Often a phenomenon of bad marriages, “selective deafness” is when one hears only what is convenient. The same failing manifests itself in government when politicians and judges hear the Constitution talk only when it sings their tune. Worse still, sometimes these people behave as if the document says things it doesn’t. This is the equivalent of hearing things.
Continue reading "Obama’s and Holder’s Selective Constitutional Deafness" »
While I'm generally no fan of new laws, a law that prohibits stupid laws is a definite exception. And that's just what the great state of Mississippi is giving us by passing legislation that would prohibit localities from limiting food portion sizes, forcing restaurants to list calorie counts on menus, and banning the inclusion of toys with meals. The bill was inspired by Little Big Gulp (the man some still call Mayor Michael Bloomberg), whose current mission is to ensure that human life may not be endangered via imprudent use of fat, sugar, or bullets, but only through abortion.
By Selwyn Duke
Do we have a misanthrope as president? According to a former aide to Barack Obama, Neera Tanden, the answer may be yes. Her comments were made when discussing the relationship between Obama and Bill Clinton and were reported by New York magazine, which wrote:
“People say the reason Obama wouldn’t call Clinton is because he doesn’t like him,” observes Tanden. “The truth is, Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. It’s stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people. My analogy is that it’s like becoming Bill Gates without liking computers.”
I must correct Tanden: It would be stunning that Obama is in politics if liking people — which is, it is rumored, associated with wanting to help them — were the only reason, or even the main one, for entering politics.
Obama Image vs. Obama Reality
Obama may not like others, but that dislike isn’t generally returned. As polls have shown, the president’s “likeability” rating has been relatively high. Yet I heard years ago already through the grapevine — via journalist contacts who knew someone who had contact with Obama — that, far from likeable, he was arrogant to the point of being dismissive. So what is the reality?
Read the rest here.
By Selwyn Duke
Unprecedented school-lunch regulations have just gone into effect, and they suggest a new answer to the question “Where’s the beef?”: not on students’ plates— or on their bones. The regulations are a result of Michelle Obama’s “Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act,” which was passed by the lame-duck, Democrat-controlled Congress in December 2010. And the result has been wasted food, endangered health, and hungrier kids.
The problem is that, in typical nanny-state style, the regulations not only prescribe foods many children find unpalatable, they also apply unrealistic calorie restrictions on students: “650 calories for elementary-schoolers, 700 for middle-schoolers and 850 for high-schoolers,” writes Suzanne Tobias of the Wichita Eagle.
Yet more perspective is gained when you consider that the government’s dietary limitations wouldn’t be out of place in a wartime prison camp. For example, writes PJ Media, “Current regulations limit servings of protein, which could be anything from a hamburger to a side of beans, to 1.5 ounces two days a week and 2 ounces the other three days.”
Read the rest here.
By Selwyn Duke
As far as diet goes, I believe you should adhere to the old adage “everything in moderation” and avoid extreme regimens of all kinds. I don’t know what you think of this counsel, but North Carolina’s position seems to be the following: I just broke the law.
Blogger Steven Cooksey found this out the hard way — when the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition ordered him to take down part of his diet-advice website.
The 51-year-old resident of Stanley, North Carolina, became passionate about nutrition after a 2009 hospitalization during which he learned he had Type II diabetes and was told he’d probably be insulin-dependent for life. Inspired to finally get serious about his health, Cooksey became a student of nutrition and, after considering many opinions, settled on a high fat/low carbohydrate “caveman” diet, which involves limiting oneself to only unprocessed or minimally processed foods. He also chronicled his personal health evolution on a blog he created in early 2010.
And what an evolution it was. Cooksey’s weight dropped from 240 lbs to 163, and his blood sugar normalized. And, as his waistline contracted, his website expanded: He was inspired to help others.
After initially mentoring friends, Cooksey started offering life-coaching services and then, in December 2010, instituted a Dear Abby-type column in which he answered readers’ questions. This was when he found that he had traded health problems for legal ones.
Read the rest here.
By Selwyn Duke
It may be a peculiar manifestation of American exceptionalism, but the United States has the distinction of being a nation that actually has fat poor people. This doesn’t sit well with those who want to grow government faster than waistlines, and thus do we have Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign, designed to fight obesity by eliminating “food deserts.”
No, that isn’t supposed to be “desserts’; although the health Nazis aim to eliminate those, too. (That is, except for themselves. Michelle can clear a table like a hurdler it’s said; as for the commoners, however, it’s “Let them eat whole grain bread!”) It is “food desert,” which, we hear, is a poor area “underserved” by food suppliers, creating a situation wherein its denizens are relegated to a hell of fatty fast food offerings. And, you guessed it, Michelle wants to use our tax money to remedy this problem.
Only, it appears it’s a cure in search of a disease.
Even the Boston Globe now admits this in an editorial. The paper writes, according to American Thinker:
Read the rest here.
By Selwyn Duke
According to modern dogma, homosexuals are like sprinters: born and not made. Thus, even though psychology’s longstanding nature-nurture debate has concluded that many traits are the result of both factors, it isn’t politically correct to consider even this possibility with respect to homosexuality. But does this biology-is-destiny theory hold water with respect to same-sex attraction? And, if so, what does this say about the behavior’s moral status? Let’s examine the matter.
When discussing same-sex attraction’s cause, the first thing usually mentioned is the much touted “homosexual gene” theory. In fact, the idea has been repeated so often that many today accept it as fact. But the reality is this: Neither the groundbreaking Genome Project nor any other research endeavor has found any such gene. Moreover, it makes no sense from an evolutionary (or selective breeding, if you prefer) standpoint. After all, such a gene would greatly reduce the chances of its bearer procreating, would be unlikely to be passed on, and thus would be a dead-end mutation unable to survive many generations. And, I must say, it’s a testimonial to the emotion-oriented decision-making of secular modernists — who are generally staunch evolutionists — that they would glom on to a theory so contrary to Evolution 101.
Next we have the intrauterine development theory.
Read the rest here.
By Selwyn Duke
They say "Jolly is the fat man," but perhaps not when he's being chased (and, I'm sure, caught) like a Frankenstein monster by the Body Cult crazies. And that is the case today, as it has become fashionable to affront the friendly-fronted.
It seems most anything goes now: bloated houses, bloated egos, bloated libidos, bloated bureaucracies, bloated government -- but not bloated bellies. And a perusal of the news makes this clear, with a never-ending stream of stories about obesity this and obesity that. For example, headlining Drudge the other day was a piece about how fathead officials in Massachusetts propose to ban school bake sales -- even before and after school hours -- to combat obesity. This, of course, is just the next step in a progression that has seen localities purge schools of cookies and sodas along with the faith and patriotism that were deemed unhealthful long before.
By Selwyn Duke
“Women drivers!” It’s a road refrain oft uttered by men. On the other hand, in this age of statistics it’s typically countered with the claim that men are actually involved in more accidents. And scientific data is very compelling. But what is the truth?
Speaking of science, a recently issued study found that “women are twice as likely to hit the gas by mistake.” I witnessed an example of this myself years ago. Emerging from a former workplace one day, I found an automobile wedged on a concrete parking stop; the front tires were dangling over it helplessly, which matched the way the driver, a gal of approximately 22, was looking on. Of course, I also know of a case in which a fellow did the same thing. He was a 12-year-old boy who, after being allowed by his parents to pull the family car into the garage, provided some extra ventilation.
This is a good reason why you shouldn’t send a boy to do a man’s job, but should driving really be a woman’s job? If we’re to believe standard reportage, we might certainly think so.
Read the rest here.
Recent Comments