Saturday, April 21, 2012
Voices In My Head (Double Live Gonzo Edition)
If you can’t galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we’re done. We’ll be a suburb of Indonesia next year. Our president, attorney general, vice president, Hillary Clinton–they’re criminals. They’re criminals. Who doesn’t know the crimes our government are committing?
We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions?
If Barack Obama is elected, I'll either be dead or in jail this time next year
---Ted Nugent (at the NRA meeting last weekend in St. Louis)
I'd say Ted has done a fine job of summing up what Charely Pierce wrote about recently in Esquire. I hope to God that he sticks around and keeps talking from now until November 6th!
We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions?
If Barack Obama is elected, I'll either be dead or in jail this time next year
---Ted Nugent (at the NRA meeting last weekend in St. Louis)
I'd say Ted has done a fine job of summing up what Charely Pierce wrote about recently in Esquire. I hope to God that he sticks around and keeps talking from now until November 6th!
Friday, April 20, 2012
Another Skirmish in the War on Women
The Republican-controlled Minnesota state legislature recently passed bills requiring women to take RU 486 (mifepristone, or the abortion pill) in the physical presence of a doctor. It's common practice for this drug to be administered via video conferencing.
Republicans claim that this is to protect women's health, but it's obviously just another bogus road block to prevent women from getting abortions. According to the bill's sponsor, Joyce Peppin:
By comparison, the death rate for Viagra is about 5 out of every 100,000. A fact which led Phyllis Kahn to make an amendment to require men take Viagra under the supervision of a physician.
What's even more outrageous is the mortality rate among pregnant women in the United States:
Why do we have all these maternal deaths? Basically, lack of health insurance, family planning services and prenatal care. Since a pregnant woman has a preexisting condition, insurance companies will be able to deny pregnant women insurance until the ACA takes full effect.
Mifepristone is one of the safest drugs on the market. Why? It's just a big dose of contraceptive hormones that cause the uterine lining to shed, something which happens naturally every month. This also happens spontaneously in a quarter (and some sources say as much as 50 or 75%) of all pregnancies, resulting in miscarriages, or spontaneous abortions.
So when these people claim that they're passing all these laws to protect women's health, they're lying. They're really pushing a religious or political agenda attacking women's freedoms and rights.
Republicans claim that this is to protect women's health, but it's obviously just another bogus road block to prevent women from getting abortions. According to the bill's sponsor, Joyce Peppin:
This bill is about women’s health, Just a few statistics about this type of drug: 14 deaths, 612 hospitalizations, 58 ectopic pregnancies. That’s something to be taken seriously.What Peppin neglects to mention is that these 14 deaths occurred over 10 years, between September, 2001 and April, 2011. According to the FDA 1.52 million women used the drug and 14 died: eight of those deaths were due to Chlostridium infections and the rest were due to illegal drug overdose, methadone overdose, murder, toxic shock and septic shock. Even if you include the questionably attributed cases, that's only 0.9 deaths per 100,000.
By comparison, the death rate for Viagra is about 5 out of every 100,000. A fact which led Phyllis Kahn to make an amendment to require men take Viagra under the supervision of a physician.
What's even more outrageous is the mortality rate among pregnant women in the United States:
Maternal mortality ratios have increased from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006. While some of the recorded increase is due to improved data collection, the fact remains that maternal mortality ratios have risen significantlyYes, a pregnant woman is 15 times more likely to die if she brings a child to term than if she uses mifepristone. By comparison, the death rate for people taking aspirin and other NSAIDs is between 21 and 24 deaths per 100,000, and the death rate for Tylenol is 150 or more per 100,000.
Why do we have all these maternal deaths? Basically, lack of health insurance, family planning services and prenatal care. Since a pregnant woman has a preexisting condition, insurance companies will be able to deny pregnant women insurance until the ACA takes full effect.
Mifepristone is one of the safest drugs on the market. Why? It's just a big dose of contraceptive hormones that cause the uterine lining to shed, something which happens naturally every month. This also happens spontaneously in a quarter (and some sources say as much as 50 or 75%) of all pregnancies, resulting in miscarriages, or spontaneous abortions.
So when these people claim that they're passing all these laws to protect women's health, they're lying. They're really pushing a religious or political agenda attacking women's freedoms and rights.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Cynical Republican Stance Against Gay Marriage Fading
NPR is running a series of stories on big campaign donors in the wake of the Citizen's United decision. The other day they ran a story on Paul Singer, a Wall Street vulture investor who preys on vulnerable companies. Singer is backing Romney, who has a similar background.
But the interesting thing about Singer is that he's also backing gay marriage. Singer's son is gay, and was married in Massachusetts. Singer has donated more than $8 million to the cause. From the story:
George Bush won the 2004 election largely on the strength of the anti-gay marriage fervor that was spreading across the country in the wake of court decisions at the time. Yet Bush's campaign manager, his representative at the Supreme Court and his running mate actually thought gay marriage should be allowed on constitutional grounds.
For years the Republican Party has been cynically manipulating popular sentiment against gay marriage for political advantage, knowing in their heart of hearts that it's wrong to deny people equal rights and force one religious group's beliefs on an entire nation. Now many of them are making their true feelings known, since the handwriting is on the wall and opposition to gay marriage is making its last desperate gasp.
Abortion is exactly the same: it's a personal freedom issue, just like gay marriage. The government shouldn't be telling me who I can and can't marry, and it shouldn't be telling my wife what she can do with her own body. It's a total Republican no-brainer: women must be free to use birth control and have abortions, within reasonable limits and with exceptions like those Rick Santorum's wife used. Sometimes the responsible thing for a pregnant woman is to carry the child to term, and sometimes the responsible thing is to get an abortion. Any true Republican knows in the core of his being that it has to be this way.
This Republican strategy is particularly cynical in their recruitment of Catholic voters. Republicans have used gay marriage and abortion to get Catholics to vote Republican, while taking stands that affect far more people and that Catholics have always opposed: the death penalty, the proliferation of guns and callously killing kids on the street, endless wars in foreign countries, harsh treatment of immigrants, degradation of the environment, cutting taxes on the rich while cutting programs for the poor and middle class, and on and on. John Boehner's recent rejection of Catholic bishop's criticism of House budget priorities is proof of this.
Voters of faith have to look beyond hot-button social issues and view the entirety of a party's platform. Their stands on social issues can blow with the wind, completely dependent on the whims of the big-money men or the schemes of political strategists. Because in the end, the rights guaranteed in our Constitution have to trump religious predilections.
Wealthy Republicans like Paul Singer are now openly supporting gay marriage. If he had a daughter who needed birth control or an abortion, you can be sure he would be able to flout whatever laws were in his way, by sending them abroad if necessary, and then spend millions to get those laws changed to ensure his granddaughters would have the same opportunity to exercise their right to control their own destinies.
But the interesting thing about Singer is that he's also backing gay marriage. Singer's son is gay, and was married in Massachusetts. Singer has donated more than $8 million to the cause. From the story:
"I believe a generation from now, gay marriage will be seen as a profoundly traditionalizing act. It will have channeled love into the most powerful social institution on earth: marriage itself," said Singer in a video posted on the gay news blog Towleroad.
He was speaking at a 2010 fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Chad Griffin, a political strategist and board president for the group, says Singer supports gay marriage not in spite of being a Republican, but because he is a Republican.
"He is a real force in the fight for full equality in this country," Griffin says.Singer isn't the only such Republican: it's well known that Dick Cheney supports gay marriage (his daughter is gay), and George W. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, came out as gay two years ago. Bush's first Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, successfully led the challenge to California's Prop 8 gay marriage ban.
George Bush won the 2004 election largely on the strength of the anti-gay marriage fervor that was spreading across the country in the wake of court decisions at the time. Yet Bush's campaign manager, his representative at the Supreme Court and his running mate actually thought gay marriage should be allowed on constitutional grounds.
For years the Republican Party has been cynically manipulating popular sentiment against gay marriage for political advantage, knowing in their heart of hearts that it's wrong to deny people equal rights and force one religious group's beliefs on an entire nation. Now many of them are making their true feelings known, since the handwriting is on the wall and opposition to gay marriage is making its last desperate gasp.
Abortion is exactly the same: it's a personal freedom issue, just like gay marriage. The government shouldn't be telling me who I can and can't marry, and it shouldn't be telling my wife what she can do with her own body. It's a total Republican no-brainer: women must be free to use birth control and have abortions, within reasonable limits and with exceptions like those Rick Santorum's wife used. Sometimes the responsible thing for a pregnant woman is to carry the child to term, and sometimes the responsible thing is to get an abortion. Any true Republican knows in the core of his being that it has to be this way.
This Republican strategy is particularly cynical in their recruitment of Catholic voters. Republicans have used gay marriage and abortion to get Catholics to vote Republican, while taking stands that affect far more people and that Catholics have always opposed: the death penalty, the proliferation of guns and callously killing kids on the street, endless wars in foreign countries, harsh treatment of immigrants, degradation of the environment, cutting taxes on the rich while cutting programs for the poor and middle class, and on and on. John Boehner's recent rejection of Catholic bishop's criticism of House budget priorities is proof of this.
Voters of faith have to look beyond hot-button social issues and view the entirety of a party's platform. Their stands on social issues can blow with the wind, completely dependent on the whims of the big-money men or the schemes of political strategists. Because in the end, the rights guaranteed in our Constitution have to trump religious predilections.
Wealthy Republicans like Paul Singer are now openly supporting gay marriage. If he had a daughter who needed birth control or an abortion, you can be sure he would be able to flout whatever laws were in his way, by sending them abroad if necessary, and then spend millions to get those laws changed to ensure his granddaughters would have the same opportunity to exercise their right to control their own destinies.
Thanks, Charlie!
My first thought at Charley Pierce's brilliant piece in Esquire was, "Hey, he's stealing my shit!" which quickly turned to some inner rumblings about imitation being the highest form of flattery. In fact, he very simply defined the exact reason why I spend so much time talking about the conservative base.
Pierce echoes Mike Lofgren's tell all from a while back and sums up the current political situation quite well.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Republican party, root and branch, from its deepest grass roots to its highest levels, has become completely demented. This does not mean that it is incapable of winning elections; on the contrary, the 2010 midterms, as well as the statewide elections around the country, ushered in a class of politicians so thoroughly dedicated to turning nonsense into public policy that future historians are going to marvel at our ability to survive what we wrought upon ourselves.
This isn't merely an opinion anymore. It's a fact.
It is now impossible to become an elected Republican politician in this country if, for example, you believe in the overwhelming scientific consensus that exists behind the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Just recently, birth control, an issue most people thought pretty well had been settled in the 1960s, became yet another litmus test for Republican candidates, as did the Keystone XL pipeline, to which every Republican presidential candidate pledged unyielding fealty despite the fact that several prairie Republicans and an army of conservative farmers and ranchers are scared to death of the thing.
Again, all facts. But here's the worst part.
Eventually, as was proven by the failed candidacies of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, which helped lose the Republicans a golden chance at controlling the Senate as well in 2010, these people cared less about whether the party succeeded than they did that their ideology was kept pure and their private universe invulnerable.
They cared less about whether their party succeeded...in other words, they don't care if they win or lose elections. When you reach that level of irrationality, it makes me wonder what else you are capable of doing. This is exactly what the Democrats don't understand and why, I fear, they severely underestimate the conservative base of this country.
Certainly, this is a mistake I have made in the past but no longer. I know what I ...what we are up against.
Armed with the power of its extraparty institutions, there is a strong element within the Republican base that does not care if the party loses one, two, or three elections as long as their ideology remains pure. There is nobody so powerful in politics as influential people who don't care if they lose. The Republicans have these in abundance.
Pierce doesn't hold out much hope for the Democrats.
The Democrats don't have them at all. This is what keeps the Democrats from being able to make the Republicans pay full price for their party's departure from reality on so many issues. In 2006, the Republicans were handed a defeat in the midterms every bit as resounding as the one suffered by the Democrats four years later. The difference is that there were so many institutions enabling and validating the Republicans' outré ideas that they didn't see any need to moderate them as a result of the 2006 debacle. They simply rode out the 2008 presidential election and retooled those ideas for the age of Obama. Suddenly, we started hearing about "czars," and more talk about socialism than you would have heard at Eugene V. Debs's bachelor party. What were once moderate Republican ideas were now the thin edge of the collectivist wedge. The transformation was complete. And it was remarkable.
Never underestimate the ugly side of American populism and what it can become.
So, is there a solution?
The Democratic party has an obligation to beat the Republican party so badly, over and over again, that rationality once again becomes a quality to be desired. It must be done by persuading the country of this simple fact. It cannot be done by reasoning with the Republicans, because the next two generations of them are too far gone.
Hence, one of the main reasons for this site.
Thanks, Charlie!
Pierce echoes Mike Lofgren's tell all from a while back and sums up the current political situation quite well.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Republican party, root and branch, from its deepest grass roots to its highest levels, has become completely demented. This does not mean that it is incapable of winning elections; on the contrary, the 2010 midterms, as well as the statewide elections around the country, ushered in a class of politicians so thoroughly dedicated to turning nonsense into public policy that future historians are going to marvel at our ability to survive what we wrought upon ourselves.
This isn't merely an opinion anymore. It's a fact.
It is now impossible to become an elected Republican politician in this country if, for example, you believe in the overwhelming scientific consensus that exists behind the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Just recently, birth control, an issue most people thought pretty well had been settled in the 1960s, became yet another litmus test for Republican candidates, as did the Keystone XL pipeline, to which every Republican presidential candidate pledged unyielding fealty despite the fact that several prairie Republicans and an army of conservative farmers and ranchers are scared to death of the thing.
Again, all facts. But here's the worst part.
Eventually, as was proven by the failed candidacies of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, which helped lose the Republicans a golden chance at controlling the Senate as well in 2010, these people cared less about whether the party succeeded than they did that their ideology was kept pure and their private universe invulnerable.
They cared less about whether their party succeeded...in other words, they don't care if they win or lose elections. When you reach that level of irrationality, it makes me wonder what else you are capable of doing. This is exactly what the Democrats don't understand and why, I fear, they severely underestimate the conservative base of this country.
Certainly, this is a mistake I have made in the past but no longer. I know what I ...what we are up against.
Armed with the power of its extraparty institutions, there is a strong element within the Republican base that does not care if the party loses one, two, or three elections as long as their ideology remains pure. There is nobody so powerful in politics as influential people who don't care if they lose. The Republicans have these in abundance.
Pierce doesn't hold out much hope for the Democrats.
The Democrats don't have them at all. This is what keeps the Democrats from being able to make the Republicans pay full price for their party's departure from reality on so many issues. In 2006, the Republicans were handed a defeat in the midterms every bit as resounding as the one suffered by the Democrats four years later. The difference is that there were so many institutions enabling and validating the Republicans' outré ideas that they didn't see any need to moderate them as a result of the 2006 debacle. They simply rode out the 2008 presidential election and retooled those ideas for the age of Obama. Suddenly, we started hearing about "czars," and more talk about socialism than you would have heard at Eugene V. Debs's bachelor party. What were once moderate Republican ideas were now the thin edge of the collectivist wedge. The transformation was complete. And it was remarkable.
Never underestimate the ugly side of American populism and what it can become.
So, is there a solution?
The Democratic party has an obligation to beat the Republican party so badly, over and over again, that rationality once again becomes a quality to be desired. It must be done by persuading the country of this simple fact. It cannot be done by reasoning with the Republicans, because the next two generations of them are too far gone.
Hence, one of the main reasons for this site.
Thanks, Charlie!
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Four Family Tableaux
There's been a firestorm of artificial outrage in conservative circles since Hilary Rosen said that Ann Romney hasn't worked a day in her life. Rosen said this in the context of Mitt Romney asserting that he understood the average woman's concerns about the economy because his wife tells him what to think.
The point isn't really whether Ann Romney worked, but whether she has had to make the family and economic decisions and sacrifices that the average woman does. So let's have a reality check with a common situation in modern American families. Here's the initial conversation, followed by the discussion that follows in four different types of families:
The point isn't really whether Ann Romney worked, but whether she has had to make the family and economic decisions and sacrifices that the average woman does. So let's have a reality check with a common situation in modern American families. Here's the initial conversation, followed by the discussion that follows in four different types of families:
Son: Mom, I need $2,000 for soccer club.Traditional nuclear family, stay-at-home mom:
Mom: I'll talk it over with your father.
Mom: Our son needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: Two thousand bucks? We can't afford that kind of money for soccer. And isn't the soccer season over?
Mom: Yes, but that's high school. He's really good, and he might be able to get a college scholarship if he sticks with it. Without the club he'll never get noticed by college coaches.
Dad: But two thousand bucks. That's impossible. I'm already working two jobs.
Mom: I could get a job...
Dad: And who'll take care of the kids? Do you know how much day care costs? I'm sorry, but we just can't afford it. He'll have to get a part-time job or do without.
Typical family, both parents working:
Mom: Our son needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: Two thousand bucks? We can't afford that kind of money for soccer. And isn't the soccer season over?
Mom: Yes, but that's high school. He's really good, and he might be able to get a college scholarship if he sticks with it. Without the club he'll never get noticed by college coaches.
Dad: But two thousand bucks. I'd have to get a second job. Can't he work part-time?
Mom: Between school and soccer practice he already has no free time.
Dad: Okay, okay. I think I saw an opening at Walmart.
Divorced parents:
Mom: Your son needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: Two thousand bucks? I'm already paying you a ton for child support. And isn't the soccer season over?
Mom: Yes, but that's high school. He's really good, and he might be able to get a college scholarship if he sticks with it. Without the club he'll never get noticed by college coaches.
Dad: But I already have another family to support.
Mom: Who's fault is that? If you hadn't knocked up your secretary we wouldn't be in this mess.
Dad: Tell him to get a job.
Mom: You're so out of it. He already works 20 hours a week at Burger King. Between that and soccer practice, he's just barely able to keep his grades high enough to stay on the team.
Dad: Then you get a job. I'm tired of paying to sit on your fat ass all day, you lying bitch!
Mom: What?! Taking care of six kids is a full-time job! And do you know how much day care costs? And if you had let me use birth control we wouldn't have six kids all under the age of 17!
Dad: The answer is no! (slams the phone down)
Romney family, Son #1:
Mom: Tagg needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: (takes out wallet, counts out cash) Here.
Romney family, Son #2:
Mom: Matt needs $2,000 for soccer club.
Dad: (takes out checkbook, writes check) Here.
Romney family, Son #3:
Mom: Josh needs $2,000 for basketball club.
Dad: Didn't I just write a check for that the other day?
Mom: That was Matt, and it was soccer.
Dad: Okay, then. (writes out check) Here.
Romney family, Son #4:
Mom: Ben needs $2,000 for lacrosse club.
Dad: I left my checkbook in my other suit. Take it out of your pin money.
Romney family, Son #5:
Mom: Craig needs $2,000 for swim club.
Dad: Do you think I'm made of money?
Mom: Yes, I saw that picture of you with your Bain pals. Just buy another company, fire half the workers, then make the survivors take out a loan to repay you. Reap twice your original investment, walk away and let it go bankrupt.
Dad: Ha, ha, very funny. (writes out check)
The point isn't really whether Ann Romney worked, but how her perspective on average women's lives could possibly illuminate Mitt's thinking in any useful way. She has lived her entire economic existence in his shadow, completely dependent on him for all income, never wanting for anything.
My mom was a real stay-at-home mom, what Mitt Romney pretends his wife was. My mom raised six kids all by herself, while caring for her ailing father the last 20 years of his life. My dad was a janitor, real estate agent and bus driver, and worked all kinds of long and weird hours. When Ann Romney was having her first child, my mom was manually running clothes through a wringer washer (also known as a button-crusher and hand-masher), and then hanging them on the clothesline to dry. When we had pancakes for supper we kids thought it was a treat: little did we know it was because we didn't have any money. My mom had none of the nannies and cooks and maids and gardeners that people in Ann Romney's position can have.
Ann Romney has certainly had her trials and tribulation, and I have nothing bad to say about her. But worrying about whether she could afford the things her kids needed was never one of them. She's never had to make economic tradeoffs, favoring one child over another because she couldn't afford to give them all what they needed. She never had to sacrifice her time with them in order to make money to pay for the things they needed.
In other words, she's never had to face any of the hardest decisions that the vast majority of mothers in America have to face. That doesn't mean she can't sympathize or understand the trouble they have. But for Romney to claim that his wife has some kind of first-hand experience that would give her some kind of special insight to council him on the lives of average women is flat-out nonsense.
The truth is, average conservative women were already thinking what Hilary Rosen said about Ann Romney. And that seed of truth has to be ripped out and burned with the sharpest vitriol by the right-wing chattering classes as fast as possible, lest it take root and spread among the Republican base that already doesn't trust Mitt Romney for exactly this reason.
We Really Don't Know
The case of Trayvon Martin has been discussed quite a bit in the hallways and classrooms for the last 6 weeks. A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor is typical of the points of view that one would overhear in most any school that contains people of color.
Most people that are white, including myself, just don't really know what this is like. When you live with this sort of prejudice, day in and day out, it takes its toll. It's easy for people to throw out how they think people should act but until you've lived, you really don't have a clue.
Moreover, the following is something I hear frequently right around the time the driver's license is issued.
Instead of shopping, though, it's how to act when a policeman pulls you over. Keep both hands at 10 and 2 O'Clock, look right at the officer, smile, answer in shortly worded sentences etc. Imagine having to add this talk in to all the other ones that you have to have when a teenager starts to dri
So, Mr. Powell's situation is quite common and this is easily seen if you take the time to read the other testimonials. Perhaps after you read them, I'm hoping that you will see what Trayvon Martin was likely dealing with before he was shot.
Of course, we will never really know.
"You name it … walking, in stores, in my car, in malls, getting ice cream," says Mr. Powell, who grew up in Compton, Calif., and now also coaches high school football. "I'm always being racially profiled – by the police or women on the street who give me looks and clutch their purses tighter when they see me coming."
He says police pull him over four or five times a month on average, for "driving while black." Officers "go through my trunk, my glove compartment, look under and behind the seats," he says.
Most people that are white, including myself, just don't really know what this is like. When you live with this sort of prejudice, day in and day out, it takes its toll. It's easy for people to throw out how they think people should act but until you've lived, you really don't have a clue.
Moreover, the following is something I hear frequently right around the time the driver's license is issued.
Powell says his parents, like many parents of black boys, gave him the "talk" when he was growing up: how to dress, walk, act, and speak in situations from shopping in stores to being stopped by police.
"They said to be polite. Look people straight in the eyes. Tell them exactly what they want to hear without attitude. Always carry items out of the store in a bag."
Instead of shopping, though, it's how to act when a policeman pulls you over. Keep both hands at 10 and 2 O'Clock, look right at the officer, smile, answer in shortly worded sentences etc. Imagine having to add this talk in to all the other ones that you have to have when a teenager starts to dri
So, Mr. Powell's situation is quite common and this is easily seen if you take the time to read the other testimonials. Perhaps after you read them, I'm hoping that you will see what Trayvon Martin was likely dealing with before he was shot.
Of course, we will never really know.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Flaunting the Founding Fathers?
Today I'm wondering where exactly in the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the subsequent amendments does it say that one must present a photo ID to vote. I've been assured by my buddies on the right that they know the Constitution better than anyone and will, under any circumstances, most definitely adhere to to it.
After all, they wouldn't want to be accused of flaunting the founding fathers like Barack X, would they?
After all, they wouldn't want to be accused of flaunting the founding fathers like Barack X, would they?
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Perils of Pop, or Why Our Economy is Killing Us
A while back Markadelphia asked why everyone is down on soda. Here are some reasons.
Empty calories: 12 ounces of sugar- or corn syrup-sweetened soda can contain 140 or more calories. If a person drinks only 3-5 cans a day, that's a quarter to a third of the recommended daily caloric intake for an average sedentary American. This provides absolutely no nutritional value, which means that its either displacing real food, or people are consuming that many additional calories from real food that provides protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals.
Artificial sweeteners: sugar-free diet sodas may not be any better. Studies have shown an insulin reaction to aspartame in rats, and while this may or may not carry over to humans, it's quite likely that artificial sweeteners promote overall increased caloric intake, as aspartame appears to cause carbohydrate cravings. Sweeteners like cyclamates and saccharine have also been linked to cancer, and aspartame is a serious hazard for those who have phenylketonuria. It has also been linked to severe headaches in some people. Breakdown products of aspartame include phenyalanine, methanol, formic acid, and formaldehyde, which is stored in fat cells and is probably carcinogenic.
Thus, both diet and sugared soda are linked to weight gain and diabetes, which both lead to heart disease, stroke, and a whole host of other medical problems.
Phosphoric acid: many soft drinks contain phosphoric acid, which causes calcium excretion and bone loss, especially in older women who are already predisposed to osteoporosis. Some researchers believe this is simply due to the replacement of milk in the diet; in either case it means women soda-drinkers are more prone to broken bones.
Citric acid: citric acid, which is present in many types of soda, including Mountain Dew, erodes tooth enamel. A popular high school experiment is to place a tooth or mouse in citric acid, which then dissolve away in a couple of weeks. Someone who sits at a keyboard all day sipping Dew — regular or diet — is not doing their teeth any favors.
Caffeine: caffeine is an addictive substance which is generally considered harmless. But it's a full-fledged drug addiction: withdrawal symptoms include headache, muscle pain, stiffness, vomiting and depression. There are also many instances of people dying after consuming too much caffeine. France outlawed Red Bull after an Irishman died from drinking four cans. A fourteen-year-old Maryland girl recently died after drinking two Monster energy drinks over a 24-hour period.
In short, soda consumption has absolutely no positive benefits.
When I was a kid soda was a treat, like a cookie or a piece of cake. But over the last forty years people have begun treating soda as a staple food, replacing juice and milk. This is especially problematic for women and children, who need that calcium. Milk has its own problems with BGH and excessive antibiotic use, but soda is the worst possible replacement. Plain water is far superior in every way.
Going to a fast-food place like McDonald's used to be a treat as well: we would eat there a few times a year, when out shopping or on a long road trip. Today many pork out on pizza, burgers, fries and sodas every day. Even worse, parents regularly bring that stuff home to feed their kids. This diet is the main cause of the epidemic of obesity that is sweeping across the world, but is hitting the United States particularly hard.
When I was a kid, you either brown-bagged a sandwich to school or you ate the school lunch, which was an institutional version of the square meal you got at home. You drank government-subsidized milk for 2 cents a carton. These days most schools have pop and candy machines and some even have fast-food outlets on campus.
The truly awful part is that our economy requires this. Investors demand high returns, and businesses that don't experience at least 5-10% annual growth are viewed as losers and hammered on the stock market. Companies like Coca Cola, McDonald's, Burger King, Pepsi, etc., have experienced growth for years, mostly at the expense of sit-down restaurants and grocery stores.
The push for growth in profits has forced these companies to adopt tactics of relentless advertising, callous indoctrination of the young, increased convenience and ubiquity, and product reformulation to maximize addictiveness. In the process they have completely altered our behaviors and degraded the health of the nation.
But for that kind of domestic profit growth to continue, Americans have to increase their consumption of products that are bad for their health (costing us hundreds of billions more in medical costs), or our population has to increase (unlikely, since that will only happen through immigration), or the price of these products has to increase (unlikely, since the main draw is the cheapness of fast food).
The economic model of endless growth in consumption — and our waistlines — is literally killing us.
Empty calories: 12 ounces of sugar- or corn syrup-sweetened soda can contain 140 or more calories. If a person drinks only 3-5 cans a day, that's a quarter to a third of the recommended daily caloric intake for an average sedentary American. This provides absolutely no nutritional value, which means that its either displacing real food, or people are consuming that many additional calories from real food that provides protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals.
Artificial sweeteners: sugar-free diet sodas may not be any better. Studies have shown an insulin reaction to aspartame in rats, and while this may or may not carry over to humans, it's quite likely that artificial sweeteners promote overall increased caloric intake, as aspartame appears to cause carbohydrate cravings. Sweeteners like cyclamates and saccharine have also been linked to cancer, and aspartame is a serious hazard for those who have phenylketonuria. It has also been linked to severe headaches in some people. Breakdown products of aspartame include phenyalanine, methanol, formic acid, and formaldehyde, which is stored in fat cells and is probably carcinogenic.
Thus, both diet and sugared soda are linked to weight gain and diabetes, which both lead to heart disease, stroke, and a whole host of other medical problems.
Phosphoric acid: many soft drinks contain phosphoric acid, which causes calcium excretion and bone loss, especially in older women who are already predisposed to osteoporosis. Some researchers believe this is simply due to the replacement of milk in the diet; in either case it means women soda-drinkers are more prone to broken bones.
Citric acid: citric acid, which is present in many types of soda, including Mountain Dew, erodes tooth enamel. A popular high school experiment is to place a tooth or mouse in citric acid, which then dissolve away in a couple of weeks. Someone who sits at a keyboard all day sipping Dew — regular or diet — is not doing their teeth any favors.
Caffeine: caffeine is an addictive substance which is generally considered harmless. But it's a full-fledged drug addiction: withdrawal symptoms include headache, muscle pain, stiffness, vomiting and depression. There are also many instances of people dying after consuming too much caffeine. France outlawed Red Bull after an Irishman died from drinking four cans. A fourteen-year-old Maryland girl recently died after drinking two Monster energy drinks over a 24-hour period.
In short, soda consumption has absolutely no positive benefits.
When I was a kid soda was a treat, like a cookie or a piece of cake. But over the last forty years people have begun treating soda as a staple food, replacing juice and milk. This is especially problematic for women and children, who need that calcium. Milk has its own problems with BGH and excessive antibiotic use, but soda is the worst possible replacement. Plain water is far superior in every way.
Going to a fast-food place like McDonald's used to be a treat as well: we would eat there a few times a year, when out shopping or on a long road trip. Today many pork out on pizza, burgers, fries and sodas every day. Even worse, parents regularly bring that stuff home to feed their kids. This diet is the main cause of the epidemic of obesity that is sweeping across the world, but is hitting the United States particularly hard.
When I was a kid, you either brown-bagged a sandwich to school or you ate the school lunch, which was an institutional version of the square meal you got at home. You drank government-subsidized milk for 2 cents a carton. These days most schools have pop and candy machines and some even have fast-food outlets on campus.
The truly awful part is that our economy requires this. Investors demand high returns, and businesses that don't experience at least 5-10% annual growth are viewed as losers and hammered on the stock market. Companies like Coca Cola, McDonald's, Burger King, Pepsi, etc., have experienced growth for years, mostly at the expense of sit-down restaurants and grocery stores.
The push for growth in profits has forced these companies to adopt tactics of relentless advertising, callous indoctrination of the young, increased convenience and ubiquity, and product reformulation to maximize addictiveness. In the process they have completely altered our behaviors and degraded the health of the nation.
But for that kind of domestic profit growth to continue, Americans have to increase their consumption of products that are bad for their health (costing us hundreds of billions more in medical costs), or our population has to increase (unlikely, since that will only happen through immigration), or the price of these products has to increase (unlikely, since the main draw is the cheapness of fast food).
The economic model of endless growth in consumption — and our waistlines — is literally killing us.
Grab Bag Of Irritation
I thought I'd take a break from politics today and put up a Grab Bag. It's been far too long since I've done one and I'm honestly in the perfect mood today.
Soda Popped!
What is it with virtually everyone I know these days completely freaking out about soda?
Somehow, all of the conversations I've had about health and/or food recently have all gone the same way. One of my friends will say something like, "And soda...OH MY GOD, Soda is just the worst thing in the world. It's SOOOO bad for you" followed by semi-violent head shakes and then something like..."Horrible...it's just so horrible for you" as if they were talking about Chernoyl or something.
Yes, I know that soda is bad for you if you drink 89 cans a day but having one on occasion is not the same thing as smoking two packs a day, for pete's sake. It's as if you are instantly going to get diabetes if you have one can of a regular, sugar filled Coke. The descent into anaphylaxis is nearly instantaneous whenever the subject comes up and is blown so far out of proportion that it's driving me completely nuts.
Speaking of which...
The Land of Exaggeration
I know that being Minnesotan means taking some small thing that happened to someone once and turning it into an everyday occurrence that now happens to everyone everywhere is par for the course. But, seriously, I just can't take it anymore.
The other day I was talking with a friend of mine about how I talk about sex quite a bit and in great detail. "You can't do that, Mark. People just don't like it," she pleaded with me. "But why? So what?" I asked.
"Well, you can't go around raping people either," was her reply.
WTF???!!!
So, talking about sex is the gateway to rape? Seriously?!!?
But it's not just with such a touchy subject...it's with fucking everything! I was telling a parent of one of my son's friends that I was going to celebrate my birthday in Nord East (a tres hip area of Minneapolis). She, being the TOTAL suburban mom, commented, "Oh, that's an awful section of town. Back when I was 18 (20 years ago) someone I dated stole a car there once."
To this day, she has never gone back there!
Even smaller things like...it takes me five minutes to drive from my house to pick up the kids at school. They are out at 410pm so I usually leave at 405pm. Yet my wife is constantly on me about leaving at 350. Why?
Or in the past few years (and for some inexplicable reason), people have started freaking out about snow here in Minnesota. The weather douches issue warnings if it is going to snow more than an inch and tell everyone that it is literally going to be the most awful storm in the history of the earth. Again, why?
Because we live in a land of gross exaggeration. This isn't simply true of politics, mind you (Barack Obama is a socialist or Hitler). This is true of just about everything and it seems more prevalent in the Midwest. People that talk about sex are rapists, a car robbery in NE Minneapolis means that it's now East St. Louis, it takes an 20 minutes to get somewhere that's 5 minutes away, and the world is going to end when it snows a few inches in Minnesota. IN FUCKING MINNESOTA!!!
AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Please, enough, people....
A Titanic Obsession
Alright, enough already with the Titanic shit. I realize it's the 100th Anniversary and all but has anyone else noticed that our obsession with this profoundly sad and tragic event is perpetual whether it's the anniversary or not? Seriously, there's something emotionally....well....just fucked about it.
And James Cameron's underwater explorations (which, b to the w, have been waayyyyy over reported) aren't helping. He made a movie about 14 years ago that made a lot of money...big fucking deal. I hated it. The dramatic hysteria literally made me sick to my stomach. It just wasn't that good, folks.
Yet, he continues to revisit it with documentary after documentary and re-release after re-release. Now, it's out in 3D. Whoopee! The only film the guy has made since Titanic was Avatar. How about exploring some new territory there, Jimbo and, oh, I don't know, make a film every five years or something rather than continuing to revisit that awful fucking film every other month.
Whew, I feel much better now that I have gotten all that out!
Soda Popped!
What is it with virtually everyone I know these days completely freaking out about soda?
Somehow, all of the conversations I've had about health and/or food recently have all gone the same way. One of my friends will say something like, "And soda...OH MY GOD, Soda is just the worst thing in the world. It's SOOOO bad for you" followed by semi-violent head shakes and then something like..."Horrible...it's just so horrible for you" as if they were talking about Chernoyl or something.
Yes, I know that soda is bad for you if you drink 89 cans a day but having one on occasion is not the same thing as smoking two packs a day, for pete's sake. It's as if you are instantly going to get diabetes if you have one can of a regular, sugar filled Coke. The descent into anaphylaxis is nearly instantaneous whenever the subject comes up and is blown so far out of proportion that it's driving me completely nuts.
Speaking of which...
The Land of Exaggeration
I know that being Minnesotan means taking some small thing that happened to someone once and turning it into an everyday occurrence that now happens to everyone everywhere is par for the course. But, seriously, I just can't take it anymore.
The other day I was talking with a friend of mine about how I talk about sex quite a bit and in great detail. "You can't do that, Mark. People just don't like it," she pleaded with me. "But why? So what?" I asked.
"Well, you can't go around raping people either," was her reply.
WTF???!!!
So, talking about sex is the gateway to rape? Seriously?!!?
But it's not just with such a touchy subject...it's with fucking everything! I was telling a parent of one of my son's friends that I was going to celebrate my birthday in Nord East (a tres hip area of Minneapolis). She, being the TOTAL suburban mom, commented, "Oh, that's an awful section of town. Back when I was 18 (20 years ago) someone I dated stole a car there once."
To this day, she has never gone back there!
Even smaller things like...it takes me five minutes to drive from my house to pick up the kids at school. They are out at 410pm so I usually leave at 405pm. Yet my wife is constantly on me about leaving at 350. Why?
Or in the past few years (and for some inexplicable reason), people have started freaking out about snow here in Minnesota. The weather douches issue warnings if it is going to snow more than an inch and tell everyone that it is literally going to be the most awful storm in the history of the earth. Again, why?
Because we live in a land of gross exaggeration. This isn't simply true of politics, mind you (Barack Obama is a socialist or Hitler). This is true of just about everything and it seems more prevalent in the Midwest. People that talk about sex are rapists, a car robbery in NE Minneapolis means that it's now East St. Louis, it takes an 20 minutes to get somewhere that's 5 minutes away, and the world is going to end when it snows a few inches in Minnesota. IN FUCKING MINNESOTA!!!
AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Please, enough, people....
A Titanic Obsession
Alright, enough already with the Titanic shit. I realize it's the 100th Anniversary and all but has anyone else noticed that our obsession with this profoundly sad and tragic event is perpetual whether it's the anniversary or not? Seriously, there's something emotionally....well....just fucked about it.
And James Cameron's underwater explorations (which, b to the w, have been waayyyyy over reported) aren't helping. He made a movie about 14 years ago that made a lot of money...big fucking deal. I hated it. The dramatic hysteria literally made me sick to my stomach. It just wasn't that good, folks.
Yet, he continues to revisit it with documentary after documentary and re-release after re-release. Now, it's out in 3D. Whoopee! The only film the guy has made since Titanic was Avatar. How about exploring some new territory there, Jimbo and, oh, I don't know, make a film every five years or something rather than continuing to revisit that awful fucking film every other month.
Whew, I feel much better now that I have gotten all that out!
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
And Speaking of Paranoia, Fear and Shit Your Pants...
Right after I put up the post below, I saw this come up on my dashboard in Blogger.
Good. Lord.
What's sad about this faux intellectualism and truly awful understanding of political theory and history is how perfectly it fits Boaz Point #1.
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox (and the right wing blogsphere, for that matter) seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
And if they'll believe anything, they will certainly plunk down their money to buy books with "Get Ready For Armageddon" in the subtitles (hence the main reason why these things keep coming out:)). I used to have, at least, some respect for Kevin. No longer. He's completely given himself over to what amounts to a Doomsday Cult. Ironically, the science of climate change doesn't phase him (it's a liberal plot) illustrating just how completely back-asswards minds like his truly are.
Further, I'm still wondering how Kevin and his regular commenters (some of whom post here) would have made it through the truly tough times in our nation's history...the times of rugged individualism of which they so often lament and pine for...I mean, there weren't antibiotics back then. There's no way a group of such hysterical old ladies would have lasted...crying the end of the world every other day. They would've spontaneously combusted in a fit of anger, hate and fear.
I'd really like to know when the end is coming. What's the time frame? He's been saying it for over 9 years now, according to his writings. I'd like a ball park so when the date that is the furthest away comes and goes, they will perhaps see that they were mistaken. Likely, this will not be the case as they can always point to something bad that happened as evidence of the coming end.
When the only tool in your tool kit is the Apocalypse.....
Good. Lord.
What's sad about this faux intellectualism and truly awful understanding of political theory and history is how perfectly it fits Boaz Point #1.
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox (and the right wing blogsphere, for that matter) seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
And if they'll believe anything, they will certainly plunk down their money to buy books with "Get Ready For Armageddon" in the subtitles (hence the main reason why these things keep coming out:)). I used to have, at least, some respect for Kevin. No longer. He's completely given himself over to what amounts to a Doomsday Cult. Ironically, the science of climate change doesn't phase him (it's a liberal plot) illustrating just how completely back-asswards minds like his truly are.
Further, I'm still wondering how Kevin and his regular commenters (some of whom post here) would have made it through the truly tough times in our nation's history...the times of rugged individualism of which they so often lament and pine for...I mean, there weren't antibiotics back then. There's no way a group of such hysterical old ladies would have lasted...crying the end of the world every other day. They would've spontaneously combusted in a fit of anger, hate and fear.
I'd really like to know when the end is coming. What's the time frame? He's been saying it for over 9 years now, according to his writings. I'd like a ball park so when the date that is the furthest away comes and goes, they will perhaps see that they were mistaken. Likely, this will not be the case as they can always point to something bad that happened as evidence of the coming end.
When the only tool in your tool kit is the Apocalypse.....
Check, Check, and Check!
So, Mitt Romney addressed the NRA yesterday at their big convention in St. Louis, Missouri in what was billed as "a celebration of American values." The day before the convention, this piece from AP caught my eye. Here was the quote that made me chuckle.
Although Obama has virtually ignored gun issues during his term, the NRA considers him a foe and plans to mount an aggressive effort against him.
What I truly don't understand here is that President Obama is acting with the exact benign neglect when it comes to gun laws that gun rights folks have so vociferously argued that they want to see from the federal government. And yet...
We need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those who seek to protect their home and family. President Obama has not; I will.
Uh...huh? That's not what happened. Gun rights have never been looser and violence around the country has continued to drop. What the fuck is he talking about?
In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of reelection. As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a reelection he'll have a lot more, quote, 'flexibility' to do what he wants. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.
Ah, I see.
Paranoia...
Fear...
Shit your pants...
Check, check and check!
Although Obama has virtually ignored gun issues during his term, the NRA considers him a foe and plans to mount an aggressive effort against him.
What I truly don't understand here is that President Obama is acting with the exact benign neglect when it comes to gun laws that gun rights folks have so vociferously argued that they want to see from the federal government. And yet...
We need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those who seek to protect their home and family. President Obama has not; I will.
Uh...huh? That's not what happened. Gun rights have never been looser and violence around the country has continued to drop. What the fuck is he talking about?
In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of reelection. As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a reelection he'll have a lot more, quote, 'flexibility' to do what he wants. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.
Ah, I see.
Paranoia...
Fear...
Shit your pants...
Check, check and check!
Friday, April 13, 2012
Ah, Well...
I guess that hopey changey stuff is working out after all...just not for her. I seem to recall DJ from Kevin's blog muttering something about her scaring the hell out of me.
I'm shivering with fear, dude.
Voices in My Head
It's been a while since I did one of these and some discussions in comments have inspired me to return to one of my favorite topics. But first, some clarification.
I have been told that the conservative views that I take issue with are not, in fact, accurately portrayed. Nor are they necessarily the views of my commenters who migrated over from Kevin Baker's site. No, oh no, these are "voices in my head" with whom I am arguing.
It's my view that the former point is complete horse hockey as I am simply relaying the message. I know it must be embarrassing to have to be associated with people that aren't well mentally but I have to live with Dennis Kucinich and Buck Johnson so you're just going to have to lump it. However, I should be a little extra considerate, I know, because there are far more on the right who are simply nuts. So, I will, at least try:)
Regarding the latter point, I also call bullshit because, although it may not be exactly the view of some of my commenters, it sure does sound an awful lot like it. And some of you aren't doing anything to formerly denounce such silliness so you really can't blame me for ascribing it to you. In fact, part of me think that you really do think this way and are (surprise surprise) engaging in a combination of faux outrage and the innocent babe in the woods routine.
Now, I think there is a way we can tell if I am right or not. Take a look at this video.
This is Florida Congressmen Allen West, a Republican and Tea Party favorite. He is also the favorite of Kevin Baker, proprietor of The Smallest Minority gun blog. He believes that there are 79 to 81 members of the Communist Party in the Democratic Party. He states it very clearly in this video which, incidentally, was released by his campaign. So, it's straight from him and not a liberally biased source.
Do you agree with him? If so, why. If not, why not.
Let's see if this is truly a "voice in my head."
I have been told that the conservative views that I take issue with are not, in fact, accurately portrayed. Nor are they necessarily the views of my commenters who migrated over from Kevin Baker's site. No, oh no, these are "voices in my head" with whom I am arguing.
It's my view that the former point is complete horse hockey as I am simply relaying the message. I know it must be embarrassing to have to be associated with people that aren't well mentally but I have to live with Dennis Kucinich and Buck Johnson so you're just going to have to lump it. However, I should be a little extra considerate, I know, because there are far more on the right who are simply nuts. So, I will, at least try:)
Regarding the latter point, I also call bullshit because, although it may not be exactly the view of some of my commenters, it sure does sound an awful lot like it. And some of you aren't doing anything to formerly denounce such silliness so you really can't blame me for ascribing it to you. In fact, part of me think that you really do think this way and are (surprise surprise) engaging in a combination of faux outrage and the innocent babe in the woods routine.
Now, I think there is a way we can tell if I am right or not. Take a look at this video.
This is Florida Congressmen Allen West, a Republican and Tea Party favorite. He is also the favorite of Kevin Baker, proprietor of The Smallest Minority gun blog. He believes that there are 79 to 81 members of the Communist Party in the Democratic Party. He states it very clearly in this video which, incidentally, was released by his campaign. So, it's straight from him and not a liberally biased source.
Do you agree with him? If so, why. If not, why not.
Let's see if this is truly a "voice in my head."
Thursday, April 12, 2012
In A Visual Mood
I'm in a visual mood today so here are some images I've snagged over the last few days.
First one is dedicated to those of you who think the president has done a bad job with the economy...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)