We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, January 17. 2016
Titanosaur, Museum's Biggest Dinosaur Ever, Tight Fit in NYC
CIA Spokesman Slams ‘13 Hours’ as ‘Distortion’ of Benghazi Events
... a reminder that “The correct minimum wage is, as it always has been, $0 per hour
University of Louisville Law School Goes Political
Republicans Have Overestimated the Conservatism of the Base
Hey Ted: That was as uncool as Obama's bitter clingers
Hillary takes three minutes to not explain her “core message”
Austrian schoolgirls raped by ‘refugee’ schoolboys and other horror stories
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"The case against Trump"
The author didn't make a case against Trump he simply listed his own biases. I especially liked his statement "after all, he has NEVER done a job that remotely resembles that of President of the United States" Well DUH! Tell me which president in our lifetime has. Probably the only man in the last 100 years who was prepared for the job was President Nixon. Certainly Obama wasn't nor was Clinton or either of the Bush's. My favorite president, Reagan, wasn't prepared for the job. Trump at least has a great record of accomplishments what are Jeb's accomplishments.
Trump's problem is he does not intend to continue the favors to GOPe and special interests and this scares them. The Republicans have decided years ago that they really didn't care if they were in the majority or in the White House because they would always have enough power to continue to bring home the bacon to their states in return for favors from the favored. The Republicans pay lip service to the constitution but once in office they sell themselves to the highest bidder. In this way they are no different from the Democrats.
Trump is different and those who hold and use their power for themselves and their friends are scared they will lose that power or worse be exposed. If I were Trump I would hire more security and someone to test his food. Both the Democrats and the GOPe do not want him to be the candidate.
Did you read the comments? Thought there were some good counters in there RE:real estate and dealing with the political class - both sides. Plus I've never seen Stuart get more than maybe 4 comments on anything. Sure hit a nerve, didn't he?
The GOPe reminds me of this ditty:
Here’s to the city of Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots,
And the Cabots speak only to God.
Elitism is alive and thriving in both parties and has been since our founding. Ben Franklin hoped we'd be smart enough to keep the republic the Founders designed to deter those special snowflakes, but alas, they are a determined lot.
Trump seems to be the only candidate not beholden to the Banksters and Globalists -- probably the same people -- and attuned to the frustration of the citizen at large. He has properties all over the world, but I dare say he would not trade US secrets, security and sovereignty for a bunch of cash into his personal accounts as our last several government officials have done.
It strikes one as odd how government employees can started out totally broke, if not in debt, and end up as billionaires by the time they die. Better to start with a billionaire and have him make decisions that move everyone that direction.
Trump is about Trust. The people trust him. He's their last hurrah.
How Did Americans Get So Fat, In Seven Charts
But I'm told by pro-animal agriculture food faddists there is no obesity epidemic! Or cancer, heart disease, diabetes, et al. There can't be because pig fat and dairy condensates are healthy! It's a slam-dunk, closed, QED argument, you long haired vegan nutters you.
But seriously, referring to that linked data, 2/3 of the problem - if our contemporary meat faddists will permit - is fat and sugar, while grains are or have leveled off.
Takeaway: The Taubes myth, along with the Atkins disaster, is wrong, or at best, highly incomplete. Yes, you can ketosis your way to temporary weight loss at a terrific cost to your system in the long term, and you can interpret the physiological signals as vitality when they're not, or you can drop the myth that carbs - or what converts into the sugars the body runs on - are eeville.
They're not evil, of course, and plant carbs especially are and have been documented to be by far the healthiest alternative to high fat mixed diets. Mixed western diets low in nutrition are the problem, because without the presence of dairy, meat, fats and processed junk, once the system recovers on a plant diet, it'll seek a low weight foundation that is both sustainable and highly resistant to the common diseases found in the west, where animal agriculture and diets of low nutritional value are prevalent.
In fact, the plant diet is consistently found to remediate the disease brought on by the western diet.
It's just not as fun and you can't signal your staunch cultural bona fides with it. Bummer.
Carbs don't make you fat. Fat in the mixed western diet of animal products, artificial food, and processed white junk makes you fat. Vegans typically and consistently consume virtually unlimited amounts of plant carbs and stay thin and statistically healthier. That's not conjecture and they're not dupes for finding it out. At some point animal-ag faddists have to drop the denial and ask themselves why that is.
I am interested in how you explain away the fact that people grow bigger, taller, and smarter when they consume large quantities of red meat. Look at the historical record. See how puny European men were prior to the 20th century. For Asians you can look back 50 years or just look at the difference between North and South Koreans.
People are fat because we have the cheapest most abundant supply of food in the history of mankind combined with the fact that the present day requires less physical activity than any time in human history.
As for heart disease, it's always been around. Until recently in historic terms, they didn't know what it was. Ditto for cancer.
People are living longer healthier lives than at any time in the past on the planet and red meat intake is the single most important reason why.
If you want to deprive your body of essential amino acids found only in red meat go ahead, but there is no way possible that such a diet lacking in essential nutrients is healthier.
Your four fallacies and myths are why I won't bother replying point by point.
Don't confuse me with any of your vegan archetypes. My aim is to debunk the meat ag myth for what it is. A lifestyle prop.
You aren't debunking Taube's argument at all (even as you misrepresent it), you are confirming it. His explanation for why obesity rates have skyrocketed even as we have more and more 'diet' and 'fat free' food products is diets high in carbohydrates create excess fat that is stored regardless of activity level. Add to that the common misconception that fruit sugars are some how healthier than HFCS and you have a recipe for diet disaster.
What you are calling 'plant carbohydrates' is more likely the non-soluble fiber in vegetables which both Taube and Atkins agree is necessary and healthy. Both advocate replacing carbohydrate-rich foods like bread, pasta, fruit, and potatoes with vegetables and meat. The point of not worrying about fat content is to avoid the trap of consuming fat-free 'diet' foods larded up with processed carbohydrates in order to provide the 'mouth feel' that comes from fats in normal food preparation (take a look at the carb count and calories in 'fat free' salad dressing sometime). Consuming adequate amounts of protein is also more satiating than equivalent (or even larger) amounts of carbohydrates so in the end you consume few calories, as well.
Like Ike I can confirm this Taube's approach by personal anecdote. I participated in a intensive diet and exercise program about four years ago and dropped from 220+ lbs down to 180 in a matter of a few months by avoiding excess carbohydrate consumption. In the past I would often eat oatmeal for breakfast on a regular basis during the winter, and inevitably gain weight. I did the same thing after backing off the program and saw my weight rise. When I went back to avoiding the extra carbs in oatmeal, without changing anything else about my diet or exercise routine, my weight dropped and stayed stable.
You get largely the same reply feeblemind does, although s/he didn't resort to that argument losing device, "no, just no". You also ran and jumped in that same carb-meat-fat hole the rest of you meat agriculturists and food faddists chronically have. Come on. How obvious can that logical inversion be by now.
The biggest cause of Americans being overweight is this: they eat too much. What they eat, whether they eat so-called organic foods, whether they are vegans or whatever food fad is currently popular doesn't make a penny's worth of difference. Except, of course, for those who have genuine health problems. (No, not those who claim allergy to peanuts, gluten etc; referring to folks with true health issues that all doctors recognize. And not all the women whose digestive systems are messed up by too many psychotropic meds and antidepressants.) Just don't eat so much and you will lose weight. Don't count calories, don't worry about red meat/white meat/no meat, none of that. Just eat less. About 1600 calories a day works for me and I am slowly losing the "old man" belly I have built since retiring from the Army. Plus I walk, briskly but not forcing the pace, about 20 minutes five days a week. Not what you'd call serious exercise, either. And what else? I don't watch the bathroom scale or fuss with myself about it. I don't count calories and I stop eating even if there's some left when I feel full, not stuffed, just comfortable. Of course, I am healthy (didn't do it, just happened) and am a white, male, member of the cishetero repressive hierarchy, so I've probably stolen my health and sanity from some oppressed minority ... yeah and President Obama is secretly a Republican. Just keep it simple and make your own eating rules and follow them. Geeze!! There's a lot more to life than fussing about diet and other people's weight.
I agree, it's pretty much exactly as simple as "eat less." The rest of this stuff is an attempt to explain why people eat too much, or more specifically why in the last 30 years or so it's suddenly seemed to get so much more difficult to avoid eating too much. I don't find it all that mysterious, really; we're just richer. Yes, medical costs are worrisome and so on, but the fact remains that food is a smaller part of the average family's budget. At the same time, it's easier and easier to go months at a time without needing to exert oneself physically at all in order to get our hands on everything most of us want.
The Obesity issue is more complex than most will acknowledge. First of all the article claims that a 5'4" person who is 30 lbs overweight is obese. Are they serious? Obese, really!!
Second if you watch the graphic you will see that obesity grows in certain places: The South, the Southwest and a few parts of the West. Why? The answer is simply that most blacks live in the South and obesity is a genetic problem and blacks tend to be obese at twice the rate of Northern Europeans. The Southwest is because of the large increase in hispanics and hispanics also have a genetic predisposition to obesity at an even greater rate than blacks. And last the growing population centers of American Indians who also have a genetic predisposition for obesity at a rate higher than hispanics and blacks. So if over the time span covered on the graph those populations predisposed to obesity grow by 50%-100% more than the population descended from Northern Europe that fact alone would account for all of the increase in obesity.
So the question is: Do Northern Europeans eat less meat or less carbs or get more exercise than blacks, hispanics and American Indians? Is it really that simple? If the food (which food depends on your particular food bias) is the cause why the disparity between races???
Lastly the way we measure obesity is faulty. BMI replaced the old method in 1998 and in the year as a result of that change obesity doubled in the U.S. No one was any fatter but twice as many people were counted as obese. The BMI as a measurement tool is simply inadequate AND the determination of what BMI was normal/desirable and what BMI was obese was arbitrary and not based on science or common sense. In fact it is so poor a predictor of health as it relates to weight that it spawned the obesity paradox, i.e. The obesity paradox refers to the fact that sometimes being heavier – even being overweight or slightly obese – is associated with lower, rather than higher, death rates and better health outcomes. That is for every person below the ideal BMI by a specific number of points their health will be worse and their premature deaths will be more common than a person the same number of points higher on the BMI scale. In fact evidence based data has determined that the ideal BMI is not 25 or below but 27.5. That is the turning point below which and above which health outcomes are worse and early deaths increase. Go figure!