Harsh Policies
LGF has linked to a bit of news: Russian security forces are going to bury the terrorists from the Moscow theater siege wrapped in pigskin.
Mean... but maybe it'll be effective. And what a contrast to our treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray!
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Synchronicity...
Strange... was reading Lilek's wonderful piece on generations' music this morning... while I listened to disc 2 of the Jimmie Driftwood - Americana boxed set. It just arrived from Amazon the other day. I'd bought two copies of the boxed set, one to give to my mother for her birthday, and one for myself, out of a sudden desire to remember something very nice from my childhood.
Why are top 40 tunes from sixty years ago considered children's songs today? I know why they have an appeal for me: these were songs my Mom liked. These were the songs from her girlhood. To my ears they sound like kid's songs because they were part of the household aural furniture when I very young; my Mom listened to these tunes just like modern Moms turn the radio to a station that plays Prince and Sade and Lionel Richie. I happily sang along - and I still remember her smiling as we sang to a Shari Lewis version of "Would you like to swing on a star." I had no idea were were forming a cross-generational pop-cultural bond. But few kindergarteners do.
I can remember helping my mother in the kitchen while she would sing "Mercedes Benz" or old Beatles tunes ("Maxwell's Silver Hammer" was a favorite of hers). I'll probably be singing along to the Cowboy Junkies, the Stray Cats, and Remy Zero while my children help me in the kitchen someday as well.
And Jimmie Driftwood... well if you haven't listened to him before, you should try and hunt some of his music down. If you have, you should listen to it again, just for the sheer pleasure of hearing such wonderful, heartfelt and fun music. I get sentimental when I listen to Jimmie Driftwood... he is an integral part of my associations with my maternal grandfather. Now, whenever I hear 'Soldier's Joy', I happily recall singing along to the song at the age of 8, when my grandfather would play these scratchy old recordings of Jimmie Driftwood he'd made off of the radio. How strange to pop a CD into the stereo of my car now, start the drive into work, and find that I remember the lyrics to each of the songs on the first album of the collection... music I haven't heard since I was 12 years old at the most recently.
If you haven't done it in a while, try digging up some old music you associate with your childhood.... I guess next I'll be hunting down CDs of Wee Sing Silly Songs...
Strange... was reading Lilek's wonderful piece on generations' music this morning... while I listened to disc 2 of the Jimmie Driftwood - Americana boxed set. It just arrived from Amazon the other day. I'd bought two copies of the boxed set, one to give to my mother for her birthday, and one for myself, out of a sudden desire to remember something very nice from my childhood.
Why are top 40 tunes from sixty years ago considered children's songs today? I know why they have an appeal for me: these were songs my Mom liked. These were the songs from her girlhood. To my ears they sound like kid's songs because they were part of the household aural furniture when I very young; my Mom listened to these tunes just like modern Moms turn the radio to a station that plays Prince and Sade and Lionel Richie. I happily sang along - and I still remember her smiling as we sang to a Shari Lewis version of "Would you like to swing on a star." I had no idea were were forming a cross-generational pop-cultural bond. But few kindergarteners do.
I can remember helping my mother in the kitchen while she would sing "Mercedes Benz" or old Beatles tunes ("Maxwell's Silver Hammer" was a favorite of hers). I'll probably be singing along to the Cowboy Junkies, the Stray Cats, and Remy Zero while my children help me in the kitchen someday as well.
And Jimmie Driftwood... well if you haven't listened to him before, you should try and hunt some of his music down. If you have, you should listen to it again, just for the sheer pleasure of hearing such wonderful, heartfelt and fun music. I get sentimental when I listen to Jimmie Driftwood... he is an integral part of my associations with my maternal grandfather. Now, whenever I hear 'Soldier's Joy', I happily recall singing along to the song at the age of 8, when my grandfather would play these scratchy old recordings of Jimmie Driftwood he'd made off of the radio. How strange to pop a CD into the stereo of my car now, start the drive into work, and find that I remember the lyrics to each of the songs on the first album of the collection... music I haven't heard since I was 12 years old at the most recently.
If you haven't done it in a while, try digging up some old music you associate with your childhood.... I guess next I'll be hunting down CDs of Wee Sing Silly Songs...
Monday, October 28, 2002
Well, actually...
Clayton's comments on the U of Arizona shooting spree are spot on, with one quibble:
Unfortunately, mass murderers don't pay attention to those signs. Only their victims do.
Personally, I'd bet mass murderers pay plenty of attention to those signs... when they see one, they know it means that they'll be shooting fish in a barrel. I'm of the opinion that one of the greatest benefits of arming a society, is that even the unarmed are protected from criminals, precisely because the criminals do not know which of their potential victims is armed. Putting up a sign that says that such and such a place is a 'gun-free zone', is the equivalent of putting up a sign that says "everyone in this area is unarmed and defenseless."
Here's a challenge to 'gun-free school zone', and other 'gun-free' area proponents: put a sign up outside of your home that says "Gun-free Household."
Clayton's comments on the U of Arizona shooting spree are spot on, with one quibble:
Unfortunately, mass murderers don't pay attention to those signs. Only their victims do.
Personally, I'd bet mass murderers pay plenty of attention to those signs... when they see one, they know it means that they'll be shooting fish in a barrel. I'm of the opinion that one of the greatest benefits of arming a society, is that even the unarmed are protected from criminals, precisely because the criminals do not know which of their potential victims is armed. Putting up a sign that says that such and such a place is a 'gun-free zone', is the equivalent of putting up a sign that says "everyone in this area is unarmed and defenseless."
Here's a challenge to 'gun-free school zone', and other 'gun-free' area proponents: put a sign up outside of your home that says "Gun-free Household."
Why don't we just give ALL of our money to the government and let them take care of everything?...
James Frogue has an excellent piece in the Washington Times, describing socialism in layman's terms. Any Oregon voter - or anyone else faced with the idea of 'single-payer' health care - should take note.
Look at Canada where single payer health care has been in effect for nearly 20 years. Among the world's 29 richest countries, Canada consistently ranks above only Mexico, Poland and Turkey in terms of medical technology. Months-long waiting lists for critical services and referrals to specialists are common. Cancer survival rates are well below those in the United States and prescription drugs are rationed. Of course, the rich and the political elite use their resources to skip the lines and head south to the United States for treatment, or pay privately, but illegally, for expedited service.
.... oh yeah, that's why.
James Frogue has an excellent piece in the Washington Times, describing socialism in layman's terms. Any Oregon voter - or anyone else faced with the idea of 'single-payer' health care - should take note.
Look at Canada where single payer health care has been in effect for nearly 20 years. Among the world's 29 richest countries, Canada consistently ranks above only Mexico, Poland and Turkey in terms of medical technology. Months-long waiting lists for critical services and referrals to specialists are common. Cancer survival rates are well below those in the United States and prescription drugs are rationed. Of course, the rich and the political elite use their resources to skip the lines and head south to the United States for treatment, or pay privately, but illegally, for expedited service.
.... oh yeah, that's why.
What will it take before the government listens?
Michelle Malkin is watching the INS as closely as Joel Mowbray is watching the Department of State. Thanks guys, those groups bear watching.
Who Let Lee Malvo Loose? she asks, and the answer, unsurprisingly, is the INS.
Eugene Davis, a retired deputy chief Border Patrol agent in Blaine, Wash., told me: "This is another classic example of how our catch-and-release policy for illegal aliens remains a danger to us all. What's it going to take for the American people to demand that we fix the system?"
From what I can tell, we're already demanding that the system get fixed. The problem appears to be that the government is staunchly ignoring us. From the Department of State, which willfully turns a blind eye to the terrorist threat presented by islamists wishing to enter our country, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which willfully ignores the same laws they are sworn to uphold, and allows blatant scofflaws to wander our country free of fear.
We're yelling. But the government is so busy pandering to the minority and illegal immigrant vote, they're turning a deaf ear to the cries of their own citizens.
Michelle Malkin is watching the INS as closely as Joel Mowbray is watching the Department of State. Thanks guys, those groups bear watching.
Who Let Lee Malvo Loose? she asks, and the answer, unsurprisingly, is the INS.
Eugene Davis, a retired deputy chief Border Patrol agent in Blaine, Wash., told me: "This is another classic example of how our catch-and-release policy for illegal aliens remains a danger to us all. What's it going to take for the American people to demand that we fix the system?"
From what I can tell, we're already demanding that the system get fixed. The problem appears to be that the government is staunchly ignoring us. From the Department of State, which willfully turns a blind eye to the terrorist threat presented by islamists wishing to enter our country, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which willfully ignores the same laws they are sworn to uphold, and allows blatant scofflaws to wander our country free of fear.
We're yelling. But the government is so busy pandering to the minority and illegal immigrant vote, they're turning a deaf ear to the cries of their own citizens.
Friday, October 25, 2002
Can't say it better...
Rand Simberg has managed to express my feelings on Sen. Wellstone's death precisely.
Rand Simberg has managed to express my feelings on Sen. Wellstone's death precisely.
A dumb idea that doesn't work... and if it worked? It would still be dumb.
Clayton's takedown of the benefits of ballistics 'fingerprinting' is worthwhile reading.
Using current crime statistics, he has done some math, and assuming that we lived in a fantasyland where:
- ballistics 'fingerprinting' works perfectly
- every single legal firearm in the country has been registered, and the information is regularly updated
- even firearms that have been stolen are in the database
- every bullet used in a crime is recoverable, and in good enough shape for the police to run a match...
If all these most unlikely circumstances were achieved, we would get the following improvements in clearance:
78 additional rifle murders solved;
2033 additional handgun murders solved;
0 additional murders solved with all other weapons.
In other words, even if ballistics fingerprinting worked, it still wouldn't be worth the money and effort involved. And it doesn't work. So its just a waste of money that could be used towards better things...
Clayton's takedown of the benefits of ballistics 'fingerprinting' is worthwhile reading.
Using current crime statistics, he has done some math, and assuming that we lived in a fantasyland where:
- ballistics 'fingerprinting' works perfectly
- every single legal firearm in the country has been registered, and the information is regularly updated
- even firearms that have been stolen are in the database
- every bullet used in a crime is recoverable, and in good enough shape for the police to run a match...
If all these most unlikely circumstances were achieved, we would get the following improvements in clearance:
78 additional rifle murders solved;
2033 additional handgun murders solved;
0 additional murders solved with all other weapons.
In other words, even if ballistics fingerprinting worked, it still wouldn't be worth the money and effort involved. And it doesn't work. So its just a waste of money that could be used towards better things...
Thursday, October 17, 2002
Saturn: Rape Sells SUVs
I was watching television last night, when a commercial for a Saturn SUV came on. In it, a bunch of guys head out for a camping trip to the woods, and while the announcer is extolling the virtues of the vehicle, music comes on in the background. It's the dueling banjoes from the movie, Deliverance, and the guys in the commercial predictably become terrified, pile into the vehicle, and drive away. The announcer says something to the effect of "..and with electric power steering, you can really get away..."
I admit, I giggled. But am I the only one who doesn't think that fear of rape by backwoods hicks is a good marketing hook for a car? And tasteless? I can only imagine the outrage that would follow were Saturn to make a similar commercial for women. So why is it acceptable to make jokes about raping men?
I was watching television last night, when a commercial for a Saturn SUV came on. In it, a bunch of guys head out for a camping trip to the woods, and while the announcer is extolling the virtues of the vehicle, music comes on in the background. It's the dueling banjoes from the movie, Deliverance, and the guys in the commercial predictably become terrified, pile into the vehicle, and drive away. The announcer says something to the effect of "..and with electric power steering, you can really get away..."
I admit, I giggled. But am I the only one who doesn't think that fear of rape by backwoods hicks is a good marketing hook for a car? And tasteless? I can only imagine the outrage that would follow were Saturn to make a similar commercial for women. So why is it acceptable to make jokes about raping men?
Belated Justice
Ira Einhorn has been declared guilty of murdering his girlfriend.
Update: Here's an AP article announcing the verdict.
Ira Einhorn has been declared guilty of murdering his girlfriend.
Update: Here's an AP article announcing the verdict.
Monday, October 14, 2002
What's gun control got to do with it?
Clayton makes very good points about those trying to score political points for their argument off of the recent 'sniper-style' attacks in my area... both pro and con.
Clayton makes very good points about those trying to score political points for their argument off of the recent 'sniper-style' attacks in my area... both pro and con.
Friday, October 11, 2002
Thinning the Herd...
I shouldn't get a giggle out of this, but what an ignominious what to die.
People who live in trees, lie down in the middle of the road, chain themselves to structures, stage hunger-strikes, etc. are engaging in adult-style temper-tantrums. We shouldn't coddle them, we should treat them in a manner consistent with the maturity of their actions. Since they're acting like 4 year olds, we should send them to their room without supper.
The key sentence in this article came at the end:
In perhaps the most famous tree sit, Julia "Butterfly" Hill spent two years 180 feet up in a 1,000-year-old redwood in Northern California to save it from being cut down for lumber.
She came down in 1999 after Pacific Lumber Co. agreed to leave the tree standing in return for $50,000 to make up for lost logging revenue.
Yep. Don't want someone who owns a tree to cut it down? Why not try buying it?
I shouldn't get a giggle out of this, but what an ignominious what to die.
People who live in trees, lie down in the middle of the road, chain themselves to structures, stage hunger-strikes, etc. are engaging in adult-style temper-tantrums. We shouldn't coddle them, we should treat them in a manner consistent with the maturity of their actions. Since they're acting like 4 year olds, we should send them to their room without supper.
The key sentence in this article came at the end:
In perhaps the most famous tree sit, Julia "Butterfly" Hill spent two years 180 feet up in a 1,000-year-old redwood in Northern California to save it from being cut down for lumber.
She came down in 1999 after Pacific Lumber Co. agreed to leave the tree standing in return for $50,000 to make up for lost logging revenue.
Yep. Don't want someone who owns a tree to cut it down? Why not try buying it?
Hear! Hear!
Clayton has it right.
Spongebob is a children's character, and as such, his sexuality or lack thereof should never be an issue.
In this case, the news seems to be that Spongebob is popular among the gay community. The last time I recalled, so was Judy Garland -- does that mean we should look for gay overtones in the Wizard of Oz? More importantly, what does that have to do with the show itself? I'd be willing to bet that Spongebob is as popular among potheads as the Teletubbies were, but I wouldn't say that either show encourages drug use. It's just that these shows, having been targeted at a very young and innocent audience, are also ideal fare for someone who is stoned.
There is evidence that indicates that children's stories (and I would say, with the advent of television, their shows as well) have long been used as a teaching tool to instruct or warn children. Jack Zipes' excellent book "The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood" gives an excellent example of how children's tales have evolved over time to suit the lessons that grownup society wishes to impart. I don't, therefore, think that it's a bad thing to examine the content of a show with an eye to what lessons it teaches our children, rather than its entertainment value. So were Spongebob to invite the Pink Teletubbie over for an olive-oil wrestling party, I'd be offended.
However, Spongebob as he is now, is just a fantasy children's character who happens to also appeal to folks with an (stereotypically) effeminate bent. Shocking that something cutesy would be popular among people stereotyped for being cutesy.
Update: I've been angrily informed by my 23 year old little sister (not a pothead) that there is no 'pink' teletubbie, and that I should change my reference to Tinky Winky instead. Just goes to show how much childrens' programming I watch these days.
Clayton has it right.
Spongebob is a children's character, and as such, his sexuality or lack thereof should never be an issue.
In this case, the news seems to be that Spongebob is popular among the gay community. The last time I recalled, so was Judy Garland -- does that mean we should look for gay overtones in the Wizard of Oz? More importantly, what does that have to do with the show itself? I'd be willing to bet that Spongebob is as popular among potheads as the Teletubbies were, but I wouldn't say that either show encourages drug use. It's just that these shows, having been targeted at a very young and innocent audience, are also ideal fare for someone who is stoned.
There is evidence that indicates that children's stories (and I would say, with the advent of television, their shows as well) have long been used as a teaching tool to instruct or warn children. Jack Zipes' excellent book "The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood" gives an excellent example of how children's tales have evolved over time to suit the lessons that grownup society wishes to impart. I don't, therefore, think that it's a bad thing to examine the content of a show with an eye to what lessons it teaches our children, rather than its entertainment value. So were Spongebob to invite the Pink Teletubbie over for an olive-oil wrestling party, I'd be offended.
However, Spongebob as he is now, is just a fantasy children's character who happens to also appeal to folks with an (stereotypically) effeminate bent. Shocking that something cutesy would be popular among people stereotyped for being cutesy.
Update: I've been angrily informed by my 23 year old little sister (not a pothead) that there is no 'pink' teletubbie, and that I should change my reference to Tinky Winky instead. Just goes to show how much childrens' programming I watch these days.
Thursday, October 10, 2002
If the shoe fits...
Terrible piece in the Washington Times Editorial Page today, titled "Who are you calling a Terrorist?".
Steven Zak blathers about how right-wing types, the Washington Times and the National Review Online have been unjustly saying that animal rights activists commit terrorism...
"Granted, some radical animal activists have committed serious acts of vandalism and other crimes."
I don't think people are so worried about the serious acts of vandalism as they are the serious acts of arson that groups like the ELF and the ALF have been engaging in. Fireboming a ski lodge in Vail is not vandalism, it's attempted murder. Fireboming a Forest Service laboratory in Pennsylvania isn't vandalism either. And I'm sure the owners of the various car dealerships the ELF/ALF has fire-bombed wouldn't call their activities 'vandalism' either. Hell, kidnapping a british reporter and branding your organization's letters on his stomach isn't vandalism either, its torture, you twit. It's disengenious to point to something minor, like vandalism, and lump the actual, valid complaints we have against animal rights nutjobs into something as vague as 'other crimes'.
But the wrongers' wrath isn't directed solely at them. Mr. Smith, for instance, condemns groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and even the moderate Humane Society of the United States.
That wouldn't have something to do with PETA's material and moral support for animal rights terrorists, would it? Especially when officials in their organization, like Bruce Friedrich, make statements like:
"If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
... but back to Zak.
"Do such expressions of concern and caring for animals make you worry that animals will soon get the vote, or that shared restrooms for them and us can't be far behind? Of course not. But they apparently do worry the animal wrongers, who fear the slippery slope that we've all stepped onto long, long ago.
But they're worse than just silly reactionaries. By equating vandalism and other property crimes with terrorism, the wrongers trivialize the real thing and insult its victims. Which, come to think of it, sort of makes them terrorists."
Of course! How could I have never seen it before? Firebombing a forest service lab = vandalism. Criticizing the people who do it = terrorism.
Gas Station Attendant jumps in: "I'm picking up on your sarcasm here."
David Spade kindly replies for me: "That's good, cos I'm laying it on pretty thick."
- Tommy Boy
No, I don't worry that animals will get the vote. And some people have been clever enough with training their house pets that they already share restrooms. I only wish I could teach my cat to use the toilet.
We're not afraid of the slippery slope. We're afraid some more of you childish little hoodlums will show up in our neck of the woods and decide to burn something else down to make an incoherent and obviously not well thought out point.
I thought about removing the 'twit' and 'nutjob' remarks, but since calling me an 'animal-wronger' is about as mature as calling a pro-choice person a 'pro-deather'... well... nanny nanny boo boo! I'm going home and grilling up a great big bloody steak.
Terrible piece in the Washington Times Editorial Page today, titled "Who are you calling a Terrorist?".
Steven Zak blathers about how right-wing types, the Washington Times and the National Review Online have been unjustly saying that animal rights activists commit terrorism...
"Granted, some radical animal activists have committed serious acts of vandalism and other crimes."
I don't think people are so worried about the serious acts of vandalism as they are the serious acts of arson that groups like the ELF and the ALF have been engaging in. Fireboming a ski lodge in Vail is not vandalism, it's attempted murder. Fireboming a Forest Service laboratory in Pennsylvania isn't vandalism either. And I'm sure the owners of the various car dealerships the ELF/ALF has fire-bombed wouldn't call their activities 'vandalism' either. Hell, kidnapping a british reporter and branding your organization's letters on his stomach isn't vandalism either, its torture, you twit. It's disengenious to point to something minor, like vandalism, and lump the actual, valid complaints we have against animal rights nutjobs into something as vague as 'other crimes'.
But the wrongers' wrath isn't directed solely at them. Mr. Smith, for instance, condemns groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and even the moderate Humane Society of the United States.
That wouldn't have something to do with PETA's material and moral support for animal rights terrorists, would it? Especially when officials in their organization, like Bruce Friedrich, make statements like:
"If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
... but back to Zak.
"Do such expressions of concern and caring for animals make you worry that animals will soon get the vote, or that shared restrooms for them and us can't be far behind? Of course not. But they apparently do worry the animal wrongers, who fear the slippery slope that we've all stepped onto long, long ago.
But they're worse than just silly reactionaries. By equating vandalism and other property crimes with terrorism, the wrongers trivialize the real thing and insult its victims. Which, come to think of it, sort of makes them terrorists."
Of course! How could I have never seen it before? Firebombing a forest service lab = vandalism. Criticizing the people who do it = terrorism.
Gas Station Attendant jumps in: "I'm picking up on your sarcasm here."
David Spade kindly replies for me: "That's good, cos I'm laying it on pretty thick."
- Tommy Boy
No, I don't worry that animals will get the vote. And some people have been clever enough with training their house pets that they already share restrooms. I only wish I could teach my cat to use the toilet.
We're not afraid of the slippery slope. We're afraid some more of you childish little hoodlums will show up in our neck of the woods and decide to burn something else down to make an incoherent and obviously not well thought out point.
I thought about removing the 'twit' and 'nutjob' remarks, but since calling me an 'animal-wronger' is about as mature as calling a pro-choice person a 'pro-deather'... well... nanny nanny boo boo! I'm going home and grilling up a great big bloody steak.
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Padding the Facts on Obesity
CHICAGO -- Americans are even fatter than they think they are, with nearly a third of all adults - almost 59 million people - rated obese in a disturbing new government survey based on actual body measurements.
One in five Americans, or 19.8 percent, had considered themselves obese in a 2000 survey based on people's own assessments of their girth.
The new 1999-2000 survey puts the real number at 31 percent - a doubling over the past two decades. The new number is considered more reliable since people consistently underestimate their weight.
So basically, the AP has succeeded in manufacturing news by comparing an opinion survey based on personal assessments of one's weight, and a survey that takes into account their actual weight. That's like asking someone to guess how much they weigh, getting an answer of 125lbs, then putting them on the scale and claiming that they gained 10 pounds when they actually weigh in at 135.
In addition, a measurement-based survey of young people found that 15 percent of youngsters ages 6 to 19 were seriously overweight. That is nearly 9 million youths and triple the number in a similar assessment from 1980.
Just keep in mind that the Government's definition of obesity has no correlation whatsoever to actual percentage of body fat. See Junk Science's excellent explanation of just who falls into the category 'obese'.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys have been conducted periodically for several years. Twenty-three percent of adults were obese in 1994 and 15 percent in 1980. ... Obesity is defined as having a body-mass index of 30 or above. The index is a measure of weight relative to height.
The latest survey also found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults were overweight, or had a body-mass index of between 25 and 30.
Of course, the article neglects to mention that the jump from 23% to nearly 66% has much to do with the Government's redefinition of obesity in 1998, when they abandoned the concept of percentage body fat and embraced the wholly stupid idea of just comparing height to weight.
"The numbers are pretty shocking," said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"They need to put into place real policy," such as offering more healthful foods in government meal programs and requiring fast-food restaurants to list calories on menus, she said.
If by 'shocking', you mean: alarmist, dishonest, scaremongering, deceptive...
If you're wondering who the Center for Science in the Public Interest is, they're an advocacy group that campaigns for organic and vegetarian diets, not a disinterested group of scientists. And if you're wondering about some of the policy iniatives CSPI is campaigning to put in place, we can start with their most popular crusade, the 'twinkie tax'. CSPI thinks that food that they don't consider healthy should be punitively taxed in order to force people to eat to their standard of 'healthy'. If you'd like more information on them, check Activist Cash.com and look at CSPI's profile.
CHICAGO -- Americans are even fatter than they think they are, with nearly a third of all adults - almost 59 million people - rated obese in a disturbing new government survey based on actual body measurements.
One in five Americans, or 19.8 percent, had considered themselves obese in a 2000 survey based on people's own assessments of their girth.
The new 1999-2000 survey puts the real number at 31 percent - a doubling over the past two decades. The new number is considered more reliable since people consistently underestimate their weight.
So basically, the AP has succeeded in manufacturing news by comparing an opinion survey based on personal assessments of one's weight, and a survey that takes into account their actual weight. That's like asking someone to guess how much they weigh, getting an answer of 125lbs, then putting them on the scale and claiming that they gained 10 pounds when they actually weigh in at 135.
In addition, a measurement-based survey of young people found that 15 percent of youngsters ages 6 to 19 were seriously overweight. That is nearly 9 million youths and triple the number in a similar assessment from 1980.
Just keep in mind that the Government's definition of obesity has no correlation whatsoever to actual percentage of body fat. See Junk Science's excellent explanation of just who falls into the category 'obese'.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys have been conducted periodically for several years. Twenty-three percent of adults were obese in 1994 and 15 percent in 1980. ... Obesity is defined as having a body-mass index of 30 or above. The index is a measure of weight relative to height.
The latest survey also found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults were overweight, or had a body-mass index of between 25 and 30.
Of course, the article neglects to mention that the jump from 23% to nearly 66% has much to do with the Government's redefinition of obesity in 1998, when they abandoned the concept of percentage body fat and embraced the wholly stupid idea of just comparing height to weight.
"The numbers are pretty shocking," said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"They need to put into place real policy," such as offering more healthful foods in government meal programs and requiring fast-food restaurants to list calories on menus, she said.
If by 'shocking', you mean: alarmist, dishonest, scaremongering, deceptive...
If you're wondering who the Center for Science in the Public Interest is, they're an advocacy group that campaigns for organic and vegetarian diets, not a disinterested group of scientists. And if you're wondering about some of the policy iniatives CSPI is campaigning to put in place, we can start with their most popular crusade, the 'twinkie tax'. CSPI thinks that food that they don't consider healthy should be punitively taxed in order to force people to eat to their standard of 'healthy'. If you'd like more information on them, check Activist Cash.com and look at CSPI's profile.
Slipping further into Socialism
I have no idea if this stands a chance of passing, or not but it's scary... there's an initiative on the Nov. 5th ballot in Oregon that would create a Universal State Health Care system that would have no premiums or copays... and that would be generous enough that the article reports it would cover massage and acupuncture.
The Oregon plan would be financed by a new payroll tax of up to 11.5 percent on businesses and an increase in personal income taxes. The top rate would rise from its current 9 percent to as high as 17 percent.
Glad I'm on the East, not the Left coast.
I have no idea if this stands a chance of passing, or not but it's scary... there's an initiative on the Nov. 5th ballot in Oregon that would create a Universal State Health Care system that would have no premiums or copays... and that would be generous enough that the article reports it would cover massage and acupuncture.
The Oregon plan would be financed by a new payroll tax of up to 11.5 percent on businesses and an increase in personal income taxes. The top rate would rise from its current 9 percent to as high as 17 percent.
Glad I'm on the East, not the Left coast.
Mmmm... Mmmmm... Good
Last night my boyfriend built up a roaring fire as soon as he got home from work, and as soon as I made it home, I marinated some really thick butterfly pork chops in a little sherry, soy sauce, mirin and some Melinda's. Once he got enough coals together out of the fire, we dumped them in our grill, and I cooked the pork chops over that... slowly. The result was the juiciest, most flavorful (but without obscuring the flavor of the meat) pork chop I have ever had. Yummy. I'll just remember to do it on a weekend next time... it takes a while to cook them this way (I had them on the grill for 45 minutes).
Last night my boyfriend built up a roaring fire as soon as he got home from work, and as soon as I made it home, I marinated some really thick butterfly pork chops in a little sherry, soy sauce, mirin and some Melinda's. Once he got enough coals together out of the fire, we dumped them in our grill, and I cooked the pork chops over that... slowly. The result was the juiciest, most flavorful (but without obscuring the flavor of the meat) pork chop I have ever had. Yummy. I'll just remember to do it on a weekend next time... it takes a while to cook them this way (I had them on the grill for 45 minutes).
Thursday, October 03, 2002
Did you know the word 'gullible' isn't in the dictionary?
One of the most beautiful things about the blogosphere is that when a blogger makes an error, they're normally quick to correct it. .... or everyone else will for them. The phrase 'fact-check your ass' comes to mind.
So maybe major media organizations should do themselves a favor and hire some bloggers to fact-check their reporters before they report, in all seriousness, that "the WHO says blondes are going extinct."
... no really, its by the same scientist who wrote the study proving that a guy really can die from blue-balls.
One of the most beautiful things about the blogosphere is that when a blogger makes an error, they're normally quick to correct it. .... or everyone else will for them. The phrase 'fact-check your ass' comes to mind.
So maybe major media organizations should do themselves a favor and hire some bloggers to fact-check their reporters before they report, in all seriousness, that "the WHO says blondes are going extinct."
... no really, its by the same scientist who wrote the study proving that a guy really can die from blue-balls.
I don't give a damn how you feel... I care about what you do
The New York Times has an excellent article on self-esteem, and its effects that, while I enjoyed reading it, I spent a good deal of time saying to myself "someone had to do a study to find this out?"
In an extensive review of studies, for example, Dr. Nicholas Emler, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, found no clear link between low self-esteem and delinquency, violence against others, teenage smoking, drug use or racism, though a poor self-image was one of several factors contributing to self-destructive behaviors like suicide, eating disorders and teenage pregnancy.
High self-esteem, on the other hand, was positively correlated with racist attitudes, drunken driving and other risky behaviors, Dr. Emler found in his 2001 review. Though academic success or failure had some effect on self-esteem, students with high self-esteem were likely to explain away their failures with excuses, while those with low self-esteem discounted their successes as flukes.
It always perplexed me that it never seemed to occur to academics and touchy-feel-good sorts that telling child that they're perfect and wonderful, no matter what a screw-up they are, might have bad results. With the loss of concepts like shame and personal responsibility, we have also lost useful tools in constraining bad behaviour in society.
Yet more old-fashioned strategies for making one's way in the world, like learning self-control, resisting temptation or persisting in the face of failure have received little study, in part because the attention to self-esteem has been so pervasive.
"My bottom line is that self-esteem isn't really worth the effort," Dr. Baumeister said. "Self-control is much more powerful.
There's the kicker, right there. We've been paying so much attention to how children FEEL, we've forgotten to pay any attention to how they're DOING.
The New York Times has an excellent article on self-esteem, and its effects that, while I enjoyed reading it, I spent a good deal of time saying to myself "someone had to do a study to find this out?"
In an extensive review of studies, for example, Dr. Nicholas Emler, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, found no clear link between low self-esteem and delinquency, violence against others, teenage smoking, drug use or racism, though a poor self-image was one of several factors contributing to self-destructive behaviors like suicide, eating disorders and teenage pregnancy.
High self-esteem, on the other hand, was positively correlated with racist attitudes, drunken driving and other risky behaviors, Dr. Emler found in his 2001 review. Though academic success or failure had some effect on self-esteem, students with high self-esteem were likely to explain away their failures with excuses, while those with low self-esteem discounted their successes as flukes.
It always perplexed me that it never seemed to occur to academics and touchy-feel-good sorts that telling child that they're perfect and wonderful, no matter what a screw-up they are, might have bad results. With the loss of concepts like shame and personal responsibility, we have also lost useful tools in constraining bad behaviour in society.
Yet more old-fashioned strategies for making one's way in the world, like learning self-control, resisting temptation or persisting in the face of failure have received little study, in part because the attention to self-esteem has been so pervasive.
"My bottom line is that self-esteem isn't really worth the effort," Dr. Baumeister said. "Self-control is much more powerful.
There's the kicker, right there. We've been paying so much attention to how children FEEL, we've forgotten to pay any attention to how they're DOING.
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
The Shabby Truth is...
Perhaps Josh Marshall hasn't had time to update his post yet, but I think his comments on the Torricelli race are off the mark.
With regards to whether the Democrats should be able to put a new name on the ballot, he says that "The rather shabby truth here is that Republicans understand that Forrester could only get elected in a state like New Jersey not simply if he were facing a bad candidate but essentially no candidate."
I'm of the opinion that the shabby truth was that the DNC had such a low opinion of New Jersey voters, they thought Torricelli would win the election despite his ethical handicaps. Since it has become obvious he won't, the democrats have embarked on a desperate struggle to put a democrat who isn't bound to lose the race into the election. Too bad they waited way past the deadline, because now they have to make themselves like bigger assholes by taking the whole issue to court, and litigating their way through yet another election, rather than facing defeat. If the democrats had any real concern for the voters, they would have demanded Torricelli step down from his post long ago (and before the ballot deadline had passed), and put a 'cleaner' candidate in Torricelli's place. But the democrats aren't concerned with voter choice, they're concerned with winning. And as this latest debacle has shown, they're interested in winning at any cost.
Perhaps Josh Marshall hasn't had time to update his post yet, but I think his comments on the Torricelli race are off the mark.
With regards to whether the Democrats should be able to put a new name on the ballot, he says that "The rather shabby truth here is that Republicans understand that Forrester could only get elected in a state like New Jersey not simply if he were facing a bad candidate but essentially no candidate."
I'm of the opinion that the shabby truth was that the DNC had such a low opinion of New Jersey voters, they thought Torricelli would win the election despite his ethical handicaps. Since it has become obvious he won't, the democrats have embarked on a desperate struggle to put a democrat who isn't bound to lose the race into the election. Too bad they waited way past the deadline, because now they have to make themselves like bigger assholes by taking the whole issue to court, and litigating their way through yet another election, rather than facing defeat. If the democrats had any real concern for the voters, they would have demanded Torricelli step down from his post long ago (and before the ballot deadline had passed), and put a 'cleaner' candidate in Torricelli's place. But the democrats aren't concerned with voter choice, they're concerned with winning. And as this latest debacle has shown, they're interested in winning at any cost.