Are you kidding me? I might not be able to eat trans fat in NYC?

NYC eyes ban on restaurant trans fats

I’m practically speechless. Since when did the health nannies in this country accumulate so much power? Now we will have to pay for more intrusive inspections of restaurants (wasting tax dollars), there is a greater risk of corruption (bribing inspectors to look the other way), and we are one more foot down the slippery slope towards the government mandating that we only eat healthy foods.

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.

“Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year,” he said. “The federal government should have done this long ago.”

There are lots of things that are bad for us, lots of things that cause “premature” deaths every year. If I eat a trans-fat-free Wendy’s triple cheeseburger meal with a large coke every day for lunch and dinner, that will likely cause my “premature” death. Does that mean that the government will soon start placing restrictions on how many calories a restaurant can serve me for one transaction? After all, it would be “good” for me. Multi-layer cheeseburgers still contain more calories and fat than are recommended for a whole daily allowance of each under FDA guidelines.

But why stop there? If a restaurant serves me a meal within the recommended calorie amount, maybe those are empty calories! If I consume nothing but empty calories, lack of a balanced diet and proper nutrition will lead to my “premature” death. I think what they should do is tag us all with government-encrypted RFID chips that track our consumption so that the government can be sure that we eat a fully healthy and nutritious diet (as determined by the government, whether accurate or not) every day. The chip will tell the grocery store what you are allowed to buy. Your stove won’t be allowed tot urn on if you are only cooking brownies but not broccoli. Then, every day, or week, or month, you get your chip scanned so the government can confirm that you aren’t consuming homemade candy on the side.

Violations will be punishable by death.

Some days it just doesn’t pay to get out of bed.

I participate in a local forum with a fair degree of frequency.  Unlike blogs there is less control and the discussion tends to be much more fluid.  But what I really find fascinating about it is that because people tend to post anonymously they will put down whatever crazy-ass, unresearched conclusion they’ve come to as if it’s solid fact.  I thought I would take an opportunity to pull some gems from this local forum (actually no longer local to me since I’ve moved elsewhere in the state) that will make you say . . . . WTF!?!

Regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

I thought it was great too. Did you hear that the Iranian “president” was not in the room for Bush’s speech? That man is not for peace. I can see the next war coming. I bet he’s getting ready to nuke us soon.

Here’s our local racist on how many Muslims are extremists as a percentage of the total world Muslim population:

And are these the same barbaric savages that can butcher and kill nuns with impunity in the name of a half-baked pedophile “prophet” fresh out of the most backward looking/living 6th century “culture” of death the world has ever seen while the dims expect us to look for “common ground” as we slowly sinks into a cesspool of islamic bullsht….

Yep…the bad ones give the other .0000000000000000000000001% a bad rap…..

Our resident Democrat antagonist (praising Hugo Chavez):

Huge Chavez, the champion of the poor in his country and all over the world, in his dramatic speech at the UN, called Bush a devil! This sure is a man who knows how to call a spade a spade!

(Don’t worry, there are also dedicated Republican antagonists, too) 

We’ve got some tinfoil hattery about Bush making some shadowy allusion to demolition of the WTC towers:

Yea, they were flown in…and according the BUSH HIMSELF explosives were present as well…

Then of course there are the various board bombers that post nothing but copied and pasted articles en masse. I know all of this stuff exists in the blogosphere, but really some days there is no substitute for getting down and rolling in common forum crazy, which I do almost every day. Sometimes it can be a real chore to fire up a blog you know is just going to post ridiculousness, even though in order to stay on top of the game you have to know what the other side is arguing. With forums you get most of that without having to trudge all over the damn Internet, plus because it is one place to interact there is a great deal of convenience. As long as you get some regular new blood, it’s a great way to keep current, especially on what the partisan talking points are.

At the end of the day, though, it’s always hard to tell whether your voice has made any difference, right?  The racist gets up the next day and is still a racist.  The tinfoil hattery just gets tinfoilier.  The partisans inch further towards the edges in reaction to each other.  Some days you feel like no one is interested in having actual conversation.  So you get a place where you can just set up your soap box and start to yammer, even if no one is in the forest to hear you.  Local forum crazy, I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn’t have it as part of their standard Internet addiction.

Exercise your rights, not your politicians!

Recently the movie Death of a President has been making headlines for portraying a near future in which President Bush is assassinated by a Syrian-born man and the following investigation.  It’s a little bit unclear from the IMDB review at this point how much the movie has to do with the overall War on Terror(ism), but (as has been stated by just about every story covering the event) clearly the portrayal of the assassination of a sitting President has touched a nerve among many Americans.  CGI and other video and movie technologies have advanced far enough that we can very nearly put any person in any TV or movie medium with unprecedented levels of realism.

I have a very, very simple point and a very, very simple request.  If portraying the assassination of a sitting President does not sit well with you, then I recommend not spending your money to see it in the theater (if it appears in the theaters) or not watch it on TV.  If you are offended, write to the advertisers and distribution companies involved and let them know you won’t be patronizing their other projects.  Write to any local affiliates or theaters and advise them that you will not be viewing their channels or visiting their screens.  Write to advertisers, let them know you won’t be spending your money on their products if they are in any way affiliated with the film.  Join groups that will be opposing the movie (I imagine a group like Focus on the Family will oppose the movie, for example), as such groups might be organizing larger boycotts or protests.  There are these options and more for private individuals seeking to have a voice and make a difference.

But, and here is my very small, very simple request, please actively oppose any effort by any politician, bureaucrat, group or entity that makes any call for any form of political action or sanction regarding this movie.  Whether that ranges from a Congressional resolution to statements by FCC representatives or whoever, and no matter what your personal feelings are regarding the bias of either the content producers or of the piece itself, there is no doubt whatsoever that this fictional portrayal is political speech deserving of the highest level of protection afforded speech in the United States.

Do not support any rhetoric that involved at any level government interference in the marketing and distribution of this movie, let everyone know that you will not stand for such speech to be chilled, even as you exercise (if you choose) your right to boycott the production.

As a side note, does anyone find it amusing as I do that thanks to this movie the FBI/CIA databases are going to be overloaded with flagged search engine terms about assassinating the President?  Oh yah, that’s funny stuff.

What’s in a word?

Sometimes when you’re just following the news in individual pieces, you miss the big picture–how something individually might be part of a larger policy.  I might read something and think–well, that is certainly is double-meaning, or a manipulation of definition, but it’s just different when someone puts a bunch of pieces together.

Read this, and let it forevermore tint your reading of government and political statements.

Clipped from the introduction:

George Orwell introduced the concept of “newspeak” and “doublethink” in his classic work Nineteen Eighty-Four. That novel tells the story of a totalitarian state in which government agents monitor all aspects of citizens’ lives. The three doublespeak slogans of the state are seen on posters everywhere: (1) War Is Peace, (2) Freedom Is Slavery, and (3) Ignorance Is Strength. By corrupting the language, the people who wield power are able to fool the others about their activities and evade responsibility and accountability.

Aren’t you tired of government promises?

I am.  Whether that is a new liberal program that promises jobs, that it is helping the poor, that it is making the world a better place to be, or, as in this case, whether it is a big, smiling Republican, looking eerily like a used car salesman, saying “Trust me.”

Today’s issue?  The new warrantless wiretapping bill submitted by R-PEN Arlan Spectre in the Senate.  I’m pulling the story from Wired, but I imagine similar stories can be found other places.  Now, this bill isn’t yet law, but as with most such laws there mere fact that this was submitted as, presumably, a “good idea” should be enough to scare the bejesus out of any liberty-minded American.

Just a sampling of items within the story that deal with trusting a government promise:

1.  In contrast, Specter’s bill concedes the government’s right to wiretap Americans without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own, dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance is to monitor suspected terrorists or spies.

How many times has the government done something with a “stated purpose” that is either a lie or a manipulation?  Surely even if (or especially if) you are the most partisan person in the world you can find examples where “that other party out to destroy America” has misled or lied regard a “stated purpose.”

2. Specter, who called NSA’s warrantless surveillance a “festering sore on our body politic,” champions his bill, since it allows, but does nor require, the administration to submit the whole surveillance program to review by a secretive court. Specter says President Bush promised to submit the NSA program to the court, if the bill passes.

The whole program?  I’m sure this is in writing somewhere.  HA!

3.  Allows the attorney general, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying, such as monitoring all instant-messaging systems in the country, so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related.

Someone, quick check to make sure he doesn’t have his fingers crossed behind his back!

Here are some more bits that ought to perk your ears up:

Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU’s Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill.

Wow, now that sounds like a system of accountability there!

Allows the government to get warrants for surveillance programs as a whole, instead of having to describe to a judge the particular persons to be monitored and the methods to be used.

I just need to stop on this one for a minute.  Can someone, anyone, explain to me how any person supposedly sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America could propose that the above is consistent with the following language:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If the argument is what I think it is, it is the grossest misappropriation of the term “persons” as I’ve ever seen in the context of the Constitution.

Here’s another gem:

Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight. Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications such as phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance.

How is that not surveillance?  You’re capturing data about Americans without their knowledge for the purpose of screening for potential criminal activity?  Uh, by what definition is that not surveillance?  See that thing over there?  It’s pink, it likes to wallow in mud, if you kill it and prepare it properly you can enjoy such foods as bacon, or make a nice ham sandwich.  But it’s not a pig, no sir.  That’s not a pig.  Yes, it just made an oinking noise, but it’s not a pig.  Nothing to see here, no pigs.  Well, yes, he is being tended to by a pig farmer, but it’s not a pig.  Because it’s not.  WTF kind of logic is that?  Orwell would have been proud.

But the government promises that they’re only going to use their powers for good and right.  I say let’s just scrap civil liberties altogether an install a dictator.  But it’ll be ok, ’cause we’re Americans so our dictator will be a benevolent dictator, unlike the rest of the world’s dictators.  Why?  Because we say so.

The epitaph of a bee sting.

I cannot believe I am starting a blog for this, but I’ve got nothing else that fits the bill for this subject matter and Cato Unbound has no provision for direct comments or responses.  I am writing in response to a Cato Unbound piece by Clark Kent Ervin entitled I’d Rather Err on the Side of the Believers.  In this piece he is arguing that the United States has not done enough to combat the threat of another terrorist attack on American soil.

His essay is in response to John Mueller’s Lead Essay for this month’s Cato Unbound entitled Some Reflections on What, if Anything, “Are We Safer?” Might Mean, in which John points out that the actual threat to an American life from a terrorist attack on American soil is less than bee stings, lightning, or accident-causing deer.  The conclusion to John’s article is that because the actual threat is so small our reaction to it is disproportionate.

Clark’s counter to at least the “bee sting” portion of John’s argument is summed up as follows:

First of all, tragic as it may be, we instinctively feel less bad about someone’s dying from a bee sting than about someone’s dying from a terror attack. Why? Well, a bee sting is an act of nature, not an act of man. A bee, presumably anyway, does not intend to cause the death of whomever he stings. A bee does not, presumably, have an “agenda” when he stings someone. There is no intention to affect public policy, and no intention to terrorize or otherwise discomfort anyone other than the person stung. These distinctions account for why, though every single day, significantly more people die from car accidents or cancer than terrorism, any deaths any day from another terror attack here at home would surely engender bold face, round-the-clock headline news coverage, while a greater number of deaths on that day by car accidents, bee stings, or cancer would not.

This particular passage I think highlights why terrorists love people like Clark Kent Ervin.  What Clark fails to get to in his essay is not why we feel “instinctively less bad” when someone gets killed from a bee sting compared to a terrorist attack, but why, regardless our instinctual feelings, we should treat them any differently from a perspective of response?

In other words, he says that bees have no agenda, but terrorists do . . . ok, so what?  It is the terrorist’s point to try to generate a reaction from that death greater than other deaths of similar (or smaller) number, so to that extent by over-reacting to deaths caused by terrorist we play directlyinto the hands of terrorists and their objectives.  Does Osama bin Laden really expect the United States to convert to Islam en masse and for us to destroy Israel?  Of course not.  His goal is to raise the global awareness of issues he considers to be important and to cause as much discomfort to his enemies as he can.  He knows he can’t hurt us militarily, but how many billions of dollars has he cost us?  Not just in the attack, but in all of our responses to the attack.  Not just billions, but I’d wager trillions in total cost.  He and his like have affected how we conduct our affairs and the health of our economy.

Because we let him.  We didn’t just let him, we’re the enabler.  Without our participation the destructive attacks he plans mean relatively little in the grand scheme of things.  But our reaction–massive expenditures, curtailing civil liberties, modified behavior–that is the payoff.  We keep him in the headlines.  We keep his issues in the global spotlight.

If we treated him like any other bee sting, with rational policies no greater than deserved for the actual threat, his bite would not be nearly as costly.