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.

Mixed Feelings...
Attorney General Ashcroft has taken Oregon's assisted suicide law to court. The federal government's position being that under the Controlled Substances Act, doctors are forbidden to prescribe drugs except for 'legitimate medical purposes', and prescribing drugs with the intention of ending someone's life does not fall under 'legitimate' in the eyes of Ashcroft.

I have mixed feelings on this. In general, I'm a states' rights fan, and from that viewpoint, would take Oregon's side. A majority of voters said 'Yes' to this measure, and I believe that it's aim was compassionate, especially when you consider that it has been only in the past few years that hospitals have taken a more proactive approach to pain management. However, and this is a big however, I believe that keeping suicide illegal has a legitimate basis, in this case to avoid nasty eugenics or euthanasia overtones (see Holland).

So I guess I object that Ashcroft is stepping in, and it seems to me that his interference in this case - and in medical marijuana initiatives - reflects his personal beliefs far more than it might be an attempt to address an national problem. But, since the thought of getting rid of our old and undesireables makes me feel queasy, I can't be too angry with Ashcroft in this instance.

When you put it that way...
If you characterize the marijuana debate as an issue of states' rights vs. the feds, then Clayton's analogy makes perfect sense. I didn't think to characterize it in terms of liberal hypocrisy, though, since I see that so often (see the percentage of congressman who consistently vote against school choice/vouchers, but send their own children to private school; the lefty support for the arabs in palestine, despite arabic attitudes towards womens' rights, homosexuality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc... ).

"But you would agree that Paris is the capitol of France, right?"
"Well, I guess so."
"Good! Then we're back in agreement!"
- Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy

How is a Machine Gun like a Joint?
I normally respect Clayton Cramer's arguments, but this time, he's really making a false comparison.

Clayton asks "Imagine the reaction if, say, Salmon, Idaho, started to buy machine guns using its police department exemption from machine gun rules, and selling them to their citizens with some rationalization equivalent Santa Cruz's compassionate help argument. Do you suppose that liberals would be upset about BATF prosecuting this violation of federal law?"

No, Clayton, of course they wouldn't. But there's a really big difference between giving someone with cancer a joint, in defiance of federal law, and giving someone a machine gun, in defiance of federal law. You cannot kill someone with marijuana, but a machine gun can be pretty damned effective. Marijuana is relatively harmless. It's certainly less dangerous to smoke pot than it is to drink alcohol. A machine gun is a useful tool that, in the wrong hands, can kill any number of people. Big difference. I expect better reasoning out of you, Clayton.

Yes, people should obey the law, but when the law is an ass, as it is in the case of the war on some drugs, they should follow the 11th commandment.

Got Brains?
PETA has revived its Got Beer? campaign, aimed at turning college age students off of drinking milk, by claiming that beer is actually healthier. Never mind that any dietician you talk to would laugh in your face at such a claim; facts were never meant to stand in the way of a lunatic fringe organization that hates humans.

There's a movement going around right now, to revoke PETA's tax-exempt status, using as justification is financial support for terrorist groups. I'm all for it. If you want some good reasons, check out PETA's page on ActivistCash.com...

According to a July 26, 2000, Associated Press story, out of the 2,103 animals that PETA “rescued” during 1999, a whopping 1,325 of them were euthanized (put to sleep) anyway. Considering the organization’s budget during that same year (over $17 million), its cash reserves at the time (over $4 million), and its history of rushing to the defense of even the scrawniest laboratory rat when TV cameras are rolling, it’s shocking that the group would sentence all of those cats and dogs to the needle.

While PETA and the other groups condemn scientific research involving animals (90 percent of which are rodents, according to Americans for Medical Progress, a pro-research foundation), they spend a pittance on animal shelters. Eleven million animals are destroyed annually for lack of facilities. Yet PETA spent less than $3,955 of its $12 million in fiscal year 1995 and $6,100 of its $10.9 million in fiscal 1996 for shelter programs, according to its nonprofit tax forms filed with the IRS.

In contrast, PETA sent $70,500 in 1995 to Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist and avowed member of the domestic-terrorist group called the Animal Liberation Front. Coronado served a five-year federal prison sentence for a 1992 animal-rights-related firebombing at Michigan State University.

Unapologetic about its ties to domestic terrorism, PETA also made a cash donation in 2001 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a group that the FBI has called a domestic terrorist organization.

The clearinghouse of Bad Ideas...
Rep. Mark Foley, a republican from Florida, is incapable of distinguishing between making actions, vice thoughts, illegal. His latest offering from the clearinghouse of Bad Ideas is a bill that would make it a crime - punishable by up to 10 years in prison - to make available photos of fully dressed attractive children. Mr. Foley is apparently so concerned that a pedophile might be feeding his perverted interests by looking at pictures of these children...and he's right, they probably are, that he's willing to make it illegal to take pictures of your kids. That pedophiles find children attractive is not sufficient reason to make it illegal to take such photos... I, for one, would not like to face prison time for posting pictures of my children's day at the beach on my website for my friends to see.

They just don't get it
For once, I have to take exception to Best of the Web's editorial content. For Friday, the 13th of September, the top piece on the page is titled "Spies Like Us -- II" and uses this incident as an example of why we were all being silly hysterics for objecting to Operation TIPS. They say that "Presumably these same folks are now outraged at the actions of Eunice Stone." Well, no, actually, we aren't at all. In fact, the actions of Eunice Stone are exactly why we don't want TIPS in place. Any citizen who witnesses suspicious activity is free to call the Police, the FBI, the CIA or whomever they please to report it. It is not necessary for us to employ a citizen corp of spies. That sort of expansion of the federal government... to where we'd employ citizens as paid informants on other citizens is what we object to.

One less tourist...
Humph. Remind me never to go to Virginia Beach again. No, I'm not a criminal, and I resent having the police essentially put me in a criminal lineup every time I walk down the street.

Don't we still have terrorists to catch?
Further resistance to the US government's silly stance on marijuana.

The state says it's okay, the town says it's okay, the measure passed by an overwhelming margin. So the residents of Santa Cruz obviously don't care if someone in their town is growing or using pot. Shouldn't the government concentrate its drug enforcement efforts in a town that wants it then?

Way to go, Buzz!
Buzz Aldrin was simply giving the only answer a snoopy or rude question deserves. Note also, that the twit, Sibrel, is 37. Buzz Aldrin is 72 years old.

Ain't Nobody's Business But Your Own
I've never been one to change my opinion just because everyone else thinks differently, nor have I been one to keep an opinion soley because 'everyone else thinks so'. It is, however, nice when people agree with me. This piece by Walter Williams, titled "Whose Business Is It?" does exactly that. I particularly liked this McNugget of truth:

Should the fact that if I become injured by not wearing a seatbelt or sick from eating and smoking too much, and become a burden on taxpayers, determine whether I'm free to not wear a seatbelt or puff cigarettes and gorge myself? Is there a problem with freedom? I say no, it's a problem of socialism. There is absolutely no moral case for government's taking another American's earnings, through taxes, to care for me for any reason whatsoever. Doing so is simply a slightly less offensive form of slavery. Keep in mind that the essence of slavery is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes or benefit of another.

Yep, that's right. Only in a socialist society does this sort of problem arise. The Supreme Court has long held that it is perfectly okay for Congress to regulate that which it funds. Well if Congress (through their ridiculous taxes) decides to fund our health, guess what? They get to regulate our life. And it sounds like there are people out there who want Congress to do exactly that.

Sloppy Reporting: More Dangerous To Your Health Than Soda
The Nanny's are at it again in the land of the loonies. Los Angeles is currently contemplating banning the sale of soft drinks at middle and high schools, in addition to the ban they already passed on the sale of soft drinks in elementary schools, which will take effect in 2004.

This is old news, in the sense that people have been demonizing soft drinks for a while now, and the movement to ban the sale of soda to children has been gaining steam. See the Center for Consumer Freedom's section on Soda: Hop On Pop.

So why bother posting on it? Because sloppy reporters only further this sort of Nanny mindset, by not bothering to report the facts, and not bothering to back up their more outlandish claims by producing any facts. Read the CCF's comments on the Soda wars, and then read the below paragraph from this article in the Washington Post:

"Childhood obesity is causing increasing concern among health professionals, and soft drinks share the blame. Fourteen percent of children ages 6 through 19 are classified as obese or overweight, almost three times as many as in the 1960s."

This statement is made without qualification, without pointing to any studies that back it up, and without prefacing it as any sort of opinion. In other words, this reporter Erica Werner, from the AP, is stating fantasy as fact. I could be kind and suggest that she's just too intellectually lazy to bother researching the CSPI press releases she uncritically regurgitates, but lazy reporting sucks, and so I don't think she deserves kindness.

Jackbooted Thugs revisited...
Okay, yeah, I know it was the BATF that got called a bunch of jack-booted thugs, and they rightfully deserved it. The FBI should have it tattooed on their foreheads though, as this piece in TalkLeft about the wrongful conviction of Salvati makes clear.

We no longer can trust our government or law enforcement agencies to protect us. We can no longer depend on the presumption of innocence. Nor does actual innocence protect you from the ravages of the law.

Joseph Salvati, Steven Hatfill, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, and every other person who has been targeted by our justice (with a small J) department for the wrong reasons, especially to protect beaureaucratic posteriers, my heart goes out to you.

If everyone gets what they deserve in Hell, Hoover and the rest of the FBI will be spending all eternity trying to tread water in a 12 foot deep sea of shit. With sharks in it. And swarms of mosquitoes and big black flies. And its hot. Good luck boys.

Even the Police 'Get It'. Why doesn't Congress?
What a headline. In today's Washington Post, found the following article off the AP News Feed Nevada Police Back Legalizing Pot Turns out the Nevada conference of Police and Sheriffs (the largest organization for police in the state) voted 9-0 to support Nevada's ballot initiative to legalize possession of marijuana. This initiative is unique in that there isn't any attempt to hang a justification like 'medical use' on it. People just understand that marijuana really isn't a harmful drug compared to heroin, cocaine, pcp, and alcohol.

The dumbest man in the world:
is this man, who is suing fast food chains claiming his obesity and health problems are their fault, and that he believed that fast food was good for him.

The sheer lack of mental power embodied in such a statement flabbergasts me.

I sincerely hope that this lawsuit is tossed out of court, as it so deservedly should be. If this fella was dumb enough to subsist entirely on the lowest quality available food outside of vending machine cheese snacks, then he deserves to live as he currently does.

Consumer Freedom.com has been predicting that lawsuits like this would occur aftr the big tobacco settlements for a long time. There's interesting news available on their website.

A Victory for the Right to Work
A federal appeals court ruled today that Bush was perfectly within his rights to issue an executive order barring PLAs on federally funded projects.

What this means for Virginia now is that Maryland can no longer force their union protectionist over-priced slow-assed work policies on Virginia. The very concept of PLAs is offensive to me as it is. PLAs are, pure and simple, protection money. You pay a union an inflated price over the actual negotiated cost, and in exchange, the union promises to actually finish the job on the agreed upon price, rather than strike in the middle of construction.

How this is better than going through a competitive bid process, and then hiring a contractor who will actually do the work on the agreed upon price is beyond me.

Supreme Court Rules that High School Students Who Do Anything Have No Constitutional Protections
While I'm understandably thrilled that the Supreme Court ruled that school voucher programs are constitutional, I am understandably disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to students involved in any extracurricular activities.

While this ruling is consistent with the court's other opinions involving the lack of rights or protection that anyone receiving government aid is accorded, it does bolster my argument that the government should NOT be involved in these areas. Government involvement, since their attitude is "we're paying for it, so you have to do it our way," is a recipe for defining down constitutional rights.

It scares me to think of how many intrusions this decision makes legal. Now that schools don't even have to show that they have a drug problem before performing warantless searches of their students, what's next? They don't have to show that they have a reasonable suspicion a girl is carrying a weapon before they bend her over the principal's desk and give her an anal probe? (Okay, perhaps tha'ts a bit of exaggeration there, but you get the point.) The court's snotty opinion that student's who don't like the policy can always go to private school simply makes my case painfully clear: we shouldn't want the government to get involved with our daily lives, because when they fund even part of it, they decide how to control it. So the government has created an abysmal public school system, mandates that all school age children attend school, and once they have you trapped (and you pretty much are, unless you have the money to send your kids to a private school) they announce that they can search your children, and take samples of their bodily fluids, whenever they want to, without even thinking that your child has misbehaved.

Make no mistake - the US government believes that it owns us.

Slant Watch
Nowadays, I find I read the Washington Post, more to get myself riled up than to get the news. The completely unbalanced reporting, and the obvious bias they show never fails to get my hackles raised.

So, in an article about polygamist, Tom Green, they insisted in putting the word "wives" in quotes, because, after all, plural marriage is wrong... but in an article where they joyfully trumpet the good news that gay life partners can now receive health benefits there wasn't a single quotation mark around the term to be found.

After all, the sorts of folk that engage in plural marriage are typically religious, and therefore unfit to be a lefty cause celebre (or however the fuck you spell it).

I don't get the anti-polygamy stance most folks have. How is marrying more than one woman somehow worse, or less deserving of political protection from prosecution, than giving a blowjob to an anoymous stranger in a park? Or having sex with a 10 year old boy? How is a man or woman who wants to share their lives with more than one person less deserving of their shot at happiness than someone who likes to have anal sex? I've thought and thought about this, and the only thing I can see that makes polygamists different from gays, transgenders, bisexuals, etc... is that polygamists tend to be religious, and therefore undeserving of protection.

Talk about S L A N T
Just about anyone with an interest in 1st Amendment cases is aware of the current travesty of justice occurring in Seattle, where Paul Trummel was jailed for posting perfectly legal information on his website. The judge uses the excuse that Trummel is not a paid journalist, and is therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment. This assertion makes me think that perhaps the judge is edging over into senile dementia and is no longer fit to decide matters of law.

But this horribly slanted article I found in the Washington Post doesn't even mention on what legal grounds the judge jailed Trummel, and instead concentrates on the fact that Trummel is a mean old man. Mean he may be, but it does not mean that his speech isn't protected, and trying to whitewash the judge's irrational behaviour in this fashion is, as Daffy is so fond of pointing out, "despicable."

You're not the boss of me...
For those of you who haven't heard of it yet, Consumer Freedom is a great site for news regarding the latest attempt to take away our natural right to be fat and unhealthy.

Seriously though... you read their updates, and its downright depressing that there are that many people out there who want to tell everyone else what to do. Everyone whines about the increased costs to society that smokers and obese folks represent, but no one seems to have bothered asking the most obvious question I have: Who says society has to pay for smokers and fatties?

There are all sorts of knowitalls out there scrambling to be the next to present their loony proposals based on bogus scientific research to the government. Proposals ranging from the obnoxious (levy a 9 cent tax on every 2 liter bottle of soda sold, because soda is, like, evil) to the truly horrifying (create a marginal tax scale for foods that will have higher tax rates the higher the fat or sugar content the food has.) Aside from the fact that this just makes food less affordable for the poor, and the fact that it ignores those who have special dietary needs (I know a number of diabetics on the Atkins diet), the burning question that remains on my lips is: Who cares if we're a nation of fatties?

The issue is not wether or not we have an obesity epidemic on our hands (we could argue that, too, since the government's scale does not take muscle mass or percentage body fat into account), but wether or not the government has any obligation to do anything about it. I vote No. If someone wants to get fat, more power to them. I don't care.