Category: Stupidity

Dirty 10-Letter “C” Word

Here the most petulant little article you’ll read today.

Until recently, Bill Gates has been viewed as the villain of the tech world, while his archrival, Steve Jobs, enjoys an almost saintly reputation.
…

But these perceptions are wrong. In fact, the reality is reversed. It’s Gates who’s making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who’s taking on the role of single-minded capitalist, seemingly oblivious to the broader needs of society.

The evidence? Bill Gates gives away his money with his named attached and is actively involved in some of those charities. He’s even spoken out against cutting the inheritance tax! OMG, if Bill Gates sees the wisdom of it, why shouldn’t we all? He’s such a saint? Seriously, is that the implication I’m supposed to infer? I hope not because it’s ignorant.

And the case against Mr. Jobs? He either doesn’t give donations larger than $5 million, or he doesn’t do so with his name attached. And because most billionaires give away their money with their name attached, a statement the author makes in a tone that clearly indicates that billionaires donating their money are self-congratulatory publicity leeches. Except Bill Gates, because he talks about “solving global health problems”. Otherwise the author’s alleged point falls apart.

That leaves only one perceived sin by Mr. Jobs.

…, he uses social issues to support his own selfish business goals. …

Jobs can’t even get behind causes that would seem to carry deep personal meaning, let alone lasting social importance. Like Lance Armstrong, he is a cancer survivor. But unlike Armstrong, Jobs has so far done little publicly to raise money or awareness for the disease.

Get that? He doesn’t (openly) raise money for cancer research. Because, once you have cancer, you have an obligation to speak out against it to whomever will listen. And you’d better do so, or else you’ll get tagged thusly:

On the evidence, he’s nothing more than a greedy capitalist who’s amassed an obscene fortune. It’s shameful. In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs’ rock star exaltation.

In the same way, I admire Bono over Mick Jagger, and John Lennon over Elvis, because they spoke up about things bigger than their own celebrity.

It’s time for Jobs to do the same.

Mr. Jobs is supposed to be upset because he’s not admired by the author. And he should definitely be embarrassed about his fortune and being a “greedy” capitalist, because that’s capital-B Bad. But the Bono comparison is useful. Where Bono’s activism is quite public, it’s also stunningly short-sighted and wrong¹. Time will tell that perhaps Bill Gates is throwing much of his money into worthless efforts that do nothing to solve global health problems.

With great wealth does not come great obligation. Despite the clear indication that most people with wealth donate money (and noteriety) to charity, which Mr. Jobs may be doing, individuals should be free to do with their money as they see fit. That includes not doing.

Should we now talk about all of the Apple and Pixar employees and shareholders who’ve made significant sums of money over the years thanks to the ideas and innovations facilitated by Mr. Jobs? How much money have those employees and shareholders donated to charity? How many Apple products have individuals used to create compelling marketing material for charity marketing campaigns?

Jobs is already contributing.

¹ Debt relief is not a policy for long-term economic success.

I’d like to buy the world a Coke water.

Here’s a “scary scenario”, courtesy of the Sudanese ambassador to Washington during his press conference in response to economic sanctions in response to the ongoing atrocity in Darfur.

… John Ukec Lueth Ukec, the Sudanese ambassador to Washington — held a news conference at the National Press Club yesterday to respond to President Bush’s new sanctions against his regime. In his hour-long presentation, he described a situation in his land that bore no relation to reality.

During the bulk of the press conference, the ambassador denied any deaths in Sudan, while contradicting himself that it was only collateral damage, comparable to U.S. actions in Iraq. Clearly, he’s reaching for anything. Continuing:

What’s more, the good and peaceful leaders of Sudan were prepared to retaliate massively: They would cut off shipments of the emulsifier gum arabic, thereby depriving the world of cola.

“I want you to know that the gum arabic which runs all the soft drinks all over the world, including the United States, mainly 80 percent is imported from my country,” the ambassador said after raising a bottle of Coca-Cola.

A reporter asked if Sudan was threatening to “stop the export of gum arabic and bring down the Western world.”

“I can stop that gum arabic and all of us will have lost this,” [the ambassador] warned anew, beckoning to the Coke bottle. “But I don’t want to go that way.”

I know nothing of soft drink ingredients, other than they consist mostly of sugar. I don’t understand the chemistry of why gum arabic is essential, or how it works. It doesn’t really matter. Should Sudan retaliate by prohibiting the export of gum arabic, I have a strong suspicion that Coca-Cola and Pepsi will figure out an alternative approach to making their soft drinks. Inevitably, his threat will fail to achieve his desired results.

That doesn’t mean he won’t achieve results. He will, but the citizens of Sudan who rely on gum arabic exports will be harmed. Their income and trade will shrink, exacerbating an already questionable situation. Dictators have a funny way of not caring about that. The U.S. will probably get the international blame for that, even though it will be clear where it should fall.

The issue is meddlesome big government.

Here’s an interesting twist on a bad idea, this time from England:

Secret plans to encourage the nation to give up eating meat are being examined by the Government.

A leaked e-mail expresses sympathy for the environmental benefits of a mass switch to a vegan diet – a strict form of vegetarianism which bans [sic!] milk, dairy products and fish.

The change would need to be done “gently” because of a “risk of alienating the public”, according to the document.

The extreme [sic!] policy is being examined on the basis it could make a major contribution to slowing climate change.

Success from this campaign would help, for various reasons. And as a vegan, I’d love such success. People going vegan would help, for various reasons. And as a vegan, I’d love a mass conversion to veganism. I’m not cheering, though, because diet isn’t the government’s business.

But how is this any different than the advocacy we have in the United States, where the government pushes meat and dairy through its ridiculous food pyramid and subsidies for those favored industries?

The majority doesn’t want their tax dollars used to promote my diet. They should understand that I don’t want my tax dollars used to promote their diet. Simply being in the majority does not validate an opinion.

Via Arkanssouri by way of A Stitch in Haste

Update (06/03/07): I’ve struck two sentences that made my aversion to government involvement in promoting specific diets unclear. The new sentences better say what I meant.

History will wonder why all businesses employ 14 people.

Sen. Barack Obama hates liberty. And economics. And jobs. And health care. There’s no other way to describe the eventual outcome of his fantasy world where wishes lead to outcome.

Mr. Obama would pay for his plan by allowing President Bush’s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans — those making over $250,000 a year — to expire. Officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in.

The Obama proposal includes a new requirement that employers either provide coverage to their employees or pay the government a set proportion of their payroll to provide it. …

Obama advisers said the smallest businesses would be exempt from this requirement. The advisers said that those business might have under 15 employees, but that no number has been set.

And on it goes with the make-believe. Soak the rich. Corporations are evil. Government can solve every problem if given enough money. Why can’t progressives make some progress in understanding economics?

I’m sure I’ll have more later on this. For now, it’s late, so let it stand that this is a bad idea and will lead to reduced employment, less health care, and lower quality. That’s not a perfect trifecta for a man who wants to lead our country.

I can excuse a lot in voting, but I don’t let ignorance slide. Sen. Obama will not receive my vote in 2008.

Surface Thinking: It’s not just for vegans anymore!

And so the irrational attacks on vegansim continue, this time in the New York Times, courtesy of
Nina Planck, author of Real Food: What to Eat and Why. Consider:

When Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.

This particular calamity — at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years — may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.

As I wrote when this story first appeared earlier this month, was that story about veganism or ignorance? It wouldn’t have mattered if the parents fed their son cow’s milk and chicken broth, such a limited diet still would’ve been inappropriate and insufficient for anyone, much less a six-week-old child. That’s where the story ends. Or should end, if there isn’t an agenda to push. So we get this:

I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.

And what support does Ms. Planck offer?

Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.

I’m being simple because I don’t realize that people have always done it. That means it’s good. Or I can reiterate something I wrote earlier today and apply it to the last sentence: it sounds correct so it must be correct. It’s a little too simple to say a vegan diet isn’t adequate, so that’s why no vegan societies exist. For example, what about this?

… Cornell University study finds that it is primarily people whose ancestors came from places where dairy herds could be raised safely and economically, such as in Europe, who have developed the ability to digest milk.

Do people from areas where that evolutionary development didn’t occur still need milk?

Ms. Planck provides more incomplete analysis throughout. She often hits upon the correct problem – improper nutrition – while trying to maintain a cohesive narrative against vegansim, even though veganism can provide proper nutrition. When she states that vegans tend to use soy too much in feeding their children because it reduces protein absorption, she blames veganism rather than poor nutritional sources of protein. I could use the same logic she does and end with is fact: cow’s milk can leech calcium and minerals from bones, which is quite different than the desired, advertised result. But I won’t, because relying on such simplicity leads to conclusions like this:

An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.

Cholesterol is a fascinating subject. Vegans never develop high cholesterol because they don’t consume cholesterol in their diet. That would be nice if it were true. It’s not. But it’s equally untrue that vegans have no source of cholesterol. As long as they have a functioning liver and decent nutrition, cholesterol isn’t a problem.

The fish oil nonsense is the winner, though. Pretending that it’s fish oil and not the nutrients in fish oil demonstrates how Ms. Planck whiffed in her argument. Sufficient nutritional intake is the issue. It always has been and always will be, regardless of whether or not we’re discussing veganism. If critics of veganism can demonstrate that proper nutrition isn’t possible, they should do so. Trotting out the stories of a few children who died from ignorant parenting isn’t proof.

Original link via Glenn Reynolds, where he offers this damning indictment against veganism:

I had a girlfriend who was on a vegan diet. She came down with Kwashiorkor. Luckily, the folks at Cornell Student Health diagnosed it quickly, even though it’s a protein-deficiency disease normally found in starving third-world children, because they had seen it so often among women on vegan diets.

Everyone always knows someone. So, let’s see, college-aged adults, surely the most rational, informed people around, eat a diet with insufficient protein, despite all the sources of protein found in nature, and veganism is to blame. Gotcha. Potato chips and lettuce would be a vegan diet, but it’s not a rational vegan diet. Can we please focus on rational and not vegan? Would an omnivore who subsists on chicken tenders and mozzarella face nutritional deficiencies? No, which identifies the true problem here.

Ms. Planck provides sufficient fodder for link goodness. Read her original essay on the irresponsible parents who fed their son soy milk and apple juice. Or read the background information on her New York Times article, offered at her home page, which includes this from a family practitioner she interviewed:

‘… Most breast-fed vegan children will do okay until solids are introduced, as long as the vegan mother is well nourished. Most commonly you see Vitamin B12 and iron deficiencies in vegan children. Vegan families must place close attention to protein sources, calcium, Vitamins D and B12, and iron. Often this can be achieved via fortified foods, but I’ve seen that not all vegan parents want to choose these types of foods. …’

The doctor explicitly states that veganism isn’t dangerous, but poor nutrition is. This is not news. And anecdotal evidence that “not all vegan parents want to choose these types of foods” is different than the claim that veganism is to blame. Do all omnivorous parents choose the types of foods with sufficient nutrition for their children? Maybe I’ll theorize instead that omnivorous parents are lazy because they don’t want to put any thought into nutritional planning for their families, so they just throw a few slabs of meat on the table since the animal most likely got all of its nutrients from plants. I could argue that, and I’d be on roughly the same illogical level as the article Ms. Planck wrote, but I won’t. I have a functioning brain.

Finally, perhaps you’d like to read the description of her book, which portrays the book as more of a polemic against the industrialization of food. I haven’t read the book, but I probably agree with her argument if she’s saying the processed nature of the modern diet is harmful. Again, that’s more about proper nutrition than veganism.

Update (1:47pm): Sherry Colb has an excellent take-down of Ms. Planck’s article, including a legal flaw in Ms. Planck’s use of Crown Shakur’s death to further her anti-vegan message. Thanks to Kip for the link.

Web Design Annoyance

I know Rolling Doughnut could use a better layout and a few technological bells and whistles. Still, this site gets the basics right.

For example, a problem among websites that I’m starting to see more is a major annoyance with Search functionality. I appreciate the extra help provided by placing the word Search in the text box. It helps me locate it among the mess. Thank you.

But when I highlight the field, the word should disappear. Some sites get this correct and it disappears. Too many, though, don’t. Often I don’t discover this until I’ve already typed a word or two of my search. I then have to edit the text or empty the field and start over. Why? Do the majority of searches include the word search? I doubt it.

If your site is so crammed that you need to include Search to make it obvious, you should probably simplify the design. That’s work, which I don’t bother with myself. Fine. But make the word disappear.

Government cares with our money.

Here’s the fundamental flaw in how politician’s think, summed up in the course of discussing the $2,900,000,000,000 budget proposed by Congressional Democrats:

… said House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). “I haven’t had too many people grab me back home and say, ‘Obey, why don’t you come to your senses and cut cancer research?’ That’s what the president’s budget has done for the past two years, and that’s what it would do again.”

Rep. Obey deceives. Accept this budget or you hate cancer research. That’s an unfair assessment. Everyone wants to find cures for cancer. It’s an undeniably “good” cause. But Rep. Obey makes the assumption that something everyone wants will not happen without the point of the government’s gun commandeering money from Americans and spending it on cancer research. He doesn’t trust people to spend their money on the things he wants they want.

Breaking (Not) News: Politicians are dishonest and hate freedom.

Add Montgomery County, Maryland to the list of governments that doesn’t trust its residents and business owners. Yesterday, it passed a ban on trans fats in “food service establishments”. The story offers the standard fare discussion, which misses how anti-liberty such government intrusion is. For example:

The move comes as health officials across the country decry a rise in bad eating habits, growing waistlines and an increase in heart disease and other ailments. The anti-trans fat bill puts Montgomery in the vanguard of a growing national movement to make it easier to obtain healthy foods in restaurants and grocery stores.

I disagree that easier is the correct word to use in that paragraph. Such anti-trans fat bills seek to make it obligatory to obtain healthy foods. Why bypass that? To make this sound more reasonable? Don’t bother; nothing can make this reasonable.

That doesn’t mean I like trans fats. I avoid them. But I’m not egotistical enough to believe that what I choose for myself is the best, or at least desirable, choice for everyone. We’re all unique human beings with different, subjective preferences and an individual risk aversion not readily apparent to government busybodies. Personal choice is better than institutionalized denial of choice.

Where governments go wrong with that is most apparent in this:

Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), the bill’s chief sponsor, said she thinks the food industry will be able to adjust. Some Montgomery establishments, such as the Silver Diner and Marriott Corp., stopped using trans fats voluntarily.

I wonder what evidence Councilwoman Trachtenberg used to come to her conclusion that the food industry will be able to adjust. Wishing isn’t evidence.

“The goal is to protect the public health,” she said. “People want to know what they are eating.”

And there’s the deceit. Mandatory menu labeling would achieve her stated goal, for customers to know what they’re eating. They’d have the information to make an informed choice. But that’s not the bill Councilwoman Trachtenberg sponsored. What she’s done speaks louder than what she said.

Will Councilwoman Trachtenberg achieve her stated goal?

Gene Wilkes, owner of Tastee Diners in Bethesda and Silver Spring, said the ban will force him to eliminate certain items, such as lemon meringue pie and chocolate cream pie, which he buys from a supplier. His popular biscuits, made in bulk at the diners from a General Mills mix that contains trans fats, will be a no-no. He said he’ll begin making them from scratch, most likely.

I guess if people in Montgomery County want to know what’s in their lemon meringue pie or chocolate cream pie, they’ll know because they’ll have to make it themselves. Mission accomplished. Right?

Are we speaking the same language?

I’m always amazed at how little people understand vegetarianism and veganism. Not so much that people don’t grok it to the point of adopting it. I can’t fathom how “consume no flesh” and “consume no animal products” is particularly complicated. Fish is not vegetarian. Chicken is not vegetarian. Cheese is not vegan. These aren’t complicated ideas. Still, the way people persist in being shocked to learn these basic truths demonstrate how little people think about what they eat.

In that context, the journalist charged with telling this story either doesn’t get it, or isn’t thinking about the meaning of the words, only that the word count meets the editor’s need.

Vegetarians who have learned to live without roast beef dinners and bacon sandwiches were yesterday forced to make another major sacrifice: chocolate.

Learned to live without and major sacrifice. Vegetarianism can’t be about choice, because that doesn’t make sense. It must be about willful deprivation.

It came after the makers of Britain’s most popular chocolate bars, including Mars, Snickers, Maltesers and Milky Ways, admitted that they now contain an ingredient derived from a cow’s stomach.

This month, Masterfoods began using animal rennet to produce the whey needed for its products, rather than a vegetarian alternative. Rennet is extracted from the stomach-lining of slaughtered newborn calves, and is used in traditional cheese production in central Europe. In Britain a microbial alternative made from mould is used.

Food manufacturers cheating on their ingredients is nothing new. McDonald’s uses beef and dairy in making its fries. It’s not common sense to think it includes those ingredients. But surprising? No. As long as major chocolate makers include dairy products in their dark chocolate¹, it’s clear how little concern they have for vegetarian/vegan needs.

Here’s the best part, though, courtesy of the journalist:

The admission by Masterfoods presents the country’s three million vegetarians with an ethical dilemma over whether to consume more than 20 best-selling products.

What ethical dilemma? It contains an ingredient derived from an animal’s stomach. That’s not vegetarian.

Paul Goalby, the corporate affairs manager at Masterfoods, told the Mail on Sunday: “Since changing the sourcing of our ingredients we are no longer able to ensure our chocolate will be animal rennet-free. So we made the principled decision to admit it was not guaranteed to be vegetarian. If the customer is an extremely strict vegetarian, then we are sorry the products are no longer suitable.”

They’re admitting it before someone inevitably drags it out. Bravo. That’s an honest move and gives vegetarians full information. But Mr. Goalby fell into the same bizarre non-grasp of what vegetarians choose to eat. He’s off in believing this change only affects the “extremely strict vegetarian”. That term is like saying someone is “a little bit pregnant.” Either you are or you are not.

Link via Fark.

¹ From the Hershey’s website for Special Dark:

Dark chocolate, also known as sweet or semi-sweet chocolate, typically has a higher percentage of cacao solids (cocoa, chocolate liquor and cocoa butter) than milk chocolate.

Well, duh. Dark chocolate shouldn’t have milk. Hershey’s own glossary of chocolate products reflects this. So why does it include milk in Special Dark? I’d guess milk is cheaper than cocoa.

Should I get business subsidies?

Because Democrats apparently can’t look at the calendar to figure out when summer months are coming, among other simpler solutions that don’t involve market interference, they find it more expedient to blame oil companies.

Standing in front of an Exxon station near the Capitol on Wednesday with the posted $3.05-a-gallon price for unleaded regular in the background, half a dozen senators railed against the oil industry.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Congress would look into breaking up the giant companies. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promoted her anti-price-gouging bill, which the Senate Commerce Committee adopted on Tuesday. And Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) backed a windfall profits tax, pointing to $440 billion in profits over the past six years for the nation’s five biggest oil companies.

“I think it’s time to say to these people, ‘Stop ripping off the American people,’ ” Sanders said.

In order…

  • Good plan. Investment in oil discovery and refining is expensive. Small firms with a smaller capital base are best suited to the task.
  • Right, if the price is “high”, or higher than people want to pay in an ideal world ($0? negative prices?), means that companies are “gouging”. Who needs any context into costs, demand, or other basic economic concepts?
  • Again, “windfall” is an empty buzzword, for it pretends that the laws of economics can be violated. Particularly, as Sanders said, the silly notion that oil companies are “ripping off” American consumers.

For example:

While they haven’t curtailed their driving habits, two-thirds of U.S. adults said in a mid-April Washington Post-ABC News poll that gasoline price increases had caused “financial hardship” for their households; 36 percent said that the hardship had been “serious.”

Rather than first look to strategies individuals can immediately implement, Congress needs to step in and threaten to transfer money from one group (oil company stockholders) to another group (gas consumers). We must make certain to ignore the obvious fact that the former is a subset of the latter.

For a real life example, consider my current unemployment lack of a contract¹. Rather than complain that my income is dramatically reduced while continuing to spend, I’ve curbed my spending in response to an adverse situation. I deem zero income to be “bad”. My actions reflect that.

American drivers don’t seem to agree that gas prices are all that “bad”.

¹ A situation that appears nearing its end, thankfully. Hopefully.