Julia Butterfly Basketball Pole
Love this woman -- she sat on her basketball pole (wearing her fuzzy slippers) to try to keep the government from taking it. Unbelievable story.
"First they came for the basketball poles..."
The story, by Nichole Dobo, Chad Livengood, and Wade Malcolm at DelawareOnline:
The McCaffertys and at least seven other residents of Radnor Green and Ashbourne Hills received letters warning them this would happen. Police and Delaware Department of Transportation officials say their hoops, angled toward the street, violate the state's Free Zone law, which prohibits hoops, trees, shrubs and other objects from being within seven feet of the pavement's edge in subdivisions.About 15 minutes after McCafferty climbed the pole by standing on top of her minivan, the DelDOT equipment rumbled toward her.
Perched on a bend in the metal pole with her fuzzy bedroom slippers dangling down, McCafferty refused to budge despite police and DelDOT pleas.
Love her, love her, love her.
The reasoning:
A 2005 state law specifically directs DelDOT to remove things that are in the right of way, which includes the small spat of grass before the curb begins in many neighborhoods. This is done to protect motorists and the people playing sports, according to the law....Tom Blythe, 86, said he was among several people on the street who complained to the state about the basketball hoops. The children don't watch for traffic, he said, and the number of kids coming from outside the neighborhood to play on the hoops has gotten out of hand.
As seen in the video, they eventually lost the battle. The problem is, if you're not a lawyer, you probably don't know exactly what your rights are in a situation.
The more laws we have about every facet of life, the easier it is to arrest innocent people.
Every incursion into freedom, privacy, property ownership is serious, and very dangerous and must be fought. I want to reach through the computer and hug these people for trying to stand up to them.
via reason
Sh*t My Government Dad Says
Political correctness rages on. Flying Dog Brewery wanted to call their 20th anniversary pale ale "Raging Bitch." The Michigan liquor commission said no way, writes Nate Reed at MLive:
The commission, which regulates alcohol sales and advertising, deemed language on the bottle to be "detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public," according to the lawsuit, which also names five commissioners as defendants.
Oh. Please.
...The commission affirmed its decision with commissioner Patrick Gagliardi offering that the board is not adverse to edgy writing but that "we do have a responsibility here to place product in a public place with the names that are on it, and that's what we take very seriously," according to the suit.Gagliardi was referring to Steadman's partial label inscription of "Remember, enjoying a Raging Bitch, unleashed, untamed, unbridled - and in heat- is pure GONZO."
The profanity used by Flying Dog has never been approved by the state commission, but the state has allowed sales of alcoholic beverages with a vulgar term on the label. Among those are a Grand Rapids brew "Dirty Bastard," crafted by Founders.
Laws governing the liquor board allow them to reject the registration of anything that is "deemed to promote violence, racism, sexism, intemperance or intoxication or to be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public."
Avert your eyes, ladies. And only buy beer in places where there's a fainting couch.
via ifeminist
I Am The Deforester -- Or Am I?
I need to print my stuff out constantly as I'm writing, because I read it to edit it as I'm writing, and I go through reams and reams of paper to do it. I have writer friends who almost never print anything out -- tree-savers is how they think of themselves. But, maybe I'm the actual tree saver. I liked this piece in the WSJ that echoed a John Tierney piece a few years back that said:
Yes, a lot of trees have been cut down to make today's newspaper. But even more trees will probably be planted in their place. America's supply of timber has been increasing for decades, and the nation's forests have three times more wood today than in 1920. "We're not running out of wood, so why do we worry so much about recycling paper?" asks Jerry Taylor, the director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. "Paper is an agricultural product, made from trees grown specifically for paper production. Acting to conserve trees by recycling paper is like acting to conserve cornstalks by cutting back on corn consumption."
The piece by Chuck Leavell and Carlton Owen in the WSJ says:
Well-intentioned email taglines inspired by sincere desire to help the planet have become ubiquitous in recent times: "Please don't print this email," "Save trees: Print only when necessary," or "Please consider the environment before printing this email."However, the World Wildlife Fund has taken this to the extreme with a new nonprintable electronic document. Patterned after the highly successful PDF (Portable Document Format) that has revolutionized electronic document sharing and storage, the WWF format takes the decision away from you.
This tact is sure to frustrate and increase inefficiency, leaving some saying, "Wait a minute, I really needed to print that document!" What many folks don't realize is that it also may indirectly hasten the conversion of forests to other uses like strip malls, parking lots and housing developments--because the nation's forest landowners can't keep growing trees without markets for this natural, organic and renewable product.
Chuck's email tagline reads: "Notice: It's OK to print this email. Paper is a biodegradable, renewable, sustainable product made from trees. Growing and harvesting trees provides jobs for millions of Americans. Working forests are good for the environment and provide clean air and water, wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Thanks to improved forest management, we have more trees in America today than we had 100 years ago."
Now, understand that we don't advocate wanton waste of paper or any other material, but avoiding the print option does absolutely nothing to save the planet or forests. More forests are dying of insect infestation and disease or being paved over across this country right now than could be converted to an email print-out in a thousand years.
Silence: How Peaceful Muslims Collaborate With The Islamists
Qanta A. Ahmed writes in The Christian Science Monitor:
Decapitation has a way of clearing one's head. My invitation to a beheading came from former Israeli officer and counter-terrorism expert Richard Horowitz, who thought that if I watched a video of one in the security of his library, I would understand what he already knew: just how ferociously we in the West are hated. In the video, a Muslim boy beheads a man. The murderer is 10.I am a woman who practices medicine and Islam. Islam took me to Mecca and Hajj. Medicine took me to Riyadh and London. Each capital hosts communities espousing Islamist neo-orthodoxy. Both spawn violent jihadist ideologies. Listening to counter-terrorism experts and examining the ugly underbelly of contemporary radical Islamism has taught me what Muslims in Mecca, Riyadh, or London could not: the difference between Islam and Islamism.
Rep. Peter King (R) of New York's Senate hearings seek answers to these and other questions, while attacks of "Islamophobia" and "McCarthyism" threaten to suffocate this vital discourse. As a Muslim, watching Islamists at work lends me rare perspective. Mr. King's hearings offer the public this same perspective, just when it is needed most.
...In our silence, we are willing executioners, and diabolically, we essentially collaborate with the Islamists. We have a hand in Islamist's mutilation, a dismemberment as grotesque as the decapitation that set me upon this path.
We must be speak up, out loud The antidote is, like many medicines, hard to swallow: We must be bold, bolder than the boy with the knife. We must be bold at a time of fear. We must criticize, bear witness, and confront Islamist Muslims or the Islamist organizations claiming to speak for us. Be warned. They cry "Islamophobia!" while they suffocate only us. Just when "Islamophobia" seeks to smother debate, we must speak up, and out loud.
Decades into the monster of radical Islamism, Mr. Horowitz, and thoughtful others in his rank have been studying Islamists long before Muslims cared. It's time Muslims join in this grueling, thankless work. We must say what we see. Islamist martyrdom operations, suicide bombings, make-believe martyrdom as child's play - these, and others, are a Muslim's malady, maladies that can only be decapitated from within.
The problem actually is within the religion itself. It has a failsafe switch -- the fact that the Quran is to be taken literally and unquestioningly as the word of god. This doctor's piece is a positive thing -- but it seems she doesn't know her Quran very well. There are two Qurans, the Mecca Quran and the Medina Quran (the violent verses). At first, Mohammed preached peace -- because he had few followers and little power. After he gained power, and began mass-murdering and raping non-Muslims (and doing violence to anybody who had something or someone he wanted) the Quran changed its tone, and ordered violence upon non-Muslims. And the later, ugly and violent verses abrogate the earlier peaceful ones.
Commenter "static," who, it seems, does know the Quran, posts these verses on the site with the doctor's piece:
Which muslims do not have to follow the koran?"Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an." Tabari IX:113
"Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them." Koran 2:191
"Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood." Koran 9:123
"When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them." Koran 9:5
"Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable." Koran 3:85
"The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them." Koran 9:30
"Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam" Koran 5:33
"The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque." Koran 9:28
"Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies." Koran 22:19
"Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them." Koran 47:4
"The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them." Koran 8:65
"Muslims must not take the infidels as friends." Koran 3:28
"Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur'an." Koran 8:12
"Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels." Koran 8:60
Tell me who the "good" muslims are.
Dom, another commenter on Yahoo, has some wisdom to add:
Other religions, including Christianity, have had brutal and violent pasts, although I would argue that the use of suicide as a tactic against the innocent is unique to, and uniquely indicts, Islam (other religions have always lionized those who sacrifice their lives to save others - only Islam celebrates those who sacrifice themselves to kill others).However, we cannot judge the past by the standards of the present. Past misdeeds in the name of other religions do not excuse current misdeeds in the name of Islam. Only modern Islam, surely a religion in arrested development, retains this medieval culture of cruelty and death - from its overt and harsh misogyny, to its brutal treatment of supposed infidels, blasphemers and apostates, to its glorification of self-immolation in the service of death to others.
I have no love for any of the world's religions and I hope the day comes when humanity finally outgrows its addiction to these silly superstitions that have wrought so much misery. But in modern times at least, Islam is by far the worst of the lot. It is time to wake up and realize that we are at war, not with "terror" (a tactic of the enemy - the "weapon" of the weak against the strong, not the enemy itself), but with radical Islam and its desire to return the world to the Dark Ages.
Pastor Beaten And Tased By Border Patrol
He refused to answer their questions or be searched without probable cause, he said. And then they had a dog come over and sniff his car and they said the dog indicated that he had drugs or a human being in his car. He asked to see what the sign was from the dog and they refused to show them. See the rest on the video.
What did they find when they searched his car? NOTHING. Tools -- no drugs, no person.
The pastor's site is here. Via Lisa Simeone.
Chilling story. The more we allow our rights to be trampled on -- by the TSA and others -- the more and more we will hear stories like this one.
Police Report Made: Man Walking With Daughter In Park!
Just being a man and being in the presence of a child is enough to have people accuse you of criminal activity. Really depressing -- and sick. Via @freerangekids, a father took his daughter hiking:
We proceeded to walk through the park to the first waypoint and noticed nobody playing on the nearby playground and the only people in the park were a man and a woman playing with a tennis ball with their Golden Retriever.My daughter and I talked about the dog and how fast he was as we crossed the park grass about 50 feet from this couple. We went to the side of the park and found the location of the first waypoint immediately. We stood there and talked about a rabbit skeleton that was there nearby. We then sat down on the bench nearby to punch in the next coords. We next headed over to the trailhead at the park and proceeded to walk along it having fun talking about the nature around us and laughing.
...We were approaching my truck when I spotted a police car behind it with no one inside. Hmmm? We had just grabbed the cache behind my truck called "Speed Trap" that is named that because there are always police on that corner busting speeders.
I then am walking my daughter to the truck to head home and another police car drives by very slow looking at us. My daughter asks why all of the police are there, and I tell her it is probably because something happened nearby.
Now I am getting really suspicious the cops were called because of us! We drive home and meet my wife and some family friends at our house to get ready to all go out to dinner. That is when the cops arrive at my home.
They ask to speak to me and my daughter separately! They ask what I was doing with a little girl in the park, and I explain that the little girl is my daughter and we were walking the nature trail for fun and finding local geocaches. They then say they were called because I looked suspicious with a little girl walking on the trail and ask me to wait while they talk to my daughter! She tells them the exact same things as me. They then ask some of the standard procedure questions and say they will be in touch with any further questions if needed!?
This whole experience has been a total bummer on myself and my daughter. I was embarrased and upset in front of my wife and friends. I swear I look like my daughters father, and I am a normal looking 34 year old man (at least I think so). I was wearing a t-shirt, jeans, and hiking shoes.
Now my daughter has said she is scared the cops are going to arrest us for geocaching together! I told her it is OK, and they were just making sure we were safe on the trail. She is smarter than that though, and she has already said "Yeah right Dad!" I looked up on our local police dispatch website and found the notes of the actual call about us.
Cross streets: //PINECREST Landmark: PINECREST PARK NBH: 892E1 92692 33.65108,-117.639325 INF SAW A MALE SUBJ WALKING WITH A CHILD INTO THE REMOTE ARE THAT IS OFF THE TRAIL BEHIND THE SOCCER FIELD...INF NOT SURE IF THE CHILD BELONGS TO THE SUBJ...LS 10 AGO SUBJ IS MW, 30`s, DK BASEBALL HAT, DK SHIRT, DK PANTS CHILD IS FW WEARING ALL PINKI still haven't even logged our 8 finds that day. I have been bummed out on the whole thing. I understand being suspicious of people, but come on!? Oh well, thanks for letting me write my story and feelings about it out. Anybody else ever have anything like this happen to them and their kids?
The whole story is at the link. (They were geocaching, by the way, participating in a high-tech treasure hunt -- which is why he talks about their "8 finds" above.)
Are We Trying To Obliterate Qaddafi -- Or Tickle Him?
I'm not for our intervention at all, despite the President's masterful sales talk about how it really is in our direct national interest to take the creep out. But, as long as we're going in, Thomas Sowell gets that we're going in all wrong. At Real Clear Politics, Sowell writes:
You don't just walk up to the local bully and slap him across the face. If you are determined to confront him, then you try to knock the living daylights out of him. Otherwise, you are better off to leave him alone.Anyone who grew up in my old neighborhood in Harlem could have told you that. But Barack Obama didn't grow up in my old neighborhood. He had a much more genteel upbringing, including a fancy private school, in Hawaii.
Maybe that is why he thinks he can launch military operations against Moammar Qaddafi, while promising not to kill him and promising that no American ground troops will be used.
It is the old liberal illusion that you can measure out force with a teaspoon, not only in military operations micro-managed by civilians in Washington, like the Vietnam war, but also in domestic confrontations when the police are trying to control a rioting mob, and are being restrained by politicians, while the mob is restrained by nobody.
We went that route in the 1960s, and the results were not inspiring, either domestically or internationally.
The Myth Of Anti-Muslim Backlash
Jonathan S. Tobin whips out the hate crime stats at Commentary:
As I wrote in the October issue of COMMENTARY, FBI hate-crime statistics for the years 2000 to 2008 showed that not only were anti-Muslim bias crimes rare but that they were also far less numerous throughout this supposed period of a backlash than anti-Semitic bias crimes.The release of the latest FBI report on hate crimes this week adds more weight to the doubts raised about the mythical backlash against Muslims. The new statistics published on the U.S. Department of Justice website show that there were only 107 reported incidents of anti-Islamic hate crimes in the country during 2009. While each incident (not only actual crimes are reported, as the total published by the FBI includes all those reported or alleged without respect to whether or not the crime was proved to have occurred) is deplorable, this represents only 8 percent of all religious-based bias crimes and less than 2 percent of hate crimes tabulated last year.
Even more to the point, the number of anti-Jewish hate crimes dwarfed again the number of anti-Islamic attacks, as they have every year since such statistics were first kept: 931 anti-Semitic incidents, compared with 107 anti-Islamic incidents, a ratio of better than 8 to 1. The same was true in 2008, when the figures were 1,013 anti-Jewish incidents to 105 anti-Muslim incidents. Indeed, even in 2001, the worst year for anti-Muslim hate crimes, there were still more than twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as those with anti-Islamic motivations. Throughout this period, the vast majority of hate crimes motivated by religion have been directed against Jews, not Muslims.
Want to see some persecution? Be a Christian living in a Muslim majority.
"Do I Look Fat In This Car Crash?"
Nicola Twilley blogs at GOOD that the super-sizing of the US citizenry is leading to a need for fatter crash-test dummies -- adult and child:
Current child safety seats for kids between one and four years old are tested up to a maximum of 40 pounds, while belt-positioned booster seats, which protect kids weighing more than 40 pounds, are only safe for taller children aged four and above. The problem is that overweight and obese toddlers are reaching 40 pounds by the age of two and a half, which means that they are too heavy for the forward-facing safety seats and too young and short for the shoulder-best booster seat.This issue was supposed to be addressed as early as 2002, with "Anton's Law." Anton Skeen was a 50-pound four-year-old who died when his seat belt failed in a car crash in 1996. The Washington Post reports that, although Anton's Law required a lifelike, heavier crash test dummy to be developed within two years, "the 78-pound dummy is still in development nearly a decade later."
Cut carbs! Leave a skinny corpse!
Twitter Bullying Before Twitter
Via @SwearySocialist, found this funny.
Kinda Clear-ish And Present-ish (Maybe At Some Point) Danger
Nick Gillespie takes apart the President's justification for attacking Libya, "Lawyer-in-Chief Obama Explains Libyan War That Isn't a War":
American foreign policy has been drifting - comprising a series of ad hoc interventions absent a national consensus and lacking an underlying set of reliable, core principles - since at least the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.That drift continues with President Obama's speech about the war with Libya - and includes the simple fact that our commander in chief couldn't even acknowledge that we're in a war and that we've taken sides against a "tyrant murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world - including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents." (And with whom we reestablished diplomatic relations years ago.)
Dropping bombs, shooting missiles, deploying massive amounts of personnel and power - all of these are generally understood as acts of war. But Obama can't admit that we're waging war because then he would have to acknowledge what his critics correctly underscore: Constitutionally, he doesn't have a right to do this sort of thing unilaterally when the country isn't facing a clear and present danger.
...Obama's speech is filled with dodgy qualifiers and jesuitical flourishes, the gestures of a smart attorney defending a dubious client. Back in 2007, as a senator and candidate for president, Obama flatly told The Boston Globe, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Last night, he told the nation that elected him that the cause of action (not war) was "brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis."
...What we didn't hear last night was a clear set of principles that might shape debate and decision-making when it comes to foreign policy, especially military engagement. We can't, he said, "use our military wherever repression occurs," but we will whenever it reminds Obama's advisers enough of, what, Bosnia?
From the full text of the President's speech:
Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States.
But, should we be a friend with destroyers and war planes? I don't think so. I think we need to fix the broken U.N., and stop acting like the world's police dog.
P.S. It's called "The War Powers Resolution," not "The War Powers Suggestion."
Gerald Hart, Ph.D., On Why Sugar Is Toxic
Dr. Robert Lustig on how sugar is a poison:
Sugar both drives fat storage and makes the brain think it is hungry, setting up a "vicious cycle," according to Lustig.More specifically, it is fructose that is harmful, according to Lustig. Fructose is a component of the two most popular sugars. One is table sugar -- sucrose. The other is high-fructose corn syrup. High-fructose corn syrup has become ubiquitous in soft drinks and many other processed foods.
...Fructose is abundant in fruit. Fruit is fine, Lustig says, but we should think twice before drinking juice or feeding it to our kids. The fiber in whole fruit contributes to a sense of fullness. Lustig says it is rare to see a child eat more than one orange, but it is common for kids to consume much more sugar and calories as orange juice.
Eating fiber also results in less carbohydrate being absorbed in the gut, Lustig notes. In addition, he says, fiber consumption allows the brain to receive a satiety signal sooner than it would otherwise, so we stop eating sooner.
Exercise burns only a modest amount of calories, Lustig notes. But it does have other benefits. Exercise improves insulin sensitivity in skeletal muscle, lowering insulin levels in the bloodstream. Exercise reduces stress and, therefore, reduces stress-induced eating, according to Lustig. Lastly, exercise increases metabolic rate.
..."You are not what you eat; you are what you do with what you eat," Lustig concludes. "And what you do with fructose is particularly dangerous."
I don't eat fruit (it's unnecessary) or any sugar, save for a scoop of chocolate gelato that I eat about once a week.
via Dr. Eades
Keep Up The Crazy, PETA
Eric Marrapodi writes for CNN:
PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is calling for a more animal-friendly update to the Bible.The group is asking translators of the New International Version (NIV) to remove what it calls "speciesist" language and refer to animals as "he" or "she" instead of "it."
How about taking it to the next level and naming all the animals?
No biggie for me -- next time, I'll order a "rib-eye of Buster, rarer than rare." (That's my new secret -- "rarer than rare" -- to let the waiter and the kitchen know that I actually mean rare, as in, "just this side of 'still mooing.'")
Per Old RPM Daddy, Angela's comment on CNN:
Angela Wow, vegetables are living, too. How awful to kill and eat vegetables and take away their life. Every time you take a bit of a vegetable it kills the living cells that make it live and thrive. Cant' you hear the vegetables scream. Perhaps it is convenient that plants don't have blood; otherwise, vegetarians would be aware that they are taking a life when they eat. I think we should all eat dirt and rocks and other dead things. Then we would truly preserve life and not be hypocrites.
Douglas Murray: Muslim Intolerance Of Everyone But Muslims
Muslims have migrated to Europe and expect it to change rather than expecting to melt in:
Murray tells Muslims: "A society in which your deepest feelings can be trodden on is the only society worth living in..."
Inspiring speaker.
Pakistani Actress Tells Imam Accusing Her Of Immoral Behavior To Go Blow
Love her and her spirit and courage -- Veena Malik:
And how sad that we describe people who stand up to imams as "courageous," but, the truth is, there are often great personal costs to speaking out against Islam, and they include loss of life, maiming, or being forced to go into hiding.
Dancing In The Cellblock
Mark Bao is a geek who had his laptop stolen. And my kind of thief-nabbing hero. After he had his laptop stolen, he went to work: Bao posted on YouTube: "I fished out this video from my laptop's hard drive..." (he remotely accessed the hard drive from his "cloud" backup) -- and then he posted video on YouTube of the dipshit thief dancing.
At Valleywag, Max Read posts:
Don't steal laptops! And if you do steal a laptop, don't use its built-in camera to record yourself dancing to "Make It Rain," the way the fellow dancing to "Make It Rain" in the video above did.The computer he recorded this video on belongs to a young entrepreneur named Mark Bao. (Belonged?) Bao was able to access the storage cloud to which the laptop was backing up; there, he found the video, as well as enough browser history to identify the thief through Facebook.
"[T]he guy turned the laptop to the police this morning," Bao posted on Reddit, "and he sent me a heartfelt message asking me to remove the video."
The other dipshit in this is Max Read, the Valleywag blogger who added this:
Bao says he's not going to take the video down, which seems kind of mean (it's just a laptop! The guy learned his lesson!) but, well, as Bao points out, the kid who stole the laptop is "not in a position to bargain."
Asshat. He deserves jail on top of the embarrassment. Try to imagine how you'd feel if somebody stole your laptop. And everybody try to remember to back up all your shit so, if you get robbed, you don't get robbed of more than an expensive piece of electronics. (I back up to .mac and to a flash drive -- constantly.)
Here's the Reddit post, and here's the video of the dancing thief:
Here's the thieving dick's email to Bao (only thing missing is his name, which I, for sure would have posted):
Sorryhey Mark.
I am sorry for all that I have done. I would ask for forgiveness in person but I am not allow to go back on campus for what I did. I was being a dumbass for thinking I could get away with something like this. I hope I didn't cause you so much trouble over it either. I went to your school at 2 am so i can try to fix things. I left the laptop there with campus police. I left a statement and I am waiting on the detective to look over the police report to see what will happen to me. Like I have said. I am truely sorry for what I have done and I promise you and myself that it would not happen again. I am not this kind of person. I am a respectful person and I don't know why I did something like this. I am sorrry for that.
I know I am in no position for asking you for favors but Can you please put down the videos that you have put up of me. I know what I did was wrong and if i was a different person line leave it up but I do have two Professional Jobs that iif something like that gets leak I can get in morre trouble and be more embarress as well. So I will Ask for that huge favor.
lf you want we can meet up so I can say sorry in person. I feel like that would be a good idea. It would not change much but at least I can say I said it in person.
Sorry,
As I write in I See Rude People, because we're living vast strangerhoods and we don't have reputation as our concern the way we would have in smaller communities, we need to use the global village to bring back the shame there would have been for petty criminals in the small, local one.
Yay, Mark Bao!
via Consumerist
Maybe We Call Them "Public Servants"...
...Because the public is paying them so well, they can afford to have servants. Jason Song writes in the LA Times of new schools super John Deasy, who, commendably, is voluntarily accepting 17 percent less than the salary in his contract. And then I read what he is making and what he could be making!
The incoming Los Angeles schools superintendent told the Board of Education on Saturday to withhold part of his $330,000 salary because of serious projected budget shortfalls.In an email to his bosses, John Deasy said he had been meeting with employees to explain potential budget-cutting scenarios. Last month, the board approved sending preliminary layoff notices to almost 7,000 teachers.
"All of our work and plans for restoration are in serious peril," Deasy wrote. "This is remarkably painful and emotional. As such, given our current circumstances, at this time I respectfully will not accept the salary offered in your contract."
Deasy will not forgo his entire salary but will instead keep receiving the pay -- $275,000 -- he has been getting as deputy superintendent. The $55,000 difference represents a nearly 17% reduction.
$330,000? $275,000 is still nuts. And that's just salary, not the pension and other benefits we're going broke paying.
The U.S. Patent And Trademark And Political Correctness Office
That's effectively what they are. A band made up of a bunch of Asians wanted to take a piss out of an Asian slur and adopt it as their name -- which they did -- and then they wanted to protect their name with a trademark. Whoopsy. No go. Thanks to PC Uncle Sam. Ryan White writes in The Oregonian:
As a Portland-based rock band with a growing fan base and national ambitions, the Slants figured it wouldn't hurt to take care of some business interests. On the advice of their attorney, they decided to register their name through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Protect the brand. It seemed simple enough."It didn't occur to us at the time that there would be an issue with the name," says Simon Tam, the band's manager and bass player, who performs under the name Simon Young. As a band of Asian Americans who play to a fan base with a high percentage of Asian Americans why would they anticipate a problem?
One year, two rejections and a case file closing in on 200 pages later, it's clear there is an issue with the name. That issue is Section 2(a) of the 1946 Trademark Act. It says, in part, that a trademark can be rejected if it "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage ..."
In the estimation of the trademark office's examining attorney, the band name Slants fits the description. But it's a complicated issue with a history of conflicting outcomes: The Washington Redskins have been able to hold on to their trademark despite lawsuits from Native American groups; the rap group N.W.A has a trademark. But, like the Slants, Heeb Media was denied a trademark on the grounds of Section 2(a).
"We deserve the right to protect our name," Tam says. "In the larger sense, minorities should have the right to label themselves."
The band can still call themselves the Slants. What the band can't get are the legal protections of a federally registered trademark.
How Eades Came To Low Carb
Amazing story of Dr. Michael Eades' own weight gain and loss and how he realized that he needed to go against the medical orthodoxy at the time (and even still) to help patients get slim and healthy:
When I, myself, had gotten fat, I had tried a few diets that were then being extolled (including the Pritikin diet) and had experienced pretty much the same thing most people did with these diets: I lost a few pounds, drifted from the diet, and regained the lost weight plus a little. I then started thinking seriously about obesity as a medical problem, and, in an effort to learn all I could about it, I turned to the medical textbooks on my shelves. Unfortunately, none of them contained any information I found particularly enlightening. The texts went into great detail about the risks associated with obesity and the many diseases that it either caused or made worse, but, other than recommending caloric restriction, none really discussed the treatment. None really discussed (at least not to my satisfaction) what happens metabolically that makes people store excess fat.I next turned to physiology texts, which didn't help a lot, either. I then grabbed my old medical school biochemistry textbook (I hadn't been out of med school all that long at the time, so it was fairly current) and struck gold. I started tracing out all the pathways for fat storage and noticed that in virtually every one insulin turned up somewhere. Then I started reading about all the pathways involving insulin and realized that excess insulin had to be the agent driving the storage of excess fat. I then went back to the physiology texts, reread them in light of my new found knowledge, and discovered that they reinforced what I had learned from the biochemistry text. I just hadn't realized it, until I had made the insulin connection. (I drew out all the different pathways insulin worked through on piece of paper that we've saved, but I can't lay my hands on it right now. If I find it, I'll post it.)
This was long before the days of Google and online searches; in fact, it was at least two years before I owned my first computer. So I did what you did in those days: I trekked to the medical library at the med school, ran a search on insulin and obesity through their system, and came up with a handful of papers. The research into this field was quite new and sparse back then, but I learned about the newly proposed theory of insulin resistance, which answered my question as to why anyone would ever develop excess insulin levels in the first place.
Then I asked myself the big question: If I have too much insulin (and I was guessing I did - it wasn't something you measured in those days unless you were in a scientific lab), how do I get it down? There were only two conclusions. Don't eat. Or don't eat carbohydrates. The latter seemed to make a lot more sense over the long run.
I remembered the Atkins diet. I had read his book ten years before, but that was before I went to medical school and was while I was still rail thin. (Why did I read it? Because it was a huge bestseller, much in the news, and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.) I dug out my copy and reread it. Nowhere was insulin mentioned in the original book. He talked about some mysterious fat mobilizing substance (FMS, as he called it), which couldn't be insulin because insulin doesn't mobilize fat - it stores it. The references cited in the back of the Atkins book for FMS listed scientific papers written in German. But, by then, I was on to insulin, so I didn't bother trying to seek them out.
I decided to design a diet for myself with lowering insulin in mind. What I came up with (with MD's help) was the basis for what ultimately became Protein Power
. I lost weight like crazy. Many of my patients noticed my weight loss and started clamoring for me to help them to become thin.
More on the patients at the above link.
How To Be Fabulous In The Rain
I saw Melissa McEwen's tweet that she'd ordered this
Here are a few fab ones I found on Amazon for not a lot of dollars: Parisian Pagoda Parasol Umbrella
I've had one of these -- MoMA Sky Umbrella
Understanding Islam
It is not just like other religions. It is, when correctly practiced, a totalitarian system masquerading as a religion.
Khaled Ahmed writes about a book by Mobarak Haider delving into "the minutiae of collective Muslim narcissism" and "the Muslim mind." Now, granted, this does not describe how all Muslims are, just those who correctly practice Islam.
As I've said before, many Muslims in America are like Christmas Christians. They partake of the surface of Islam and practice it much in the way Jews and Christians practice their faith -- as a religion -- and apparently have no idea what evil the Quran commands. (And Quranic commands are to be taken literally -- this is not allegorical like the Bible...which is why you don't have people, per the Bible, slaughtering their neighbors for committing adultery, their children for talking back, and total strangers at the mall for the Biblical crime of mixing two different fabrics.)
An excerpt from Ahmed's piece on what Islam is that should open a few minds:
1) Islam is a complete code of life and offers solutions to all problems; 2) Every edict of Islam is eternal and applicable to all times; 3) Islam is the only truth and any other competing truth must mould itself according to Islam or be ready to be suppressed; 4) Muslims are under obligation to make Islam the supreme religion of the world as other religions are jahiliyya; 5) Muslims are the foremost nation in the world and the only one that will be allowed into Heaven; 6) Action taken to subjugate other civilisations is jihad and not terrorism.There are other 'collective' illusions contained in the edicts that follow: 7) Violence is interpreted as jihad, but then jihad is supposed to be the personal obligation of Muslims and not the state; 8) Any deviation from the prevailing dogma is non-belief or kufr; in more mitigating conditions, it is at least heresy; 9) The best knowledge is knowledge of religion and the ulema are the best among men, which means that no one can think about religion on his own; 10) No one can become a scholar of Islam except by accepting the dogma and obeying the edicts of tradition.
Lovely, huh?
Look In Your Pants And See If There's A Penis In There...
One attached to your body, that is, Lady.
I got an e-mail from a woman who's simply IRATE that her husband is going to a birthday party for a married guy friend of theirs, and it's been deemed "Guys Only."
She writes:
He didn't even bother to ask why the other wives and I weren't invited. He also doesn't understand why I am upset. Is he wrong for going anyway (and apparently not caring)?
I'm always a bit dumbfounded by questions like this -- and plan to answer this one for the column.
But, a question for you: How does a woman end up thinking she's entitled to go on GUYS' night out -- or that demanding it would be a good thing for her marriage?
Obama Admin Shreds First Amendment To Stop Bullying
Hans Bader writes at the Wash Ex:
...Administration officials are trying to stretch the federal law against sex discrimination, Title IX, to outlaw bullying aimed at gay and lesbian youth, although the Administration has no statutory basis for doing so.In essence, as I explain over at Minding the Campus, they have invented a federal law against bullying of gay youth, although Congress has yet to pass a ban on either homophobia or bullying. To do this, they have so stretched the definition of sexual harassment as to create a serious conflict with the First Amendment and federal court rulings, as I explain in greater detail at this link.
Federal law doesn't ban bullying as such - that is a matter addressed by state law. All states ban assault and battery, and some states have laws specifically aimed at bullying in the schools.
If the federal government were to criminalize bullying in general, that would violate limits on federal power, and federalism principles.
...In its zeal to invent a remedy for bullying of LGBT youth, the Obama Administration has shredded each of these limits on school liability for harassment. It also says that schools must take "systemic" responses that harm innocent students, like putting the entire student body through sensitivity training in some cases where only a few students were proven to be perpetrators.
...Schools lack such broad control over students' speech outside of school, such as on Facebook or on the Internet. Moreover, the First Amendment applies with added force to students' speech outside of school, meaning that vulgar speech that is banned in school may be protected speech when it occurs away from school, as cases like Klein v. Smith (1986) illustrate.
Links are all live at the link above.
I was bullied as a child. In junior high, when it got really intense, when I was followed around by a small gang of girls who threw chairs in my path and spit anti-semitic insults at me, I told my parents, and my father went to the principal, and it stopped. No Federal laws needed -- just a daddy to stick up for me.
The Case For "You Do It!"
Steyn writes about our foray into Libya:
Who doesn't enjoy volunteering other people? The Arab League, for reasons best known to itself, decided that Col. Gadhafi had outlived his sell-by date. Granted that the region's squalid polities haven't had a decent military commander since King Hussein fired General Sir John Glubb half-a-century back, how difficult could it be even for Arab armies to knock off a psychotic transvestite guarded by Austin Powers fembots? But no: Instead, the Arab League decided to volunteer the U.S. military.Likewise, the French and the British. Libya's special forces are trained by Britain's SAS. Four years ago, President Sarkozy hosted a state visit for Col. Gadhafi, his personal security detail of 30 virgins, his favorite camel and a 400-strong entourage that helped pitch his tent in the heart of Paris. Given that London and Paris have the third- and fourth-biggest military budgets on the planet and that between them they know everything about Gadhafi's elite troops, sleeping arrangements, guard-babes and dromedaries, why couldn't they take him out? But no: They, too, decided to volunteer the U.S. military.
...As in Kosovo, we're do-gooders in a land with no good guys. But, unlike Kosovo, not only is there no strategic national interest in what we're doing, the intended result is likely to be explicitly at odds with U.S. interests. A quarter-century back, Gadhafi was blowing American airliners out of the sky and murdering British policewomen: That was the time to drop a bomb on him. But we didn't. Everyone from the Government of Scotland (releasing the "terminally ill" Lockerbie bomber, now miraculously restored to health) to Mariah Carey and Beyonce (with their million-dollar-a-gig Gadhafi party nights) did deals with the Colonel.
Now suddenly he's got to go - in favor of "freedom-loving" "democrats" from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya - which, according to West Point's Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less-attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.
Has Anybody Seen Our Priorities?
Finally, more and more people are coming around to "no nation-building"; at least not until we get a few things built, or built back up, in our own nation. I think we need to stop acting like the America of decades past and notice that we're now the America that's owned by the Chinese. Bob Herbert writes in The New York Times:
So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home.Welcome to America in the second decade of the 21st century. An army of long-term unemployed workers is spread across the land, the human fallout from the Great Recession and long years of misguided economic policies. Optimism is in short supply. The few jobs now being created too often pay a pittance, not nearly enough to pry open the doors to a middle-class standard of living.
Arthur Miller, echoing the poet Archibald MacLeish, liked to say that the essence of America was its promises. That was a long time ago. Limitless greed, unrestrained corporate power and a ferocious addiction to foreign oil have led us to an era of perpetual war and economic decline. Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone.
The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.
Nearly 14 million Americans are jobless and the outlook for many of them is grim. Since there is just one job available for every five individuals looking for work, four of the five are out of luck. Instead of a land of opportunity, the U.S. is increasingly becoming a place of limited expectations.
The place we need to limit ourself, for starters, is in the "Let's have a foreign war that's of no direct interest to us!" department. Next we need to cut spending.
Also, regarding our forays into the Middle East, haven't we learned yet? You can't spread democracy like it's peanutbutter!
Celebrate Modernity, You Idiots
It's turn out the lights night in the daffy state of California -- from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. tonight (It's 9:16 pm as I'm posting this). Ridiculous people are doing this in celebration of a ridiculous event called "Earth Hour," much like those silly "put on a red ribbon to stop some disease" days. (Scientific research, not uglying up your outfit with a safety-pinned-on ribbon, is what cures or halts disease.)
Here's the LA Times' Ruben Vives on what's happening tonight:
Notable Southern California landmarks such as the glowing pylons at Los Angeles International Airport and the Queen Mary in Long Beach will go dark between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. Saturday night in observance of international "Earth Hour."Millions of people from more than 100 countries and territories are expected to participate in the event by switching off lights and nonessential appliances in order to conserve energy and demonstrate an awareness of environmental conservation.
At LAX, the 100-foot-tall pylons will glow solid green an hour before the event and then go dark, according to airport officials. The color-changing LAX Gateway pylons were installed in August 2000. Five years later, airport workers installed a new system of LED fixtures that consume 75% less electricity than the previous lamps and burn for 75,000 to 100,000 hours, compared to 3,000 hours for the original lights, according to airport officials.
...In Santa Monica, the famous Pacific Wheel on the city's pier will go dark. The ferris wheel's emergency lights will remain on.
I love those lights -- at the airport and on that ferris wheel. They make the skyline exciting. And I love the light show that is Times Square. We can have these spectaculars because it's 2011, and not 1611. If it were, it would be wise to use candles -- or ride your goat until you get somewhere where it's daybreak.
Sure, I try to save energy and conserve in general (I drive a 2004 Honda Insight hybrid and spent $198 on gas for all of 2010), but this is just a bullshit idea that will make people feel like they're doing something -- for an hour -- while making the Santa Monica Pier gloomy and unspectacular and making it less cool to go onto Lincoln and drive north from the airport. Meanwhile, I've got the lights on here, and the computer all aglow, and I am in no mood to churn butter, spin wool into a sweater if I'm cold, or go milk a cow when I want a piece of cheese.
How To Avoid Repeat Business
Robert W. of Pelalusa took this photo at the LA Westin. Check out the note on the bottom:
Obama's Popularity Now Rivaling That Of George Bush
A photo of Sri Lankan Muslims showing their appreciation for "Hope and Change."
Now They Want Banks To Pay People To Walk Out On Their Mortgages?
Tom Braithwaite writes at CNBC.com that FDIC chairman Sheila Bair suggested, in a meeting with banks, that they pay defaulting home mortgage holders $21K each:
People who attended the meeting, chaired by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Monday, said the industry-wide "cash for keys" program would involve the biggest servicers, led by Bank of America, paying borrowers as an incentive to leave their homes.Banks would pay borrowers who are more than 90 days behind on mortgage payments up to $1,000 to seek independent financial advice and up to $20,000 in cash as a "fresh start" payment towards living costs in a new home. They would have to vacate their properties quickly and leave them in good condition.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage guarantors, and private investors who own mortgage loans were also mentioned as possible providers of cash in the scheme. Eligible borrowers would likely include some, but not all, of the 4.8 million who are more than 90 days in arrears.
...Some banks already pay some borrowers to vacate their homes because it proves cheaper and quicker than a court-ordered eviction but payments are generally much smaller.
Union organizer Stephen Lerner was caught on tape suggesting that large numbers of homeowners go on strike and stop paying their mortgage until the banks agree to negotiate and modify loans.
Now She's Just A Mommy
Some apparently unbylined woman posted on ParentsConnect:
I'm a very good mother. But I'm a terrible wife....It wasn't always like this. My husband and I were together for 12 years before our son was born. That's a pretty long love affair by any standard. And it was a love affair. But then this thing happened. We had a baby. And overnight it went from all about us to all about him--him being our son.
My husband says the problem is mine. There simply isn't enough of me to go around. But when I'm being completely honest with myself, I admit that it goes deeper than that. How deep, exactly, I don't know. Balance is definitely a piece of it. But there are other things, too. Like the fact that I no longer have the energy to connect with my husband on the level that we connected before we became parents.
Never mind making an effort to be a wife to the guy. Just shrug and say you're not.
"Uncle Sam Groped My Tits"
Simply great shirt along these lines vis a vis TSA gropings (no, wearing underwire is NOT probable cause). If I wore tee shirts, I'd wear this one.
Via @DWatney
Mommy Track Without Shame
Virginia Postrel's latest WSJ column, taking a look at the late Felice Schwartz' 1989 Harvard Biz Review controversial piece, "Management Women and the New Facts of Life," popularly and derisively retitled "The Mommy Track":
Ms. Schwartz, who died in 1996, began with the idea that not all professional women are alike. Some focus primarily on careers, making "the same trade-offs traditionally made by the men who seek leadership positions." But most want children, and once they have kids, these "talented and creative" women, "are willing to trade some career growth and compensation for freedom from the constant pressure to work long hours and weekends."Instead of treating such women as pathetic losers to be jettisoned for a new crop of recruits, she argued, companies should recognize them as a "precious resource." Such women could bring experience, continuity and talent to middle-management jobs traditionally occupied by short-termers on their way up or "mediocre" men whose ambitions outstripped their ability.
To retain these productive women, wise employers should offer more flexibility, including part-time arrangements. This accommodation would, in most cases, mean slower promotions and lower pay. But, Ms. Schwartz maintained, "most career-and-family women are entirely willing to make that trade-off."
You just couldn't say so in public. Lower pay for less work offended the reigning idea of a serious career. Ms. Schwartz, critics charged, wanted to consign women to "dead-end jobs."
By the late 1980s, however, younger women--those in college--had already begun talking about their futures in new ways. Harvard economist Claudia Goldin recalls that, unlike her own cohort of early baby boomers, these younger women didn't plan to postpone family life while pursuing career goals. They wanted "'CAREERANDFAMILY' or 'FAMILYANDCAREER,' as if the words were not three but one and as if the timing of the two goals would not be an issue," she recounts in a 2004 article.
Those ambitions produced the angst and absolutism of the mommy wars. But, Prof. Goldin concludes from survey data, women who graduated in the 1980s were much more likely than their predecessors to achieve that once-elusive combination. By the time they turned 40, between 21% and 27% had both careers and children--up from 13% to 18% among women who graduated between 1966 and 1979. (About three-quarters of both groups had kids.)
Remy: Why They Fought
My kinda tune, via @RadleyBalko:
Mrs. Robinson Again
Does it ever work, the relationship between the 45- or 50-year-old woman and the 20-to-25-year-old guy?
I got an email from a woman who's with a young guy -- she's about 50, I think, and he's 26. They've been together six years. Cracks are starting to form. He's wanting to have sex with other women, which he never did -- went straight into a relationship with Mrs. Robinson.
Government Between Your Ass Cheeks And In Your Gas Tank
Dan Mitchell blogs at Cato:
I commented yesterday about the silly idea, being promoted by a few politicians, to impose a tax on toilet paper. That post mostly was an opportunity to have some fun mocking greedy government because even a dour pessimist like me doesn't expect that idea to get very far.But there's a new tax idea that sounds equally absurd, but actually is a much greater threat to taxpayers. The bureaucrats at the Congressional Budget Office have issued a report suggesting a tax based on the number of miles driven. Since such a tax almost surely (despite initial assertions to the contrary) would be in addition to existing gas taxes, this would be a way for politicians to grab more of our money.
He points out that imposing a tax like this would mean that the government would have to make us install a device to track our vehicle usage. (Privacy has become so 1790. And yes, I'm talking about the government searching you without a crime being committed, just so they can suck you for more money.)
Tax Me Like G.E.!
G.E. made $5.1 billion in the U.S. -- tax-free, writes David Kocieniewski in The New York Times, via MSNBC:
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
..Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.'s giant tax department, led by a bespectacled, bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world's best tax law firm. Indeed, the company's slogan "Imagination at Work" fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.
While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.
Our tax system is a serious mess and needs fixing. I'm a small governmenter -- for lower taxes and better business environments -- but if the rest of us are paying for big government, big companies shouldn't be able to game the system like this.
How Many Of Your Dollars It Cost The Government To Lie To You
From a WSJ editorial about the Porter-Novelli-created ads featuring Andy Griffith that ran last year praising Obamacare -- costing us $3.5 million in air time and other costs:
The "Matlock" eminence rendered his services pro bono, but Porter Novelli didn't. The media consulting firm racked up 668 billable hours and earned $404,384.40 producing the spots, according to documents released by the outside GOP advocacy group Crossroads GPS through the Freedom of Information Act.At least Porter Novelli didn't charge taxpayers for fact-checking. Among Mr. Griffith's many deceptive claims, he tells his fellow seniors that their Medicare benefits won't change (they will, most immediately in Medicare Advantage) and that ObamaCare strengthens the program's finances (it doesn't, according to the chief Medicare actuary). Lovable ol' Andy of Mayberry then says "that new health-care law sure sounds good" to him, in a transparent bid to win over senior voters in advance of the 2010 election.
The next time the President wants to run misleading ads ahead of an election, he might hit up the Democratic Party or use his bully pulpit, rather than passing the bill to taxpayers.
Cheap Terror
Even Muslim terrorists know Detroit is suckville. "Detroit Was Cheapest Ticket for Failed Underwear Bomber," was the headline I saw on Slate:
An investigation into the planned Christmas 2009 al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula attack reveals that suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab initially wanted to target Houston or Chicago, but settled on Detroit because airfare was cheaper.
I heard on the radio the other day that the population count in the city of Detroit is the lowest it's been since around 1910. Luckily, it's not a plane-load less, thanks to the bumbling stupids like the pantybomber, raised on the sort of science promoted by Islam.
You get some Jews trying to blow up a plane, and they'll take out the entire airport and the surrounding counties. Luckily, jihad isn't a Jewish thing.
Senators Want To Nix Drunk Driving Checkpoint Apps
From Consumerist, a post by MB Quirk:
After four senators requested that smartphone software vendors to stop selling apps that allow users to report and find drunk-driving checkpoints, the makers of those applications are defending themselves, saying they actually help police, and not drunkies out on the road.Democratic Senators Harry Reid of Nevada, Charles Schumer of New York, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Udall of New Mexico sent a letter to smartphone software vendors Apple, Google and Research In Motion Tuesday, asking them to stop selling DUI checkpoint apps, reports Computer World.
But companies like PhantomALERT, one of those targeted by the senators, say that the more reports by drivers of those checkpoints, the more likely people are to reconsider drunk driving in the first place.
RIM has said they'll remove the apps.
My thinking (which I left in a comment on Consumerist):
Why should we not be notified that we will be pulled over without probable cause? My boyfriend was pulled over in Santa Monica while driving me and two girlfriends of mine home from a journalism event. He wasn't drunk (or even tipsy) but it was extremely upsetting for him to have a policeman wave us into the Santa Monica Civic Center lot and stick a flashlight in his face and question him. Now, had he been weaving, that would be one thing. Simply driving down Fourth Street is not probable cause -- any more than wearing underwire should be at the airport.Oh, and PS They usually let you know where the stops are, but we didn't see the notification. Apps are just another form of notification.
What's Your Biggest Regret?
Tara Parker-Pope asked that question at NYTimes.com, inspired by a survey:
Researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign collected data from 370 adults in the United States during a telephone survey. They asked respondents to describe one memorable regret, explaining what it was, how it happened and whether their regret stemmed from something they did or didn't do.The most common regret involved romance, with nearly one in five respondents telling a story of a missed love connection. The second most common regret involved family issues, with 16 percent of respondents expressing regret about a family squabble or having been unkind to a sibling as a child.
Other top regrets involved education (13 percent), career (12 percent), money issues (10 percent), parenting mistakes (9 percent) and health regrets (6 percent), according to the study, to be published in the journal Social Psychological & Personality Science.
I'm not a very regretful person, so I'm going to have to think about this and see if I can come up with something tomorrow. I tend to live life pretty fully, and try not to hurt people. I regret times I've inadvertently hurt people, and I regret that I didn't get diagnosed with ADHD and take Ritalin far sooner (like, in high school instead of in my 30s), but that's not really a regret that belongs to me, but more to circumstance.
When people talk about missed romantic connections, I'm sure there were some I missed, but the goal of living fully probably meant I did that a lot less. So, eight years ago, when I saw Gregg at the iPod display (all tall and guy-guy, wearing his shirt with the mange and his smart guy glasses), I said something -- instead of just thinking, "He's cute" and walking away.
When I was trying to get a job where I could learn about production and get paid right out of college and nobody at Ogilvy & Mather (which had the best production dept. in New York) would respond to my letters, I took the subway up there and tried to sneak in. I got caught by the guard and sent right back out the door, where I stood in the August heat, wondering what to do, and then I had an idea: I waited for somebody important-looking to walk out. This man did -- with a shock of gray hair cascading down his forehead and this Dr. Zhivago shirt and seersucker businessman pants. I followed him to Fifth Avenue, squeaked out, "Do you work at Ogilvy & Mather?"
Yes, he did, he said. I asked him to "give my resume to somebody who can do something with it." And a week later I had an interview with the head of production, who saw my cute student film I made at NYU undergrad (where I went to finish college after three years at University of Michigan), and they hired me. The man I stopped? Norman Berry, head of creative for Ogilvy Worldwide.
And then, after I quit Ogilvy but was still giving free advice on the street corner with my two friends from the agency, a reporter named Eric Messenger wrote a piece about us in The New York Times "Styles" section, and I ran with it, and got us a TV deal with De Niro, a book deal, an entertainment lawyer, and a column in the New York Daily News. And then, when no syndicators would pick up my column ("Ann Landers and Dear Abby have all the real estate -- you'll never make any money"), I spent years and years mailing out samples of my work and syndicated it to 70 papers all by myself.
Basically, I live without taking no for an answer or giving in to fears, and try to figure out what I want to do and how to make it happen instead of what I can do. (Sometimes that takes finding the guts to do it -- or just making myself do it when it scares the shit out of me.)
Also, I try to look pretty continually to see where I'm being an asshole and try to be better. And I make plenty of mistakes but they're part of my life and I try to learn from them. Sometimes, the mistakes turn out to be helpful. The way I see it, they aren't to be rued (it's senseless -- they're in the past); they just are.
Actually, after writing that, in reading the comments below the piece, I think this commenter at the NYT site gets at why I don't have regrets:
Alex Lickerman, M.D. Chicago March 23rd, 2011 8:53 am A great survey, but one that doesn't get at an important core issue: why do we regret things at all? Regret, it seems to me, is premised on the notion that we have the ability to know, or at the very least we suspect, that had we only chosen a different path from the one we actually did our life wouldn't have merely turned out differently, but better. We idealize the road not taken, imagining only the good things that would have resulted from our taking it, conveniently leaving out the bad that accompanies almost every choice, if not the bad that occurs simply as a result of remaining alive while time passes. Would any of the people in the survey have turned out with better lives--happier lives--had they made choices different from those they now regret? Most likely not.
Here's one from the comments that struck me:
Ella Washington, D.C. March 23rd, 2011 4:24 pm I had to make a connection on a flight home and a man on the plane asked me to get off with him. I didn't because my bag was checked through. He looked so hurt. I always have regreted that!
Your regrets? Your thoughts? And here's a question: Do you regret having regrets?
We Should Not Be The World's Police Dog
Julian Sanchez' thinking mirrors mine. He writes at Cato on "Libya, Limited Government, and Imperfect Duties":
Glenn Greenwald observes that we're hearing a familiar false dilemma from advocates of intervention in Libya--the same one that was trotted out so frequently in the run-up to the war in Iraq: Either you support American military action, or you must be indifferent to the suffering of civilians under Qadaffi. Bracket for a moment the obvious empirical questions about the general efficacy of bombs as reliable means of alleviating suffering. What I find striking is the background assumption that whether the United States military has a role to play here is taken to be a simple function of how much we care about other people's suffering. One obvious answer is that caring or not caring simply doesn't come into it: That the function of the U.S. military is to protect the vital interests of the United States, and that it is for this specific purpose that billions of tax dollars are extracted from American citizens, and for which young men and women have volunteered to risk their lives. It is not a general-purpose pool of resources to be drawn on for promoting desirable outcomes around the world.A parallel argument is quite familiar on the domestic front, however. Pick any morally unattractive outcome or situation, and you will find someone ready to argue that if the federal government plausibly could do something to remedy it, then anyone who denies the federal government should act must simply be indifferent to the problem. My sense is that many more people tend to find this sort of argument convincing in domestic affairs precisely because we seem to have effectively abandoned the conception of the federal government as an entity with clear and defined powers and purposes.
And his thinking mirrors a Bastiat line I'm reminded of more and more these days -- that just because we don't think government should be doing a particular thing doesn't me we are opposed to it being done at all. Actually, I'll quote him:
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." -- Frédéric Bastiat (The Law)
Junk Science In Child Sex Trafficking Study
Unbelievable methodology -- utter crap, in fact -- accepted unquestioningly by government and others. Deborah Richardson, the chief program officer of the Women's Funding Network, told legislators that juvenile prostitution is exploding at an astronomical rate. What's actually exploding is the level of bullshit people will believe after hearing or reading the word "study." (All studies are flawed; some just have fewer or smaller flaws, and it's best to look at a body of work instead of at a single study.) Nick Pinto writes in The Village Voice:
None of the media that published Richardson's astonishing numbers bothered to examine the study at the heart of her claim. If they had, they would have found what we did after asking independent experts to examine the research: It's junk science.After all, the numbers are all guesses.
The data are based merely on looking at photos on the Internet. There is no science.
Eric Grodsky, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota who teaches about proper research construction, says that the study is fundamentally flawed.
"The method's not clean," Grodsky says. "You couldn't get this kind of thing into a peer-reviewed journal. There are just too many unanswered questions about their methodology."
Ric Curtis, the chairman of the Anthropology Department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, led a Justice Department-funded study on juvenile prostitution in New York City in 2008. He's highly skeptical of the claims in the Women's Funding Network's study.
"I wouldn't trust those numbers," Curtis says. "This new study seems pretty bogus."
In fact, the group behind the study admits as much. It's now clear they used fake data to deceive the media and lie to Congress. And it was all done to score free publicity and a wealth of public funding.
"We pitch it the way we think you're going to read it and pick up on it," says Kaffie McCullough, the director of Atlanta-based anti-prostitution group A Future Not a Past. "If we give it to you with all the words and the stuff that is actually accurate--I mean, I've tried to do that with our PR firm, and they say, 'They won't read that much.'"
A Future Not a Past is a product of the Atlanta Women's Foundation, the Juvenile Justice Fund, and Harold and Kayrita Anderson's foundation. To measure the amount of juvenile prostitution in the state, the consortium hired the Schapiro Group, an Atlanta business-consulting operation.
The Schapiro Group members weren't academic researchers, and had no prior experience studying prostitution. In fact, the group was best known for research paid for by the American Chamber of Commerce Executives. The study found--surprise--that membership in the Chamber of Commerce improves a business's image.
The consultants came up with a novel, if not very scientific, method for tabulating juvenile prostitutes: They counted pictures of young-looking women on online classified sites.
"That's one of the first problems right there," Grodsky says. "These advertisers are in the business of making sales, and there's a market for young-looking women. Why would you trust that the photographs are accurate?"
In other words, the ads, like the covers of women's magazines, are relentlessly promoting fantasy. Anyone who has tried online dating understands the inherent trouble with trusting photographs.
Even if the person placing the advertisement is the one in the picture, there's no telling how old the photo is, says David Finkelhor, the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.
"How do you know when the pictures were taken?" Finkelhor asks. "It's not illegal for an 18-year-old who's selling sex to put up a picture of herself from when she was 16."
I have a friend who's been seeing escorts in the wake of his marriage breaking up. About half the time, with the girls he's tried, a girl not pictured or who was not the one he spoke to on the phone has shown up.
An Offer I Can Refuse, But Find Somewhat Amusing
Got this email with most excellent grammar and spelling:
SUBJECT: We can write article on your topics(without cost )Hi ,
This is Jessica carolin
We do provide a unique article on your topics suggested relevant on your interest at no cost.No duplication or copying of the article is done. we Write contents exclusively for your site on demand. We also give Copy rights for articles to your site on security base.
Articles which we providing
* Will be unique.
* Will not be redistributed to other sites.
* You will own the entire copyrights.In return we just need simple 2 text links from your site or blog.
Awaiting for your reply...
Regards,
Jessica
What do you make of this?
When Businesses Blow It
I saw this entry at Consumerist:
Sephora Replaces Fancy Skin Care Stuff Broken In Mail, No Questions Asked
My comment:
Sephora does smart business. Sure, they're likely to get taken by the unscrupulous few, but that's probably a small price compared to what they make in dividends from customer goodwill. And don't discount the effect that has on their employees. It's awful to work for a company where the customers are mad at you.
I'll ask you the question Consumerist asked:
Tell Us About Your "Never Again" Moments:How far does a business need to go before you not only make the oft-spoken declaration that you'll never shop/eat/order from there again, but that you actually follow through and take away your business permanently?
So, tell us yours -- and name names and give details.
Anus A Shame
Is that the next place the TSA's going to search before you board a plane? Johnny-come-libertarian Bob Barr blogs at the AJC, "Power to strip search passengers claimed by Feds":
In a breathtaking statement delivered in an official court proceeding, the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims authority to strip search every airline passenger; and to begin such a practice without even soliciting comment from the public.This outrageous statement recently was delivered to the American people by a DHS lawyer in arguments before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is considering a challenge to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) nude body scanner devices. The suit was brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
Currently TSA, which is a component of DHS, claims authority to subject passengers to either an intrusive hand searches or to x-ray scans that reveal a nude image of the passengers' bodies. Many, including this author and EPIC, consider such searches unconstitutional as violative of the the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches, because they are being conducted without any suspicion at all that such passengers are attempting to bring weapons or explosives on board commercial aircraft.
Via @AdamKissel at free speech defender theFIRE.org.
Shermer Scams The Scammers
Hilarious story, with pix!
Debunking Dumbthink About Herbal Remedies
Harriet Hall writes at Science Based Medicine:
Arguments in favor of herbal remedies include:•They're natural. (So what? Strychnine is natural.)•They're safer than prescription drugs. (Maybe some are, some aren't; how would you know?)
•They're milder than prescription drugs. (That would depend on the dosage of active ingredient.)
•They're less likely to cause side effects. (When they have been as well studied as prescription drugs, they may turn out to have just as many or more side effects. All effective drugs have side effects, and if an herbal medicine has fewer side effects it might have fewer therapeutic effects too. Formal systems for reporting adverse effects have long been in place for prescription drugs; not so for herbal remedies.)
•They're different from prescription drugs. (Some are identical to prescription drugs, like red yeast rice which contains the same ingredient as prescription lovastatin; and some herbal products have been found contaminated with prescription drugs.)
•They're less expensive. (True, but is a cheaper, inferior product a good bargain?)
•They're easier to obtain. (True, you don't have to make an appointment with a doctor; but that means you don't get the benefit of a doctor's knowledge.)
•The mixture of ingredients in a plant can have synergistic effects. (This is widely claimed but almost never substantiated. The other ingredients are just as likely to counteract the desired effect or to cause unwanted adverse effects.)
•For every disease, God has provided a natural remedy. (Perhaps this is a comforting thought for believers, but it is not based on any evidence and is not convincing to atheists and agnostics. And it doesn't help us find that natural remedy.)
•Even when an herbal remedy works, finding a safe and reliable source is problematic.
Horror stories abound:
•Contaminants (such as heavy metals, pesticides, carcinogens, toxic herbs, and insect parts).•Wild variation in content (from no active ingredient to many times the amount on the label).
•Mislabeled products that contain an entirely different herb.
The idea that because something is natural means it's good is called "the naturalistic fallacy," and sure, there's plenty wrong in modern medicine, starting with all the doctors who have been making their patients fat and sick and dead in the name of health by telling them to eat a high-carb, low-fat diet. At least, however, medicine starts from the premise that there should be evidence -- as opposed to "Ancient Chinese Secret!"
"Why Fukushima Made Me Stop Worrying And Love Nuclear Power"
George Monbiot goes all sensible on us in The Guardian on nuclear power:
You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.
Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.
If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.
Raddy...(Raddy is our nuclear power expert)...I've had a crazy week, but feel free to post what you sent me (in e-mail I have yet to get to) about nuclear power. Or anything else you can tell us. Learned a lot from your comments on one of the last ones about nuclear energy, which I'm strongly in favor of.
TSA Thuggery As "Security" Extends Onto The Plane
Via Lisa Simeone, the government's agents think little of your rights that they openly seek to protect their wounded pride under the guise of "security." Mary L.G. Theroux writes in the Statesman-Journal:
Entering security, I was motioned towards the backscatter screening machine. Having read warnings of potential serious health risks from scientists at the University of California San Francisco and Columbia University, I refused, and told the TSA agents why.As I then complied with the "enhanced pat-down" procedure, I simultaneously carried on a loud vocal protest of the unreasonableness of the search and the gross violation of my rights. Meanwhile, my adult stepson, who had preceded me through security via the "regular" metal detector, was seated on a bench a few feet away and took out his cell phone to record the proceedings.
A TSA agent stood in front of him and ordered him to stop. When asked on what authority, the agent responded that it was against their "procedures" -- in contradistinction to the TSA's own website stating that such recording is not prohibited. After some further exchange, my stepson complied and put his cell phone away, my "pat-down" was completed, and we went on our way.
We were therefore surprised when, 10 minutes prior to take-off, a uniformed TSA Supervisor, two uniformed TSA agents, and a plain-suited Supervisory Transportation Security Officer (TSO) made their way down the aisle of the fully-loaded plane to where we were seated and ordered us to go with them.
As I protested, the Supervisory TSO told the TSA Supervisor that all they needed were our names and flight information, and I handed him our boarding passes. The TSA Supervisor officiously insisted we had to get off the plane with them, and not wishing to miss the flight, now even nearer take-off, we accompanied them to the jet-way, where another plain-suited man and a baggage handler waited, who left as I continued my verbal protest of the proceedings.
As the TSA Supervisor took down our drivers license information, I recorded their names from their security badges, and we were eventually allowed to re-board.
Yet the entire incident could have served no legitimate purpose -- they had already established beyond a reasonable doubt, utilizing their own "enhanced" screening methods, that we posed no danger, and we had been easily approachable in the boarding area for at least 25 minutes prior to boarding the plane. I could thus only conclude that it had been staged for the sole purpose of demonstrating to the entire captive audience of passengers that those who do not comply quietly will be made examples of.
The danger is that we get used to these abuses as part of daily life in America. As I like to say, it isn't probable cause...wearing underwire! And I resent having to wear bad bras with plastic guts (instead of my nice French Empreinte
(And side note: No, I didn't pay anywhere near that much for this bra when I bought it on special at Galeries Lafayette in France!...which is why I buy my bras when I'm there. Luckily, these bras are so incredibly made that they last for years...so they actually could end up being cheaper than cheapo bras, and they're about the best thing I've found for girls with actual breasts...in quantity. You know, the kind that bounce when you're on the treadmill instead of staying straight up and at attention like two missiles. We see a lot of that around these parts...not that I go to a gym or run on a treadmill or anywhere else these days.)
(Yet Another) Senator Scummy
Taxes are for other people. The little people. Until the big people get caught. From The Weekly Standard, Claire McCaskill not only didn't pay $287K in property taxes on her co-ownership of a plane, she improperly billed taxpayers for the use of it, for which she reimbursed the Treasury $88K.
Hopey Changey Sometimes Bites You In The Left Cheek
Via PJ Tattler:
Dennis Kucinich: Time to impeach Obama over Libya action.Michael Moore: Obama no better than Bush.
Louis Farrakhan: "Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?"
Andrew Sullivan: Obama now the exact opposite of what I voted for.
The more things change, the more they remain George Bush.
Libya Likes To Protect Their Mass Murderers
Look at all those coffins of the innocent people he murdered in the Locherbie bombing, and then check out the bit about Megrahi's mansion.
A Scottish judge released him on "humanitarian grounds," due to the cancer he's said to have. He supposedly had a few months to live. Right.
She Rescues Birds -- And Boyfriends (With Her Pink Gun)
Beauty queen pops an intruder, writes Danny Valentine in the St. Pete Times:
Meghan Brown had fired her pink .38-caliber handgun only inside a shooting range. Even there, she said, she wasn't very good.The 2009 Miss Tierra Verde, 25 and a slender brunet, had trouble pulling back the trigger. When she did manage, she said she almost never hit the target.
That Saturday was different.
A man barged into her home, attacking her and beating her fiance. Adrenaline pumping, she fetched the gun from her bedroom. She trained it on the man, following his movements as he tussled with her fiance.
She saw an opening. She pulled the trigger. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop.
Albert F. Hill, 42, never got up.
via Instapundit
Interview With The Bullied Boy Who Fought Back
My original blog item on it here. Here he is talking about what happened, and being bullied in general, on Aussie TV:
On the original entry, commenter Joe posted:
What victims need to know is that they're on their own, and that the cavalry ain't coming, and that attacks must be met with violence, it's the only thing that keeps a bully in check.
Unfortunately, that's unrealistic. My reply:
My dad had to go to junior high and talk to the principal. As far as attacks being met with violence, that really isn't doable when you are much smaller than the people attacking you and when you're just one girl and they're five girls against you. Okay, I guess I could've taken martial arts. Maybe by high school, I would've been able to flip one of them over my head.
An excerpt from something I wrote about bullying (where it was possible threats were being made to the kid as well):
Per the world's foremost researcher on bullying, Dr. Dan Olweus, the most effective response isn't replying to bullies but disengaging from them: First copy the threats, then unfriend all the threateners. You don't call the bully's parents, which may make things worse. You report the bullying to school officials, and report threats to police.
This kid in Australia got duct-taped to a pole at one point. Heartbreaking.
It's also why, when I give I See Rude People talks, and people ask me about how people raise their kids these days, I note that at the root of manners is empathy, and emphasize how essential it is to teach kids to be kind.
Were They Anti-War Or Just Anti-Bush?
Interesting blog item by David Boaz over at Britannica.com:
About 100 antiwar protesters, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame, were arrested Saturday outside the White House in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. It's a far cry from the Bush years, when hundreds of thousands or millions marched against the war, and the New York Times declared "world public opinion" against the war a second superpower. Will President Obama's military incursion in a third Muslim country revive the antiwar movement?On a street corner in Washington, D.C., outside the Cato Institute, there's a metal box that controls traffic signals. During the Bush years there was hardly a day that it didn't sport a poster advertising an antiwar march or simply denouncing President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. But the marches and the posters seemed to stop on election day 2008.
Maybe antiwar organizers assumed that they had elected the man who would stop the war. After all, Barack Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after two years in the White House he has made both of George Bush's wars his wars.
More on this by reason's Ted Balaker.
Of course, points out Robert Stacy McCain, Andrew Sullivan is claiming Obama was duped into the war in Libya by John McCain and Hillary Clinton:
I mean, you know, we go into a Middle Eastern country, we don't know the consequences, it's been hatched by Hillary and McCain. I mean, what could go wrong? . . .I don't know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries. . . . [T]his no-fly zone, this war essentially, is, is a Hillary-McCain concept.Look, we, people who voted for this guy wanted him to let the old politics go. . . . Wanted him to actually tell us the truth about this stuff and to do the right thing. And that was the appeal of Obama. And two years later, we have this politicized Clintonian mess.
In case anyone new around here is wondering, while I was for going into Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden, I was against our entry into Iraq and I'm against our entry into Libya.
via Instapundit
Letter To My Roof, Los Angeles
Hey, honey. Please don't cry. Not on my pillow.
One of the things I love about Los Angeles is the fact that we don't really have "weather" here -- just fires, mudslides, riots, earthquakes and freeway chases. Usually, in the vicinity of the beach, which I'm almost a mile from, it's about 55 or 60 degrees year round.
Sunday, we had the worst rain I think I've experienced since I've been living here. My neighbor met me to hang out and write at Starbucks -- where the roof started leaking in a bunch of places by around noon. By the time we were ready to go home, I thought I'd need an outboard motor to get there (me and all the animals that would line up to get into my car, two by two).
Annoying People To Good Health
I am compelled to keep writing about the writing and thinking of Gary Taubes and Dr. Michael Eades and others -- solid, evidence-based science on diet versus the "science" put out by the government. Eventually, some people reading here think, "What the hell...I'll try this already..." and then I get letters like this one Richard Nikoley published as a blog item in Free The Animal (this woman wrote to me a couple months ago, and I asked her permission to forward her e-mail to Taubes and Eades, which I did).
Here's the blog item -- inspiring -- from Nikoley's "Free The Animal":
PhD Med School Biology Researcher Goes Paleo: Racks up 70 Pound Weight Loss; Gets HotDear Mr. Nikoley,
I know you are a busy guy, so I will keep this e-mail to the point and try not to waste your time. I am another reader of your blog that appreciates your unorthodox approach to sharing insight about the paleo lifestyle. About six months ago I was first introduced to the low carb/paleo movement while reading Amy Alkon's blog. For most of my life I was never overweight, although I always had to closely watch how much I ate. However, after turning thirty and going through two pregnancies (I have a 9 month old and a 4 year old) I was seriously overweight and struggling with losing the excess pounds. It was getting to a point that I thought I might just be fat for the rest of my life --- very depressing. However after reading Amy's posts on how eating meat and fat can actually help you lose weight, I immersed myself in the work of Gary Taubes and Dr. Eades. In addition, I started doing my own literature searches about the effects of modern diet on metabolism. Much to my surprise (since this is not my field of research) these studies were more scientifically sound and made much more rational sense than any of the nutritional studies that we are normally told about through the media.
After this research, it was not a hard decision to cut out all sugar, grains, and processed food from my diet. The results were spectacular. In a period of a little over six months, with very little effort (for example, I never went to the gym during this time -- just hiked and played around with my kids), I was able to lose roughly 70 pounds and am now actually the weight that I was when playing competitive volleyball in college 15 years ago. Of course, this was all without ever going hungry and being able to eat delicious meals filled with lots of meat and buttered vegetables. In addition, this lifestyle is a great example for my kids since we all eat the same meals (versus mom eating a Lean Cuisine) and I now take them for a hike or we go to the park instead of me going to the gym to work out on the elliptical machine for hours at a time. I feel like I am setting them up to have a great relationship with food and their bodies for the rest of their lives.
Pictures of before and after and more at the above link.
By the way, Gregg just laughed at me when we were coming home from the Tucson Festival of Books and he caught a whisp of what I was saying to two TSA screeners at the end of the belt at the Tucson Airport: "carbohydrates..." and "Proteinpower.com..."
Same thing happened in a bathroom recently when we were having dinner with Barb Oakley and Elmore at a Birmingham, Michigan restaurant. Results like this (in Richard's blog item) won't help shut me up!
Is There No Area Of Your Life The Government Doesn't See Fit To Stick Its Grubby, Bureaucratic Paws?
From The Good Men Project, from a piece by Lu Fong, "Should Marriage Counseling Be Required Before Tying the Knot?"
"Required"? Like, by the state? Fong writes:
...States are beginning to pen legislation that would penalize couples for not checking in with a counselor before tying the knot. Texas has been a frontrunner in this movement (although it's been wildly unpopular) and other states like Minnesota and Florida have begun to offer significant discounts on marriage licenses if the couples agree to a set number of counseling hours. But only 15 percent of married couples have participated.
National Book Week
Loved this Facebook post from Kim Jones via Nancy Rommelmann:
Let's do it: It is National Book Week. The rules are: Grab the closest book to you. Turn to page 56. Copy the 5th sentence as your status. Don't mention the book...Post these rules as well.
Here's mine:
"Forget the vaunted biodiversity of the millions of beetle species."
By the way, I was blown away by Nancy's 144-page gem of a novel about the lost children on Hollywood Boulevard, The Bad Mother: A Novel
Maybe the street kid angle caught my interest as a psychologist or, more likely, it may be that I just got back from LA and Hollywood last week and I kind of missed it and figured the book would let me know more about the area from a different perspective. A cab driver told me about the kids and characters that hung around in Hollywood who were sometimes on drugs and sometimes lost. I wanted to know more. I was not disappointed. Rommelmann's skillful portrayal of the characters shows their unattractive side in a way that is realistic, shady and pulls the reader into a world they may never otherwise encounter.
Excellent Short Free Book For Understanding Islam
Available in a very readable fast-downloading PDF -- which I read on Sunday night...just 47 pages, easy on the eyes, and explains plenty: Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim.
A Suggestion For Gaddafi's iPod
Via KABC's John Phillips. I'll be on his show on Wednesday, March 23, 8 p.m., Pacific Time, streamed live over the Internet, and in a podcast afterward.
Throwing A Drench In The Works
The LA Marathon is today. It's going on in one of the worst rainstorms I've seen in SoCal. Luckily for me, I prefer to experience "the automobile driver's high."
Mom's Uterus Crushes Her Fetus, State Of Nebraska Won't Allow Her Abortion
Via Number Six, this story at The Stir:
Nebraska law says no abortions after 20 weeks. That's supposed to protect the fetus from pain. It's literally called "The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."Now let's repeat those words, shall we? Fetus. Crushed. By her uterus. Sounds, well, painful, doesn't it? Especially under the Nebraska law!
According to the Nebraska law:
Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout an unborn child's entire body by 16 weeks after fertilization and nerves link these receptors to the brain's thalamus and subcortical plate by 20 weeks. By eight weeks after fertilization, an unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example by recoiling.Science disagrees. But as long as the law stands for one Nebraskan, it should stand for all, correct?
...Deaver wanted the doctors to just take the baby immediately, knowing she couldn't survive outside the womb... Because her fetus still had a heartbeat, and she was not in danger of dying herself, they (legislators) wouldn't allow it.
Good Job Keeping Secular Fiscal Conservatives Like Me From Voting Republican!
Instead of focusing on all the serious problems in this country -- starting with the fact that your great grandchildren will be spending their days licking the boots of our owners, the Chinese -- some dimwits on the right are digging back down into the fundamentalist cookie jar.
Check out this e-mail from conservativeactionalerts.com:
Ever since 1956, the term "In God We Trust" has been the national motto for the United States. However, over the years, it has had many stalwart enemies against its usage, claiming it did not coincide with the supposed "separation of church and state."U.S. Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA) is leading this effort, along with nearly 70 others, to reaffirm that "IN GOD WE TRUST" is, indeed, our national motto. Yesterday, via a voice vote, Forbes' resolution (H. Con. Res. 13) was endorsed by the House Judiciary Committee and sent to the full House.
This resolution not only affirms the national motto, but encourages its public display in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.
During the Eisenhower administration, in 1956, it became the official motto. It is now inscribed on our U.S. bill and coins. However, in recent years, there have been numerous efforts to remove references to America's religious heritage, including our national motto, from federal buildings, documents, bills and coins, and ceremonies across our great nation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has assured that "In God We Trust" is the national motto. But we need to notify every Member of U.S. Congress to side with this important legislation to support our national motto: IN GOD WE TRUST!
Please CLICK HERE to FAX every Member of the U.S. Congress to let them know how most Americans really feel. They must support "IN GOD WE TRUST" as our national motto.
U.S. Representative Forbes recently told Politico, "To a lot of people, the fact that this country was built on faith, the fact that faith is important, 'In God We Trust' is important."
As an American patriot---and following in the traditions of our Founding Forefathers---we must return to our roots, and that is "In God We Trust."
Many have come against this in the interest of the supposed "separation of church and state." By the way, that is a misnomer!
Rev. Barry Lynn, the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, accused House Republicans of using this vote as a means to "mollify religious conservatives. This is divisive and a diversion from important national issues. No wonder public opinion of Congress is so low. We face a dire economic situation, the threat of a government shut-down and world instability, and House members are wasting time on symbolic religious issues."
But the fact of the matter is that this country was originally built on faith. Faith is important to a majority of Americans.
That is why "In God We Trust" is vitally important.
Please help us to urge every member of Congress to not only vote for this legislation, but to help Co-sponsor this bill. Will you help us to contact every Member of Congress?
Somehow this "slipped under the radar" as the House and Senate were trying to dialogue about the budget and the Continuing Resolution.
But, my friend, this is much too important to sweep under the rug, or to lay aside. Let's do what the taxpayers of American want and to make sure that our motto remains: IN GOD WE TRUST!
H. Con. Res. 13 is more than a symbolic religious issue; it is THE VERY FOUNDATION of our country!
Please CLICK HERE to FAX every Member of the U.S. Congress to let them know how most Americans really feel. They must support "IN GOD WE TRUST" as our national motto.
Another well-known atheist, Michael Newdow, has many times sued to have the motto stricken. He has failed every time.
William J. Murray, the Christian son of the infamous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hare, supports "In God We Trust." Yet, it was over him, as a young boy, that the United States Supreme Court ruled that prayer and Bible reading be stricken from public schools. The moral fiber of our students and young people have suffered every since!
Will you help us today?
I look forward to your response and how our Forefathers would have responded:
YES: for IN GOD WE TRUST!
Sincerely,
Tony Adkins
Conservative Action AlertsP.S. Our core values have not changed since the inception of this motto in 1956. When we pull together as a nation, we do acknowledge our faith in God. Thank you, in advance, for responding.
Because we adopted this as a motto -- contrary to the establishment clause of the Constitution -- doesn't mean it was right or that we should stick with it. While I'm opposed to having any sort of god planted in the government arena, e-mails like this one are just ridiculous. The Republicans need people like me -- true fiscal conservatives (I thought George Bush was pretty much FDR in cowboy boots). But, they drive me away by promoting all these religious values that don't belong in the government arena.
My suggestion for all the recipients of this e-mail: Go to your church and chant "In God We Trust!" until the cows, sheep, pigs and your drunk uncle come home.
And as the shortsighted learned recently -- expanding presidential powers expands them for the next guy from the other team, too. Likewise, mucking up the secular state with your religion leaves open the door for other religions to do the same in the future. Such as the fastest spreading religion in the world.
"Nobel Peace Prize Winner Enters Third War"
Perfect headline via Instapundit, from Tommy De Seno at Ricochet. And I feel for the Libyans, but sorry, what are we doing there? Yeah, the United Nations is a joke -- and perhaps we should fix it instead of playing international cop all the time.
De Sena writes about the President:
Who can forget his beautiful words on limiting presidential war powers that gave us such hope for change to finally come to the way America waged war, like this:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. --December 20, 2007Or this:
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the Iraqi people would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. --March 27, 2007...Oh and here is a glimpse into the money you and I will be expected to spend later on:
We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else. --February 11, 2008Barack Obama - He's George Bush with a Peace Prize.
"Brother Gaddafi," He Calls Him
It says everything about Louis Farrakhan that you need to know:
Here's the kind of guy he calls "brother."
Taubes Talks Sunday At Cal Tech
Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It: Gary Taubes talks Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 2 pm, Baxter Lecture Hall:
AN EYE-OPENING, MYTH-SHATTERING EXAMINATION of what makes us fat. Acclaimed science writer Gary Taubes argues that our diet's overemphasis on certain kinds of carbohydrates -- not fats and not simply excess calories -- has led directly to the obesity epidemic we face today. Taubes explores the urgent question of what's making us fat -- and how we can change, and reveals the bad nutritional science of the last century, none more damaging or misguided than the "calories-in, calories-out" model of why we get fat, and the good science that has been ignored, especially regarding insulin's regulation of our fat tissue. He also answers the most persistent questions: Why are some people thin and others fat? What roles do exercise and genetics play in our weight? What foods should we eat, and what foods should we avoid? Order the book on which this lecture is based from Amazon.com.
If you have yet to hear of Taubes or read his work, this lecture will likely change your life -- and I'm not exaggerating.
Yet Another Heavily Photoshopped Cover Model!
Er, um, except that she isn't. Wired puts a lady scientist on the cover and gets accused of Photoshopping her pretty -- only they didn't, and she is pretty.
The scientist is Limor Fried. She has her masters in electrical engineering from MIT and, per GOOD, "has made a name for herself throughout the science community with projects designed to 'help people defend their personal space from unwanted electrical intrusion.'"
She replied in the comments section of GOOD -- scroll down at the above link to see the picture. Here's her comment:
You found a 3+ year old photo of me in Japan, after a 20 hour flight and short hair.The cover is stylized but that is really what I looked like. I was not 'plasticized' or 'heavily photoshopped'. if I take off my glasses, have my hair done, and wear make-up its what I look like. Jill uses lighting and makeup to create a glossy look, we saw the shots right off the camera and the only things that changed are the background color and the tool. Its her style and it looks cool!
Its a bit different than my every day look, especially when shot with a proper camera and lighting, but it -is- me. I do get dressed up from time to time, being a magazine cover is one of those times! :)
My lip ring wasn't in for most of this year so far, WIRED didn't remove it or airbrush it. I wasn't wearing it, just like I wasn't wearing my glasses.
If I'm happy with this and I say it's looks like me isn't that GOOD :)
via BoingBoing
Tongue Boy Takes To The News
Hilarious video of a St. Patrick's Day report -- "Lisa Evers as she attempts to put on her best serious reporter face and voice while a man performs air cunnilingus behind her."
California Okays Cellphone Searches Without Warrant
From a Bob Egelko story on SFGate:
The California Supreme Court allowed police Monday to search arrestees' cell phones without a warrant, saying defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they're carrying when taken into custody.Under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, "this loss of privacy allows police not only to seize anything of importance they find on the arrestee's body ... but also to open and examine what they find," the state court said in a 5-2 ruling.
The majority, led by Justice Ming Chin, relied on decisions in the 1970s by the nation's high court upholding searches of cigarette packages and clothing that officers seized during an arrest and examined later without seeking a warrant from a judge.
The dissenting justices said those rulings shouldn't be extended to modern cell phones that can store huge amounts of data.
Monday's decision allows police "to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person," said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined in dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno.
This seems really wrong. This data is a history of actions that took place previously, and should not be seen as the same thing as a cigarette pack on somebody's person right then and there. Agree? Disagree?
Wars Without End
I don't think we should be the world's policeman. In the WSJ, Peggy Noonan argues for caution in that department as well:
The biggest takeaway, the biggest foreign-policy fact, of the past decade is this: America has to be very careful where it goes in the world, because the minute it's there--the minute there are boots on the ground, the minute we leave a footprint--there will spring up, immediately, 15 reasons America cannot leave. The next day there will be 30 reasons, and the day after that 45. They are often serious and legitimate reasons.So we wind up in long, drawn-out struggles when we didn't mean to, when it wasn't the plan, or the hope, or the expectation.
We have to keep this phenomenon in mind as we chart our path in the future. It's easy to start a war but hard to end one. It's as simple as that. It's easy to get in but hard to get out. Even today, in Baghdad, you hear that America can't leave Iraq because the government isn't sturdy enough, the army and police aren't strong enough to withstand the winds that will follow America's full departure, that all that has been achieved--a fragile, incomplete, relative peace--will be lost. America cannot leave because Iraq will be vulnerable to civil war, not between Sunnis and Shiites, they tell you now, but between Arabs and Kurds, in the north, near the oil fields.
America is scheduled to leave Iraq this December, of course, but everyone seems to be waiting for Nouri al-Maliki's government to request an extension. (A longtime observer told me he thought Prime Minister Maliki would not ask, in part because he assumes that if he gets in trouble the U.S. will come back.) Meanwhile, another observer told me, the December hand-off from the U.S. to the Iraqi government will actually be more like a hand-off from the Defense Department to the State Department, with the part of U.S. security forces played by contractors from Uganda.
The Modern-Day Soup Line?
It's a check in the mail, from a quote in a piece by Mort Zuckerman in the WSJ that speculates as to why people aren't spending:
Who could blame people for holding back when we see roughly 50 million Americans on one or more taxpayer-supported programs, be it food stamps or unemployment benefits? This downturn may not have the 1930s feel of despair, but in large part that is because, as the economist David Rosenberg of the wealth-management firm Gluskin Sheff put it, "The modern day soup line is a check in the mail."An unprecedented number of Americans are borrowing against their 401(k)s, canceling their life insurance policies, and forgoing physicals. And that isn't all. The American consumer today is fearful of the impact of higher food prices, higher gasoline prices, higher insurance costs, higher everything. The inflation of food and fuel alone has absorbed the December tax cuts agreed to by Congress and the administration.
So where has the recent modest growth in the economy come from? It is primarily due to massive amounts of federal government stimulus and a huge inventory swing, both of which will peter out this year. Only the wealthiest 10% of the population, whose stock portfolios have come roaring back, are doing well, but their spending is not enough to spur the economy or create much additional hiring.
...Why are all the vital signs discouraging? Quite simply, it is because households are still carrying far too much debt on their balance sheets. Relative to income, debt today is approximately twice as high for families as it was in the 1980s. Total borrowing in relation to disposable, personal after-tax income leaped to approximately 136% in the first quarter of 2008 from 60% in the early 1980s before it began to recede. It has now declined to 117% of income compared to the pre- bubble norm of 70%. To return to that level, debt would have to be reduced by another $6 trillion. Similarly, the debt-to-asset ratio in relation to household assets is currently 20%, but the pre-bubble norm was 12.5%. The deleveraging process still has a long ways to go.
America blithely chugs along on massive and increasing debt -- why should its citizens see any shame in it, or really care much about decreasing theirs?
Zuckerman makes a truly whack suggestion in the end -- that we might need another stimulus program.
In Defense Of Bigmouthed Trash-Talkers
One of the wonderful things about our Constitution is the way it protects even the worst speech. A New York Times editorial talks about this in relation to a UCLA student named Alexandra Wallace who posted a YouTube rant about how there were, like, sooo many Asian students at UCLA, and they were all yakking on their phones in the library (like, perhaps calling family members in Asia in the wake of the Tsunami), and how their elderly relatives show up to cook for them on the weekends, which she finds rather annoying.
Here's the video, and below is an excerpt from the NYT piece:
The video's viral spread is a reminder of the Internet's power and the cost of heedless and hurtful postings. Ms. Wallace is rightly being criticized by university officials, fellow students and many others for her clearly racist words. She has since apologized through the student newspaper. Still, the university would do a great disservice to itself and the First Amendment if it goes ahead and disciplines her for the content of her words.On his blog, Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar at U.C.L.A., counseled why Ms. Wallace's video is "clearly constitutionally protected," no matter how obnoxious. A purpose of the American university, he said, is to debate major decisions about social and other policies -- to build consensus and the foundations of community. To assure worthwhile debate, it's necessary to protect some worthless, even hurtful, opinion.
The video doesn't justify the basis on which U.C.L.A. is considering punishing her: that her words amount to a form of harassment against a group of students. Her most offensive words -- said while mimicking people speaking an Asian language -- sound like an ethnic slur, but it would be hard to argue that they were threatening. If used against her, that rationale could also be used, wrongly, to punish what Prof. Volokh called "a vast range of other speech."
Here's a letter from FIRE -- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (an organization I support) -- to UCLA:
On Monday, March 14, Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of Students Robert J. Naples reportedly told UCLA student newspaper the Daily Bruin that UCLA had begun to investigate the video for possible charges including harassment:"We'll be taking a look at the language that she uses in the video to see if it violates any codes under the student code, perhaps regarding harassment," Naples said.However, the student code in no way usurps the authority of the First Amendment, Naples said.
Naples is correct: As a public institution, UCLA is both legally and morally bound by the United States Constitution. See National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 192 (1988) (holding that "[a] state university without question is a state actor."). We trust that you understand that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression fully extends to public universities like UCLA. See, e.g., Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972) (citation omitted) ("[T]he precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large. Quite to the contrary, 'the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.'"); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 268-69 (1981) ("With respect to persons entitled to be there, our cases leave no doubt that the First Amendment rights of speech and association extend to the campuses of state universities.").
To be clear: UCLA may not punish protected expression because of its viewpoint.
One of the primary reasons that so-called hate speech is tolerated under the First Amendment is that there is not and cannot be agreement on what speech is "hateful" and therefore undeserving of the Constitution's protection. The Supreme Court has noted that "[t]he hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow 'free trade in ideas'-even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting."
UPDATE: Via @AdamKissel, UCLA will not take action against Wallace.
Fighting Juvenile Delinquency, And Government Land Grab, Too
At this boxing gym, they were just supposed to be fighting juvenile deliquency, but they're also fighting the San Diego government, which is trying to take over their property by calling it "blighted." It's a sham designation, says Institute for Justice, which has taken on their case. Unbelievable that in America, government tries to do this -- tell a property owner to hand over their land so a developer can use the land to build luxury condos.
More on this from IJ:
"The law doesn't allow the government to take away your property so that someone wealthier can have it," said IJ Senior Attorney Dana Berliner. "National City's bogus blight designation is a deliberate strategy of using 'blight' as a pretext for transferring property from owners of modest means, like the CYAC, to powerful developers for their private use.""This case is reminiscent of the California Supreme Court smackdown of National City in 1976," Rowes said. "That landmark decision rejected the use of bogus blight designations for private economic development and National City has set itself up to be rightfully smacked down once again.
More recently, in January 2009 the California Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a lower court ruling that had for a short time derailed the gym's legal challenge seeking to prove how governments in California declare property "blighted" and pave the way for eminent domain abuse. The Court of Appeals' decision sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to allow the nonprofit CYAC to make its case that National City violated the law when it declared roughly 700 properties blighted in 2007.
"This will be the first case decided under the reforms passed by the Legislature in response to the infamous Kelo decision, and it will decide whether those reforms offer any protection for the CYAC and property owners throughout the state," Berliner said.
"National City ignored this new California law in ramming through a false blight declaration targeting humble property owners across the city. The CYAC is fighting this outrage not only for itself, but to establish precedent to protect all Californians."
More and more, these days, I'm hearing the sort of stories that I used to think didn't happen in America. I grew up believing I was so lucky to live in a country where human rights were respected. I'm feeling less and less like that today.
A bit on the Kelo case here. Here's Tibby Rothman's LA Weekly story about a case in Los Angeles -- a Glendale motel owner who doesn't want to sell to mallapalooza developer Rick Caruso.
Here's another case in Mount Holly, New Jersey:
Zero Tolerance...Of Kitchen Spices?
Just when you thought zero tolerance policies couldn't get any stupider, there's this: A kid getting suspended from seventh grade for...get this...possession of a bag of oregano. Temporary possession, at that. Elisabeth Hulette writes in the Virginian-Pilot about Adam Grass' suspension:
The school called it an "imitation controlled substance," which is prohibited under division policy. Even though Adam didn't bring it to school, and was just passing it from one student to another, he was suspended for 10 days and recommended for expulsion, Grass said....It all started, Grass said, when the older brother of a boy at Hickory Middle said it would be "really funny" if he brought a bag of oregano to school, Grass said. The younger brother did and showed off the herb in the lunchroom.
Adam walked away, but later ran into a boy who asked him to return the oregano to its owner.
Adam took it, then realized the owner wasn't in his next class. He passed it to another student.
"So he was in possession of it for maybe 30 seconds," Grass said.
When school officials found out, they suspended four boys, including Adam, he said.
John Whitehead, founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, called the case an example of when schools overreact with zero-tolerance policies.
The institute has handled hundreds of such cases, which seem to be growing in number and severity nationwide, he said.
Worse, such incidents land on students' permanent records, which can keep them from getting into colleges such as service academies. That's what could happen to Adam, a candidate for the National Junior Honor Society, Whitehead said.
via ifeminists
Welfare Mamas In Expensive Suits, With Homes In The Hamptons And Grosse Pointe
These welfare mamas are the big corporations and entities your taxpayer dollars have gone toward bailing out. They're taking handouts, same as the more disdained type of welfare mama, but into the millions and billions of our taxpayer dollars. Propublica has the list. Disgusting. GM, for one, should have been let go bankrupt, have its assets bought, and get reorganized.
You're Overcooking Your Food
So says a Sci Am article by Nathan Myhrvold, Chris Young and Maxime Bilet -- an edited excerpt from a chapter in the six-volume set, Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking
The excessive restrictions on cooking pork didn't come out of nowhere. In decades past, pork was intrinsically less safe than other meats because of muscle infiltration by Trichinella and surface contamination from fecal-borne pathogens like Salmonella and Clostridium perfringens . As a result, people learned to tolerate overcooked pork, and farms raised pigs with increasing amounts of fat--far more fat than is typical in the wild ancestors of pigs such as wild boar. The extra fat helped to keep the meat moist when it was overcooked.Since then, research has sharpened our understanding of pork-associated pathogens, and producers have vastly reduced the risk of contamination through preventive practices on the farm and in meat-processing facilities. Eventually the FDA relaxed the cooking requirements for pork; they are now no different than those for other meats. The irony is that few people noticed-- culinary professionals and cookbook authors included. Government information aimed at consumers from both the USDA and the FDA continued to promote excessive cooking standards for pork. Amazingly, even pork industry groups continued to do the same thing.
After decades of consuming overcooked pork by necessity, the American public has little
appetite for rare pork; it isn't considered traditional. With a lack of cultural pressure or agitation for change by industry groups, the new standards are largely ignored, and many new publications leave the old cooking recommendations intact.Clearly, cultural and political factors impinge on decisions about food safety. If you doubt that, note the contrast between the standards applied to pork and those applied to beef. Many people love rare steak or raw beef served as carpaccio or steak tartare, and in the United States alone, millions of people safely eat beef products, whether raw, rare, or well-done. Beef is part of the national culture, and any attempt to outlaw rare or raw steak in the United States would face an immense cultural and political backlash from both the consumers and the producers of beef.
Millions of servings of rare beef steak or completely raw steak tartare or carpaccio are served every day, so if that meat were inherently dangerous, we'd certainly know by now. Scientific investigation has confirmed the practice is reasonably safe--almost invariably, muscle interiors are sterile and pathogen-free. That's true for any meat, actually, but only beef is singled out by the FDA. The cultural significance of eating raw and rare beef, as much as the science, accounts for the FDA's leniency in allowing beef steak to be served at any internal temperature.
I order my meat rare, and I really hate when they edit that to "medium." If it's a restaurant I don't know, I'll sometimes add to the waiter or waitress, "And I really mean that." Annoying. And then there was that restaurant that refused to serve me my hamburger the way I wanted it, and cooked it to death in the name of safety (and probably somewhat inspired by the litigious). Well, perhaps other customers were dissatisfied with their "have it our way" ethos, because when Gregg and I were back there, there was a new restaurant in the Mussolini-in-the-kitchen restaurant's place.
via Dr. Eades
The Most Ridiculous Press Release I've Gotten In Eons
It's promoting a New York-area plastic surgeon:
Dear Editors and Producers:Wrinkles may be a sign of approaching middle age but younger women now have a reason to worry -- the smartphone squint. Many of them are developing premature wrinkles from staring at their smartphones, says Dr. Brian Glatt, a New Jersey board-certified plastic surgeon. According to Dr. Glatt, "The trend for 'BlackBerry Botox' is highly increasing especially among women who are addicted to gazing on their BlackBerries or iPhones all day. Peering at a small screen causes facial strain, around and between the brows which may cause premature wrinkles on the face."
Smartphone-related wrinkles are the latest condition that doctors attribute to overuse of technology. Others include 'BlackBerry thumb' - a form of repetitive strain injury caused by excessive texting.
As I wrote to the PR "professional" who sent this to me:
I'm sure you all have bills to pay and many probably have children to feed, but seriously?
Open Government? It's Censored.
Love this headline from Treacher at The Daily Caller:
"The Obama administration censored 194 pages of internal e-mails about its Open Government Directive"
It's a quote from this AP story, about the AP's request for those e-mails.
Tell me again how much better and more open the Obama administration is than the previous one?
People who love their political "team" and think it can do no wrong are exactly the naive voters we don't need. And that goes for you, all you Democrats and Republicans.
It's Not About The Calories
Gretchen pointed me to this Gary Taubes piece on Slate on how to reduce childhood obesity. An excerpt:
Take Michelle Obama's Let's Move! campaign, one of the most high-profile examples of this mistaken approach to the problem. The principles of Let's Move! sound good. Who would be against getting kids to be more physically active and eat more fruits and vegetables? But anyone who thinks that will reverse the obesity epidemic is sorely mistaken.Beneath all the program's talk of making healthier food choices and increasing physical activity, its fundamental tenet is that we get fat because of the "overconsumption of calories." This is how the White House's Task Force on Childhood Obesity phrased the problem in its May 2010 report (PDF). And so the way to induce our children to lose weight is to get them to consume fewer calories, which they'll do supposedly by eating less-energy-dense foods, and, of course, expending more energy through exercise--hence the name, "Let's Move!"
This approach is certainly convenient. As Michelle Obama has said, it doesn't require the "demonization of any industry." All foods are OK in moderation, and the more our kids exercise, the more they can consume without getting fat. Follow this simple prescription and all will be well.
Except it won't be. For the last 60 years, physicians and public-health authorities have been giving that exact same advice to obese people--children and adults--with little or no success. When researchers have tested diets that restrict how many calories are consumed--counseling their subjects to eat, say, 500 or 1,000 fewer calories a day than they normally would--the results have been depressingly predictable. The subjects experience modest weight loss (maybe nine or 10 pounds in the first six months), and then they gain the weight right back. Weight loss doesn't last.
...So here is the answer: Fat accumulation in the human body is regulated fundamentally by the hormone insulin. If insulin levels increase, so does fat accumulation. If insulin levels decrease, fat is released from the fat cells and used for fuel. There's nothing controversial about this fact. You can find it in most biochemistry and endocrinology textbooks, like this one that the Library of Medicine makes available online. It's just considered irrelevant to the problem of obesity.
And here's the catch: Insulin levels, for all intents and purposes, are controlled by the carbohydrates in the diet. The more refined and easily digestible those carbohydrates (the higher the glycemic index, as nutritionists would say), the more insulin will be secreted. And the sugars we consume--i.e., sucrose, the stuff we put in our coffee, as well as high-fructose corn syrup--will cause long-term increases in insulin production.
I have to say, it was most dismaying when, a few years back, I went to a talk Gary Taubes gave at USC to an auditorium of childhood obesity researchers from around the country. They sat and watched and listened as he laid out extensive evidence for why we get fat -- that it's carbohydrates that cause weight gain.
And then, when I talked to a few researchers afterward, it was clear they hadn't changed their thinking about obesity one iota...clinging to the ideas that Taubes had just shown were not based in evidence...which means a lot of kids would be stuck with a lot of their fat.
Now I Know Why My Clothes Don't Get That Clean
The geniuses that forced everybody to get low-flush toilets messed up the washing machine, too. Not to tell too much information, but I like to conserve resources when possible, so I'm very much of the, um, "let it mellow" school of toilet flushing. But, when somebody needs to flush, you want the toilet to actually flush and carry off everything it's supposed to. Those low-flush toilets tend to be pretty bad at that.
Sam Kazman writes in the WSJ about how government ruined the washing machine:
In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as "often mediocre or worse."How's that for progress?
The culprit is the federal government's obsession with energy efficiency.
...The federal government first issued energy standards for washers in the early 1990s. When the Department of Energy ratcheted them up a decade later, it was the beginning of the end for top-loaders. Their costlier and harder-to-use rivals--front-loading washing machines--were poised to dominate.
Front-loaders meet federal standards more easily than top-loaders. Because they don't fully immerse their laundry loads, they use less hot water and therefore less energy. But, as Americans are increasingly learning, front-loaders are expensive, often have mold problems, and don't let you toss in a wayward sock after they've started.
When the Department of Energy began raising the standard, it promised that "consumers will have the same range of clothes washers as they have today," and cleaning ability wouldn't be changed. That's not how it turned out.
In 2007, after the more stringent rules had kicked in, Consumer Reports noted that some top-loaders were leaving its test swatches "nearly as dirty as they were before washing." "For the first time in years," CR said, "we can't call any washer a Best Buy." Contrast that with the magazine's 1996 report that, "given warm enough water and a good detergent, any washing machine will get clothes clean." Those were the good old days.
For those of you, like me, who are hoarding soon-to-be-banned incandescent bulbs, I highly recommend ordering from WhatWatt.com. 120 or more 100 watt bulbs are 33 cents each. I think it's best to order in lots of 120, as that's the size of a case. Six of them broken in transit, and they refunded my money with zero hassle for every one when I e-mailed them.
P.S. I bought a hybrid car (a 2004,1900-lb Honda Insight) and take other steps to conserve without anybody passing a law demanding that I do so...imagine that!
Oh, and by the way, I heard a presentation at the last Human Behavior & Evolution Society conference on how people who are "green" tend to think they have a pass to behave in all sorts of piggish ways. (The thinking that kicks in is apparently an environmental version of "I gave at the office.")
Doubt Is Good
Christopher Hitchens on how to live. Inspiring:
Interesting Question: Where Do We Draw The Line Between "Pet" And "Animal"?
Mark Bittman writes in The New York Times of a case that sickened me the other day -- a girl, in a fit of rage, killed her sibling's pet hamster. And he poses an interesting question:
Yet Ms. Smith was charged as a felon, because in New York (and there are similar laws in other states) if you kick a dog or cat or hamster or, I suppose, a guppy, enough to "cause extreme physical pain" or do so "in an especially depraved or sadistic manner" you may be guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals, as long as you do this "with no justifiable purpose."But thanks to Common Farming Exemptions, as long as I "raise" animals for food and it's done by my fellow "farmers" (in this case, manufacturers might be a better word), I can put around 200 million male chicks a year through grinders (graphic video here), castrate -- mostly without anesthetic -- 65 million calves and piglets a year, breed sick animals (don't forget: more than half a billion eggs were recalled last summer, from just two Iowa farms) who in turn breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, allow those sick animals to die without individual veterinary care, imprison animals in cages so small they cannot turn around, skin live animals, or kill animals en masse to stem disease outbreaks.
All of this is legal, because we will eat them.
We have "justifiable purposes": pleasure (or, at this point, habit, because eating is hardly a pleasure if you do it in your car, or in 10 minutes), convenience -- there are few things more filling per dollar than a cheeseburger -- and of course corporate profits. We should be treating animals better and raising fewer of them; this would naturally reduce our consumption. All in all, a better situation for us, the animals, the world.
I'm not for cutting down our animal consumption, but I am for treating animals humanely and killing them in a way that they don't suffer.
A Bully Gets His
Brad Cohen writes on SportsGrid that a bullied kid has become "a YouTube sensation" for fighting back -- bodyslamming a bully who had hit him in the face. Here's the video:
On YouTube, there was this, from someone who claimed to be Casey's friend's father:
"This 16 year old kid has been tormented every single day of his short high school life - and today he snapped!! He was suspended and may be looking at criminal charges, all because this little runt thought he could make an example of Casey in front of his "TUFF buddies!!"
Don't Assume I'm A Democrat -- Or A Republican
Some guy wrote me on Facebook:
These never ending cuts by the Rethuglicans remind me of what was said about Robert S. McNamara. "He knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing." Millions of Americans and our economy benefit from many needed and valuable programs.
I wrote back:
I'm neither a fan of the Republicans nor the Democrats, who are quite "thuggish" themselves. Suggest you go on my blog and join the debate there. Appreciate your e-mail, but I get mail for a living and need to put my time toward answering requests for advice -- especially since you don't seem to understand my political thinking: fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, personal responsibilitarian. Per Bastiat, just because we don't think government should do something doesn't mean we're opposed to it being done at all.
I often suspect that the people who complain the most bitterly about cuts in social services do only that -- do nothing to try to help people themselves. Can't say for sure -- I know plenty of good people on both sides. But, it's a suspicion of mine. It's a lot easier to wag your tongue than to get off your ass and do something to, say, help people get on their feet. (That's the sort of help I'm interested in giving -- not the kind that enables helplessness for generations.)
If you aren't 8, or naive like you're 8, it should be clear to you in whose interest most politicians act: Not the Republicans'. Not the Democrats'. Their own.
This Is New York On Drugs
What other explanation could there be for going after a bunch of potheads to the tune of $75 million a year? Jesse Levine writes at Alternet:
Each arrest costs at least $1,000 to $2,000 (conservatively estimated), and in 2010 the NYPD made nearly 1,000 arrests a week. The 50,383 people arrested for marijuana in 2010 were all fingerprinted, photographed, and most spent 24 hours or more in jail. In all cases, marijuana possession was the highest charge or the only charge....Mayor Bloomberg has famously admitted to smoking marijuana and enjoying it. Yet on Bloomberg's watch the police have arrested more people for possessing marijuana than the last three mayors combined. Since Bloomberg was elected in 2002, the NYPD has arrested 350,000 people for possessing less than 7/8 of an ounce of marijuana at a cost to taxpayers of $500 million to $1 billion or more.
Or You Could Try A Little Self-Discipline
Daniella Zalcman writes in the WSJ that writers are seeking cafes without Wifi:
The wall of the Hungarian Pastry Shop features the framed covers of books written in the cafe, which lacks wireless Internet access.The whole world is hankering for faster Internet access. Then there's novelist Adam Langer, who does his writing in the low-tech Hungarian Pastry Shop in Morningside Heights.
"Not only do they not have Wi-Fi," said Langer, 43, author of "The Thieves of Manhattan." "They don't have any usable outlets, so I have to be incredibly focused because I don't have a ton of time on my MacBook battery."
Langer isn't alone. The Hungarian Pastry Shop's wall of framed book covers, each by authors who typed amid the cafe's din, is testimony to the growing appeal of Internet-free spaces.
Gone are the days when a café with good enough coffee, a lax policy on lingering and an open Wi-Fi signal made it the perfect spot for writers to work. With infinite temptations just a mouse click away, many writers are seeking out an increasingly scarce amenity in a wired city: disconnected workspaces.
I just tell myself I have to write from, say, 1pm to 2pm, and then I can check my e-mail. I need to always be on in case some paper doesn't get the column, so I have mobile broadband. (Which I use at my favorite cafe where there's no Internet.) When I need really fast Internet, I write from home. Too many people on at Starbucks. It's the Wifi version of a tenement where everybody's flushing the toilet at the same time.
UPDATE: Jay J. Hector sent me this link to an app for Mac that blocks Internet access for a period of time -- Self Control 1.3. Really, peeps -- can't you just do as I do and tell yourself no Internet until you've written for an hour?
Out Of Crisis Comes Improvement
It is extremely important that we make a move toward nuclear power and I'm dismayed at those who are using the crisis in Japan to argue that we can't. Ron Bailey has a wiser approach at reason:
One hopeful possibility is that the Japanese crisis will spark the development and deployment of new and even safer nuclear power plants. Already, the Westinghouse division of Toshiba has developed and sold its passively safe AP1000 pressurized water reactor. The reactor is designed with safety systems that would cool down the reactor after an accident without the need for human intervention and operate using natural forces like gravity instead of relying on diesel generators and electric pumps. Until the recent events in Japan, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was expected to give final approval to the design by this fall despite opposition by some anti-nuclear groups.One innovative approach to using nuclear energy to produce electricity safely is to develop thorium reactors. Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive element, which, unlike certain isotopes of uranium, cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction. However, thorium can be doped with enough uranium or plutonium to sustain such a reaction. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) have a lot to recommend them with regard to safety. Fueled by a molten mixture of thorium and uranium dissolved in fluoride salts of lithium and beryllium at atmospheric pressure, LFTRs cannot melt down (strictly speaking the fuel is already melted).
Because LFTRs operate at atmospheric pressure, they are less likely than conventional pressurized reactors to spew radioactive elements if an accident occurs. In addition, an increase in operating temperature slows down the nuclear chain reaction, inherently stabilizing the reactor. And LFTRs are designed with a salt plug at the bottom that melts if reactor temperatures somehow do rise too high, draining reactor fluid into a containment vessel where it essentially freezes.
It is estimated that 83 percent of LFTR waste products are safe within 10 years, while the remainder needs to be stored for 300 years. Another advantage is that LFTRs can use plutonium and nuclear waste as fuel, transmuting them into much less radioactive and harmful elements, thus eliminating the need for waste storage lasting up to 10,000 years. No commercial thorium reactors currently exist, although China announced a project earlier this year that aims to develop such reactors.
Government Is An Ass (On A Train)
The Atlantic's Megan McArdle on the utterly dipshitted planned spending (in billions) on trains -- and not that we're wildly in debt or anything:
So basically, the feds wanted to spend $2.6 billion, plus any cost overruns or operating costs, to put in a train for which there was no evident demand. Why? Because they didn't have any better options, and they wanted to build a train. The California High Speed Rail project, following similarly sound reasoning, is going to start out in California's not-very-populous Central Valley, because . . . it's easier to get the right of way. Never mind that there aren't any, like, passengers.Building trains is an immensely costly enterprise--not just financially costly, but environmentally and personally costly, as people and habitats are uprooted, and metal is tortured into rails and switches and cars. If you are going to install one, you should be reasonably certain that there will be people around with an interest in riding your train. After all, a train running mostly empty emits a lot of carbon.
I am a fan of train projects when those projects start with a problem that might be solved by a train, and then work forward to the train. The problem is that in America, those routes are difficult to build, because they're places where there's already a lot of stuff. Rights of way are expensive and time-consuming to obtain, and the project is bound to be blocked by well-organized NIMBYs.
And so the idea seems to have become to build trains where it's possible to build trains, and hope that development follows. But trains succeed where they are better than some alternative form of transportation. In the case of Tampa to Orlando, they're worse than a car, and there isn't even any air travel to replace; in the case of Fresno-to-Bakersfield, it may be better than a car for a few passengers, but there are too few passengers to make the trains better than cars for the environment.
Meanwhile, projects that do make economic sense, like an actual high-speed Acela, or Southeastern High-Speed Rail Corridor, are going nowhere. They might have a better chance of success if rail advocates hadn't abandoned them in favor of building whizzy demonstration projects with dubious economic appeal.
P.S. If you buy your ticket in advance, you can fly from LA to SF for $59 each way. A train surely won't be so cheap. (Nor is the "high speed" actually high speed in this case. Can't be, thanks to where the tracks have to go, etc.)
A Great Question: Why Is There No Looting In Japan?
Ed West of The Telegraph asks it here:
Perhaps even more impressive than Japan's technological power is its social strength, with supermarkets cutting prices and vending machine owners giving out free drinks as people work together to survive. Most noticeably of all, there has been no looting......Why do some cultures react to disaster by reverting to everyone for himself, but others - especially the Japanese - display altruism even in adversity?
Kay Daly, whose father worked in a Japanese bank, and who spent some summers working in Japan herself, has an idea:
The employees who had come over from Japan displayed humility, quiet dignity and a determination to honor their families by doing a good job. That one word, honor, seems to dictate the behavior of the Japanese culture. They value the young, the old, their educational achievement, career goals and family. Not that there aren't a few bad apples in the bunch, but crime statistics tell a pretty accurate tale. In Japan, it would be a stain not only on the reputation of an individual who decided to loot, but a shame that the whole family would have to bear.Compare that to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or the earthquake in Chile or nearly any post-disaster behavior around the world. The incidents of crime went through the roof, looting was rampant, whatever shreds of society that had been barely hanging together completely collapsed at the first sign of trouble. It isn't a racial thing....it is a cultural thing that is deeply rooted in thousands of years of Japanese tradition and luckily has largely withstood outside influences. It is serving them well in this time of crisis.
UPDATE: More from Jesse Walker at reason.
The Other Dr. Eades: Praise The Lard
Just when I thought I was seriously lucky to know one Dr. Eades, Dr. Michael, who's one of the few people out there promoting evidence-based eating (and simply a great guy), Gregg and I got to meet the other Dr. Eades: his wife, Dr. Mary Dan Eades. Here's a really smart blog item from her on lard, the much- and wrongly maligned fat:
Both lard and butter have been vilified (undeservedly) by the all-saturated-fats-are-evil crowd, but where butter has been labeled by them as dangerous for your health, lard has been cast as a mass-murdering serial killer. It's utter, knee-jerk, nonsense. And nonsense, by the way, that led these bands of crusading think-they-know-it-all do-gooders (read: Committee for Science in the Public Interest and the PETA-backed Physicians for Responsible Medicine) to pressure the powers that be to remove beef tallow, lard, and butter from commercially prepared foods and replace them with 'healthy' partially hydrogenated vegetable fats in the first place. Yes, they all previously lobbied to switch to these self-same fats-these trans fats-that they're now crusading to eliminate from commercial kitchens.Time has proven that they were misguided then, but it has left them between the proverbial rock and the hard place. They can't allow people to eat 'dangerous artery clogging saturated fats' and they can't recommend their erstwhile darlings (now their demons) the partially-hydrogenated vegetable fats. About all that's left to them is olive oil, onto which they've jumped with both feet as the savior of human hearts and health.
Let's look for a moment beyond the inflammatory rhetoric and knee-jerk Kool-aid slurping surety that lard is bad and that all saturated fats, such as those found in lard, are bad and attempt to tease out the truth. What is lard?
Lard, contrary to its besmirched reputation, is a healthful fat with sterling culinary properties for high temperature cooking and baking and a darned good fatty acid profile.
Much, much more at the link.
Hitchens Thinks We Should Intervene In Libya
I don't. I don't see our interventions in the Middle East (the Shah, Saddam, for example) as having very positive outcomes. Also, financially, we're really up shit's creek without a bent dime.
An excerpt of Hitchens' thinking is here:
Qaddafi senior has reached his Ceausescu moment: a full-dress (in the literal sense) meltdown into paranoia, megalomania, and delusion. His recent speeches and appearances have shown him stinking with madness and hysteria. His age and condition, at any rate, set a very sharp limit to the duration of his regime. If that regime implodes while he is still "in place," then all the grim consequences foreseen by the realists will be incurred in any case. Weapons will get into the wrong hands; divide-and-rule tactics (already a stock in trade) will intensify; religious and tribal passions will be deliberately inflamed. The main difference will be that we merely watched this happen....The Arab League has now itself broken with decades of torpor, declared the Qaddafi regime illegitimate, and called for the imposition of a no-fly zone. This unprecedented resolution, which is not contradicted by any measurable pro-Qaddafi opinion in the legendary "Arab street," seems to draw much of the sting from the realist concern about regional opinion. The Shiite population has not forgotten Qaddafi's role in the disappearance and presumed murder of Imam Musa Sadr; Saudi officials have been targeted by his death squads; many other states have cause to resent his criminal meddling over the years.
Qaddafi is also particularly disliked in Egypt, whose armed forces we have been sustaining at a high level of sophistication (and expense) for several decades. Should the Obama administration not now be pressing Egypt to give point to its Arab League vote and to take a share of responsibility for local law enforcement? It would be a great baptism of the new Egyptian republic. But, again, one hears only the sound of shuffling.
I like this guy, commenter Borsia Novak, on Slate -- especially the bit about the kite:
The US needs to stay out of Libya and get out of the Middle East entirely. In case nobody has noticed the US is bankrupt and can't afford to fly a kite in Libya let alone air cover.As to the threat of losing aircraft to Libyan air defenses? Kind of a joke considering that we took out the entire Iraqi air force at a cost of something like 3 planes. The Iraqi military was huge and sophisticated compared to Libya. We could simply take out the air bases with cruise missiles.
But the fact that we can do something in no way means that we should. The best way to get out of another entanglement is not to get into it in the first place.
I also liked George Bush's "No nation building" declaration -- which was his policy...until it wasn't his policy and we dove into Iraq. (I was all for going after Osama Bin Laden and flattening the mountains of Afghanistan, if need be. I'm not anti-war, and I think Saddam was a bad guy, but that we shouldn't be acting as the world's policeman.)
Oh yeah, those "WMD"? That guy was about as credible a source as the guy who sits outside the coffee shop in my neighborhood begging for change.
Republican Spokeschick to Obama White House: "We're More PC Than You Are!"
Brian Beutler posts on TPM about a crack President Obama made about House Speaker Boehner's skin color, and former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino's response:
To wit, in a speech at the Gridiron Club Dinner, Obama jested, "I've made a few jokes over the years about John's unusual coloring. I used to think that it was a tan. But after seeing how often he tears up, I've come to realize: That's not a tan. That's rust!"Perino responded on Fox News. "Yeah, hardy har har. the one thing that's interesting to me? With all the speechwriters that they have they can't come up with any new material. They keep going back to the same well and making fun of John Boehner's skin color. Really? This White House? Of all White Houses?"
Oh, please. Now we're going to complain that they're not PC enough? This left-right squabbling is really tiresome. My six- and 10-year-old neighbors are more mature.
Sure, those on the left often leap to cry racism. I experienced some of this myself when I criticized a woman for having six children by five different drug dealers by the age of 24. She happened to be black, so the "progressives" called me racist. (P.S. I think white children need daddies, too!)
Obama's crack about Boehner's skin color seemed an attempt at some good-natured teasing, which I'm always for (and which is one of the things I love about Gregg, who sometimes asks, referring to my ADHD, "Do I have your divided attention?"). "That's rust!" reminds me of my friend Charlie, who is black but very light-skinned, and likes to refer to his skin color as "beige." Love that!
Me? I like to say I'm the color of fresh Wite-Out.
Is Your Interior Designer Really Putting Your Life At Risk?
Why does the state need to license everything? One reason: Money. Absolutely great piece from reason.tv:
On the way home, I saw some bullshit piece in the WSJ about how some interior designer incorporates doubling of objects for some brilliant look. I saw the rooms he designed. They looked okay, but nothing extraordinary.
I don't know that this guy is licensed, but here's what the WSJ's David Netto writes about interior decorator Jacques Grange:
Most of us employ pairs to anchor a room. A pair of chairs or porcelain vases, set wide apart in the conventional style, is a way to "close the deal" and make a room look solid and complete. Mr. Grange, on the other hand, uses pairs to do something surprising--as in the 1973 living room where the two Grange-designed orange leather ottomans are split up informally and appear to be giant pumpkins growing out of that green carpet. With objects of a different scale, he uses a different method: The blue bird sculptures are grouped close together, as is the pair of Arts and Crafts ceramic vases in the foreground of the White room. The point is, he never does what you're supposed to do with pairs. He does whatever has the capacity to delight and is unexpected, and a little exotic, which is what makes a great decorator.
Um, yeah. Emperor's New Couch, to me.
I don't know that you can see the photos in these (at the link above) without being a WSJ subscriber, which I am, but I didn't find these rooms extraordinary. I like the more traditional French room, but found the other two sort of disturbing and ugly. Yeah, sure, I can dress okay, but perhaps I'm just an interior decor philistine!
Palestinian Terrorists Slay An Entire Israeli Family In Their Sleep. Warning - graphic imagery in the video of the slaughter of Rabbi Udi Fogel (36), his wife Ruth (34), 11-year-old Yoav, four-year-old Elad and three-month-old Hadas:
For those who can't watch the video, the story is here, from the Jawa Report:
They quote a Hamas military arm justifying the attack: "According to the International law Palestinian resistance factions have the full right to resist any kind of occupation on the land of Palestine, as well as the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people in West Bank and Gaza grant the Palestinian resistance factions to use all tools and means of resistance against the Israeli occupation forces and the armed Israeli settlers."
Jawa responds:
Armed? Is a(n) infant armed?
More from Claire Berlinski on Ricochet:
A detail that wasn't widely reported, or reported anywhere that I've seen, is that their newborn baby was decapitated....One very quick point I'll make is that this was clearly not a family above all of "settlers"--some alien species that exists primarily as a political bargaining point--but of human beings. In the home next door to the one that was invaded, kids' clothing was hanging on the line next to a child's bicycle. You simply cannot look at that and think, "This story is above all about land and politics." This story is above all about murder. They were children and they were murdered. Two more children were orphaned. The children were targeted deliberately. This was a premeditated murder--not a crime of passion or self-defense--and it was a psychotically savage crime. Anyone who in any way tries to rationalize or minimize this or to suggest that this is a fitting punishment for anything needs to go out and look at a three-month-old baby and ask himself what it would take to climb over a fence, climb in a window, and cut off that child's head. If that act seems an "understandable" reaction to a political grievance to him, I don't think we can have much of a conversation.
Barbarians.
Gazans celebrated the murder by taking to the streets and handing out sweets and candy.
Barbarians.
Official Palestinian Authority TV says killing Jews is mandatory. A lecturer uses the Hadith, words and deeds attributed to Mohammed, to demand this genocide, blogs Robert Spencer on Jihadwatch. The lecturer backs up this demand by quoting one of the many odious passages in the Quran:
Mohammed said in his Hadith: "The Hour [Day of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews, [until a Jew will hide behind a rock or tree] and the rock and the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'"
Sure, there are many odious passages in the Bible, but how many of you Christians are going over in the dead of night to slaughter your neighbors for adultery or for the biblical fashion crime of wearing two different fabrics?
An Education In Nuclear Power
We have a guy who works in the nuke industry who comments here, and if there are any errors in this, I trust that he'll correct them. I'm a supporter of nuclear energy, which can break us out of financing Middle East terrorism and dirtying our air, and save us money.
William Tucker writes in the WSJ that, contrary to Rep. Ed Markey's panic about nuclear power, Japan does not face another Chernobyl. Some reasons why:
The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction. You can't have a "runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially explosive material.Once the reactor has shut down, there remains "decay heat" from traces of other radioactive isotopes. This can take more than a week to cool down, and the rods must be continually bathed in cooling waters to keep them from overheating.
On all Generation II reactors--the ones currently in operation--the cooling water is circulated by electric pumps. The new Generation III reactors such as the AP1000 have a simplified "passive" cooling system where the water circulates by natural convection with no pumping required.
If the pumps are knocked out in a Generation II reactor--as they were at Fukushima Daiichi by the tsunami--the water in the cooling system can overheat and evaporate. The resulting steam increases internal pressure that must be vented. There was a small release of radioactive steam at Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate.
From the comments, Patrick McGarry has a correction -- and some insight:
Yet again another news (OP/ED) article that doesn't get the facts right. Fukishima Unit 1 is a GE BWR-3 with a Mark I containment. The other ten units that were shutdown due to the earthquake are also Boiling Water Reactors (BWR). The control rods do not "drop" on an "unusual" event - they are hydraulically inserted from the bottom of the vessel up into the core. In pressurized water reactors (PWR) the control rods are inserted from the top.It is important during and after events of this magnitude that precise language is used to describe events to the public. Most of the public cannot distinguish nuclear power from nuclear weapons and they fear what they do not understand. Pro-nukes and anti-nukes undermine their credibility when they don't get the facts right and use imprecise language.
From a WSJ editorial on "Nuclear Overreactions":
The paradox of material and technological progress is that we seem to become more risk-averse the safer it makes us. The more comfortable we become, the less eager we are to take the risks that are the only route to future progress. The irony is that one reason Japan has survived this catastrophic event as well as it has is its great material development and wealth.Modern civilization is in the daily business of measuring and mitigating risk, but its advance requires that we continue to take risk. It would compound Japan's tragedy if the lesson America learns is that we should pursue the illusory and counterproductive goal of eliminating all risk.
Tucker's book: Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Energy Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey
New From The TSA: Random Roaming Seaches
Christopher Elliott writes:
As she waited for her flight from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to Medford, Ore., last month, Linda Morrison noticed something unusual in the waiting area."A lady in a TSA uniform came over, put on her rubber gloves and went up and down the rows of seats, choosing bags to go through," said Morrison, a retired corporate recruiter who lives in Seattle. "She didn't identify herself, didn't give a reason for the search. She seemed to be targeting larger carry-on bags."
Morrison was stunned. She expected to be screened at the designated checkpoint area, or maybe at the gate, where the Transportation Security Administration sometimes randomly checks passengers as they board. This was different. "To me, it just felt like an illegal search performed by a police state," she said.
More on TSA abuses from Elliott's blog.
Again, this is not about protecting us. This is about wearing us down, getting us used to bowing to power and giving up our civil liberties in the name of safety. Just think about the caliber of people searching us. If any one of you who comments here wanted to take something on the plane to blow the thing up, couldn't you get it through security? Maybe in parts, maybe carried by a few people?
Oh, and P.S. The TSA stills swears the radiation levels in the body scanners are safe.
A video of the TSA at work by Joseph L. Cooke:
20-Year Low-Carber Finds Zero Plaque Buildup In Her Arteries
Apparently, she went off the rails a little in low-carb eating and went back to low-carb after gaining some weight. Jimmy Moore blogs:
Do low-carb diets simply cause more harm than good by consuming foods that are higher in fat and lower in carbohydrates? Let's look at the story of one of my readers who has been eating low-carb for the past 20 years and recently had a sophisticated test conducted to see what kind of damage her high-fat, moderate protein, low-carb way of eating has had on her body.She e-mailed me that she recently had a wellness exam after recommitting herself to a "clean" low-carb lifestyle again starting in May 2010 and she discovered that her cholesterol was slightly higher (36 points up) than normal. However, instead of medication, she was put on a high-quality, pharmaceutical-grade fish oil supplement. Now that's pretty amazing in this day and age of handing out statin drugs like they're candy, but the "best news" is what happened next. At the same time they checked her cholesterol, she had an arterial ultrasound test called Carotid Intima-Media Thickness (CIMT) done as well. It's a sophisticated test where they use a doppler to capture images of the carotid, femoral, and abdominal arteries to see if there is any plaque buildup to be concerned with. Plaque that penetrates the arterial wall can lead to a condition known as atheroschlerosis where the arteries harden and become blocked which can eventually lead to a heart attack or stroke. Dr. Oz was certainly insinuating on his show that eating a diet that consists of fat and very few carbohydrates would lead to this, but check out what happened next when my reader got her results.
The nurse practitioner called me and told me that my results were some of the best she had ever seen! My actual age is 43, but my arteries measured that of a 25 year old!And although her cholesterol is slightly elevated, we know that most of those tests tend to focus on LDL and total cholesterol rather than the triglyceride/HDL ratio which is a much better indicator of heart health risk than what is typically measured. I have long challenged anyone to prove to me that "high" cholesterol is unhealthy. There's just no solid evidence that exists substantiating this oft-repeated but never proven claim. Even worse, most doctors seem to be so clueless about cholesterol except to pull out their prescription pad to write down Lipitor or Crestor for their none-the-wiser patients. Why does a non-medically trained layperson like myself seem to know more about lipid health than a cardiologist like Dr. Oz? Maybe he likes the money he makes cutting into people's chests (as he bragged so much about in the Taubes interview) while simultaneously taking sponsorship from advertisers who create products that are the real culprit in cardiovascular disease, namely high-carb, grain-based cereals.
I'm a little out of my pay grade on arterial plaque testing, but I can say that Dr. Michael Eades, whom I greatly respect, told my boyfriend and me that the test to have is one that measures calcium to check for plaque in arteries, and he said not to have the one that uses a CT scanner (dangerous radiation) but the rarer/harder-to-find EBT machine. Eades writes in the comments on one of his blog posts:
You, of course, must consult your own physician on this. However, if you were my patient, which you aren't, I would send you for an EBT (electron beam tomography) scan of your heart. If your calcium score were normal, I wouldn't worry about it. I would sent my patients to get EBT scans as screening procedures instead of the other scans out there that most cardiologists recommend because these other scanning machines inflict way more radiation than I think people need simply for a screening scan. I have my patients seek out an EBT scanning center because for screening procedures these machines are as accurate as the others, but with significantly (and I do mean significantly) less radiation. Good luck.
Dr. William Davis blogs at The Heart Scan Blog:
Studies have conclusively shown that:--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.
And here's Davis commenting positively on Dr. Eades' thinking on this and on diet.
What Obama Wants
For him, a "more perfect union" is a more European one, writes European parliament member Daniel Hannan in the WSJ:
On a U.S. talk-radio show recently, I was asked what I thought about the notion that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya. "Pah!" I replied. "Your president was plainly born in Brussels."American conservatives have struggled to press the president's policies into a meaningful narrative. Is he a socialist? No, at least not in the sense of wanting the state to own key industries. Is he a straightforward New Deal big spender, in the model of FDR and LBJ? Not exactly.
My guess is that, if anything, Obama would verbalize his ideology using the same vocabulary that Eurocrats do. He would say he wants a fairer America, a more tolerant America, a less arrogant America, a more engaged America. When you prize away the cliché, what these phrases amount to are higher taxes, less patriotism, a bigger role for state bureaucracies, and a transfer of sovereignty to global institutions.
He is not pursuing a set of random initiatives but a program of comprehensive Europeanization: European health care, European welfare, European carbon taxes, European day care, European college education, even a European foreign policy, based on engagement with supranational technocracies, nuclear disarmament and a reluctance to deploy forces overseas.
...All right, growth would be slower, but the quality of life might improve. All right, taxes would be higher, but workers need no longer fear sickness or unemployment. All right, the U.S. would no longer be the world's superpower, but perhaps that would make it more popular. Is a European future truly so terrible?
Yes. I have been an elected member of the European Parliament for 11 years. I have seen firsthand what the European political model means.
Read the whole piece for why it's dangerous for us to become more like Europe.
And thanks, Ben David, for the tip on the videos -- Peter Robinson of Uncommon Knowledge, interviewing Hannan. Here's the first:
The rest are here.
Advice Goddess Free Swim
I'm in Tucson for the Tucson Festival of Books, and I just woke up. So, today, you pick the topics -- one link per comment, or your comment is likely to go to spam.
If you happen to be in Tucson, come to my "I See Rude People: What We Need To Do To Bring Back Civility" session at 2:30 pm in the University of Arizona bookstore. Afterward, I'll be signing copies of my book, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society, which you can also buy at the link above. (New copies are only $11.53 and help me earn back my advance and sell the next book, which I'm working on now.)
Nonthink Gone Wild
The unintended consequences of school drug rules strike again. (Or are they unintended -- or part of an increasing move to criminalize everything? When everything is criminalized, the innocent can be arrested and hauled in, and those in power have much more power.)
From the WaPo, Donna St. George writes of a girl who was suspended, under "zero tolerance," for having an acne drug in her locker. Against the rules, sure. Ridiculous that it is, absolutely.
Hayley Russell was 13 and worried about another acne flare-up when she brought an orange prescription bottle to Rachel Carson Middle School in Fairfax County. She placed the medication on the top shelf of her locker so she could retrieve an antibiotic pill to take at lunch."I just didn't think about it at the time," she says.
Hayley violated Fairfax rules that prescription medication must be signed in at the school clinic by a parent and kept there. The pills sat in her locker for months. When an administrator confronted her about them last May, acting on a tip from other girls, Hayley quickly acknowledged her mistake. But it triggered a disciplinary process that kept her out of class for more than seven weeks and banned her from even visiting Carson without official permission.
For Hayley, the episode added a new layer of anguish to the social upheavals of middle school. Rumors churned wildly, with false accusations and painful insults about what she did to get into so much trouble. "Preggo," a classmate wrote on her Facebook wall. "Druggie," texted another.
Hayley's experience - as reflected in interviews and school records provided by her family - follows a pattern reported by parents in at least 18 other cases in Fairfax: Students get ousted from school for a month, two months, or longer if an appeal is filed. They go to disciplinary hearings expecting impartial reviews and find instead what they consider an adversarial process. For many, consequences include school transfers that cut off social connections and upend academics.
The Fairfax discipline system is under increasing scrutiny after Nick Stuban, a 15-year-old football player, committed suicide on Jan. 20 amid the fallout of an infraction at W.T. Woodson High School. The school board will begin a review of discipline policies Monday.
In Hayley's case, the drug infraction involved erythromycin, a common antibiotic that a doctor prescribed for her skin. "It was outrageous," said her father, Mark Russell, 52. "The intended and unintended consequences for Hayley were so severe."
Fairfax schools spokesman Paul Regnier said the school system interprets state law as requiring Hayley to be suspended and recommended for expulsion because she possessed a controlled substance, which includes prescription medication.
Zero tolerance involves zero thinking, which is exactly the opposite of what we should be teaching kids -- and exactly the opposite of the example we should be setting for them.
via @FreeRangeKids
NPR Schiller Firing: Right Outcome, Wrong Reason
I am not for taxpayer-supported media, but I do agree with Heather Mac Donald's assessment on Secular Right about the Schiller Firing:
I am happy to see NPR CEO Vivian Schiller go after watching her haughty, entitled refusal to speak about the Juan Williams firing at the National Press Club on Monday (not that the sycophantish National Press Club host pressed her to address the topic after her initial condescending refusal to go into it).But I fail to see the relevance of an NPR employee's off-air criticism of the Tea Party to the question of NPR's federal funding or its liberal bias. Conservatives can easily prove liberal bias by analyzing the content of the programming. And it is in that arena alone that liberal bias matters. Does anyone really think that no NPR employee finds the Tea Party racist, or, equally importantly, that no NPR employee should find the Tea Party racist? The public is not entitled to a particular political belief system among the recipients of tax payer dollars, just to the scrupulously fair airing of all views. CSPAN's hosts for Washington Journal are impeccably even-handed in their questioning of liberal and conservative guests. Despite the regular, predictable, and paranoid ranting of conservative callers accusing CSPAN of stiffing conservative entities and individuals, CSPAN is absolutely balanced in its coverage of political viewpoints. But it could well be that some of its hosts believe that the Tea Party is racist, or that Obama is a socialist. Who cares? In believing so, they would merely reflect positions that are present in the public.
Conservatives should make their case against NPR based on objective evidence of programming decisions. If they can't do so, what one employee says in a semi-private conversation is of no import.
I think more and more, there will be questions like this that come up, where statements people thought they were making privately end up public.
I heard Andrew Breitbart on CNN telling Piers Morgan that they were just borrowing from tactics used by mainstream media for years. (He's right -- the ABC versus Food Lion hidden camera case would be one of them.)
But, I think we need to be careful about getting to the point where there's little or no privacy anymore -- where a statement meant to be between two or a few people goes wide. I also think people in high positions (or any position) need to be a little prudent about who they mouth off to.
A Stamp And An Envelope Are All It Takes
Treacher blogs that Stephen King is wondering why he isn't paying more in taxes. King said:
Now you might say, what are you doing up there? Aren't you rich? The answer is: thank God, yes. Because I grew up poor. I lived in a family where my mother asked donated commodities from a Republican administration and got turned down. That's where I came from. And you know what, as a rich person I pay 28% tax. What I want to ask you is why am I not paying fifty?
Treacher asks:
What I want to ask you, Stephen King, is... who's stopping you? If you don't think you're giving enough of your money to the government, if you think they need it more than you do -- that they can make better use of it than you can -- don't waste it on charity. Write a check, for whatever amount assuages your guilt about being successful, and send it right on over to the government!
Handily, Treach gives the address where King can send the check:
Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Another Meaningless Social Media Campaign
Phil Villareal's headline on his post on Consumerist -- "Social Media Campaigns Urge You To Avoid Getting Gas Today." Oh, yawn. Villareal writes:
Various news outlets report that campaigns have sprouted up on Facebook, Twitter and by word-of-mouth to ditch gas stations in hopes that someone, somewhere, will get the message and stop gas prices from rising so fast.
Right. That'll work. Just as all those ribbons have stopped breast cancer and heart disease.
But, people can feel good believing they're doing something.
On the bright side, it might give some people on Facebook a little vacation from getting the news out to the world that they're drinking "a totally awesome latte."
Holy Cow
Got this one from a reader who's doing online dating:
Here's the weirdest experience I had--a man was very eager to meet me, said everything in my profile matched what he was looking for, etc. etc.. Until he found out I ate meat (I only eat organic chicken and wild caught sea food). He said he was a vegan, and he'd never be able to kiss me. When I asked why not, he said (and this is the total truth)..."My mouth is my most sacred chakra. I'd be contaminated from all the dead carcasses of the animals you eat, that are in your saliva." How's that for woo-woo?
Republicans Are Democrats Who Talk Slightly Meaner On Spending Cuts
At reason, Nick Gillespie links to Senator Rand Paul's speech on the floor of the Senate yesterday:
If we were to adopt the president's approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our [the Republican leadership's] approach, we're going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that's coming.Now, it's interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We're not even really cutting spending. What we're talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
...Do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can't even pass a budget. We can't pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there's a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government....
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they're right.
$500 billion is a third of one year's problem.
Up here that's way too bold, but it's not even enough.
Where would you cut?
Everything Is Actionable
As I write in I See Rude People, I sometimes take risks to speak up to the rude. They're my risks -- I choose to take them.
The estate of a guy who chose to chase down a tip-jar thief at Starbucks -- and ended up dying in the process -- is blaming Starbucks...and hoping to do so all the way to the bank.
From Consumerist, Chris Morran writes:
In March 2008, a 54-year-old customer at a Missouri Starbucks noticed a teenager swipe the coffee shop's tip jar containing around five dollars. The man chased the pilferer into the parking lot, where a struggle ensued and the man was knocked to the ground when the thief backed his vehicle into him. He died two days later as a result of head injuries.The thief was latter arrested in St. Louis. He entered a guilty plea on charges of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to a year behind bars.
But the lawsuit alleges that Starbucks is ultimately at fault for allowing an unsecured tip jar to be placed on the counter.
From the Valerie Schremp Hahn story in the Post-Dispatch, the suit alleges about Starbucks, that they:
"...did not employ security to prevent the perpetration of such crimes" and that it "invited the act of perpetration of said crime" by having a tip jar.As a "direct and proximate" result of this, [the man] was killed after he was hit by the car, the filing claims.
It says Starbucks had a duty to "exercise reasonable care" to protect Kreutz or give him adequate warning against harm.
Companies and people should be expected to take reasonable care, yes, which I think means not having the floor soaking wet so people slip and fall. If you want to be protected against every possible eventuality, you need to stay home -- or stay in your seat and watch Starbucks be robbed. Me? I'll probably chase the robber. And if something happens to me in the process, it's out of my choice -- and shouldn't turn into yet another way to bleed a business in court.
Could It Have Been Radical Quakerism?
Eric Holder, it seems, will do whatever he can to duck the question of whether Islam might've had a part in the Fort Hood shooting rampage, the pantybomber's and Times Square bomber's attempted mass murders.
Ruth Marcus, in the Washington Post, quotes Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith asking Holder if it was "radical Islam" that might have been responsible. Those who understand Islam understand that Islam, practiced per the Quran (which is to be taken literally and unquestioningly), commands Muslims to convert or kill The Infidel and install The New Caliphate around the globe. Granted, Muslims in this country and around the globe are like Christmas Christians, and don't even know (and wouldn't condone) what's actually in the Quran.
The fact is, there are many, many Muslims who practice Islam as they are commanded by the Quran and Hadith: as a murderous, anti-science, anti-democracy, anti-woman and anti-gay totalitarian system masquerading as a religion.
Ruth Marcus writes of the question Smith asked Holder:
"Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?"The attorney general did his best not to go there. "There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions," he said. "I think you have to look at each individual case."
Smith tried again - and again. Holder repeatedly resisted, before grudgingly acknowledging the obvious. "I certainly think that it's possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like" the accused Times Square bomber, he said.
...The roots of Holder's reticence are admirable: He wanted to avoid tarring an entire faith with the sins of a few extreme adherents. But the unavoidable fact is that, however much violent terror reflects a distortion of the tenets of Islam, it is not only practiced by adherents of the religion but practiced in its name.
To ignore the religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb to politically correct delusion. To ignore the homegrown religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb even further.
Michael A. Walsh writes in the New York Post on The Problem That Has No Name. And no, he isn't talking about depressed Long Island housewives.
Nuts Without Nuts
Loved this comment by MonicaP on Menopause In The Heterosexuality:
When I asked my husband why men deal with insane women, he said it's because sex with insane women is still better than sex with sane men. I really love his honesty.
Obamacare Is Oopsy!care
The law of unintended consequences rears its ugly little head again. Via Professor Bainbridge, via Instapundit, a WSJ piece by Janet Adamy:
Patients are demanding doctors' orders for over-the-counter products because of a provision in the health-care overhaul that slipped past nearly everyone's radar. It says people who want a tax break to buy such items with what's known as flexible-spending accounts need to get a prescription first.The result is that Americans are visiting their doctors before making a trip to the drugstore, hoping their physician will help them out by writing the prescription. The new requirements create not only an added burden for doctors, but also new complications for retailers and pharmacies.
"It drives up the cost of health care as opposed to reducing it," says Dr. Chung, who rejected much of a 10-item request from a mother of four that included pain relievers and children's cold medicine. ...
To the handful of congressional aides who came up with the idea to limit tax breaks on over-the-counter drugs, it was supposed to be a minor tweak to raise revenue and to discourage wasteful spending on health products.
Yesterday Was "Women's Day"
How goofy and insulting.
How are we supposed to celebrate this special occasion, by dressing up as giant vaginas and running around snorting Summer's Eve?
I was on deadline so I wasn't on top of the news cycle, but then Roman Genn, "the mad Russian," popped up in an instant message and wished me "Happy Women's Day." Roman tries to always say awful things (none of which I find awful, and almost all of which I find adorable, just like Roman).
Naturally, the Huffington Post celebrated "Women's Day" in hot pink, with a big silly photo of women releasing doves. (Do you think they were all girl doves?) The headline:
On Women's Day And Every Day HuffPost Readers Tweet How They're Taking Action
Oh, hurl.
Then there was stuff like this:
Kiva.org and the Ripple Effects of Helping Women
What if you need help but you have a penis? Hmmm.
More:
International Women's Day: 5 Ways To Help Empower WomenSupporters can also make a one-time online donation to help female survivors of war -- or sign up to support an individual woman through their monthly sponsorship program.
Women's Day to male survivors? Fuck you; go die.
My suggestion:
Tell women not to infantilize themselves and the rest of us chicks by continually doing these special needs days.
Gary Taubes On Dr. Oz
The amazing thing is, if you cut out carbs, there's a good chance you can be effortlessly thin. I get e-mails every week from readers who have discovered this, largely thanks to Gary Taubes and Dr. Michael Eades.
As I wrote in "Thick And Tired Of It":
The sad thing is, if you're like so many Fatty Pattys desperately trying to lose weight, you've probably been approaching it all wrong -- thanks to the advice of your doctor, Dr. Oz, much of the medical establishment, and numerous supposed scientists at prestigious universities. It's actually obscene how many "authorities" lazily and intransigently promote hearsay-based dietary medicine; for example, claiming saturated fat consumption causes heart disease when the evidence for that simply doesn't exist.For actual evidence-based science on losing weight, sans hunger and suffering, turn to Dr. Michael Eades' blog at proteinpower.com and to investigative science journalist Gary Taubes' exhaustively researched book Good Calories, Bad Calories. Taubes shows that it's carbohydrates -- sugar, flour, and easily digested starches like potatoes -- that drive the excess insulin secretion that puts on fat. Per Taubes' title, it seems a calorie is not a calorie, and the fewer carbs you eat, the slinkier you will be. If this sounds like the Atkins Diet, that's because it basically is. As Taubes told me, "Doctors have been saying Atkins is a quack for so long, they never bothered to check whether he actually got the science right. Unfortunately, he did and they didn't."
Taubes' latest book is Why We Get Fat -- a breeze to read, with everything you need to know about how you've been scammed by the research and medical establishment and the government on what's healthy to eat.
Here's Taubes on Dr. Oz:
And here's Taubes' blog item about his appearance. Rather disgustingly, Dr. Great And Powerful Oz sneers that Taubes isn't a doctor. No -- he's the guy who shows what shit science most of the people with medical degrees have be pushing on their patients for decades. Taubes writes:
Oz and physicians like him think that there's so much to be gained by eating whole grains and fruits (we agree on the green vegetables, although I do so less because of any compelling scientific evidence than because my mother insisted they were good for me) that they think this should be recommended to anyone and everyone and a diet that restricts them can't possibly be healthful.Oz implies on the show that everyone can benefit sufficiently by improving the quality of the carbs they eat and getting rid of the sugars, that any more significant restriction isn't necessary. And he thinks any significant amount of carb restriction will cause problems because a) people won't stay on such a restricted diet; b) they'll replace these foods in their diet with high fat, high saturated fat meats and eggs and so increase their risk of heart disease (a point I discuss at length in both my books and is obviously critical), and c) they'll develop diseases like cancer that Oz believes can be prevented by eating fruits and vegetables and maybe even whole grains.
As I point out on the show (or at least I did when the segment was taped, but it may or may not make it to the air as our taping session ran long), there's precious little clinical trial evidence to support this last contention, but Oz and authorities like him believe in the healing power of fruits and vegetables, and they're not all that bothered by the lack of clinical trials to support it.
This is the same take on the problem used by physicians and nutritionists who recommend low glycemic index diets instead of carbohydrate-restricted diets. They think this is enough to improve the quality of the carbs we consume, and the implicit assumption is that if we cut back on the quantity of carbs to any great extent we'll either eat too much fat (or too much meat, period) or we won't stick to the diet and any benefits will be lost.
What I'm arguing is that for many of us who run to fat, cutting down on the refined carbs and starchy carbs (potatoes, for instance) and on the added sugars will help, but it probably won't help enough. The dose of carb-restriction won't be sufficient to deal with the problem. We may stay fat. We may even get fatter. A blanket recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables and whole grains, as Oz prescribes and now Weight Watchers and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, ignores this aspect of human variability completely. It assumes that people who are predisposed to fatten can tolerate the same foods and benefit from the same very mild dose of carb-restriction that the naturally lean can.
I don't think that's true. It's that simple. I think that if we're so predisposed to fatten that we're already obese, we're probably among those who have to restrict carbs far more severely - have a much greater dose of the intervention - to get even relatively lean, which means relatively healthy. So for some of us and maybe most of us, even fruit, the nutritionist's darling of the early 21st century, can be fattening , and if it's fattening, it means it's probably causing far more problems than whatever antioxidants or phtyochemicals it contains may be preventing. (As even Wikipedia says, as of March 6th 2011 anyway, "While there is abundant scientific and government support for recommending diets rich in fruits and vegetables, there is only limited evidence that health benefits are due to specific phytochemicals.")
TSA Abuses
Some shocking stuff over here -- including the photo -- over at Cogitamusblog, posted by Lisa Simeone.
A couple in the comments from The New York Times:
181. HIGHLIGHT
Kathleen USA November 19th, 2010 8:11 am
I fly regularly for work. Last week, even though I had set off no alarms, a TSA agent made me unbutton my shirt exposing my bra and THEN frisked me under my shirt, focusing on my breasts. She also spent a lot of time "frisking" my genital area, again *under* my skirt, which exposed my underwear. It was humiliating. I debated canceling my trip home for Thanksgiving, I was so upset about it.I complained but was told since anything that falls under the umbrella of "security procedure" there is zero recourse. So why is the TSA so far above the law? There is nothing you can do if they do something incredibly abusive.
923. HIGHLIGHT
Sam Florida November 19th, 2010 4:56 pm
. . . I knew what to expect on the pat down put was still bothered by it. My crotch area was well probed by the TSA agent, my breats were well probed, I had to lift my shirt up while the TSA agent shoved her fingers into my the wasteband of my pants, etc.
Wearing underwire shouldn't be probable cause.
There's perhaps some indication they're groping and scanning fewer people, but let's not get complacent or comfortable with this.
Naked Men Or Ladies?
This is a question for straight girls (but guys and gay girls can feel free to weigh in, too, but please identify yourself as such). Anyway, if you had to go to a strip club, would you rather go to one where men are stripping or women are? And what's the reason behind your choice?
Is This The Oversensitivity Century?
Say some Stone Age dude is playing around and, for a joke, takes some Stone Age mama's baby out of her hands and sticks it in a hollowed-out tree trunk for 10 seconds.
Do you think that mama's life was forever negatively affected by this -- or that she went around the tree, grabbed her baby, and maybe gave Stone Age dude a kick in the shins for being an asshat?
A flight attendant for Richard Branson's Virgin Blue was canned after he allegedly put a baby in the overhead bin and apparently closed the door. For 10 seconds. Chris Moran at Consumerist writes:
The airline doesn't deny the incident occurs, but says that the boy's father was playing peek-a-boo with the baby and that it somehow involved the overhead compartment; the attendant was just playing along.Regardless, the attendant has been pushed down the emergency slide. "We conducted a thorough investigation of the incident and the staff member involved was subsequently terminated," a Virgin rep says. "The safety of our guests is our top priority and we do not tolerate any breaches of this."
In addition to firing the attendant, Virgin Blue offered the mom three free flights.
She says the baby now sees specialists because of the trauma from the incident: "He won't leave my sight now. He sleeps with me. If I'm not in the same room as him, he will scream and yell 'Mum, mum, mum.'"
Of course, that also sounds like any number of toddlers I've seen. And I don't think any of them have been place(d) in the overhead compartment.
Original story here in the Courier Mail from Australia. Tony Sheahan writes:
Ms Williamson said Riley, now 20 months, had seen various specialists since the incident after suffering from anxiety and withdrawal.
Hey all you parents out there: Does a 17-month-old kid really know what's going on if he gets put somewhere and it turns dark -- enough to be disturbed? Let's say he might. Does that kid actually understand a situation like this enough to be disturbed for months and months on end? Or...is it possible his mother understands the high cost of college and a nice big new house?
Justice Of The Me
Laws are for the little people, according to Supreme Court "Justice" Clarence Thomas' "do as I say..." notion of justice. GW law professor Jonathan Turley writes in an op-ed in the LA Times:
...Common Cause discovered that Thomas had failed to disclose a source of income for 13 years on required federal forms. Thomas stated that his wife, Virginia, had no income, when in truth she had hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from conservative organizations, including roughly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Thomas reported "none" in answering specific questions about "spousal non-investment income" on annual forms -- answers expressly made "subject to civil and criminal sanctions."In the interests of full disclosure, I was consulted by Common Cause before the release of the Thomas documents. I found the violations regarding Virginia Thomas' income particularly alarming.
Virginia Thomas was receiving money from groups that had expressed direct interest in the outcome of cases that came before her husband, including Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, in which the court in 2010 struck down limitations on corporate contributions to elections.
A justice is expressly required by federal law to recuse himself from any case "in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This law specifically requires recusal when he knows that "his spouse ... has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."
The financial disclosure forms are meant to assist the public in determining conflicts of interest. Though Thomas clearly could argue that his wife's ties to these organizations were not grounds for recusal, he denied the court and the public the ability to fully evaluate those conflicts at the time. Instead, Thomas misled the public for years on the considerable wealth he and his wife were accumulating from ideological groups.
After Common Cause detailed the violations, Thomas simply wrote a brief letter to the court saying that the information was "inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."
It is unclear how Thomas will rule in the next case in which an individual is accused of a failure to disclose on tax or other government forms. Thomas is viewed as one of the least sympathetic justices to such defenses.
Don't miss the rest of Turley's piece at the above link.
Best of all, Thomas characterized the criticism of his actions as an attack on liberty. Oh, please. It's an attack on those who believe they are above the laws -- and especially, those who are above the laws they are supposed to be defending.
Welcome Back To The Middle Ages!
UK power honcho Steve Holliday is telling citizens they'd better get used to flicking their electric switch and having nothing happen. Seriously.
Lawrence Solomon writes in the Financial Post of what will happen when the UK goes to a six-fold increase in wind power generation..."which won't be available when the wind doesn't blow"!:
Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government's targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.Under the so-called "smart grid" that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes.
Scary.
Smart grids are being developed by utilities worldwide to allow the government to control electricity use in the home, down to the individual appliance. Smart grids would monitor the consumption of each appliance and be capable of turning them off if the power is needed elsewhere.
"Allow the government to control..."
If those words don't strike terror into you, you're either wildly naive or still sleeping.
It's Your Death, And You Should Get To Choose When And How
As much as possible, that is, within the bounds of reality and unfortunate realities like disease. This was posted yesterday on Reddit:
51 Hours Left To LiveOn Tuesday I'll finally end my battle with cancer thanks to Oregon's Death with dignity act. As part of my preparations I've ended my pain medication and am trying to regain what little dignity and clarity I can.
Who I was doesn't matter. I'm in pain, I'm tired and I'm finally being granted a small shred of respect. Feel free to AMA if you're so inclined.
"I Sometimes Bleed Into The Seat Of The Person Next To Me"
That's actually what the guy next to me on the plane said to me when I told him he could have the entire arm rest, but he could not cross into my little seat area and touch me. (I was in the middle seat in coach, sleeping, and he kept putting his arm over into my space and waking me up.)
He condescendingly asked me to help him help me by explaining what I expected of him. I told him I didn't want to be touched by anybody but my boyfriend (Gregg was sleeping next to me), and explained again that the space between the arm rests was my little area and he couldn't cross it, and he was just going to have to work harder not to "bleed" into it.
The guy wasn't even a big guy. I found it really annoying that I had to have a confrontation with him to get him to not abuse me, and feel sorry for other people (probably other women only -- I bet he doesn't try that with a guy, or especially, a big man's man guy like my boyfriend). But, I think he got that I wasn't going to let up if he kept it up. And miraculously, for the rest of the flight, this guy somehow found himself able to make the effort to stay in his area and not "bleed" over into me and mine, save for a few passable times he bumped me when getting back into his seat or arranging his stuff below his seat.
As I explain in I See Rude People, rudeness (when it's from a stranger) is usually theft of some kind. It's small-time thuggery, but theft nevertheless: somebody is stealing your time, your attention, your sleep, or, in this case, hijacking your paid-for space on a plane.
What I thought but didn't say: "You so incapable of controlling your body that you're going to "bleed" into another passenger's seat? Bleed your wallet and sit up in those bigger seats in Business Class."
The Grope Report
I'm writing this as I'm in the air, 52 minutes away from LA, according to the little mappy thing on the back of the airplane seat in front of me.
Gregg took me to Detroit for the weekend, where, among other things, I went to Oakland University and spoke about why humans are rude and how to change things, based on my book I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society.
I was prepared to get sexually assaulted in the name of "security" on the way there and back, but it didn't happen -- on either end. Unless we just got lucky, it seems they're relaxing a bit on who they grope and scan.
Gregg, who goes to Detroit every few weeks, said that, for a while, they either scanned or groped everyone. Now, at least in my recent (and limited experience and questioning of other travelers), it seems they only grope you if you make the metal detector buzz. (Gregg suspects there still will be times when they grope or scan everyone in a particular line.)
On the way to Detroit, I talked to three TSA guys after I came out of the (unreasonable) search area, and they contended that if the machine buzzes, it's probable cause. Well, first of all, I don't get my legal information from TSA goons, and come on...probable cause is...wearing underwire?
Of course, nothing's been announced about any change in the TSA privacy invasion/sexual assaults/rights grabs. Gregg thinks the TSA might feel they lose face or jeopardize airport "security" by announcing it.
Your thoughts, your recent experience?
Look Who's Striking
Arianna Huffington asked me early on to write for the Huff Po. No way. I don't write for free -- especially not for somebody who lives in a massive mansion and has vast wealth. Steven Nelson writes at The Daily Caller:
Arianna Huffington is being cast by some unpaid Huffington Post contributors as an unethical robber baron. With Huffington awash in funds from AOL's $315 million purchase of the Huffington Post, contributors have called a strike to demand proper compensation....Bill Lasarow, Publisher and Co-Editor of Visual Art Source, announced that his organization is "now going on strike. For now, at least, no more content from us will appear on the Huffington Post."
Visual Art Source members have contributed content to the Huffington Post for free since 2010. Lasarow wrote that "it is unethical to expect trained and qualified professionals to contribute quality content for nothing."
How far the strike will spread is currently unclear. But Lasarow wrote that his group is calling for broad participation by Huffington Post contributors. "I am also calling upon all others now contributing free content, particularly original content to the Huffington Post to also join us in this strike," wrote Lasarow.
Lasarow wrote that his organization has two demands. The first, that the Huffington Post develop a system for paying writers and bloggers. The second, for the site to differentiate between paid promotional content and writers' work.
The group proposes a system of collective bargaining for contributors, expressing hope that they band together to "form a negotiating partnership with Huffington/AOL in order to pursue these and other important matters so as to professionalize this relationship."
Where the Daily Caller piece is wrong is that Arianna's fame came with the site. She was on TV all the time long before she started the Huff Po.
Regarding Scheer's remark, later in the piece, about the op-ed page not being a serious source of income. It especially isn't for freelancers, but I'm betting he got paid lots more money for being a regular in the pages of the LA Times.
The op-ed page at the LA Times used to pay $500 just a few years ago (if I remember correctly from when Matt Welch was there and wanted me to do a piece for him). It now pays $250. I write pieces for them pegged on rudeness and manners in hopes of selling books, and I'll use the last $250 I just got for this piece to pay for my hotel room at an ev psych conference where I'm going to learn more for my column and my next book.
America's Suicide Attempt
Brian Carney writes in the WSJ of British historian Paul Johnson's thoughts in his book, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties
Until the 1960s, (Johnson) writes in a chapter titled "America's Suicide Attempt," "public finance was run in all essentials on conventional lines"--that is to say, with budgets more or less in balance outside of exceptional circumstances."The big change in principle came under Kennedy," Mr. Johnson writes. "In the autumn of 1962 the Administration committed itself to a new and radical principle of creating budgetary deficits even when there was no economic emergency." Removing this constraint on government spending allowed Kennedy to introduce "a new concept of 'big government': the 'problem-eliminator.' Every area of human misery could be classified as a 'problem'; then the Federal government could be armed to 'eliminate' it."
Twenty-eight years after "Modern Times" first appeared, Mr. Johnson is perhaps the most eminent living British historian, and big government as problem-eliminator is back with a vengeance--along with trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. I visited the 82-year-old Mr. Johnson in his West London home this week to ask him whether America has once again set off down the path to self-destruction. Is he worried about America's future?
"Of course I worry about America," he says. "The whole world depends on America ultimately, particularly Britain. And also, I love America--a marvelous country. But in a sense I don't worry about America because I think America has such huge strengths--particularly its freedom of thought and expression--that it's going to survive as a top nation for the foreseeable future. And therefore take care of the world."
Do you share his optimism?
America Now Officially Too Obese To Bend Over
The latest infomercial product -- from a tweet from Dr. Emily Deans:
@evolutionarypsy Cleaning your feet without all that pesky leaning over http://t.co/yLgHoIt
We Killed Jesus -- And We Got Away With It, Too
That's what I joke that I'd say if I could go back and tell off the kids who told me I killed Jesus when I was a little kid. My other joke: "I'm six. I don't even kill bugs."
Recently, the Pope announced that most of us didn't kill Jesus; just a bunch of bad apples. Well, thanks -- now I can feel much better about all the nasty stuff I went through as a kid (not having friends, being bullied by a gang of girls in junior high who said anti-Semitic stuff to me, and seeing our house egged and anti-Semitic stuff written on our garage door in shaving cream -- by kids who heard the hatred uttered at home by their parents. Nice!) And all this in Farmington Hills, Michigan -- in the years before many Jews moved out there (my parents moved there when I was 2, in 1966).
Anti-semitic remarks seem to be popping up a lot lately -- from Galliano's recent rant to Charlie Sheen and beyond. Alan Dershowitz writes in the New York Post:
Then there is the Reverend Louis Farrakhan, ranting and raving about Satanic Jews controlling the world.This is not an entirely new phenomenon. Mel Gibson delivered a similar rant when he was stopped by Los Angeles police in 2006. "F - - - ing Jews . . . The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"
Generally, sobriety results in apology, but the damage has been done.
The question is: "Why the Jews?" There's an old joke about a Nazi rally in Nuremberg where Hitler is screaming, "Who causes all of Germany's problems?" An old man in the crowd shouts back, "The bicycle riders." Hitler's taken by surprise and asks, "Why the bicycle riders?" To which the old man replies, "Why the Jews?" That was the 1930s -- we're still asking the question in the 21st century.
Let me suggest two possible answers. The first is that little about the nature of prejudice has really changed, but technology has brought private prejudices into the public arena. In commenting on the Galliano outburst, Michel Gaubert, a French DJ and music designer, observed that "virulent views like those expressed by [Galliano] are not rare." But "the public expression" of intolerance is unusual and particularly troubling, according to patrons of the bar in which Galliano expressed his bigoted views. The pervasiveness of cellphone videos and the widespread use of the social media have blurred the line between private and public expression. What used to be only whispered to friends at a bar is now broadcast around the world.
...There is a second, a far more troubling answer to "Why the Jews?" Prominent public figures have blurred another line as well -- the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, between attacking the Jewish state and attacking the Jewish people.
Consider widely publicized remarks made by Bishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the American Model of Freedom, and a man openly admired and praised by President Obama. He has called the Jews "a peculiar people" and has accused "the Jews" of causing many of the world's problems. He has railed against "the Jewish Lobby," comparing its power to that of Hitler and Stalin.
"One Of The Happiest Places In The World" -- Unless You Chew Tobacco
Bhutan has the reputation as "one of the happiest places in the world." Meanwhile, Bhutan just jailed a monk for three years for carrying $2.50 worth of tobacco without paying the duty.
I think tobacco chewing is pretty disgusting and I despise tobacco smoking. I especially hate breathing in tobacco smoke. But, if you want to smoke and you aren't directing your smoke into my lungs or my living space, and if I don't have to pay for your health care after you get emphysema and/or lung cancer (this is a fantasy at the moment, that the rest of us wouldn't have it socked to us), have at it!
The story, from AFP:
Sonam Tshering was caught in January carrying 48 packets of chewing tobacco which he said he had bought in India before travelling back home to the Himalayan kingdom.Bhutan banned the sale of tobacco in 2005 and tightened up its law further last year to combat smuggling, requiring consumers to provide valid customs receipts for their cigarettes.
An eight-page judgment from a district court in the capital Thimphu said that Tshering had violated the Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan 2010 because he had not paid duty for the tobacco.
The Kuensel newspaper and the Bhutan Observer said that the judge opted for the minimum punishment, a three-year prison sentence.
"I should be punished, but the penalty could have been lighter, as I wasn't aware about the act," said a tearful 23-year old Tshering afterwards, according to Kuensel.
In the words of some ancient legal doctrine, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In the words of Amy Alkon, the more laws you pass, the easier it is to jail innocent people who pose no danger to society.
via ifeminists
Disability Epidemic On The Long Island Railroad
Walt Bogdanich, Andrew W. Lehren, Robert A. McDonald and Nicholas Phillips report in The New York Times of railroad workers disabled enough to collect disability payments (stealing from taxpayers if they don't actually have a disability) but well enough to golf their days away at Sunken Meadow golf course on Long Island Sound:
These golfers are considered disabled. At an age when most people still work, they get a pension and tens of thousands of dollars in annual disability payments -- a sum roughly equal to the base salary of their old jobs. Even the golf is free, courtesy of New York State taxpayers.With incentives like these, occupational disabilities at the L.I.R.R. have become a full-blown epidemic.
Virtually every career employee -- as many as 97 percent in one recent year -- applies for and gets disability payments soon after retirement, a computer analysis of federal records by The New York Times has found. Since 2000, those records show, about a quarter of a billion dollars in federal disability money has gone to former L.I.R.R. employees, including about 2,000 who retired during that time.
The L.I.R.R.'s disability rate suggests it is one of the nation's most dangerous places to work. Yet in four of the last five years, the railroad has won national awards for improving worker safety.
"Short of the gulag, I can't imagine any work force that would have a so-to-speak 90 percent disability attrition rate," said Glenn Scammel, long one of Capitol Hill's top experts on railroads. "That defies both logic and experience."
...And it is not just engineers, conductors or track workers seeking disability payments. Dozens of retired white-collar managers are doing it as well, including the former deputy general counsel, employment manager, claims manager and director of government and community affairs.
In fact, two formerly influential figures at the L.I.R.R. -- a married couple, one from management and one from labor -- are retired and drawing about $280,000 annually in combined disability and pension payments, according to estimates based on public records.
Railroad officials say that as far as they know, most of the disabled workers were able-bodied until their early retirement, and only then filed papers seeking occupational disability payments.
"How is it that somebody is occupationally disabled the day after he retires when he wasn't occupationally disabled the day before he retired?" asked Gary Dellaverson, chief financial officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the railroad's parent.
Easy. The disability is in their ethical makeup -- and in a system that makes it the status quo for the fakers to steal from us.
And don't think this is the only business or sector where this happens.
Marriage Equality
Classically Liberal shows what can happen to those who don't have it:
H. Kenneth Ranftle died of lung cancer in 2008. His will stipulated that the bulk of his estate would go to his partner of 25 years, J. Craig Leiby. For two years the estate has been in legal limbo because a brother, Richard, contested the will on the basis that Ranftle and Leiby are NOT allowed to marry in New York and therefore the will was void in recognizing Leiby as the surviving spouse.The greedy brother argued that since the couple couldn't marry under New York law that he, not Leiby, was the closest surviving relative.
What clearly saved Leiby and allowed his partner's wishes to be done was that the couple had traveled to Canada and married there. And New York state, where the couple lived, respects valid marriages from other jurisdictions.
Of course, if the couple could have married in New York the issue would never have arisen. It would be a rare thing for a brother to challenge his sibling's will leaving his estate to his wife of 25 years.
But, because the couple couldn' t marry in New York the surviving partner had to spend two years in court.
Why Isn't Michael Moore's Money "A National Resource"?
More from MooreExposed:
Michael Moore is a paradox. A millionaire who boasts of wealth as proving his value -- "I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it?"He lives in a million-dollar apartment, and boasts of that as well. "I walk among them. I live on the island of Manhattan, a three-mile-wide strip of land that is luxury home and corporate suite to America's elite..... Those who run your life live in my neighborhood. I walk in the streets with them each day" (Michael Moore, Stupid White Men, p. 51). For vacations, he keeps another million-dollar beachfront house in Michigan.
...He sends his child to a private school -- no sense associating with the working class -- and has some trouble associating with them himself. The New York Post reported on a tantrum he threw in London: "Then, on his second-to-last night, [Michael Moore] raged against everyone connected with the Roundhouse and complained that he was being paid a measly $750 a night. 'He completely lost the plot,' a member of the stage crew told the London Evening Standard. 'He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the 5 pound-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all con men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public.' At his last appearance, staffers refused to work or even open the theater's doors." NY Post, Jan. 8, 2003.
He supplements his meager income with speaking tours. No more $750 gigs; on his 2004 pre-election tour he charged Utah Valley State College $40,000, Xavier $25,000, and University of New Mexico $35,000. Not bad for an hour or two's work. Ah, the joys of capitalism....
On a related note, Dr. Robert Kurzban's smart book on hypocrisy, Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind
The Truth Will Set You...On Trial
A Swedish politician depicted reality -- Mohammed was a child-fucker, who married his wife Aisha when she was six and had sex with her at 9 -- and tried in court for it. Via Creeping Sharia (via The Local):
A Swedish politician facing charges for producing a poster depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad naked together with his nine-year-old wife was found not guilty by a jury in Malmö on Wednesday.Carl P Herslow, leader of the Skåne Party (Skånepartiet), a small right-wing populist regional party, is charged with agitation against an ethnic group (hets mot folkgrupp).
The poster included the text: 'He is 53 and she is nine. Is this the kind of wedding we want to see in Skåne?'.Herslow admits producing the poster but contested the charges. He said the aim of the poster was to stimulate a debate about Islam, which he argued was incompatible with democracy and equality.
"The intention was to provoke a strong reaction among both Muslims and non-Muslims," he said.
More about child marriage under Islam here.
Grasping Dumbass Of The Day
That would be Senaturd Sherrod Brown, who compared anti-union Republicans to Hitler and Stalin:
As Ben Smith at Politico writes:
Wonders the source who sent this one over: "When will politicians ever figure out that you never - ever - invoke Hitler, Nazis or the Holocaust - in political attacks?"
I'm reminded of a Fran Lebowitz quote about genocide and snowflakes::
Things are very rarely exactly like other things. If they were, people would be less baffled in general, and perhaps less given to such statements as "This is like the Holocaust." Nothing is like the Holocaust. Not that there haven't been other tragedies, other genocides. But simply that they were peculiarly, specifically, intrinsically like themselves. Genocides are like snowflakes, each one unique, no two alike. You can't go around making these horrendously invalid comparisons. It is disgraceful and annoying. If you were in Auschwitz, you undoubtedly feel that on top of having been in Auschwitz you shouldn't also have to have your experience used to justify, say, gay marriage.
Robbing The Taxpayer To Give To Themselves
Earmarks are basically reelection campaign funds, and a House Democrat, Jim Moran, indicated that lawmakers are getting around the new earmarks ban by convincing Obama administration officials to fund their pet projects. Jim Strauss writes on TheHill about an appearance by Moran on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal":
In response to a question about whether earmark bans have "curtailed" the Appropriations Committee's power, Moran responded, "No, and I have to say -- and I'm going to be as candid as possible -- the appropriators are going to be okay because we know people in agencies and so on. We will continue to do the best job we can for the country and to some extent for our congressional districts because that's our job as well.""But I feel quite strongly that the writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they gave the power of the purse to the Congress," Moran said.
The new House GOP majority has embraced a moratorium on earmarks, as has the Senate Appropriations Committee.
It's immediately good for a legislaturd to get money for his district, but it's anything but good for the country when we have a national debt that's beyond vast -- and ever-growing.
via Instapundit
An "Act Of God" Versus An Act Of Man
See the difference here, at Classically Liberal.
As Sam Harris has pointed out, and as Heather Mac Donald pointed out recently, people credit god when the 3-year-old hospitalized for some terrible illness lives, but they don't say god is a bastard when the 3-year-old is kidnapped, molested and murdered. Hmmm.
Fairtax
Pirate Jo was mentioning Fairtax the other day in the comments. What is Fairtax? Well, from Americans For Fair Taxation:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
The FairTax:
-Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
-Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
-Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
-Allows American products to compete fairly
-Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
-Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
-Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
-Abolishes the IRS
Myths and realities here. For example:
"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"
The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.
In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.
How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here. Secondly, not everyone's average net tax burden falls. For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system.
Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.
Why the Fairtax will work here.
So...you for or against? And why?
The Absurdity Of Federal Child Porn Laws
I know I say it often, but it needs to be said: People need to realize that laws can be used to entrap people who aren't criminals or dangerous to society.
Radley Balko, at reason, writes of a former cop's 15-year prison sentence -- "the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive":
In the spring and summer of 2006, Eric Rinehart, at the time a 34-year-old police officer in the small town of Middletown, Indiana, began consensual sexual relationships with two young women, ages 16 and 17. One of the women had contacted Rinehart through his MySpace page. He had known the other one, the daughter of a man who was involved in training police officers, for most of her life. Rinehart was going through a divorce at the time. The relationships came to the attention of local authorities, and then federal authorities, when one of the girls mentioned it to a guidance counselor.Whatever you might think of Rinehart's judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren't illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.
In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.
Much more at the link above.
"Diversity" Is A Cover Word For Racism
I've long been disgusted at the "diversity" scholarships and fellowships that pop up in journalism, which give money and opportunity people based on their skin color rather than on merit and financial need.
Ilya Somin at Volokh blogs about a recent effort to establish a scholarship for white males at Texas State University. Jenée Desmond-Harris blogs at The Root:
According to the Austin American-Statesman, a "whites only" scholarship is being offered at Texas State University.The Former Majority Association for Equality -- a nonprofit group -- is offering five $1,000 scholarships exclusively to white male students (the amount doubled after the program received media coverage on Friday).
Student Colby Bohannan, the president of the group, said, "I'm not sure white males are the majority anymore," adding, "There's a scholarship out there for just about any demographic, except this one. We realize it's for good reason -- this is a touchy subject."
From the group's website:
Our goal: To financially assist young Americans seeking higher education who lack opportunities in similar organizations that are based upon race or gender. In a country that proclaims equality for all, we provide monetary aid to those that have found the scholarship application process difficult because they do not fit into certain categories or any ethnic group....One obstacle that we immediately anticipate is to not appear racist or racially motivated. We do not advocate white supremacy, nor do we enable any individual that does. We do not accept donations from organizations affiliated with any sort of white supremacy or hate group. We have no hidden agenda to promote racial bigotry or segregation. FMAE's existence is dedicated around one simple principle, to provide monetary aid for education to white males who need it.
At Volokh, Former Army MP says:
Racial decision making is racial discrimation.I try to explain this to my students without getting fired. It is hard.
University X has 7,000 open slots for freshpersons. They know, based on prior years, that admitting 14,000 will result in about the correct number showing up (overly simply stated, due to rolling and early decisions allowing admission notices tweaking).
If they desire to quota admit 13% legal critical mass black and hispanic, then they apply their tests to see who has earned an admission spot.
If they get to the end of the 12,000 and they only have 6% black and hispanic-they knock off the bottom 6% of whites and asians who earned an admission, and promote onto the list those who had not earned it.
It is as somple as that. Taking away something a person earned, and giving it to another person on account of their skin color.
If you want to play the racist game, and the Supreme Court decided they like inciting racial discrimination and racial hatred, then that means you should play it all across the board.
John Rosenberg of Discriminations.us blogs:
...The justice of "compensatory justice" ... so often results in rewarding individuals who have not been victims of discrimination at the expense of individuals who have discriminated against no one but who are taxed to pay for the historical sins of their racial "group."Racial discrimination is an ugly business, and it doesn't become prettier by dressing it up as either "diversity" or "compensatory justice."
Ass Grabs Everywhere, Love, Your Government
Would you rather risk death (seems rather unlikely) or the death of everything this country stands for (seems very possible or likely, over time)?
Andy Greenberg blogs at Forbes, "Documents Reveal TSA Plan To Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers":
Giving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport checkpoints. Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.The non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Wednesday published documents it obtained from the Department of Homeland Security showing that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns. The projects range from what the DHS describes as "a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest" to "covert inspection of moving subjects" employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports.
This is your privacy. This is your privacy on government.
Wave bye-bye!
As schratboy commented at Forbes:
That's the sound of our constitution being shredded.
I like New Hampshire's solution, via infowars. Kurt Nimmo writes:
New Hampshire may soon criminalize the TSA's intrusive pat-downs and naked body porno scanners as sexual assault.Debate has moved forward on HB628-FN, a bill that would make "the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person's breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault," according to WMUR in Manchester.
You go, New Hampshire! Live free, or...arrest and prosecute the government's gropers!
Oh, and on a personal note, Gregg is taking me somewhere on a plane soon. If there are any Constitutional lawyers dropping by here, I'd appreciate a tip or two on whether it's possible for me to report the TSA person who gropes me for sexual assault (after our return).
California D.A. Steve Wagstaffe, in November, claimed that he'd prosecute any TSA worker who inappropriately touches a passenger during a security pat-down...but apparently his idea of inappropriately and mine differ. Here's his from KGO-TV:
"The case would be reviewed, and if we could prove the elements of it, that it was inappropriately done with a sexual or lewd intent, that person would be prosecuted," Wagstaffe says. "If someone were to take their hand and put it underneath somebody's blouse and touch someone inappropriately and go skin to skin, that's a felony, and if it's done simply over the clothing, according to California law, that's a misdemeanor."
Feel me up when you're not a sex partner I choose and you're sexually assaulting me.
Oh, Shut Up Already
It's become my recent life's goal to avoid news about Charlie Sheen, but a friend sent me this Charlie Sheen vs. Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?" quiz by Richard Adams in the Guardian, and it's funny. (I got only two right!)
1. I have defeated this earthworm with my words - imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fistsSheen
Gaddafi
More silliness at the link -- and try your luck!
Huckabee Is A Braying Ass
Why is it that the crop of candidates running for president in this country always seems like it should be tagged with the words "Biggest Loser(s)"? From a Daily Telegraph story, Mike Huckabee claimed that Barack Obama (who I'm no fan of, by the way) grew up in Kenya:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told a New York radio station on Monday that Mr Obama's youth led him to resent the West, which he said explains why Mr Obama's foreign policy differs so greatly from that of his predecessors."One thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, (is) very different than the average American," Mr Huckabee said, pointing to Mr Obama's decision in 2009 to return a bust of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
He failed to note that the bust was on loan from former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who offered it to President George W. Bush in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a symbol of trans-Atlantic solidarity. Mr Huckabee also did not mention that Mr Obama replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln.
"The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British," Mr Huckabee said. "But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather. He probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather."
Isn't there enough stuff that's legitimate to complain about in regard to the President that we don't need to just make shit up?
From a later bit in the story:
Mr Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to a mother from Kansas, and a father from Kenya whom he would barely know. He spent the first five years of his life in Hawaii and then moved with his since-divorced mother and her new husband to Indonesia. At the age of 10, he returned to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents on Oahu until he started his undergraduate degree in Los Angeles and completed it in New York City."The first time I came to Kenya was in 1987," Mr Obama said at the University of Nairobi in 2006. "I had just finished three years of work as a community organiser in low-income neighbourhoods of Chicago, and was about to enrol in law school. My sister, Auma, was teaching that year at this university, and so I came to stay with her for a month."
Social Steganography: Hiding Stuff In Plain Sight
Isobomber sent me a link to a piece by Danah Boyd on how people can allow many people to access their social networking pages but still maintain their privacy:
When Carmen broke up with her boyfriend, she "wasn't in the happiest state." The breakup happened while she was on a school trip and her mother was already nervous. Initially, Carmen was going to mark the breakup with lyrics from a song that she had been listening to, but then she realized that the lyrics were quite depressing and worried that if her mom read them, she'd "have a heart attack and think that something is wrong." She decided not to post the lyrics. Instead, she posted lyrics from Monty Python's "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life." This strategy was effective. Her mother wrote her a note saying that she seemed happy which made her laugh. But her closest friends knew that this song appears in the movie when the characters are about to be killed. They reached out to her immediately to see how she was really feeling.Privacy in a public age
Carmen is engaging in social steganography. She's hiding information in plain sight, creating a message that can be read in one way by those who aren't in the know and read differently by those who are. She's communicating to different audiences simultaneously, relying on specific cultural awareness to provide the right interpretive lens. While she's focused primarily on separating her mother from her friends, her message is also meaningless to broader audiences who have no idea that she had just broken up with her boyfriend. As far as they're concerned, Carmen just posted an interesting lyric.
Social steganography is one privacy tactic teens take when engaging in semi-public forums like Facebook. While adults have worked diligently to exclude people through privacy settings, many teenagers have been unable to exclude certain classes of adults - namely their parents - for quite some time. For this reason, they've had to develop new techniques to speak to their friends fully aware that their parents are overhearing. Social steganography is one of the most common techniques that teens employ. They do this because they care about privacy, they care about misinterpretation, they care about segmented communications strategies. And they know that technical tools for restricting access don't trump parental demands to gain access. So they find new ways of getting around limitations. And, in doing so, reconstruct age-old practices.
More on Steganography here. I do something similar in order to avoid getting fired by some of the more conservative outlets that run me. Instead of saying dominatrix, I'll say girl in a latex dress. This was more the case in years passed -- papers have relaxed a little -- but there's one daily that can't print "fart," and I worry about what they do to "butt." Amazing. (And they wonder why papers are dying.)
TSA Lets Boxcutters Through -- Times Three
Terrorists used them on 9/11, and TSA screeners let them through on 3/1/11. From a NYPost story by Philip Messing -- the guy had not one, but three boxcutters in his carry-on:
Agent Ahmir Wilkerson, supervisor Anthony DeJesus and at least one other screener allowed his carry-on luggage -- with the boxcutters with razor blades -- to pass through the X-ray machine, police sources said.Once aboard Santiago-bound Flight 837, flight attendant Fausto Penaloda, 40, asked him to stow his luggage in the overhead storage bin.
As Peraltalajara's shoved it into the compartment, Penaloda saw the boxcutters fall out of the bag, according to a police report.
He grabbed the boxcutters and alerted the captain and first officer.
They called JetBlue security, which raised the alarm to PAPD Emergency Service Units, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the FBI, sparking an evacuation of the plane's 136 passengers and five crew members.
The PAPD's Canine Unit swept the plane for bombs and all of the passengers had to be rescreened.
Peraltalajara told authorities that he used the boxcutters for work at a Secaucus manufacturing plant and simply forgot that they were in his luggage. He was not charged with any crime.
The TSA spokeswoman Davis insisted that the traveling public was not at risk.
If not, then why do we need the TSA -- at least in its present form? This guy was not a risk, and box-cutters are not a risk, nor are three-food machetes, providing they are not in the hands of people who believe, per the Quran, that they need to slaughter the rest of us for Allah. Terrorists, not tweezers -- or box-cutters -- are what we should be looking for, and well before they board an airplane.
The Emperor's New Hole
Charles G. Koch lays out where we're at in the WSJ:
In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.Yes, some House leaders have suggested cutting spending to 2008 levels. But getting back to a balanced budget would mean a return to at least 2003 spending levels--and would still leave us with the problem of paying off our enormous debts.
Federal data indicate how urgently we need reform: The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already exceed $106 trillion. That's well over $300,000 for every man, woman and child in America (and exceeds the combined value of every U.S. bank account, stock certificate, building and piece of personal or public property).
Are you terrified? I'm terrified. If you aren't terrified, why aren't you terrified?
Where's all that money going? Damian Paletta writes in the WSJ of billions and billions of government bloat (and obvious overregulation):
The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development.
The piece goes on and on and on about duplicated efforts and funding. It's just sickening.
Oh, and before you start pointing the finger at me for being a heartless Grinch; as Bastiat said, just because we're opposed to government paying for something doesn't mean we're opposed to it being done at all:
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." -- Frédéric Bastiat (The Law)
I personally help a homeless guy, and speak at a high school to help kids develop themselves, and in my immediate family, my little sister makes sandwiches and takes walks around San Francisco to give them (and probably botulism!) to the homeless; mainly homeless vets. We do these things for free, because we feel we should, not because we are on salary from the government.
Are You Getting Government Welfare?
Should you be? Kenneth R. Harney writes at the LA Times:
According to the latest estimates prepared by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the mortgage interest deduction will cost the government $99.8 billion in uncollected taxes this fiscal year and $107.3 billion in fiscal 2012. Homeowner property tax write-offs will cost $26.6 billion in uncollected taxes this year and $31.6 billion in 2012. The $250,000/$500,000 tax-free exclusions on capital gains for home sale profits are projected to cost the Treasury about $19 billion this year and $21 billion next year.
Mommy's Got A New Head!
A friend forwarded me a press release yesterday, "'My Beautiful Mommy': Ground-Breaking Children's Book on Plastic Surgery." Bear with the amateurish writing (person needs an editor something fierce) -- but, I figured I'd post the whole thing:
Young children are naturally curious - they're full of questions and excited to learn about the world they live in. However, as times change, children's curiosities have addressed more complex and sensitive issues, often at younger ages. In today's American culture, more than ever, answers can increasingly be found in children's books. Everything from divorce and global warming to potty habits and how to deal with a death in the family, children's books have tackled it all. Dr. Michael Salzhauer, a Miami board-certified plastic surgeon and father of four, has taken the reins on a very hot topic and wrote "My Beautiful Mommy," the first ever children's book that addresses plastic surgery."From television to magazines, we are exposed to plastic surgery," says Dr. Salzhauer, "it has become an everyday circumstance, especially for children. From their favorite movie star or singer who suddenly looks different to their own parents, plastic surgery is an issue that needs to be explained to kids in an educational way."
Dr. Salzhauer was inspired to write "My Beautiful Mommy" after his four-year-old daughter bombarded him with questions regarding his own nose job. He also noticed that many of his clients came into his office with inquisitive kids in tow - and mothers not knowing how to handle their questions appropriately. "I know how scary and intimidating a doctor's office can be for most children," says Dr. Salzhauer. "Kids tend to fill in the blanks in their imagination when they see mommy in bandages and they often feel sad, hurt and confused as to what happened. This book is meant to be a guide for parents who have already decided to undergo plastic surgery; and help explain to their children why mommy looks different." Dr. Salzhauer recognizes the controversial element of his book. "This book is not promoting plastic surgery. As I have taught my own children, beauty has many definitions - it is not only a physical entity."
Well, then how come mommy needs ass, cheek, and titty implants?
According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, in 2007, one third of the 348,000 breast augmentations and 148,000 tummy tucks were "mommy makeovers," or surgeries designed for women seeking to restore sagging body parts due to aging or pregnancy weight gain. "Plastic surgery among women, especially mothers post-pregnancy, is very popular and becoming a common reality. Cosmetic surgery can be a difficult topic to understand for adults; and even more so for young children. I wanted to provide my patients and other parents with a tool that speaks to kids in a kid-friendly way."
The lesbian parent version is "Heather Has Two Mommies (and she can no longer recognize either one of them!)"
If The Police Want To Question Your Kid
Wendy McElroy lays out what to do at TheFreeman online:
First, do not expect authorities to respect your parental rights. The mother of the Arvada boy begged the police to allow her to accompany her son to the station when he was arrested; they refused. Your cooperation with police will probably not be reciprocated. Your child does have rights but do not expect to be informed of them.Second: If possible, record the encounter. It is generally legal to record conversations in your own home. In any case, write down the names and badge numbers of attending officers; politely ask for the contact information for their immediate supervisor.
Where's the Warrant?
Third: Before letting the police through the front door, ask to see a warrant or court order. Under some circumstances, the police can forcibly enter your home without such documents but those circumstances are legally few. Even if you are threatened with arrest, stand your ground; demand the warrant. Once an officer is allowed to enter, he has the advantage. In some states he can immediately conduct a weapons search to ensure his own safety. In all states he can unofficially survey your home for clues to lifestyle or possible violations of law.
Fourth: If an officer pushes in, do not resist. Doing so opens you to charges of obstructing justice or assaulting an officer. Passively refuse to cooperate and call a lawyer.
Fifth: Whatever an officer says, you are not compelled to bring your children in for an interview or to allow any questioning without a court order. Nor are you required to speak to authorities. The seemingly harmless information you provide can be used against your child. State simply and as often as necessary, "I have nothing to say."
Sixth: Require the officers to state the nature of the complaint, including the number of the state statute or local ordinance your child is alleged to have violated. Have a copy of your state's laws on hand, much as you might have a phone book or dictionary.
If the Arvada parents had known to follow those rules, their son probably would not be on probation with a criminal record. He would not be a criminal for being a boy.
What Happened To Thinking
From Tom Wolfe's Hooking Up
But, above all, there was the curious case of American philosophy -- which no longer existed. It was as if Emerson, Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey had never lived. The reigning doctrine was deconstruction, whose heirophants were two Frenchmen, Michel Focault and Jacques Derrida. They began with a hyperdilation of a pronouncement of Neitzsche's to the effect that there can be no absolute truth, merely many "truths," which are the tools of various groups, classes, or forces. From this, the deconstructionists proceeded to the doctrine that language is the most insidious tool of all. The philosophers duty was to deconstruct the language, expose its hidden agendas, and help save the victims of the American "Establishment": women, the poor, nonwhites, homosexuals, and hardwood trees.Oddly, when deconstructionists required appendectomies or bypass surgery or even a root-canal job, they never deconstructed medical or dental "truth," but went along with whatever their board-certified, profit-oriented surgeons proclaimed was the last word.
A Piers Not To Be Working Out So Well
I saw Amy Wallace's tweet, and piled on:
@amyalkon Okay, he's an asshole, but did he line TV execs up on wall & gun 'em down? RT @msamywallace Piers called Sheen "the Che Guevara of Hollywd"
Wallace's Sheen profile in GQ, for anyone who doesn't already feel they've wasted enough moments (or worse) of their life on details about Sheen, is here.
Is Amazon Moving Toward Free Kindles?
From BigShinyRobot (great blog name):
Basically, in 2009 John Walkenbach noticed something interesting about the price of the Kindle. The price was steadily dropping and if it continued in this way it would become free in November 2011. What an interesting idea right? Well we don't know what Amazon is thinking...until Kevin Kelly writes:Since then I've mentioned this forecast to all kinds of folks. In August, 2010 I had the chance to point it out to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. He merely smiled and said, "Oh, you noticed that!" And then smiled again.
Reason's Nanny Of The Month
Bet you can guess who it is. Think the second oldest dirty profession in the world -- yes, politics.
If you're going to outlaw prostitution, aren't you also outlawing the profession of people like Harry Reid?
