Category: News

It’s just not the same without the balloons

I want to comment on Michelle Malkin again, but this time it’s not a complete disagreement. Today, she posted a new Desecration of the Day. (Here’s the picture.) I agree with her basic premise that it’s important to highlight how some around the world disrespect/hate America. There’s no need to pretend that everyone loves us. It’s not true, so why hide from it? Show it every time it occurs, even though it’s not new information. But, and this is important, we need to remember that we’re not the cause, something Ms. Malkin ignores. Consider:

Here’s your regular, gasoline-drenched reminder of the latest MSM-induced desecration that won’t be getting front-page coverage

I enjoy that phrase: “the latest MSM-induced desecration”. Ms. Malkin is referring to the Newsweek fiasco, of course, but why stop there? It’s the whole mainstream media’s (MSM) fault. Or, more to the point, the liberal media’s fault. One poorly sourced/reported story and every future anti-American activity will be MSM-induced. Does that make sense?

Long before Newsweek screwed up, individuals around the world have burned the American flag. They’ve protested us. They’ve burned our presidents in effigy. This is not new. If nothing else, remember this: people with opinions like to be heard. (Hence, blogs. That I’m writing this for free indicates that I’m not immune.)

Yet, there’s a more fundamental value that conservatives supposedly hold above most others. I thought Ms. Malkin would maintain this. I assume she still agrees with it, but it’s lacking in the phrase “MSM-induced”. What happened to personal responsibility?

If I walk up to someone and say “I hate you and I hate your ass face,” would that person be absolved of assault if he punched me in the face? No? Why not? Just because someone is offended does not offer liability-free vindication to respond in whatever manner feels desirable.

Yes, the mainstream media screwed up and reported “facts” that portray America badly. (Newsweek, really, but I’ll stick with Ms. Malkin’s MSM generalization.) Don’t the flag-burners have the choice of how to respond? If they choose to riot or burn flags, is that really “MSM-induced”? Yes, it sets the conditions, but unless the reporter provides the matches and the flag, the flag-burner must retain ultimate responsibility for his actions.

But you already knew that. It just doesn’t sell very well among the “with us or against us” and “blame liberals” crowd.

_____________________________________________________________________

On a related “with us or against us”, “blame liberals” lesson, this post is 100% spot-on. Read it and know the truth.

Fifteen words are worth a picture

Following up on yesterday’s post about personal “lockboxes” for social security, I want to pass along this brilliant analysis of John Fund’s idea. Consider:

I assume Fund’s unspoken premise is that substituting “marketable” Treasury bills for the current system of vague promises will make it more difficult for future versions of the government to cheat, because defaulting on Treasuries amounts to ripping off the Chinese, which is much harder to get away with than ripping off Americans. Note that this addresses the dishonesty problem only by increasing the insolvency problem: future fiscal obligations become larger and more mandatory.

And…

Anyway, read a few paragraphs down and tell me who’s huffing the pipe:

Would the deficit increase if Congress used the Social Security surpluses to create personal accounts rather than finance current government spending? Not if Congress found the will to cut federal spending by roughly 3% a year.

Oops; when I saw that the first time, I thought it said, “Not if Congress found a nest of pixies at the bottom of the garden who vomited shiny gold coins”, but then I realized that Fund’s assumption was ridiculous. His overall conclusion, however, is true: if we spent less money, then we would spend less money.

I tried to explain the absurdity of Mr. Fund’s proposal through illustrations. I think they were effective, but I wish I’d written Evan Kirchhoff’s words, instead. How much more fun it would’ve been to write “a nest of pixies at the bottom of the garden who vomited shiny gold coins” than to drag clip art into neat order in Microsoft Visio…

At least I’m not the only one who understands the basic principles of government and debt. And for what it’s worth, I’d like to participate in Evan’s “Let me out of Social Security” plan, as well.

(Link via The Penultimate Genius)

Any color you want, as long as it’s black

We’ve all heard a great deal over the last six months about President Bush’s call for social security reform. Although I believe he should’ve started with tax reform, he’s correct to encourage Congress to take action. Much of the information regarding his plans is vague, which mostly seems like a (correct) political play to get the topic in the national debate. But, for various missteps and bouts of irrational rhetoric, reform momentum seems to have faded away. Of course, we’d all like to pretend we can run away, but the problem is here until we deal with it. And even though I despise the government imposing mandatory “savings” minimum on me, I understand the social costs of a large percentage of workers saving nothing for retirement, thus creating an unfair (and economically ruinous) burden on society. There is a rational government interest in not having American cities cluttered with poor, homeless elderly and disabled. So I will issue no call for revolution. I welcome new proposals which serve to meet that alleged social security goal of a social safety net. Unless they’re ill-conceived.

In an Opinion Journal column yesterday, John Fund wrote about a forthcoming proposal from Senators Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum. According to Mr. Fund:

Ceaseless pounding by liberals has driven many Republicans into a defensive crouch. It’s time for some political jujitsu that will instead focus the public’s attention on stopping Congress from spending the extra payroll taxes now flowing into Social Security on anything else. The only effective way to prevent that would be to take the money off the table by starting personal Social Security accounts for every American who wanted one.

I agree that we need to stop Congress from spending the extra payroll taxes. As I’ve mentioned in the past, as a self-employed taxpayer, I have the pleasure of paying both employee and employer payroll taxes out of my income. Admittedly everyone pays this because if employers didn’t have to pay it, it would lead to higher salaries (with the additional tax going to the IRS) but my point is still the same. I see the direct impact of our social security taxation scheme. It’s atrocious and must change. Any proposal that offers me more control over the money I pay so that I may one day see a return of that money earns my attention. If it also limits the government’s ability to recklessly spend my money for other purposes, that’s a wonderful bonus.

However, if I must save a specific portion of my income every year, I should be allowed to control the investment mix. At only 31-years-old, I’m not at the point where I need an ultra-conservative investment strategy. While I also will not pretend that purely speculative securities would be wise for social security savings, some risk (and diversity of choice, i.e. international stocks versus U.S. blue chips), especially for those willing to learn and actively participate in their investments, should be encouraged allowed. So my first choice is not to have a personal lockbox account of any sort because I fear the investment options will be too limited, yet to expect anything else borders on fantasy.

Mr. Fund’s hypothetical personal lockbox under the DeMint/Graham/Santorum proposal meets my “worst-case scenario” test. Consider:

Politically, their proposal does disarm some of the most oft-used arguments against reform. It would create no new debt for the government because, unlike President Bush’s proposal, the personal accounts would use only the surplus payroll taxes now flowing into the Treasury. That surplus will hit some $85 billion next year, and grow in succeeding years to the point that it could provide every worker who wanted one with a personal account of some $1,200. The surpluses will total some $2.5 billion until 2017, when Social Security starts running a deficit as baby boomers begin to retire. Preventing that money from being “raided” by a spendthrift Congress and White House could be enormously popular with a cynical public.

In addition, if the personal accounts were limited to no-risk, but marketable, Treasury bills, the argument about the “scary and risky” stock market investment of payroll taxes would be neutralized. Converting the nonmarketable IOUs the government now holds into marketable Treasury bills issued to taxpayers would create an asset that individuals would own and be able to pass on to their heirs. If history is a guide, such risk-free Treasurys would earn an annual rate of return of between 2.5% and 3%–much better than Social Security will deliver. The surpluses would become real assets owned by citizens rather than government IOUs (or, more accurately, “I owe me’s”) piling up in a filing cabinet in West Virginia.

Where to begin? While there are several issues in there, I’ll focus on one. “…if the personal accounts were limited to no-risk, but marketable, Treasury bills, the argument about the ‘scary and risky’ stock market investment of payroll taxes would be neutralized.” Ummm, no. Sure, such a plan would then securitize a portion of my social security funds, but how is this plan wise? More importantly, how is it any different than what we have today? The government would no longer have “I owe me’s”, but I would have “I owe me’s”. This sleight of hand offers the warm, fuzzy fiscal value of ownership, but I don’t really own anything I didn’t own before (other than the ability to pass that asset on to heirs, which is something). Every taxpayer is the government. The IRS is only the middleman.

Rather than explain this sleight of hand, allow me to illustrate it. This diagram shows how Mr. Fund’s idea would work. Notice that the government would still spend the same amount under this proposal as it does today when it is “allowed” to spend the surplus. Consider:

It’s simple. While I get the asset worth $1,200, the Treasury still has my $1,200 to spend on however Congress decides. The only difference is that the government no longer has an IOU in a filing cabinet in West Virginia. Now it has a item on its balance sheet showing an extra $1,200 in Treasury bills, which it will have to repay in the future. Again, Congress can still spend my $1,200.

What happens when those Treasury bills mature? Oh, here’s where it gets interesting. Mr. Fund does offer a proposal for this inevitable scenario. Consider:

Would the deficit increase if Congress used the Social Security surpluses to create personal accounts rather than finance current government spending? Not if Congress found the will to cut federal spending by roughly 3% a year. Even if they don’t, the unavailability of the payroll taxes to fund other programs could be useful. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress in March, “One can credibly argue that [the trust funds] have served primarily to facilitate large deficits in the rest of the budget.” He went on to argue that personal accounts would add to overall savings, which “in turn, would boost the nation’s capital stock. The reason is that money allocated in the personal accounts would no longer be available to fund other government activities.” In other words, once Congress couldn’t get its mitts on the payroll tax money, it would be put to more productive use in the hands of individuals owning their own accounts.

“Not if Congress found the will to cut federal spending by roughly 3% a year.” Ahahahahahahahahaha. Ahahahahahahahaha. That’s a
good one. Raise your hand if you have faith in this Congress to cut spending. Ignore partisanship because Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible. (Ms. Coulter, that means you must put your hand down, now. Now. Thank you.)

Mr. Fund even argues the possible inevitable scenario where Congress doesn’t cut spending. Remember, he argues “the unavailability of the payroll taxes to fund other programs could be useful”. But I’ve already shown you that, under his proposal, Congress can spend the surplus payroll taxes. The accounting is the only aspect that changes.

So let’s return to the obvious, logical question. What would the future look like when those Treasury bills mature? I have two illustrated scenarios for your consideration. On the left is the expected scenario, a tax increase to cover the maturing Treasury bills. On the right is Mr. Fund’s hopeful scenario, a 3% Congressional spending cut. Tell me if you like either scenario.

            

Again, in both scenarios, the $1,200 for personal lockbox accounts continues. However, the additional $1,200 for maturing Treasury bills must be accommodated. Either taxes increase, or we get fewer services. I, of course, am all for fewer services, but until Congress shows some resolve to implement that, I’m not expecting it. Because today’s political decisions have consequences, prepare for tax increases.

At least the social security crisis will be resolved.

(Link via Instapundit)

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

I think I’m beginning to make a hobby out of countering Michelle Malkin’s lapses in logic contentions. Today, she linked to a story about released French hostages. Consider the basic facts of the story:

A French journalist who was held hostage in Iraq for five months says she was beaten by her captors.

Speaking at a new conference in Paris, Florence Aubenas said she was kept blindfolded in a basement cell that measured 4m by 2m (13ft by 6ft).

She said she was beaten after being accused of speaking to a cell mate.

Ms Aubenas was forced out of her car in Baghdad on 5 January, along with her guide, Hussein Hanoun al-Saadi. They were both freed on 11 June.

Mr Saadi was reunited with his family in Baghdad. Ms Aubenas, who is a senior correspondent for Liberation, was flown home to France.

What’s the lesson in this story? Terrorists are despicable. They’ll beat hostages for allegedly speaking to a cell mate. They’ll hold hostages captive in a basement. They’ll subject them to mock trials. Most importantly, this is the lesson reported by the BBC, which any right-thinking conservative will tell you is one of the biggest pushers of the Liberal Agenda&#153. Yet, the BBC reported this with objective facts that are easy to interpret. Again, terrorists do Bad Things.

So what does Ms. Malkin focus on? Consider:

TERRORISTS HEART THE FRENCH

Terrorist farewell gifts for a recently released French kidnapping victim:

Two rings and a bottle of perfume.

The French hostage reported that one of her captors offered her gifts at the same time he returned her belongings. Rather than discounting the significance of this as either a crush or a goodwill gesture or a hideously presumptuous guard, Ms. Malkin decided that this was the lesson: We hate terrorists, terrorists like the French, we hate the French. All with the specter of hating the Liberal Agenda&#153, I presume.

How ridiculous. From reading her blog, I understand that she wants us to realize that terrorists are bad, we’re fighting terrorists, and we can’t waiver in our commitment to the task. Ok, got it. I even agree with it, despite not casting my vote for George W. Bush last November. Yet, she doesn’t use this as an example to further illustrate who the real bad guys are in this war. She takes another hysterical jab at Those Who Are Against Us because they don’t agree with and condone every action we take. That’s stupid logic.

Until we stop throwing around this nonsense and presenting the “with us or against us” mentality, we’re going to be mired in the problem rather than striving closer to the goal. America is founded on belief in the moral correctness of our ideals and the ability to dissent in an effort to stretch the moral correctness of our actions closer to perfection.

You know, because it matters not really

God bless the staunch conservative mouthpieces bloggers who look out for the good people.

In yet another lapse in logical causality thinking, Michelle Malkin points her readers (of which, I am strangely one) to this story about Rosie O’Donnell’s guest appearance on Friday’s episode of The View. Ms. Malkin quoted the article’s recap of Ms. O’Donnell’s remarks concerning breastfeeding and a recent “nurse-in”. Consider:

O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding

Comedienne Rosie O’Donnell banned her partner Kelli Carpenter from breastfeeding their daughter Vivienne just a few weeks after she was born–because she was jealous of their bonding sessions. Kelli gave birth to Vivienne in 2002, and the lesbian couple have been raising her along with their three other adopted children.

But O’Donnell admits she felt left out of the motherhood process whenever she observed her partner nursing their child.

She says, “Kelli only nursed for like a month and then I was very angry.

“With the other babies, nobody nursed because they were adopted. But with this baby she was the only one getting to bond, so I was like, ‘The nursing is over!’ I cut her off.

“I’m like, ‘You’ve had your limit, honey, no more!'”

I watched the clip (watch it here) and she did say those things. While I think she was being dramatical for the sake of television, knowing that the people who watch The View would not likely jeer her comments, I concede that it was stupid. Ms. Malkin correctly attacks Ms. O’Donnell’s “selfish, psycho comments”. I’ll even add to that how absurd Ms. O’Donnell’s comments were because, given that her partner is the biological mother, Ms. O’Donnell is in the role of the father. Men don’t get that bonding, yet somehow the term “daddy’s girl” is familiar to everyone. So, yeah, Ms. O’Donnell is selfish, putting herself above the child’s needs (if she didn’t exaggerate the truth for dramatic effect, though I don’t doubt she’s “me, me, me”).

But. How does that correspond with introducing the story as “one for the Hollyweird files” and concluding with this:

Can the pathological self-absoprtion [sic] of Hollywood be illustrated anymore clearly?

You know, because Rosie O’Donnell is the sole spokesman for parenting skills and decisions for anyone who has ever worked in Hollywood. This is ridiculous. Ms. Malkin should have challenged her comments and then explained why “forbidding” nursing is wrong. And then, she should’ve stopped. But Ms. Malkin can’t do that. Everywhere she turns there is some further proof of the Liberal Agenda&#153, which dictates that all people must be brainwashed into collectivism, self-absorption, and homosexuality. (I’ve written about this here and here.)

I do envy her, though, because I imagine she has much free time. Ignore the likelihood that she uses this free time to sniff out the tyranny of the Liberal Agenda&#153, she still has lots of free time that most of us don’t. I know this because I think of those moments I spend evaluating each individual news item/circumstance/whatever to determine the truth and insight it reveals. How much easier it must be for Ms. Malkin to see the headline “Rosie O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding” and immediately know it’s the Liberal Agenda&#153. Oh, cursed objectivity, you are my life’s bane.

I thought perhaps I read too much into the post, but I know from reading through the trackbacks to her entry that I did not. Not because there is so much hatred for the Liberal Agenda&#153 in the post as much as what she spews regularly. There is an overwhelming “with us or against us” absolutism in much of her thinking, which permits every basic fact to represent the Path of Righteousness&#153 and its obvious triumph over the fallacy of the Liberal Agenda&#153. The trackbacks to most of Ms. Malkin’s “liberals are destroying America” posts include nonsense such as this blog:

Here’s yet another reason why it’s dangerous to exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. The family unit is being torn apart and Hollywood embraces it. This is enfuriating [sic].

That logic is solid, because any time one member of a community does something stupid or illegal or immoral or {insert other obvious bad Liberal quality here}, that person represents everyone in that group. Right, because every priest who molests an altar boy indicates the problem with every member of the clergy. And every doctor who abuses drugs reveals the heavy burden to which every doctor succumbs. And every pro athlete who crashes his car after beating his wife while drunk with his penis in another woman is proof that athletes are poor role models and should be mocked, shunned, and shamed for existing. How much easier life must be for those who have found that ideology trumps the mind’s flexibility.

I hope the Kool-Aid&#174 tastes really good because there sure is some mass consumption happening.

I spent 75&#162 on this entry

KipEsquire at A Stitch in Haste points to this article concerning New Jersey’s newly announced ban on junk food in school lunches (to take effect on Sept. 1, 2007).

Under the New Jersey plan, soda, candy and foods listing sugar as the first or principal ingredient will be banned from school cafeterias. Snacks and drinks with more than eight grams of total fat per serving and two grams of saturated fat will be banned, and cafeterias will have to restrict amounts of foods with trans fats.

The only beverages that can be served in amounts of 12 ounces or more will be water or milk with 2 percent fat or less.

I’m not going to focus on the merits of this proposal because I don’t really care much. It’s a noble goal that will go horribly wrong because the government wishes to dictate that people make responsible choices where they don’t wish to do so. It’s especially absurd because it involves the state’s power over minors, a group that obviously has no political power to object. Also, parents form their child’s eating habits, so anything that doesn’t influence the prior learning before forcing the change, and I can think of little government intervention that would, will fail. I suspect the typical reaction will mimic this (not surprising) response:

“I think it’s whack,” Malcolm Jones, 13, an eighth grader at South Orange Middle School, said while munching on a baked chicken patty sandwich. A carrot stick sat untouched on his plate. “They took away French fries, pizza, all the good stuff. A lot of students aren’t happy.”

Anyone believe that kids won’t find a way around this? Administrators and teaches will spend more time confiscating junk food contraband than educating kids. So, no, I have nothing to add to that debate that isn’t obvious.

I do wish to comment on this quote, though:

Robert Earl, senior director of nutrition policy for the Food Products Association in Washington, D.C., said there were flaws with the plan because it excluded many foods that children want and need as part of a whole diet.

“Things like cheeses, nuts, peanut butter, flavored milks and normal foods that are part of a healthful diet could be excluded,” Mr. Earl said. “It seems like the better objective is perhaps having a lot of variety instead of restrictions.”

Education and choices? Oh, why would we do that? We don’t put children in school to learn to think. They’re in school to learn how to take directions. Duh.

But again I digress. What really bothers me is that Mr. Earl mentions flavored milks as “part of a healthful diet”. How are they healthful? Aside from the obvious arguments that humans are the only species to drink the milk of another species and milk does bad things to the human body, how is adding flavors to milk going to keep make it healthy? Consider this explanation of flavored milk by the National Dairy Council:

In general, flavored milks are milks to which a sweetened flavors such as cocoa or cocoa powder, strawberry or vanilla extract has been added, along with a sweetener such as sucrose or high fructose corn syrup.

No doubt every nutritionist recommends a minimum daily intake of high fructose corn syrup. That’s why we’re being propagandized marketed flavored milk from many different angles. Consider:

Besides the great taste, pediatricians agree that flavored milk is a nutritious beverage for children. This same survey also revealed that 100% of pediatricians agree calcium is important for children’s growth and development and 93% said that children are not consuming enough calcium in their diets. Many children agree that they would drink more milk if it were flavored, and a recent study shows that children who drink milk with their lunch consume more calcium for the entire day! Not just for kids, milk, including flavored milk, has an excellent nutrient profile, and, along with other dairy products, is the major source of calcium in the diet. Government data indicates that most of us fail to meet our daily calcium recommendations as set by the National Academy of Sciences. This can lead to bone fractures early in life and eventually osteoporosis. Why shouldn’t we add a little “flavor” to our lives!

That’s a hard-hitting study. 100% of pediatricians agree calcium is important for children’s growth and development. Who knew? Blah, blah, blah. There’s more debunking I could do on the facts, as presented so far, but that’s for another day. What I will do is a little experiment, based on this comment from Dayle Hayes, a registered dietician:

Flavored milk does contain added sweeteners. However, the amount of sugar in most flavored milk is significantly less than the amount in regular soft drinks.

Really? That’s good. We should make flavored milk the staple liquid to quench every thirst. But just to be sure, let’s look at the labels, okay? Okay. Here is the nutrition label for Horizon Organics Vanilla Milk. Here is the nutrition label for Nesquik Vanilla Milk.

One has 29 grams of sugar, the other has 30 grams. They’re basically even. And to get that fine flavor, they both use sugar. And Nesquik is better because it uses the high fructose corn syrup and artificial flavors. Mmmmmm. Nutritious. At least they’re use considerably less sugar than soft drinks. I hesitate to even think of the sugar content of soft drinks. But I must suffer for my art, so I purchased a 12 oz. can of Coca-Cola to read the nutrition label. (Coca-Cola doesn’t make it available on the web. Wonder why?) I took this picture of the Coca-Cola nutrition label.

Right, the less sugar argument is true because that can of soda has 39 grams of sugar. And yet, I don’t feel like that’s true. Why is that? Could it be that the soda’s 39 grams of sugar is in 12 oz. of soda, versus the 30 grams of sugar in 8 oz. of flavored milk? I didn’t major in calculus, but I think I can do this math. The soda has 3.25 grams of sugar per oz. The flavored milk has 3.75 grams of sugar per oz.

I haven’t had a soda in years, so I’m not promoting soda as an alternative to milk. But the argument that flavored milk is a good choice is absurd. For example, a serving of flavored vanilla milk has the same sugar content as a Snickers&#174 bar. Yet, it’s so much easier to believe the marketing from the government and dairy producers that milk is a great food. Really, they wouldn’t market lies. They wouldn’t pay legislators to legislate milk over soda water. Would they?

So, no, I have no faith in the state of New Jersey to get th
is plan right.

Adam & Eve owned a butcher shop

Sometimes a news item comes along that makes me angry. I may rant at many stories, but this article’s nonsense is beyond anything imaginable. So, even though the article is more than three months old, I’m still going to comment on it.

I’m a vegan. I’ve written a little about that in the past, but not much because I don’t care to preach to anyone. I think it’s the right choice, but I know most won’t agree. So be it. If you’re interested, I’m more than happy to give you information about why I choose veganism. Basically, I subscribe to the “Don’t tell, unless asked”. Most carnivores don’t want to know, believing that ignorance is bliss. Fine, enjoy. However, I expect the same because yes, I can get enough protein and no, I don’t really want a burger. I don’t even sneak them when no one is looking, even though I know many don’ t believe that. Somehow, I survive.

A few months ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science held its annual meeting. One topic was veganism and whether or not its healthy, appropriate, or ethical for children. Professor Lindsay Allen, a US scientist with the US Agricultural Research Service. (The ARS is part of the US Department of Agriculture.) Those credentials seem impressive, but this is what she had to say:

“There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently.”

Really? Hmmm, maybe she’s on to something. I’ve read the exact opposite in almost every book I’ve read in the last eleven years, but perhaps she’s studied more. I want to know more.

“If you’re talking about feeding young children, pregnant women and lactating women, I would go as far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life.”

Unethical? That strong? What would be better? Blue Kool-Aid&#174 drinks? That occurs naturally in the wild. Chocolate milk? Ditto. I can’t count the number of times I’ve driven by a pasture only to witness three, sometimes four children suckling the teat of some grateful dairy cow. She nurses them so well, it’s stunning to think that, not only did she not give birth to those children, they’re not even the same species. Yet she cares so much. Cows are cool.

Professor Allen’s studied enough to know this. She’s even done studies. Consider:

Research she carried out among African schoolchildren suggests as little as two spoonfuls of meat each day is enough to provide nutrients such as vitamin B12, zinc and iron.

The 544 children studied had been raised on diets chiefly consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples lacking these micronutrients.

This meant they were already malnourished.

Time to interrupt this just to emphasize that point. The children were already malnourished. Remember that as the story continues.

Over two years, some of the children were given 2oz supplements of meat each day, equivalent to about two spoonfuls of mince.

Two other groups received either a cup of milk a day or an oil supplement containing the same amount of energy. The diet of a fourth group was left unaltered.

The changes seen in the children given the meat, and to a lesser extent the milk or oil, were dramatic.

These children grew more and performed better on problem-solving and intelligence tests than any of the other children at the end of the two years.

Adding either meat or milk to the diets also almost completely eliminated the very high rates of vitamin B12 deficiency previously seen in the children.

Look at how completely the oil aspect dropped from the conclusion, but no matter. The point is obvious. Eat more meat and dairy. It gives the kids what they need. Damn, what an amazing elixir meat is. I’m just stunned. I would’ve never guessed that any adjustment to a nutrient-poor diet would make a difference. Who knew that consuming a variety of foods could make a difference? And I won’t mention how happy I am that Professor Allen concluded that it’s unethical to feed a young child a vegan diet consisting of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and oils, but it’s ethical in the name of science to deliberately withhold nutrition from a group of children known to be malnourished. I have so much to learn.

Professor Allen did make a concession.

She accepted that adults could avoid animal foods if they took the right supplements, but she said adding animal source food into the diet was a better way to tackle malnutrition worldwide than quick fixes with supplements in the form of pills.

“Where feasible, it would be much better to do it through the diet than by giving pills,” she said. “With pills it’s very hard to be certain that the quantity of nutrition is right for everybody and it’s hard to sustain.”

Right. It’s too hard to take B-12 supplements, so let’s just go to the easy answer. That’s how civilization achieved every advancement until this study, so it must work. Oh, and it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the National Cattleman’s Beef Association partially supported the study.

One final revelation in the story shows how generous developed, carnivorous nations can be. Consider:

In Africa, good results had been obtained from giving people a dried meat on a stick snack which proved both nutritious and appealing.

In two hundred years of economic and scientific advancement, the best we can do is export corn dogs?

Sounds to me like you caused a damn accident

Those crazy liberals are at it again, what with the refusing to resist the Cable TV-fueled temptations of Satan and the pushing of the homosexual agenda onto children. Consider this story from Lexington, Massachusetts:

For David Parker, the first alarm went off in January, when his 5-year-old son came home from his kindergarten class at Lexington’s Joseph Estabrook School with a bag of books promoting diversity.

Inside were books about foreign cultures and traditions, along with food recipes. There was also a copy of Who’s In a Family? by Robert Skutch, which depicts different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.

The book’s contents concerned Parker and prompted him to begin a series of e-mail exchanges with school officials on the subject that culminated in a meeting Wednesday night with Estabrook’s principal and district director of instruction. The meeting ended with Parker’s arrest after he refused to leave the school, and the Lexington man spent the night in jail.

Ooooh, all conservatives think books are bad, right? Nope. Mr. Parker doesn’t say that and the specific book that his son brought home wasn’t the real issue for him. He’s concerned that the school is exposing his son to “homosexual material” without prior consent. The facts seem to support a complete communication failure between the school and the parents about this issue, which is where I believe Mr. Parker tried to take the discussion. Consider these e-mail excerpts from Mr. and Mrs. Parker and the school’s principal, Ms. Joni Jay:

Parkers to Principal on Friday, March 4, 2005

We do not authorize any teacher or adult within the Lexington Public School system to expose our sons, [older son] and [younger son] (begins school in 2006) to any sexual orientation/homoseexual material/same sex unions between parents.

Principal to Parkers on Friday, March 4, 2005

I have confirmed with our Assistant Superintendent and our Director of Health Education that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy.

Parkers to Principal on Friday, March 4, 2005

We would like to clarify that our previous e-mail which states: “we do not give the Lexington Public School system permission to discuss homosexuality issues (i.e. – trans gender/bisexual/gay headed households) to our son [son’s name]” – is a parental assertion; not a matter open to legal interpretation or administrative policy. Let us, David and Tonia Parker, parents of [son’s name], be clear in purpose and prose on this matter:

Discussions concerning homosexuality issues will not take place in front of our son, [son’s name] (5 yrs old), at Estabrook.

There is clearly a disagreement about how to handle this book. While I suspect that this book does nothing more than present a gay couple, which is not the same thing as “pushing the homosexual agenda”, I concede that this can lead to questions that the Parkers aren’t ready to answer for a 5-year-old. My nephew is four-and-a-half and, as smart (and inquisitive) as he is, my brother probably isn’t ready to discuss same-sex couples. (I think my nephew, like most kids, would say “Oh”, and then run off to play.) So, yeah, it’s certainly a parent’s right to determine what his/her child is exposed to at that age. And I don’t believe that getting that agreement from the school is too much to ask.

That didn’t happen in this case, though. Whether the school misinterpreted state law (mentioned in the article) or not is irrelevant. Mr. Parker should’ve taken his complaint to the school board, the next logical step. The exchange between the Parkers and Ms. Jay took several months, so time lag was not a factor. If, after taking his case to the school board, he didn’t get the answer he wanted, he could consult an attorney and sue or work to change the school board rules or whatever potential remedy presented itself. He shouldn’t have to go through that, but sometimes we endure obstacles that we shouldn’t have to endure.

That’s what he should’ve done, but it’s not what he did. This is what he did:

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

He was there, officials and police asked him to leave, he declined, the police arrested him. That seems simple enough, right? Nope. This is turning into a rallying cry for “liberals vs. family values”. Consider this conclusion drawn by Michelle Malkin (where I found the article):

Unbelievable that we’ve come to this. Parker is treated as a troublemaker and a bigot –and now a criminal–for refusing to cede parental control to p.c. public school educrats. Meanwhile, “diversity” brainwashing and Moral Equivalence 101 have seeped effortlessly into government kindergarten classrooms.

Mr. Parker is treated as a criminal, not for his beliefs, but for his alleged unwillingness to obey police instruction to leave the school premises.

Is this the only reaction where the thinker missed the simple fact for why the police arrested Mr. Parker? Consider this, from Wizbang!:

And in the meantime, what I think is the bigger issue is getting ignored. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Parker’s beliefs, the fundamental question is this: are his demands that he be notified about what material is being taught to his son about a clearly controversial issue unreasonable?

…snipped…

Quibble if you wish with Mr. Parker’s beliefs, but don’t challenge his right to possess them — and act on them. We need more parents who feel as protective of their children as he does.

While I quibble with his beliefs, Mr. Parker has a right to them. His demands to be notified are reasonable. But we also need more parents who respect the law as every other parent who has a disagreement with the school but works to achieve their goals in a proper manner.

Or consider this from The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill:

The vast gulf between the left and reality is making any possibility of my children ever going into any public school vanish. This is not as some might claim the Right Wing evangelicals rolling back the clock. This is much more like parents finally understanding what is being attempted by the left wing.

Read the whole entry… it throws around the term “Nazi” and the statement that educators who believe same-sex marriage is acceptable “have dedicated themselves to getting into a position where they could start tearing down the family structure.”

Or consider this from the blue site:

The liberals want to brainwash your children as early as possible. Liberal Massachusetts has a kindergarten program that teaches kids about homosexuals and “families” with 2 gay parents…

Sickening. The hom
osexuals will do anything to force their alternative (alternative to NORMAL) lifestyle down all of our throats…their new tactic is to start as early in a child’s life as possible, so the brainwashing will be totally set in by the time they become adults. Disgusting…

This is why liberals need to be stopped from their destruction of the family, traditional values, and this country as we know it…

Do I need to comment on that?

Or consider this comment left on the blue site by moe:

So true,Josh,so true. I dunno what’s gonna happen,but it ain’t gonna be good. As much as I would like to have children,I’m glad that I don’t right now. I would be constantly on edge,worrying that some stranger,will legally try and force them to learn to be fags. I wouldn’t stand for it,and you’re right when you say the vast majority of Americans find it disgusting too.

What the hell right does the public “education” system think it has? It’s supposed to teach readin’,writin’,and ‘rythmatic…not blowjobs and buttsex. And the big pisser,is that these filthy devient heathens,are enormously outnumbered by moral Americans,yet they somehow have been given authority. I ain’t happy.

I don’t bother queers,and I don’t harass them or go hunting for them to bash,so why do they attack the rest of us? Vile bastards,they are. They remind me of muslims….always picking the fights and starting trouble,yet always claiming to be “oopressed” and “discriminated”. They are not oppressed,but they should be. They should all get the ever lovin’ shit kicked out of them everyday,then see how much they wanna bitch and moan. Same goes for anyone who supports them.

Ah, those conservatives with their family values. Thank God they’re looking out for all of us from the evil liberal, homosexual agenda. Otherwise, what would concerned, law-abidingbreaking parents do?

That’s a nice frame. What’s the picture again?

There is a crisis afoot in America. You know, the crisis caused by the big, bad, evil oil corporations. The one where people are complaining because the price of gas is going up and have decided that Congress must do something because there is no way to go back in time and not buy that SUV that gets 12 miles-per-gallon and now costs $50 (and more) to fill up every four days. Yeah, that one, the one that proves capitalism punishes the stupid consumer. It’s all good, because the Houses cares.

The House of Representatives passed an energy bill yesterday, so it now moves to the Senate. Among its provisions, it includes the following:

–Open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling.

–Provide product liability protection for makers of MTBE against lawsuits stemming from the gasoline additive contaminating drinking water. Payment of $2 billion in transition costs over eight years to manufacturers as MTBE is phased out.

–Expand daylight-saving time by two months, so it would start on the first Sunday in March and end on the last Sunday in November.

–Give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission clear authority to override states and local officials in locating liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals.

I presume that this bill is designed to be proactive regarding our current energy crisis but it misses the point. Sure, opening up oil fields in America could lead to “more” oil, but at what cost? I’m not knowledgeable enough about the details to bitch about the destruction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but I assume it’s A Bad Idea&#153. Regardless, it misses the point IF it’s intended as a long-term solution. More on that in a moment.

I’m not quite sure how liability protection for makers of MTBE is a good idea. If they’re contaminating water in two dozen states, it’s probably not smart to sweep that under the rug and say “Oops. Do over.” I need to get better informed, but that’s just a hunch. Especially when it comes with $2,000,000,000 in “You made a bad, harmful business decision, but we’re going to look the other way while we you fix it” handouts. Nice job.

I’m not even going to bother swinging at the daylight-saving time nonsense, as Kip over at A Stitch in Haste already dismantled that idea with this post. Definitely read it. (And stick around and read his other posts, too. You’ll be glad you did.)

As for giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “clear authority to override states and local officials in locating liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals”, I can only interpret that with basic logic. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a For Citizens – LNG Overview, which offers this information specific to that provision:

Where do ships unload LNG?

Ships unload LNG at specially designed terminals where the LNG is pumped from the ship to insulated storage tanks at the terminal. LNG is also converted back to gas at the terminal, which is connected to natural gas pipelines that transport the gas to where it is needed. Specially designed trucks may also be used to deliver LNG to other storage facilities in different locations.

Oh. That’s nice. We need that. There’s the obvious question, of course, which this provision clarifies. Where should we place that terminal? What we now know is that if the Senate agrees and President Bush signs, this will go wherever the federal bureaucrats urban planners decide. No community decisions necessary. How is this smart? All bow before the Federal government, I guess.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan did weigh in on this. When asked, he offered this:

This is a comprehensive piece of legislation, and it does address one of the fundamental problems facing our nation, and that is that we are growing more dependent on foreign sources of energy. And we have high energy prices facing consumers because we have not had a national energy plan in place. We have a growing global economy and a growing demand from countries around the world for oil. And we are relying on foreign sources of energy. And that’s why the President believes it is all the more reason we need to act now. He put forward a plan four years ago, and it’s time for Congress to get that passed.

The key to solving any problem is to define it correctly. Once you do that, the solution becomes possible. Mr. McClellan, and by extension, President Bush, are wrong on the problem. It’s not that we are “growing more dependent on foreign sources of energy.” While that may be true, it isn’t the issue. Framing the problem that way only encourages solutions like drilling for oil in Alaska.

The problem is that we are relying on the wrong sources of energy. (I’m including the wrong mix of sources in this explanation, solely as a simplification.) Our current energy usage has severe political baggage, which is what Mr. McClellan’s statement conveys. Fine, we get it, but don’t pit this as an us-against-them ploy. The global economy is here, whether we like it or not. That our political situation and energy needs aren’t meshed demands a better response than a “circle the wagons” self-reliance isolationism.

President Bush claims to support alternate sources of energy. I’m willing to believe him to an extent until proven to the contrary. The quest for non-petroleum based energy sources is young, and the president stated that the nation should explore this. Mr. McClellan hinted that this energy plan does not meet President Bush’s agenda. If we’re going to offer incentives (not that we should; just that we are), let’s do it wisely. How will President Bush work with the Congress to resolve this? Will he veto this energy bill if it comes before him without any significant changes from the Senate? I’m anxious to know.

I have no idea of the exact solution, but perpetuating the old paradigm (I have an MBA; I need to use 10&#162 buzzwords.) with a mix of handouts for old ideas and new federal power-grabs isn’t the answer.

Rebounding the airball?

I used to be a fan of the NBA, starting in the late 1980s. I didn’t watch much basketball before then, but the rivalry between Magic and Bird was so big that it allowed me to develop an appreciation for the game. My developing enjoyment for the game grew around the point guard position and made me a fan of Rod Strickland, a point guard for the New York Knicks at the time. I thought I’d become a fan of the Knicks, but I was really just a fan of Strickland. When the Knicks traded him to San Antonio, I stuck with him and followed the Spurs. The same happened when he went to Portland and then to Washington. I enjoyed the shifting around because it led to Washington, which was the local market for me after I finished grad school in ’98. Shortly after Strickland left Washington, he played fewer and fewer minutes with each successive team. I’ve followed him, but more sporadically as his career winds down. I’ve entered the phase where the game and the emerging players have to hold me as a fan, but that’s not happening. I haven’t watched a full NBA game for several years. Worse, I no longer care that I’ve become this apathetic about the game.

NBA Commissioner David Stern seems to understand why. He’s proposing a simple change to the NBA that could improve the game, if in no other way than image. Consider:

“We are seeking to raise that to 20 or two years out of high school. The NFL’s minimum age is 3 years after high school. I’m optimistic the union will agree to some raise in the minimum age in the current collective bargaining,” Stern said in a recent ESPN.com chat.

That’s about right. An age requirement is definitely a blunt-edged tool where something with more flexibility might be better, but it’s a start. The level of play has fallen over the years (in my opinion) and one reason I have that perception is the increasing abundance of straight-from-high-school players. That doesn’t help the league. For every LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony, there are the players who don’t develop or develop slower in the league than normal players. The increasing numbers of high school players impact the overall competition level, as well. This isn’t good for the league.

Lest we ignore the players, consider this quote from Indiana Pacers forward Jermaine O’Neal:

“In the last two or three years, the rookie of the year has been a high school player. There were seven high school players in the All-Star Game, so why we even talking an age limit?” O’Neal said.

Are high school players in the All-Star game an indication that it’s not a bad idea? Again, the high school players will look better when facing high school level competition. There is something to be said for the maturation and development that any player undergoes in college. Mr. O’Neal also made the point that Major League Baseball doesn’t require anything beyond a high school diploma and that’s true enough. However, he conveniently ignores that the majority of high school players take longer to get to The Show than college players. The college players experience a de facto minor league system. It’s not a perfect substitute, of course, because of aluminum bats and the professional life, but it’s close. The same maturation occurs. And that’s what the NBA is lacking.

For a true understanding of this, Mr. O’Neal’s need look no further than his own career. Consider:

O’Neal went to the NBA straight out of high school in 1996 and was drafted by the Portland Trail Blazers, who made him the 17th overall selection.

O’Neal didn’t blossom into the star he is today until he was dealt to the Pacers during the 2000 offseason. He has made the past three Eastern Conference All-Star teams.

By my calculation, graduating in 1996 and blossoming into a star in 2000 is a four year span of maturation and learning. What other experience can we think of that takes approximately four years to complete? Admittedly he played more games and experienced the professional life during those years, but should the teams pay for that maturation with the millions of dollars spent on rookies, whether high school or college? Remember, when the teams pay those millions, that money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the pockets of fans. In the ’80s and ’90s, I could pay for Magic and Bird and Jordan and Barkley, guys who were flashy and showmen, but were also team-oriented first. If they shined but the team lost, they weren’t happy. I don’t get that feeling with today’s NBA. That is why I don’t watch the NBA any more. Sometimes the “good old days” really were better.