answer is no," said Marc Lortie, spokesman for the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. "Line up again, or come back another day."

The news follows last week's expulsion from a French-as-a-second-language course of an Egyptian woman who insisted on wearing a niqab during class. It was the second school Naema Ahmed was expelled from for wearing the full face covering, which leaves only a slit for the eyes. Authorities at the first school had said her teacher was unable to properly assess her pronunciation without seeing her mouth.

Quebec's Immigration Department said she could not continue her studies while wearing the niqab.

"If you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values," Immigration Minister Yolande James told reporters last week. "We want to see your face." Ms. Ahmed has filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission.

After the health-insurance board sought its expertise on the niqab issue, the rights commission published its opinion on Monday that requiring a veiled woman to briefly expose her face to a male employee is not a significant breach of her rights.

Now, I wouldn't move to Saudi Arabia and expect it to be just like America. Why do the Saudi Arabian ladies move to the west and expect to turn it into Saudi Arabia? If you cannot function in western society...stay home in Primitivia, 'kay?

Oh, and I don't know about you, but my idea of a safe driver isn't a woman with a black tent over her head with a tiny slit for the eyes.

UPDATE: Good piece by Heather Mallick on CBC.ca here.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Employment Overreach
Walmart fires an employee for medical marijuana use -- and never mind that his use is not during working hours. Dennis Romero blogs at LAWeekly:

Joseph Casias has a tumor pressing against his skull, according to MSNBC, and uses the drug -- legal in his home state of Michigan -- for relief. He says he never went to his job as a Walmart associate high, but found himself terminated after he want into work one morning anyway.

But a Los Angeles employment attorney, Carol Gillam, told MSNBC companies can still fire workers for marijuana use in states where the drug is a legal medical treatment. California tried to pass a law specifically banning such terminations, but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"If you're tested in the workplace, or they come to know that you have one of these cards, you can get fired," added said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of California-based NORML.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Women With Mustaches

Late-night dining with my late friend Marlowe Minnick, New York City

IN MY WORLD, a friend is somebody who tells a woman friend when she's got spinach between her teeth, her dressed tuck into the back of her nylons, or a strip of fur doing a little march across her upper lip. Friends who are really acquaintances keep silent. Avoiding discomfort means more to them than clueing their friend in.

Of course, letting a mustachioed friend know would be something you'd do tactfully -- maybe taking your friend for a girls-getting-their-nails-done session, and working in a suggestion for a lip wax; maybe from one of the nail-ticians.

There's also the gentle mention -- "Hey, did you know you have the faintest line of hair just above your lip?" (Saying it that way even if it's "faint" like the African bush.)

Anyway, I thought to post this because sometimes you see women out there who you're pretty sure don't have mustaches on purpose, but have mustaches just the same.

Now, maybe these mustachioed women have eye issues and can't see their 'staches, but what about all their friends? You really have to wonder, HOW DO ALL THEIR FRIENDS LET THEM WALK AROUND WITH NOTICEABLE FACIAL HAIR?!

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Food-Stamp Gourmands
Attend art school instead of accounting school? Not a problem. Not one that you should let stop you from enjoying the finest organic baby vegetables. Check out "Hipsters on Food Stamps" from Salon, by Jennifer Bleyer. An excerpt:

Magida, a 30-year-old art school graduate, had been installing museum exhibits for a living until the recession caused arts funding -- and her usual gigs -- to dry up. She applied for food stamps last summer, and since then she's used her $150 in monthly benefits for things like fresh produce, raw honey and fresh-squeezed juices from markets near her house in the neighborhood of Hampden, and soy meat alternatives and gourmet ice cream from a Whole Foods a few miles away.

"I'm eating better than I ever have before," she told me. "Even with food stamps, it's not like I'm living large, but it helps."

Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.

"I'm sort of a foodie, and I'm not going to do the 'living off ramen' thing," he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he'd prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. "I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it's great that you can get anything."

Think of it as the effect of a grinding recession crossed with the epicurean tastes of young people as obsessed with food as previous generations were with music and sex. Faced with lingering unemployment, 20- and 30-somethings with college degrees and foodie standards are shaking off old taboos about who should get government assistance and discovering that government benefits can indeed be used for just about anything edible, including wild-caught fish, organic asparagus and triple-crème cheese.

Food policy experts and human resource administrators are quick to point out that the overwhelming majority of the record 38 million Americans now using food stamps are their traditional recipients: the working poor, the elderly and single parents on welfare.

But they also note that recent changes made to the program as part of last year's stimulus package, which relaxed the restrictions on able-bodied adults without dependents to collect food stamps, have made some young singles around the country eligible for the first time.

So, wait...I'm "sort of a foodie," too, but buying the old vegetables and cheap meat at the Ghetto Ralph's supermarket...and my tax dollars are going to support Magida's raw honey habit and Mak's fondness for tarragon roasted rabbit? I'm tempted to track these two down and invoice them. Not that I'd imagine them paying. But, if she did, I'd turn over the money to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association.

And yes, even if you don't have a job or much of a job, there is an alternative to forcing other taxpayers to buy you a gourmet dinner. It's called "eating beans."

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

If You Rob A Bank
And if you go for a number of years without getting caught, should we just, you know, let bygones be bygones? And hey, not only that, but maybe give you a down payment on a home or some other reward...just for being you?

From the LA Times L.A. Now blog, a bipartisan show that we are in desperate need a third party -- one that cares about enforcing our laws instead of just tearing them up in hopes of pandering to the Latino voterhood:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) have laid out the framework for a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform bill that would include tougher border enforcement, creation of biometric Social Security cards and a path to legalization for the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

The announcement of the plan, which brought immediate praise from President Obama, comes days before a pro-immigration march scheduled for the nation's capital on Sunday.

"It thoughtfully addresses the need to shore up our borders, and demands accountability from both workers who are here illegally and employers who game the system," Obama said in a prepared statement.

"Accountability"? Is that what we call it? Rewarding people who broke our immigration laws with citizenship?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Blender Bender
Save up to 45 percent on select small home appliances at Amazon: Small Appliance Sale

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Wonderful Review In January Magazine
Of my book, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE. David Middleton writes:

This is a seriously great book. Alkon is smart and savvy and funny as hell. And though, given the opportunity (and it's her book, so she's given lots) she plays for the laughs, there are times when she comes perilously close to describing the ways in which our society is breaking down.

If it isn't fear of bodily injury that keeps people from speaking up, it's probably fear of verbal confrontation, or maybe they're just not that practiced at it. I'm a syndicated advice columnist with somewhat controversial views, so I regularly get mail from readers that opens with something like "Dear Bitch."

There's a clean, forthright and completely unexpected charm in I See Rude People. Everyone should read it for their mental health. And though it's well written and excruciatingly funny, I suspect not everyone will laugh.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Dangerous Me
Richard Metzger interviews me about I See Rude People for the UK show Dangerous Minds:

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Soviet-Style Medicine, North American-Style
A Canadian's tale of what it's like to try to get care under socialized medicine. Cathy LeBoeuf-Shouten, of Hudson, Quebec, writes:

Imagine that you and your spouse, and three children under the age of six move to a new city and must find a family doctor. You are told at the local clinic that the doctors there are not accepting any new patients. (Canadian price controls have created shortages of everything when it comes to healthcare). The receptionist suggests that you go through the yellow pages and try to find a physician whose practice is not "full." You spend days, and weeks, doing this, and are repeatedly told "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients." You put your name on several waiting lists and persist in calling doctors' offices.

Finally, a receptionist tells you that, while the doctor is still accepting new patients, he requires a full medical history and an interview with each family member before you can be added to his roster of patients. Based on the questions asked during the interviews, you come to understand that he is screening out sick or potentially sick people. You are all healthy, fortunately, so he takes you on as patients. Others are just out of luck.

There is a chronic shortage of doctors in Canada because price controls on doctors' salaries have resulted in a "brain drain" where the best and brightest practice medicine in the U.S. and elsewhere, after being educated in Canada. In addition, the Canadian government cut medical school enrollment in half in the 1990s as a "cost-cutting measure," making the problem of doctor shortages much worse.

Next, her son gets an appendicitis attack:

You tell the nurse that your son must be seen by a doctor immediately - it's an emergency! - as his condition is worsening by the minute. The nurse tells you, stone-faced, to go and sit in the waiting room to wait for a triage nurse. Having no choice, you do what you are told and join twenty or so others in line in front of you. You are given nothing to help make your son more comfortable - no damp facecloth, no bedpan for the vomit, nothing.

When a triage nurse finally strolls in a half hour later your son is too weak to respond to her and you begin to panic. Finally, a doctor appears and says it's just a "bug" and that you should not be playing "armchair doctor" by "diagnosing" appendicitis. He orders some time-consuming tests anyway, because you have shown him that you are very, very angry. Six hours later the test results come back positive for appendicitis.

Your son is whisked away for an emergency appendectomy, after which the surgeon tells you that, had the surgery been delayed by another few minutes, he would probably have died. Your son's appendix was gangrenous and on the verge of bursting. It reminds you of reading in the local news of three other people who were sent home from the emergency room, only to have their appendices burst and die. You are grateful that you were much more persistent and ornery than they apparently were.

It's naive adult children who think government is going to provide some sort of medical utopia.

Yes, we need health care reforms -- like untying health care from the workplace and lifting prohibitions on competition that keep people across a state line from saving large sums of money every month simply because they're on the wrong side of a state border.

In case you'd like a preview of what's to come under Obamacare, here's a bit of Canada down here in the USA: Washington state Walgreens refusing to fill Medicare patients' prescriptions as of April 16.

I know, I know, there's a simple solution: The government will pass legislation to force them to do this.

And they will either go out of business or pass the costs on to the rest of us:

"Can of Diet Coke? That'll be $13.50, sir."

Canada link via Dr. Eades

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Follow That Porkulus
This made my blood boil. John Dunbar writes at American U's Investigative Reporting Workshop that lobbyists are keeping the public in the dark about broadband:

The government is spending up to $350 million of taxpayer money to create a map that will show where there is high-speed Internet service in the United States and where there is not.

Despite the large expenditure of taxpayer funds, it will display no information on price or subscriber numbers. Internet connection speeds will be averaged over an entire metropolitan area and an as-yet unknown portion of the data collected to make the map will be off-limits to the public.

And in an odd twist, state grantees getting paid to collect the information are expected to get some of their data from the Federal Communications Commission, begging the question - why not require the FCC to create the map and save $350 million?

The mapping program is being paid for by the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus package, which includes $7.2 billion for broadband projects. The text of the plan, though, comes from a different piece of legislation: the Broadband Data Improvement Act, a 2008 law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Republican president, George W. Bush.

The lack of a requirement for robust, public data in the legislation is no accident.

It is a testament to the lobbying power of the nation's providers of high-speed Internet service, which for the past decade have stifled government efforts to collect and make public data that could help the nation determine the width and depth of the so-called digital divide.

Here's telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick at Nieman Watchdog on how we're all being rooked good by the cable monopolies:

AT&T and Verizon claim there's plenty of competition, but you can't select your own Internet provider over the broadband networks and local phone prices have gone up -- 90% in New York and New Jersey, for example -- over the last 5 years. If there was competition, prices couldn't increase like that. The absence of competition has also raised Net Neutrality issues, as a provider's ability to block or degrade or favor its own service over others wouldn't be a problem if you could simply leave and go somewhere else.

But the real kicker is this: By 2010, America should already have been rewired. Taxpayers have spent about $320 billion for fiber-based networks since the 1990s but have nothing to show for it. In fact, in many states, all schools, libraries and hospitals should have been rewired with fiber optic service as part of changes to state laws that gave AT&T and Verizon billions per state to remove the old copper wiring with new fiber optic wiring. Worse, the money is still being collected today in the form of rate increases, tax breaks and other perks the companies got.

So what now? The FCC's plan is to increase your taxes yet again, by adding broadband to the Universal Service Fund Tax -- rewarding the same companies that harmed you by giving them more of your money and a free pass.

...No one is investigating the monies currently or previously collected by AT&T, Verizon et al, nor their failure to properly upgrade the utility phone networks they were paid to upgrade. No one is going to confront the 900-pound gorillas. There will be no mention of serious competition, but there will be billions more for the companies that already overcharged you. The FCC's plan is a vision of the year 2020 that is antiquated today.

With the 2020 remark, he's talking about the very-high-speed broadband that other countries have today -- with our goal to match them being a decade out.

Doesn't anybody understand that this and so much other lobbyist-driven sleaze, as of late, has far-reaching implications for our country's survival?

Helloooo? Helloooo? Anybody out there?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Warren Buffet Plays Axl Rose
Geico Ad, longer YouTube version. Look closely for Buffett (he's on stage, bandana, long hair):

via @MHBusiness/@markwmann

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

$315 Stroller, And She Steals Milk
"But, I'm buying something. And I'm just taking a little bit," the mother said to me at Starbucks, as she poured milk from the fixins bar into her baby's bottle.

The mother, a pretty Asian woman in stylish clothes, filled up the bottle halfway, and then went up to buy a coffee. (Perhaps because the coffee, which is behind the counter, is much harder to steal.)

Sorry, Lady, but just because you buy a couch at the furniture store doesn't mean you get to steal a chair on your way out.

*I only don't have a picture of her and her baby in her $315 Maclaren Techno XT Stroller because I don't think it's right to take photos of people indoors. Believe me, I was way tempted to get a shot of the cute tot drinking her stolen milk.

Can't wait for Mommy to teach her kiddie ethics.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Addiction Is Not A Disease, But A Choice
I've long been in favor of the work of Stanton Peele, who said the above and has been saying it for decades. Now, Sally Satel writes at TNR of a new book, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, by Gene M. Heyman:

In a most impressive display of brain technology, scientists have used scanning technology to observe metabolic activity of the brain in action. In a typical demonstration, addicts are shown drug-related videos that depict people handling a crack pipe or needle. Brain scans capture the viewer's reaction to these provocative images and represent it as glowing technicolor splotches of color that represent activation in drug-sensitized brain regions. (Videos of neutral content, such as landscapes, induce no such response.) Even in users who quit several months ago, neuronal alterations may persist, leaving them vulnerable to sudden, strong urges to use. But addiction is not a brain state, it is a behavior. As philosopher Daniel Shapiro of West Virginia University puts it, "You can examine pictures of brains all day, but you'd never call anyone an addict unless he acted like one."

Furthermore, as Heyman says, much of the public, and a dismaying number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and neuroscientists, mistakenly believe that if a behavior is influenced by genes or mediated by the brain then the actor cannot choose his actions. While every behavior has a biological correlate (and a genetic contribution) and every experience that changes behavior does so by changing the brain, the critical question, Heyman wisely says, is not whether brain changes occur (they do) but whether these changes block the influence of the factors that support self-control.

In fairness, the scientists who forged the brain disease concept had good intentions. By placing addiction on equal footing with more conventional medical disorders, they sought to create an image of the addict as a hapless victim of his own wayward neurochemistry. They hoped this would inspire companies and politicians to allocate more funding for treatment. Also, by emphasizing dramatic scientific advances, such as brain imaging techniques, and applying them to addiction, they hoped researchers might reap more financial support for their work. Finally, promoting the idea of addiction as a brain disease would rehabilitate the addict's public image from that of a criminal who deserves punishment into a sympathetic figure who deserves treatment.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Office Of Civil Wrongs
Forget all that hoohah about judging people by the quality of their character. The Office of Civil Rights, under the Obama administration, is about to start judging 'em by their skin color.

The WSJ, in "Civil Rights Overreach," speculates that there could very well be racial quotas to be met for college prep courses. Quoting Ed Secretary Arne Duncan:

In a speech last week, Mr. Duncan said that "in the last decade"--that's short for the Bush years--"the Office for Civil Rights has not been as vigilant as it should have been in combating racial and gender discrimination."

He cited statistics showing that white students are more likely than their black peers to take Advanced Placement classes and less likely to be expelled from school.

Is that because there are a lot of haters in teaching, or because white students are less likely to, say, come from homes with poor, unwed mothers? Children of non-intact families have the worst outcomes across the board, including in school.

Therefore, Mr. Duncan said, OCR "will collect and monitor data on equity." He added that the department will also conduct compliance reviews "to ensure that all students have equal access to educational opportunities" and to determine "whether districts and schools are disciplining students without regard to skin color."

Isn't that what most are doing now? And have done? We had a few black kids in my class when I was in school in suburban Detroit, and they were top students, taking AP classes. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that they, like me, had both a mommy and a daddy.

Commenter "Diogenes the Cynic" remarks on the WSJ site:

Perhaps an example closer to the subject - why do 1st and second generation children from Africa and the Caribbean ALSO do well? again because their parents make sure they do their homework and work hard. And those studies DID control for household income and not just broad statistical findings which this recent focus will now employ.

The WSJ piece continues:

The OCR under the Bush Administration rightly focused on reacting to actual complaints of discrimination and issued guidelines to help school districts comply with the law.

Can we stop foaming at the mouth about the Bush administration for a moment, and admit that their approach here was the right one? I was against the Iraq war, and, as a fiscal conservative, no fan of Big Spender Bush, but they were reacting to actual complaints -- as it should be. Not checking to see if they should give three white kids and three Asian kids detention because three black kids got it last week.

By contrast, Mr. Duncan plans investigations based on the disparate impact of a school policy, even if no one has alleged any discrimination. Schools and districts that don't have enough blacks taking college prep courses, or don't suspend enough whites for fighting, could face litigation or have federal funding withheld.

Inevitably, pressure will be put on districts to get their numbers right and avoid federal scrutiny. Safety is already a major problem in many larger urban schools, where it's not uncommon for students to pass through metal detectors each morning. If districts are afraid to suspend students for fear of an OCR probe, a bad situation is made worse. And if AP classes will now be monitored for racial balance, schools will resort to quotas, lower standards or no longer offer the courses.

Again, from my experience, as somebody who speaks pretty much monthly at an inner-city high school (recently, to a class of 11th graders reading at the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade level...which is not unusual at this school), what kids really need is not government policy that discriminates by skin color, but a home with a mommy and daddy in it.

Oh yeah, and let's add a school board prez who can write a sentence in comprehensible English. But, hey, the illiterate guy they have running the horrendous Detroit Public Schools is the right color. And that's what really counts, right?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Rules Are What The Little People Play By
Glenn Reynolds interviews Scott Rasmussen for PJTV. The text about the interview is here, by Mark Tapscott, in the WashEx. An excerpt:

Reynolds and Rasmussen analyze an emerging issue of singular importance that is highlighted by the insistence of President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress ramming Obamacare down the throats of the American people despite their clear and consistent opposition to the proposal.

But it's not simply one big bill or even a few big bills, it's a growing sense throughout Middle America - which is to say most citizens who are not part of the political class of elites in New York, Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. - that there are two sets of rules.

As Rasmussen describes it in the context of the TARP program and government using tax dollars for bailing out failing corporations:

"The American people have a clear understanding of this. Seventy percent believe that government and big business tend to work together against the rest of us and there is a sense that there are two sets of rules. There is one set of rules that most Americans play by, small businesses, churches, community groups, that has a lot of accountability, and then there is a whole separate set of rules for a political and corporate elite that doesn't want to be bound by such petty things as accountability."

This is no mere populist anti-elistist posturing. Reynolds and Rasmussen base their analysis on the idea that self-governance is not simply about how we pick presidents, senators, mayors, and so forth. It goes to the basic concept underlying our society, which is that we are freedom to live our lives without government interference, but there are all kinds of accountability measures built into our system.

As Rasmussen points out, the traditional understanding is that a business that does well by serving its customers prospers, while the business that doesn't, goes out of business. But when the political and business elites get together, they use tax dollars to bail out failing businesses and establish regulatory regimes to prop them up, keep out competitors, and insure continued revenues.

That way, the political elites get more power and jobs, while the corporate elite gets more income and "market stability." Another word for this arrangement is spelled C-O-N.

Rasmussen's new book: In Search of Self-Governance. Glenn's earlier, related piece, "Consent of the governed -- and the lack thereof":

Not long ago, the federal government enjoyed a stellar reputation for honesty and competence. Now, according to a recent CNN poll, three-quarters of Americans think federal officials aren't honest . (There's no separate survey here on what the "political class" thinks, but I suspect that its numbers would be sunnier, but still appalling, as above). So what do we do with a federal government that many voters think is illegitimate and dishonest?

Well, the Declaration of Independence allows for the prospect of altering or abolishing the government we have in order to get a government that's closer to what we want. That needn't involve anything as violent as the American Revolution or the Civil War, but the need for change -- real, structural change as opposed to campaign-slogan "change" -- is becoming more obvious.

In the past, America has managed to reinvent itself without transformations as wrenching as the Civil War or the Revolution. As the legitimacy of our current arrangements becomes increasingly threadbare, it is perhaps worth thinking about how this might be accomplished again.

What gets me is people who are offended by the Tea Parties. I find dissent against government, no matter whether I agree with those dissenting, highly patriotic and an essential element of democracy.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Government WasteWaste
The wasteful jerkwads at the Census Department sent me a letter to tell me they're sending me a letter for the Census.

I'd love to see heads roll every time that happens. It won't. Not until we all refuse to elect only fiscally responsible legislators, who get as irate as I do at government waste.

Loved this suggestion from the witty Andrew Malcolm (@latimestot) at the LA Times (which he, by the way, tweeted, along with this link):

Imagine a fed govt msg of 140 chars max; GSA official sez fed Tweets advisable

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Savage Savage
I write in my book, I See Rude People: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society:

People don't just blame technology for social problems, they idealize living without it. The more high-tech and complex our world gets, the more people tend to romanticize "the simple life." Now, maybe you're a better person if you live in a cabin in the woods with no TV, electricity, or running water -- or maybe you're Ted Kaczynski. Kacynzski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber," now lives in more modern surroundings -- a federal prison where he's serving a life sentence for maiming and murdering numerous people to sound the alarm about the "tyranny" of a high-tech society.

We have a tendency to get all misty-eyed about early men and women, painting them as "noble savages," living in Bambi-like harmony with nature while selflessly looking out for each other. The reality? They had the same genetically programmed tendencies to lie, sneak, steal, cheat and behave like thoughtless buttwads that we do today. But, back then, being seen as greedy or narcissistic or being caught scamming another member of your band could get you voted out of the cave and forced to go it alone -- very likely a death sentence in an environment not exactly rife with Motel 6's and 7-Elevens.

Steven Pinker, too, dispels the myths about how wonderful our ancestors were, in this TED video:

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Why Isn't Obama Afraid To Take On The Teachers' Unions?
Greg Foster writes for PJM:

A critical mass of the "social justice" folks are realizing that the unions have been taking them to the cleaners for a generation. For decades, the unions have screamed about how schools are desperately underfunded and they need more money. For decades, the social justice folks bought this story and put themselves on the line to extract more taxpayer money for schools. For decades, the school-monopoly blob absorbed the money and nothing got any better.

The social justice folks are wise to this now. And they're not happy about it.

I can't see into Obama's mind. But the way things look from where I sit, this is the parsimonious explanation that covers all the facts. Obama realizes that the social justice folks are angry at the unions, and he wants to position himself to benefit from that.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Boob-al Warming
Boobs have been blowing up in size like bread in the oven, and now, bras are, too, and not just at big-boobed-girl specialty stores. Tamara Cohen writes for the Daily Mail:

For years well-endowed women have struggled with a lack of support from major retailers.

Now, finally, one department store is stocking bras large enough for even the most bountiful bosom.

Selfridges is selling a K-cup brassiere made by luxury brand Fantasie. The £32 model was previously only available at specialist outlets.

Each cup of the K bra measures one and a half foot at its widest part. In total, it is over 4ft in circumference.

It uses extra-thick straps with three hooks to ensure the required level of support.

Lingerie industry experts have dubbed the products 'wind socks' because they are so large.

They would be too big even for former page three model Katie Price, whose
breasts peaked at 32FF before she had reduction surgery.

But they still wouldn't be big enough for 27-year-old Donna Jones from Milton Keynes who claims to have Britain's biggest breasts, sized 40M.

Fantasie said 10,000 women have already bought the K- cup bra from specialist stores.

Commenters on the DM site recommended Bravissimo. Me? I like Empreinte. Expensive, but worth it ("The elasticity of Empreinte bras is reduced to 30%, instead of 50% for a standard strap. This specific elasticity guarantees a longer life for the bra.")

And wisely pointed out in the article:

Many women underestimate their cup size and go for a higher back size. A woman should ideally be measured every two years and more frequently if she has lost or gained weight or had a baby.

Big boobs in the US seem to mean a back like a longshoreman -- or, perhaps that thinking by customers drives what the industry produces and sells. I discovered that I actually wear a 30 back (80 in France), with, um, rather large cups. Figuring that out meant bras that fit. Finally. No more 34-anything.

Thanks, Jay J. Hector!

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Imaginary Frienders Cut Thomas Jefferson From Texas Curriculum
James C. McKinley, Jr. writes for The New York Times about religious conservatives' rather disgusting influence on the Texas social studies curriculum. As a fiscal conservative who's socially libertarian and an atheist, I wish people wouldn't paint all conservatives with the same brush (as they do in the headline and as McKinley does in the piece). An excerpt about the Jefferson bit:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term "separation between church and state.")

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Customer Service Is Becoming An Issue Everywhere
I hate those customer service lines that are clearly all about anything but serving the customer.

When the recorded voice comes on, I typically say "fuck you," "shit," "motherfucker" -- even if I'm not mad, which I usually am, when I have to call -- because that seems to trigger something in their software that puts you right through to an operator.

What really annoys me is when I have to punch in my number and other information only to be forced to re-give it to the person on the phone. Every time, at some companies (it's not like it's a glitch).

And then there are the record-a-lies, meant to placate me while I'm waiting on the phone for 20 minutes, about how much the company values my business, blah blah blah. If my call were "very important" to you, you'd have a goddamn human on the phone relatively pronto, and without making me go through sixteen forms of tele-acrobatics.

On a related note, I got an e-mail from a suicidal guy the other day. I ended up getting his number and calling him (as I will do with people who write me that they're suicidal), but he wrote in his e-mail that he couldn't get through on the suicide hotline. I'm imagining something along these lines:

Your call is very important to us. We're experiencing a heavy call volume. Please don't jump.

I got him the number of another suicide hotline, of course, just in case. And, things seem under control. Beyond the stuff I said, sometimes, I think it makes enough of a difference, knowing that there's a stranger out there who cares enough that you won't kill yourself that they'll pick up the phone and call you to ask you to stay alive.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Advice Goddess Free Swim
I'm in Tucson, speaking/reading at the book festival, and I'll post some blog items when I can. In the meantime, have at it. (One link per comment, or you'll get kicked to my spam folder. If you want to post another link, post another comment, and so on.)

Oh, and if you're in Tucson, Elmore Leonard's session is 10 am on Saturday, and mine's 10 am on Sunday, and lots of cool authors are here, like my friend Lenore Skenazy, author of Free Range Kids (the book and the blog).

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

I SEE RUDE PEOPLE On reason.tv
My interview by Ted Balaker on reason.tv is up:

"I don't like regulations," says Amy Alkon, a syndicated advice columnist who blogs daily at AdviceGoddess.com. "I like to shame people into behaving better."

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Blondes Have More Fund
A Walmart has a black Barbie (aka Theresa) on sale, half-off, while a white Barbie is not, and people are screaming racism.

Could there be...another explanation?

Like, say, that there are more white people than black people, and people tend to buy their children dolls that look like them?

Meaning that maybe not as many black mommies were buying the dolls, and when things don't move in retail, they price 'em to move. (photo here)

Story on ABCNews.com. Alice Gomstyn writes:

A Walmart spokeswoman, who could not verify the exact store shown in the photo, said that the price change on the Teresa doll was part of the chain's efforts to clear shelf space for its new spring inventory.

"To prepare for (s)pring inventory, a number of items are marked for clearance, " spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien said in an e-mail. "... Both are great dolls. The red price sticker indicates that this particular doll was on clearance when the photo was taken, and though both dolls were priced the same to start, one was marked down due to its lower sales to hopefully increase purchase from customers."

"Pricing like items differently is a part of inventory management in retailing," O'Brien said.

But critics say Walmart should have been more sensitive in its pricing choice.

"The implication of the lowering of the price is that's devaluing the black doll," said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development, a Harlem, N.Y. organization founded by pioneering psychologists and segregation researchers Kenneth B. Clark and Marnie Phipps Clark.

"While it's clear that's not what was intended, sometimes these things have collateral damage," Dye said.

Other experts agree. Walmart could have decided "that it's really important that we as a company don't send a message that we value blackness less than whiteness," said Lisa Wade, an assistant sociology professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles and the founder of the blog Sociological Images.

Oh, please. It's retailing, lady. You want to send coded messages through doll purchases, get a bunch of people to go buy up all the black dolls, and it'll be the white ones that get marked down.

A few remarks from the comments on ABC. First, this one:

What is the probem. I am a black-american with 2 daughters. If I could find the dolls marked down I would by a couple of them. With so much else going on in the world is this really a controversy???? Maybe I am missing the point.!!!!!

Another comment:

I have a 3 year old daughter that loves Barbie...ALL BARBIES. Her 4th birthday is coming up and it is all about Barbie. In this case, she would have chosen the light skinned Barbie over the dark skinned Barbie simply because she had the PINK outfit on. If the dark skinned Barbie had the pink outfit on, then she would have chosen her. Does product selection always have to be about race?

For me, it was always about hair color. I had Raggedy Ann & Andy because they were the only dolls that looked like me. (I had a little black beady eyes and a red button nose as a child.)

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Blame The Bigots
Instead they're blaming the lesbians, who just wanted the high school experience all the other kids are allowed to have -- taking one's boyfriend or girlfriend to prom. Sheila Byrd writes for the AP that a Mississippi school board cancelled a high school's prom rather than let two lesbians go to it together:

On Thursday, a day after the Itawamba County school board did just that, the 18-year-old lesbian high school senior reluctantly returned to campus to some unfriendly looks, she said.

"Somebody said, 'Thanks for ruining my senior year.'" McMillen said.

The district announced Wednesday it wouldn't host the April 2 prom. The decision came after the American Civil Liberties Union demanded that officials change a policy banning same-sex prom dates because it violated students' rights. And the ACLU said the district not letting McMillen wear a tuxedo violated her free expression rights.

Which high school student goes to prom with which high school student is the school's business why?

Thanks, Patrick

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

What Women Want
More than men, I think women want not just love, but a great story behind it.

It's why the regular Sunday New York Times Weddings piece on some couple that (typically) couldn't stand each other at first, but finally came together, is like The Superbowl for girls.

And, by the way, I think that longing for a great romantic story make women -- some women -- act needier when dating, wanting to see what's maybe not there, wanting things to happen to fast.

In these cases, guys have a tendency to get overwhelmed and beat it.

Also, it's no fun to chase someone who's already thrown herself at you.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Fraud And Abuse-a-care
Our president is changing his tune -- but unfortunately, not from the soundtrack to his presidential Titanic, Obamacare, to fixing the economy. The president, writes Cheri Jacobus, on The Hill, is now busy, busy, busy spinning his "unpopular, extraordinarily expensive, colossal healthcare reform bill" as being all about waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid:

The president has already schooled us in creative budgeting and claims the projected savings from eliminating waste, fraud and abuse will pay for the bulk of his healthcare plan, providing roughly $900 billion in savings. There is legitimate reason for skepticism, not the least of which is the big question,

"If these two government-run healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid, are eating up $900 billion in waste, fraud and abuse, how will adding even more government-run healthcare programs make things better?"

I am all for President Obama trying to prove his projections and achieving those savings first, making his plans to cut waste, fraud and abuse a reality and a success. He will find out soon enough that $900 billion is too ambitious and cannot be reached without cutting services in those programs.

However, cleaning up Medicare and Medicaid will give Washington an idea of what we can actually afford, and perhaps then we can stop with the creative budgeting and loopy cost guesstimates. Both Democrats and Republicans can demand this without actually changing their positions on healthcare reform one way or the other.

Personally, my dream is that Obama will do on health care what he did in the Senate -- where his voting record often (or more often than not) read, not Yay or Nay, but "Not Voting."

And here, Obama's doctor-cousin writes about what a colossal mistake Obamacare would be:

Obamacare proponents would have us believe that we will add 30 million patients to the system without adding providers, we will see no decline in the quality of care for the millions of Americans currently happy with the system, and -if you act now!- we will save money in the process. But why stop there? Why not promise it will no longer rain on weekends and every day will be a great hair day?

America has the finest health care delivery system in the world. Let's not forget that and put it at risk in the name of reform. Desperate souls across the globe flock to our shores and cross our borders every day to seek our care. Why? Our system provides cures while the government-run systems from which they flee do not. Compare Europe's common cancer mortality rates to America's: breast cancer - 52 percent higher in Germany and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom; prostate cancer - a staggering 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway; colon cancer - 40 percent higher in the United Kingdom.

Look closer at the United Kingdom. Britain's higher cancer mortality rate results in 25,000 more cancer deaths per year compared to a similar population size in the United States. But because the U.S. population is roughly five times larger than the United Kingdom's, that would translate into 125,000 unnecessary American cancer deaths every year. This is more than all the mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, cousins and children in Topeka, Kan. And keep in mind, these numbers are for cancer alone. America also has better survival rates for other major killers, such as heart attacks and strokes. Whatever we do, let us not surrender the great gains we have made. First, do no harm. Lives are at stake.

He gets into the cost fallacies, too.

Consider the implications of Obamacare's financial penalty aimed at your doctor if he seeks the expert care he has determined you need. If your doctor is in the top 10 percent of primary care physicians who refer patients to specialists most frequently - no matter how valid the reasons - he will face a 5 percent penalty on all their Medicare reimbursements for the entire year. This scheme is specifically designed to deny you the chance to see a specialist. Each year, the insidious nature of that arbitrary 10 percent rule will make things even worse as 100 percent of doctors try to stay off that list. Many doctors will try to avoid the sickest patients, and others will simply refuse to accept Medicare. Already, 42 percent of doctors have chosen that route, and it will get worse. Your mother's shiny government-issued Medicare health card is meaningless without doctors who will accept it.

Obamacare will further diminish access to health care by lowering reimbursements for medical care without regard to the costs of that care. Price controls have failed spectacularly wherever they've been tried. They have turned neighborhoods into slums and have caused supply chains to dry up when producers can no longer profit from providing their goods. Remember the Carter-era gas lines? Medical care is not immune from this economic reality. We cannot hope that our best and brightest will pursue a career in medicine, setting aside years of their lives - for me, 13 years of school and training - to enter a field that might not even pay for the student loans it took to get there.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Where The Septic Tanks Are Cutest
Topanga Canyon, of course. Photo by Gregg Sutter.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Putting Back What You Took
A "despicable asshole" makes amends.

I got an e-mail I found pretty amazing:

Hi, I enjoy your column very much. You seem to me to be one of the more sensible folks offering their 2 cents.

30+ years ago I did a really despicable thing that most certainly caused a group of folks considerable pain, embarrassment and financial hardship.

There is no way I can make amends to the specific folks I harmed, who happened to be musicians.

But by making a significant contribution to a local non-profit music academy it seems to me I can atone a little bit for being such an asshole.

So I'm thinking an anonymous contribution to the scholarship fund would be the way to go. No one but me knows what I did and some kids benefit.

But a BIG part of me doesn't want to just mail that check or just hand the envelope to the secretary with a terse "For your scholarship fund."

I want to say to some living person, "I behaved really badly and I'm really sorry for that. I'd like to help someone to try to make up for having harmed someone. Please accept this in that spirit."

Your thoughts, please.

My response:

I think you sound like a great person. This is exactly the sort of thing I advise people and do myself. You can't always make it up to the exact people you've harmed, but you can try to be a part of putting some nice into the world instead of more of the mean that so many people do. Congrats on being the sort of person who not only feels compelled to make amends, but does so.

And about what you're saying, that you want to say, "I behaved really badly," etc., I actually think that might be a good thing. I think it helps people to know that other people not only make mistakes but make amends for them. We're all human. I'm rude, same as everyone. I behave badly, speak sharply, and do other things I shouldn't. If people know that you're making amends like this, maybe they'll be inspired to do the same.

In short, you rock. All the best,-Amy

UPDATE - The person writes back:

Thought I'd give you some follow-up and my, my, the comments on your blog!! 

I go to the CU, get a cashier's check and toddle off to the music academy.

Walking down the main corridor I spy an administrative outpost wherefrom an admin. asst. sort immediately makes eye contact and asks if she may help.

I reply "Can you accept a donation to your scholarship fund?"

She replies, "Of course."

And I reply, "May I take a few moments of your time to tell you a story?"

She agrees and I start into my tale and after a moment her eyes sort of change and she says, "You must want the MUSIC academy!"

I confirm that, yes, indeed, the MUSIC academy is exactly what I want.
Amy, I'm dying. Amused at fate's whimsy, but dying.

So she leads me off down the hall and I say, "Man, I've gotta start this confession all over."

She says, "I'm 'fraid so and I'm gonna have to ask the director to tell me how it ends."
"No, that's cool. Stick around."

on the music academy's director's door and in we go.

"Bob, this gentleman would like to make a donation to the scholarship fund."

I hand Bob the envelope and begin my tale again.

She takes off, he invites me to share the specifics which I do (I doubt blog commentator Crid would have been mollified) and he thanks me and kindly and graciously acknowledges my intentions. Furthermore he offers to help introduce me to the local musical community when I am ready to start playing again.

So, there it is. 

My supporters and detractors aside, I'M convinced I did the best I could and that is quite enough for me.

Best regards...

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

What's With These Annoying Fan Pages On Facebook?
Or rather, the annoying fan page requests? Every day, I get a bunch of Facebook e-mails: "Be a fan of Tom's Motor Oil" or "Ginny's Diaphragm."

Okay, they usually aren't that gross, but what's the deal?

If I were a fan of these things...I'd track them down and hang on their every posted word. I am not, and I don't have time -- or interest. And I find it kind of egotistically amazing when people write me to tell me I should be a fan of...them!

Again, if I were your fan...you wouldn't have to ask me to "fan" you. (Did Mick Jagger run around tapping people on the shoulder and asking them to please like him?)

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Jihadwatching Jihad Jane
Robert Spencer posts at jihadwatch that the "Jihad Jane arrest raises fears of 'homegrown terrorists,' but no one really wants to do anything about it":

The one thing that can and should be done would be to call American Muslim groups to account, and demand that they institute in mosques and Islamic schools comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism. But officials will never do this. They would prefer to pretend that the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism do not exist. And so we will see many more Jihad Janes.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Meat Eater Visits The Vegetarian
Hilarious video from UK's Mitchell & Webb:

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

New York: Bring Your Own Salt
Absolutely unbelievable. New York meddling idiot/Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has introduced legislation to ban the use of salt in the preparation of restaurant food.

And if you cook with salt? Expect a $1,000 fine.

Here's Stossel on salt:

I put salt on just about everything but ice cream, and I have the blood pressure of an elite athlete. You can avoid salt if you need to, but thanks, I'll keep mine.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

"The Devil Came On Horseback"
A commenter, who sent me this link, writes:

I just saw a pretty disturbing film about Darfur called "The Devil Came on Horseback." I found this clip which I thought you might consider for the blog, as it confirms much of what you have discussed in the past. He asks the important questions/makes the key statements after the two-minute mark.

In short, they are Muslim, but they are black Muslims, and they receive nothing from Arab Muslims. We Americans are the people this poor guy is grateful for:

Why are the Arab Muslims railing about the Palestinians while they are silent about hundreds of thousands of Muslims being slaughtered in Darfur?

As I've pointed out before (and sorry for those who prefer not to believe it), Arab Muslims are quite racist. Tarek Fatah gave a speech, "How internalised racism has permitted lighter skinned Muslims to slaughter their darker skinned co-religionists." An excerpt from the photo of dead bodies at the top:

The latest manifestation of racism leading to a genocide is in Sudan where the Arab Janjaweed militia and the Arab government in Khartoum has resulted in the killing of 500,000 Darfuri Muslims whose only fault is that they are Black and thus considered as inferior to the ruling classes of that country.

The mistreatment of Black Muslims by those who feel they are superior because of their lighter skin colour has been historical. Only in the Middle East can one get away by addressing a Black man as "Ya Abdi", which translates to the horrible words, "Oh you slave".

An excerpt from his speech:

The acceptance of racism among the dominant community in the Arab world has today resulted in not just the genocide of Darfuris, but also the celebration by the Arab League of the man charged by the International Criminal Court, President Bashir of Sudan.

It is time that the medieval doctrine of the inferiority of non-Arab Muslims to Arab Muslims is laid to rest. It is necessary that Arab countries and leaders of Arab NGOs denounce this doctrine that has led to the discrimination of darker skinned Muslims by Arab governments in counties as far apart as Dubai to Darfur.

Behind the genocide of Bengal and Darfur, separated by 30 years, is the unchallenged doctrine of racial superiority of one ethnic group over another that has gone unnoticed and unpunished by any institution anywhere in the world.

This doctrine of racism has brought untold misery on the victims of this cancer, but this becomes worse when such racism is given a religious validation. In this day and age, we have fatwas from contemporary Islamic scholars who maintain that a non-Arab Muslim like me would be committing an act of sin if I considered myself equal to an Arab.

Fatwas from the 14th century have been dusted off the shelves, re-furbished and published on on-line Islamist forums to justify the superiority of one group over the other. This has provided the moral justification to the mass murder being committed on the Black Muslims of Darfur, which unfortunately, has gone unmentioned even at this conference.

Who, besides the Americans, has rescued refugees from Darfur? The Israelis, of course!

Yes, that's right -- they rescue black Muslims fleeing murder by Arab Muslims. Olmert even granted citizenship to 500 black Muslim refugees from Darfur.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Belief Blower
Related to recent conversations about god belief, from Gary Marcus' Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind:

Religion in particular enjoys the sway that it does in part because people want it to be true; among other things, religion gives people a sense that the world is just and that hard work will be rewarded. Such faith provides a sense of purpose and belonging, in both the personal and cosmic realms; there can be no doubt that the desire to believe contributes to the capacity to do so. But none of that explains how people manage to cling to religious beliefs despite the manifest lack of direct evidence. For that we must turn to the fact that evolution left us with the capacity to fool ourselves into believing what we want to believe. (If we pray and something good happens, we notice it; if nothing happens, we fail to notice the non-coincidence.) Without motivated reasoning and confirmation bias, the world might be a very different place.

What's often behind people's unfounded beliefs is a lack of understanding about common human cognitive errors, like the tendency to look on the bright side rather than the dingy one.

Another book on the subject that I really like: Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Biological Clock Is Attached To A Nuclear Warhead
Just posted two Advice Goddess columns. There's Call Wading, about an ex-husband with a very young new wife who keeps calling the old wife to chat:

You, too, need to start a conversation with "Remember when," as in, "Remember when you divorced me and married that other woman?"

And then there's The Newborn Ultimatum, a letter from the husband of the very last woman in the world who should be reproductive. An excerpt from my response to the husband:

Should you bring a child into the world with a raging psycho who can occasionally be nice? Um...well...sure...assuming you've already struck out with all the crack-addicted prostitutes. ("Aww, look, little feller's got his daddy's eyes and his mommy's Hep C.")

Comments are live at the links.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Who Runz The Skoole Bored In Detroyt?
Johnny's skoole bored leader cant wreyete wirth a good godddam. N exserpt veea Joanne Jacobs, from Detroyt Noows colunnist Laura Berman:

The president of the Detroit school board, Otis Mathis, is waging a legal battle to steer the academic future of 90,000 children, in the nation's lowest-achieving big city district.

He also acknowledges he has difficulty composing a coherent English sentence. Here's a sample from an e-mail he sent to friends and supporters on Sunday night, uncorrected for errors of spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage. It begins:

If you saw Sunday's Free Press that shown Robert Bobb the emergency financial manager for Detroit Public Schools, move Mark Twain to Boynton which have three times the number seats then students and was one of the reason's he gave for closing school to many empty seats.

Another of Mathis' e-mails here:

Do DPS control the Foundation or outside group? If an outside group control the foundation, then what is DPS Board row with selection of is director? Our we mixing DPS and None DPS row's, and who is the watch dog?

Just loved this:

"Instead of telling them that they can't write and won't be anything, I show that cannot stop you," Mathis says. "If Detroit Public Schools can allow kids to dream, with whatever weakness they have, that's something. ...It's not about what you don't have. It's what you can do."

Why can't he do as I advise the kids at the inner city school in LA? Go to the library, and go work with one of the nice, free literacy volunteers like my friend Kay.

How dare this man put himself up for a position of responsibility in the schools, and how dare ANYONE vote for him?

via Rishawn Biddle

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

A Word For The Underparenters Out There
Unfortunately, "I'm my kid's mom" has given way to "I'm my kid's serf/room service worker/fulltime birthday clown."

From a cool guy I talked with when I was last in Detroit -- a guy who's just read my book -- here's the perfect retort to a parent with a screaming or otherwise underparented child the parent is doing nothing about (forcing you to say or do something -- and earning the mother's ire):

If a mother asks "Are you a parent?" is it rude to say "No, but I see by your kid's behavior, neither are you"?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Why Is It "Racist" And Awful?
...To pretend to be a person who's a Rastafarian or an Indian in a video (intended to be funny), where few people would likely have complaints if you pretended to be French (save for the fact that these particular people did the pretending during working hours)? From the Telegraph:

'Both men were wearing mops on their heads. They looked like they were smoking illegal substances, otherwise known as spliffs, and drinking cans of beer. They were talking in Jamaican accents.'

In another called 'Shaky' she said Faulconbridge was caught imitating the laugh of an Indian doctor called Fateh Shakewat.

Ms Ryan said that other videos filmed by Holland included a doctor pretending to be a character from The Simpsons and staff eating at a buffet.

She said: 'All the videos were made during working hours. While there isn't any suggestion that filming was during an operation, nevertheless both men were at work and meant to be working.'

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Boys Will Be...Suspended
To be a boy is to play with guns and transportation toys like cars and trucks and planes.

Politically correct parents try to give their kids "gender neutral" toys to play with -- and, typically, very soon, the little girl is dressing up a pillow into a dolly and the boy is using his carrot like a gun.

The latest is, a 6-year-old boy who didn't even have a gun, was suspended from his school in Michigan for making one with his finger and pointing it at other students, which "created discomfort" for them (in the words in the story). From Fox News:

School officials also told the paper that Mason had been warned repeatedly against pretending to aim his hand at students but continued the behavior over several months.

Jammer told the paper her son isn't violent and doesn't have toy guns at home.

Ah...maybe this is the problem.

She suggested a less harsh punishment, like taking Mason's recess away, might be more effective in teaching him not to make a gun with his hand.

One wonders, where was Mommy in all this? The news stories I found didn't have much more than what Fox did. Is there parenting going on here, or is the school the only source of discipline for the kid?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Obama Supporters Discover He Cannot Walk On Water
Simon Heffer writes in the Telegraph that our president seems unable to face up to America's problems:

The $783 billion stimulus package of a year ago was used to further the re-election prospects of many congressmen, not to do good for the country. America's politics remain corrupt, populated by nonentities whose main concern once elected is to stay elected; it seems to be the same the whole world over. Even this self-interested use of the stimulus package appears to have failed, however. Every day, it seems, another Democrat congressman announces that he will not be fighting the mid-term elections scheduled for November 2. The health care Bill, apparently so humane in intent, is being "scrubbed" (to use the terminology of one Republican) by its opponents, to the joy of millions of middle Americans who see it as a means to waste more public money and entrench socialism. For the moment, this is a country vibrant with anger.

A thrashing of the Democrats in the mid-terms would not necessarily be the beginning of the end for Mr Obama: Bill Clinton was re-elected two years after the Republicans swept the House and the Senate in November 1994. But Mr Clinton was an operator in a way Mr Obama patently is not. His lack of experience, his dependence on rhetoric rather than action, his disconnection from the lives of many millions of Americans all handicap him heavily. It is not about whose advice he is taking: it is about him grasping what is wrong with America, and finding the will to put it right. That wasted first year, however, is another boulder hanging from his neck: what is wrong needs time to put right. The country's multi-trillion dollar debt is barely being addressed; and a country engaged in costly foreign wars has a President who seems obsessed with anything but foreign policy - as a disregarded Britain is beginning to realise.

There are lessons from the stumbling of Mr Obama for our own country as we approach a general election. Vacuous promises of change are hostages to fortune if they cannot be delivered upon to improve the living conditions of a people. The slickness of campaigning that comes from a combination of heavy funding and public relations expertise does not inevitably translate into an ability to govern. There is no point a nation's having the audacity of hope unless it also has the sophistication and the will to turn it into action. As things stand, Barack Obama and America under his leadership do not.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

"Let's Not Forget That They Are On The Tip Of The Spear, We Owe Them More"
Kathryn Bigelow thanked our troops (and/or sort of people in armies in general, which was a little weird) twice at last night's Oscars, but somebody should see to it our troops on a base run by the Spanish get a little support in Afghanistan. These particular troops, according to a Michael Yon post, aren't getting much support from our coalition partners, the Spanish in making their living conditions, well, livable or safe. An excerpt:

2) Qal E Naw: The Spanish are not interested in helping in anyway, and are trying to make us decide to leave based on their unacceptable treatment of Americans. Our refuelers [soldiers who refuel helicopters] that are living there have to run out, unroll the hoses, pull security, and roll everything back up. They have asked for gravel along the FLS as it is currently calf deep mud, but the Spanish refuse to make any improvements. They asked for a T barrier (just one) to put at a 45 degree angle outside the fence where the FARP [Forward Arming and Refueling Point; where helicopters land for ammo and gas] has to be set up so they can run for cover in case there is small arms fire, the Spanish say no and refuse to make any improvements. They asked for a small gate where their billets are located so they can access the FARP directly rather than going a half mile loop to get out the gate, but the Spanish said no and refuse to make any improvements. They [sic] guys are living hard (we understand that) but have to do laundry by hand as all of their stuff is stolen if they turn it into the laundry, they discussed this with the Spanish, but they refuse to many any improvements.

...3) BmG: Who ever briefed that they have gravel there has never been there. We arrived during a TIC [fighting] and a MEDEVAC mission. The aircraft have to land/park in a field that has no gravel and then they sink into the ground. They have to be moved everyday to pull them back out of the mud. If we can't get gravel, how about putting some AM2 matting, stakes and a couple of Red Horse guys on a CH-47 and fly them in to build a couple of pads just big enough to park an individual UH-60 on? We've been pushing the gravel issues since last fall and are no closer to a solution. Those guys are living in fighting positions. When it begins to warm up in the next month, that field will be untenable without gravel or AM2 matting. We don't want to lose MEDEVAC capability there because we couldn't put in two pads. We did a MEDEVAC [troop(s) wounded] and Hero [troop(s) killed] mission while I was there and the next day as well, let's not forget that they are on the tip of the spear, we owe them more.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Fox Guarding The Henhouse?
Detroit Metro Airport, Saturday, March 7, 2010 -- on the job, seeing to it that nobody blows up a plane for Allah.

No, all Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

And why are these particular religious fanatics, more than others in modern times, murderous (and mass-murderous)?

Well, here's a small sampling of the numerous Quran commands to kill "the infidel" (that would be all us non-believers in Allah), in hopes of installing The New Caliphate across the globe (hanging gay people all the way, and with not so much as a wet burka contest):

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

From letusreason:

Islam in obedience to the Qur'an is the driving force for most of the terrorism today we are seeing today. If you don't believe this, check who the majority of people are that are doing the terrorist acts throughout the world.

The truth is that the only sure way to paradise for a Muslim, to die in a Jihad. Sura 9:111 "God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." "And if you are slain, or die in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass." (Surah 3:157 Al-Imran 3:157)

Contrary to other religions that offer heaven by good works and Christianity that offers it for free to those who believe and follow Jesus Christ, a obedient Muslim can not be sure of his hereafter without it. ... Mohammed said, "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed)." (Al Bukhari vol. 1:35.) "They [true believers] will sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches" (Sura 37:48). This gives us insight into their denial of this life and being rewarded in the next. The promise of heaven to those who die in battle for the cause of Allah is quite a promise.

Solutions, anyone?

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Other People's Money
Loved the Chris Ayres op-ed in last Sunday's LATimes about all the ways the shakedown artists we've elected have elected to shake us down:

Being of pale skin and Celtic blood -- and thus unable to turn any color other than bright red after exposure to ultraviolet radiation -- I wholeheartedly applaud the provision in the Senate's healthcare bill to tax indoor sunbed treatments at 10%. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best and most effective kind of tax, i.e., the kind that someone else will have to pay. (And the orange-hued among us will pay dearly -- to the tune of about $2.7 billion over the next decade, according to projections.)

Given the opportunity, I'd be happy to suggest some other money-raising initiatives to the Senate along the same lines. Like a tax on people who don't live in my house. Or a tax on everyone whose name isn't Chris. Or a special, one-off levy for those who weren't dumped by a girl named Katy (if only I'd had a tan) circa 1994.

And with the federal deficit projected at $1.6 trillion, the Senate is unlikely to stop at sunbeds. In fact, it has already attempted to impose a "Botax" on the cosmetic surgery industry, which would have added 5% to the cost of attending a dinner party in Orange County. The initiative failed only after industry groups lobbied hard to kill it. The American Academy of Dermatology alone spent $1 million on lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The campaign convinced lawmakers that Botox -- unlike the ridiculous frivolity of tanning treatments -- is a marvel of modern medicine, right up there, presumably, with buttock implants.

I suppose you can't blame the senators for having a go. I mean, someone has to do something about reducing the deficit, not to mention the cost of healthcare. Spending cuts would be the obvious solution, of course, but the federal government, like Oprah Winfrey, seems capable only of getting bigger these days.

I heard on CNN the other morning, and I've experienced, from talking to people, that some younger people who supported Obama are wavering toward the Republican side. Is it possible that more people will start truly caring about who they vote in and how they vote on spending?

I don't think we've really seen that, and I think the Republican notion that they have the luxury of pandering to the religious conservatives has been evidence of that. (And, by the way, it's not that Republicans aren't lobbyist-whore-pandering big old spenders like the Democrats -- they just talk a better game on the spending front than the Democrats, and are somewhat less profligate.)

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Maybe The Palestians Don't Really Want Their Own State
Very compelling piece (thanks, Martin!) in The American Spectator on all the negatives for the Palestinians if their professed desire for their own state were to become a reality. David Gutmann writes:

Under statehood, the Palestinians will no longer have their special charisma as the world's premier victims, innocent agrarians suffering under a harsh occupation. When the fickle world turns its attention to the latest victim du jour, their welfare benefits are likely to be sharply cut.

Then too, the wiser Palestinians, who remember Arafat and his predatory crew, have their own good reasons for quietly resisting statehood. They realize that, should they gain their own country, externally imposed Israeli rule would be replaced by internally based oppression, by the corrupt or fanatic leaders who -- via factional warfare and the Arab politics of assassination -- typically reach the top in their societies.

Thus far, we have been looking at the Palestinians' practical reasons for avoiding statehood. They don't want to lose their world-celebrity status, nor the funding that goes with it, and they don't want either the likes of Hamas forcing Sharia law on them, or the likes of Arafat robbing them blind. But the Palestinian resistance to statehood has also less rational but equally compelling bases.

Foremost among these is the legacy of collective shame. With the possible exception of the Japanese, no culture is so vulnerable to a sense of shame and humiliation as the Arab world. Even in the 21st century, Arabs continue daily to lament Crusades that occurred nearly a thousand years ago. They still feel shame over the loss of Spanish Andalusia ("Andaluz" to the Arabs), their last European redoubt, evacuated in the 15th century. More recently, Palestinian Arabs have been exposed to traumatic humiliation by their defeat during the Israeli War of Independence. I remember how they initiated that war with febrile enthusiasm, confident that their magnificent Islamic warriors would sweep away the puny, cowardly Jewish opposition, certain that the Palestinians would inherit all of the Holy Land. But when push came to shove, instead of chasing the Jews into the sea, it was the majority of Arabs who ran away from the poorly armed Israeli Hagana (a militia that added insult to Arab injury by fielding women).

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Best Local Commercial
For Indiana's Butt Drugs:

Local Commercial for Butt Drugs - Watch more Funny Videos

via @radleybalko and @JonHenke

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Islamification Of Britain
Very interesting (and chilling) doc I watched on Saturday night on the soft jihad in Britain. Part 1 of 5

Part 2 of 5

Part 3 of 5

Part 4 of 5

Part 5 of 5

Bye-bye, Britain!

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

To The Bitter "Friending"
Loved this @WalterOlson retweet.

RT @bobambrogi: This felt wrong: Shortly after heated call with lawyer saying he'd sue my client, he sent me invite to connect on LinkedIn.

On a related note, one of the kids (now 45) from when I was growing up recently "friended" me on Facebook. I was shocked. I could be wrong (and he did deny it when I wrote him to ask), but I strongly suspect he was one of the boys who egged our house, toiletpapered our trees, and shaving creamed "Dirty Jew" on our garage door.

Now, I will say yes to Facebook friend requests from almost anyone and everyone who asks -- and politely ask them NEVER to write me on Facebook (it's slow for me to reply to people there, and I'm already deluged with e-mail for a living).

Still, I do have this one little personal policy: "If you 'dirty Jew' me at 8, you don't get to 'friend' me at 45."

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Homeopathy: "IT'S JUST WATER!"
In the comments on Friday, somebody was sneering about "BIG PHARM" (as if the executives at the homeopathic company Boiron aren't living in French chateaux on the bazillions they're making -- and never mind the fact that homeopathy hasn't been proven to work on curing anything but the problem of unwanted cash in your wallet).

Dara O'Briain is an Irish comedian, but he knows a thing or two about rational thought and bullshit forms of "medicine."

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

A View From Inside Hamas
Mosab Yousef, the son of Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, became a spy for Israel and converted to Christianity. The differences he lays out between Islam and Christianity are quite striking. But, first, why he went over to the other side, from a WSJ interview by Matthew Kaminski:

Mr. Yousef tells me that he was horrified by the pointless violence unleashed by politicians willing to climb "on the shoulders of poor, religious people." He says Palestinians who heeded the call "were going like a cow to the slaughterhouse, and they thought they were going to heaven." So, as he writes in the book, "At the age of twenty-two, I became the Shin Bet's only Hamas insider who could infiltrate Hamas's military and political wings, as well as other Palestinian factions."

..."I converted to Christianity because I was convinced by Jesus Christ as a character, as a personality. I loved him, his wisdom, his love, his unconditional love. I didn't leave [the Islamic] religion to put myself in another box of religion. At the same time it's a beautiful thing to see my God exist in my life and see the change in my life. I see that when he does exist in other Middle Easterners there will be a change.

"I'm not trying to convert the entire nation of Israel and the entire nation of Palestine to Christianity. But at least if you can educate them about the ideology of love, the ideology of forgiveness, the ideology of grace. Those principles are great regardless, but we can't deny they came from Christianity as well."

...As the son of a Muslim cleric, he says he had reached the conclusion that terrorism can't be defeated without a new understanding of Islam. Here he echoes other defectors from Islam such as the former Dutch parliamentarian and writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Do you consider your father a fanatic? "He's not a fanatic," says Mr. Yousef. "He's a very moderate, logical person. What matters is not whether my father is a fanatic or not, he's doing the will of a fanatic God. It doesn't matter if he's a terrorist or a traditional Muslim. At the end of the day a traditional Muslim is doing the will of a fanatic, fundamentalist, terrorist God. I know this is harsh to say. Most governments avoid this subject. They don't want to admit this is an ideological war.

"The problem is not in Muslims," he continues. "The problem is with their God. They need to be liberated from their God. He is their biggest enemy. It has been 1,400 years they have been lied to."

Yousef's just-published book: Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Because You Have A License To Practice Law
Doesn't mean you should go around suing everybody in sight. A Texas lawyer named William Ogletree got a little forgetty in the Houston airport and left an $800 Ralph Lauren leather jacket in the food court.

Pay for his mistake? Hell, no. There are people to sue for it! From The Smoking Gun:

Now Ogletree is threatening to sue the City of Houston, Continental Airlines, and the food court's management company for failing to have "collected the coat, kept it in a secure place and held it for a reasonable time" until he was able to reunite with the garment. These prospective defendants, Ogletree reasoned, "breached their duty" in connection with how they "manage lost and found items for which they are responsible." In his January 18 litigation threat letter, a copy of which you'll find below, Ogletree, pictured at right, noted that "further legal action" could be avoided if he simply was paid $800 "for the cost of the coat."

via Overlawyered

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Meet The Adult Idiot
I stopped at the grocery store on the way home, and chatted briefly with the man in front of me in line, well-to-do-looking white guy, probably about 50-55, in a bright yellow-gold fleece jacket.

It was the store I refer to as "The Ghetto Ralph's," where they have some really super prices on meat, but this guy was very much the Whole Foods shopper. He even mentioned that the water I was buying on sale costs 40 cents more at Whole Foods. (Well, duh. That's why I shop at Ralph's, even though I know they just fertilize the vegetables they sell there with plain old poop, not butterfly poo and the tears of the Dalai Lama.)

Anyway, the guy has a sick 2-year-old daughter who's up all night coughing. She's too young, apparently, for baby cough medicine, so he's giving her...homeopathic remedies! Which is the same as giving her nothing, but spending $20 on it. Which means she's suffering needlessly, up all night coughing, when they could probably give her baby Benadryl or something to at least knock her out, if not stop her cough. (Or some other drug an actual pediatrician recommends.)

I mentioned, gently, that there's actually no evidence homeopathy works, and gently suggested he check out homeopathy on Respectful Insolence:

"...the art of diluting remedies into nonexistence, producing a placebo effect, and calling it medicine."

Really, he might as well burn his money.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

At Last! Recognizing The Difference Between A Terrorist And A Shoplifter
Somebody awakened somebody awakened somebody from the deep sleep they've been in at The White House, and it sounds like they've come to their senses on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Anne E. Kornblut and Peter Finn write for the WaPo:

President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

The president's advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

It's Not Just About Getting On My Broom
I've been doing a lot of radio in Canada to promote my book, talking not just about the funny pranks in my book, but how to "spread the nice instead of the mean" by doing small kindnesses for people.

Most people aren't going to track down the honcho of a telemarketing company and make calls to him at his home at dinner time, but it is possible for everybody to train themselves to be mindful of other people -- both so you don't inflict yourself on them, and so you can do small kindnesses when people are in need.

At my favorite cafe the other day, a woman in front of me was asking Samantha, the woman who was ringing her coffee up, directions to a particular convalescent home in the area. Sam didn't know, but I overheard, and Gregg got me an iPhone recently, so I offered to look it up for her. Took me about a minute and a half, all told, to look it up, get directions, and show her the way on the little map -- no big deal at all -- but the woman hugged me and got tears in her eyes. I think, for her, it was just one of those days where you really, really need somebody to be nice to you, and that rather tiny expenditure of energy on my part made the difference.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Eek! She's Naked! In The Front Yard!
New Jersey resident Eliza Gonzalez and her family made a snow sculpture -- basically a Venus de Milo sort of dealie, except the body isn't twisted a bit sideways, like on the V de M statue. From the Telegraph, a neighbor or neighbors complained! About the nudity! The snow nudity! And the Gonzalez' were asked to cover it up!

Rahway police sent an officer to their home after they received an anonymous complaint of "a naked snow woman", and asked the family to cover her up.

When the officer arrived, Mrs Gonzalez said, he was apologetic and appreciative of the snowlady and her assets.

"He said, 'It's very good,'" Mrs Gonzalez recalled.

Despite his appreciation, the officer then asked the family to dress the snowlady.

Gonzalez' daughter later asked:

"Are you going to go to the Met and cover up all the
statues?"

Of course, while whomever made the anonymous complaint was on the phone with the police, their kids were probably clicking up footage of some lady having sex with a dog on the Internet.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

"Objectifying Women," Blah, Blah, Blah
Men like a nice ass on a woman. Hell, I like a nice ass on a woman, and I don't even go for girls.

Wednesday afternoon, at my local hippie haus of coffee, I sat next to a professor who teaches business classes at a university in the Northeast, and he told me feminists had their titties in a wringer (sorry, would that be tyttees?) over some Reebok commercials that came out this past Fall.

Sure, they show body parts in these commercials. Women's semi-clad body parts! They even linger on them!

Uh...and this is a problem why?

For me, the only problem is that the talking boobs spot isn't funny. Other than that, I rather enjoy staring at a nice ripe pair for 30 seconds. Don't you?

Here's another:



Just wondering, but do feminists complain about commercials that show off some guy's toned abs (not that this is a very effective way to appeal to women, who, from research I've read, prefer to see beautiful women they can identify with)?

I told the professor (and I can't remember in which book I read this), that men tend to fantasize about themselves as the actors (acting upon someone) in a sexual fantasy, and women tend to fantasize about being acted upon. In other words...mirroring their sex organs. Women have an innie -- men have the thing that goes in the innie. Men objectify women; women objectify...themselves!

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Law Against Doughnuts
For 15-plus years, a Ventura County, California hardware store has been putting out a box of doughnuts and a pot of coffee for customers in the morning. No more. Mark Storer writes for the VC Star:

An anonymous customer complaint to the county brought health inspectors to the store, who determined its tradition of more than 15 years of offering coffee and doughnuts to customers violated food-handling regulations.

"We've been doing this since we bought the place 15 years ago and the previous owner was doing it, too," said Randy Collins, 42, co-owner with his parents of B & B. "We simply weren't aware we were causing a problem."

Inspectors told Collins that unless he was willing to install stainless-steel sinks with hot and cold water and have a prep kitchen to handle the food, he was violating the law.

"The state health and safety code talks about food regulations," said Elizabeth Huff, manager of community services for the Ventura County Environmental Health Division. "Anybody who handles food is subject to the regulations."

At issue is the level of permit required for a retail establishment to offer food to the public. "What some establishments do is hire a mobile food preparation services or in some cases a coffee service," said Huff. "Those establishments have permits and can operate in front of or even inside of the stores. But where the public has access to food, permitting is required."

Huff indicated there are several levels of permits, depending on the store's needs. All carry various costs.

That, of course, is what this is really about.

(Of course, there's some after-the-fact whining from the state that this was really about giving out tastes of meat from a barbeque grill they were demonstrating.)

via Overlawyered

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

The Most Hated Man In The Senate Right Now
The other day, I heard the host and some guest, I think it was on CNN, vilifying some U.S. senator named Jim Bunning for what they made out to be a form of senatorial mischief-making: holding up some bill.

Turns out, he's my kind of guy -- refusing to spend money we don't have. From the WSJ:

And all hell has broken loose. Mr. Bunning has dared to put a hold on a $10 billion spending bill to extend jobless insurance and fund transportation projects. Mr. Bunning says he won't yield until the Senate finds a way to pay for the new spending with cuts somewhere else in the $3.5 trillion budget. For this perfectly reasonable stance, Mr. Bunning has become the Beltway and media villain of the hour. We'd call it his finest hour.

Every time Washington wants to spend money, the Senate Majority Leader asks for "unanimous consent" to authorize the funding, and in the collegial Senate everyone falls in line. But when Harry Reid wanted consent last week for that $10 billion, Mr. Bunning broke the old-boy rules by shouting: "I object."

The faux indignation has been something to behold. "It is simply unfair for one Senator to attempt to hold the Senate hostage," said Senator Richard Durbin. "Unfair," cried Jay Rockefeller. The Obama Administration has attacked Mr. Bunning for playing "political games" and forcing a furlough of 2,000 government workers. (The horror!)

By the way, Democrats could end Mr. Bunning's stand by invoking cloture and getting the 60 votes they need to proceed. Mr. Reid won't do that because he thinks he's scoring points using Mr. Bunning to define Republicans as "obstructionists."

More "obstructionism," please.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Subsidized Health Care
Not subsidized by government -- subsidized by businesses, and not the businesses the people work for, either. Mark Cuban blogs, "If Free Works on the Internet, Can It Work for Health Insurance?"

Google subsidizes the cost of hosting our home and business videos in exchange for selling advertising around the content we upload. Our cellphone provider might cover a couple hundred dollars of the cost of our phone in exchange for a multiyear commitment to buy phone and data from them. What do we have to exchange in order for someone to cover all or part of our health care costs?

Let me give you an example. Is it worth it for Walmart to add me to the self insured health plan that they offer employees in exchange for a commitment that I buy 100pct of any products Walmart sells from Walmart? If I promise to buy everything from toothpaste to celery to lightbulbs to underwear from them for the next 5 years, would the average person generate more than enough in net margin dollars to make it worth the incremental expense ? Remember, you have to build in the reduction in new customer acquisition costs as well. Is it worth it to Walmart? What if my employer did the same type of deal. For the sake of example, what if the Dallas Mavericks promised to buy everything that we can from Walmart? Would Walmart make us an affiliate for health insurance purposes and add Dallas Mavericks employees ? Or could the program be simplified so that while Walmart wont commit to subsidizing all of the health care costs in their system, or require 100 pct of purchases, they could take a page from Visa and apply some percentage of purchases towards health care premiums for customers and allow them to participate in a Group Insurance program that Walmart , with their incredibly purchasing power set up. Not surprisingly, this wouldn't be a drastic step for a Walmart. They already offer special discounts to other self insured companies for the purchase of prescription.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Something Rotten In The State Of Denmark
A Danish newspaper apologized to Muslims for distressing them by publishing the Mohammed cartoons. From Der Spiegel:

As the first newspaper to do so, Politiken has reached a settlement with descendants of the Prophet Muhammad in connection with the affront its reprint of drawings of the Prophet Muohammad in 2008 may have caused Muslims.

The settlement was reached between Politiken and eight organisations representing 94,923 descendants of the Prophet Muhammad in a move Politiken's Editor-in-Chief Tøger Seidenfaden says shows that dialogue is the way forward.

"The settlement looks ahead and expresses very sensible views. It may possibly reduce the tensions that have shown themselves to be so resilient. It gives us hope that relations between Denmark, and not least its media, and the Muslim world can be improved," Seidenfaden says, adding he does not believe Politiken's move is a freedom of speech sellout.

Under the settlement, Politiken has not given up its right to publish the cartoons and does not apologize for having printed them, but rather expresses regret for the affront felt by some Muslims.

Their agreeing to the demand for an apology, their selling out free speech, is an example of knuckling under to soft jihad. If Muslims cannot handle Western values like freedom of speech and freedom of the press they should return to Saudi Arabia and other lands where they'll surely find the oppression and lack of freedoms much more to their liking.

*On a related note, check out the fascinating piece on Pajamas Media by Raymond Ibrahim about why terrorists, devoted Muslims, go to strip clubs before they mass murder us infidels.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

California: What Our Fucking Lawmakers Are Doing
They can't pass fucking useful, sensible laws so they pass fucking toothless ones to tell us to cut our fucking cursing. Robin Hindery writes for the AP that the fuckwads in the California State Assembly passed a resolution to establish the first fucking week of March as "Cuss Free Week" in California:

If approved by the Senate next week, the measure would take effect immediately.

The resolution includes no enforcement mechanism and is simply meant to promote greater harmony and connectedness, said Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Canada Flintridge and co-author of the measure.

"I've always wondered why we behave differently when grandma is watching than when we're on our own," said Portantino, who owned up to his share of four-letter words.

None of your fucking business. Let's hope your constituents depose your worthless ass for doing fuck all when you were supposed to be representing them.

P.S. Hadn't you heard (perhaps you were too busy covering your ears lest somebody unleashed some blue fucking language), but the state is so weighted down in debt it's about to break off the continent and fall into the Pacific Ocean?

Oh, excuse me -- make that the Pacific fucking Ocean.

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Heinlein Quote Of The Day
Bob on God. On Amazon here.

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful." --Robert A. Heinlein

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

Should We Kill The Whale Because It Killed A Human?
(Forgot to post this back when this happened.) In short, it's called a "killer whale," not "the next best thing to Bambi."

*

« February 2010 | Home | April 2010 »

What's Good For The Goose
Is good for the goose alone when it comes to "accidental" pregnancies. Tracy Quan has a great piece on Salon from way back in '98, "Conception by deception: Why do women get away with 'accidentally' getting pregnant -- when if a man tried to pull the same manipulative stunt, he'd be Bobbitted? A quote:

A public service ad aimed at young women features a manipulative teenage boy pressuring his girlfriend to prove her love by having risky sex, but there are no Planned Parenthood posters warning young males about girls who say they're on the Pill when they're not.

...Suppose Bill was in charge of birth control, and he informed his girlfriend that he had stopped using contraception some time ago, was coy about the exact date and chose to break the news to her in bed after a successful frolic. Lucy would feel violated; most women would regard him as a man so predatory as to be unfit for fatherhood. Bill's pushy bid for a commitment would look downright pathological.

The fact is that despite our egalitarian efforts to turn reproduction into a rational process, men and women don't always hold each other to the same standards. Women, at times, can get away with behavior that we wouldn't tolerate from men -- and many of us exploit the inequalities that are said to work against us. As the anti-suffragette feminist Emma Goldman said in a discussion about "woman's inhumanity to man," "woman is naturally perverse." Women can be presumptuous about deciding how and when to breed, and some women would argue that what we do with our wombs is nobody's business but our own. A woman I know was told by her mother that "men are never ready for babies," and that consulting the prospective father of her child was therefore pointless.

It's quite easy to play to a man's laziness or selfishness where sex and birth control are concerned. Often, men aren't so much tricked as they are led into fatherhood by women who take advantage of the fact that most males regard birth control as a hassle. Many feminists would say it's unfair that we bear the responsibility for birth control, but for a woman determined to procreate against her partner's wishes, it's a bonus. The Pill, in particular, gives women the power to plan behind a man's back. Factors that might make it "better" from a guy's point of view -- no bothersome IUD string rubbing against his flesh, no awkward pause to hunt for condoms and no raincoat-in-the-shower symptoms -- also make it possible for him to be deceived (or to deceive himself).

via Insty

*