June 22nd, 2009

#1603: NYT and CBS shill for ObamaCare

I know this is shocking, shocking news. Try to remain calm.

Apparently the two hard-left outfits did a poll and then asserted that Americans, on balance, were willing to endure higher taxes if it meant everyone could have health care.

Problem: 66% of the respondents were Obama voters.

That's not exactly an unbiased poll, you know? An unbiased poll would have sampled, oh, I don't know, just as many Obama voters as McCain voters or something.

The article's author, Noel Sheppard, says, "As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters."

Well, I've got the answer for that.

Today I did a poll, and all the respondents agreed that the mainstream media is biased and socialized medicine is a bad idea. This poll was as scientific as the NYT-CBS poll.

* * *

Got a prescription for those Cheerios? The FDA has decided that Cheerios are a drug--at least, if General Mills continues to market them as helping to reduce cholesterol.

Apparently the FDA is not contesting the studies which have demonstrated that Cheerios do, in fact, lower cholesterol. What concerns the FDA is that...uh...well, Cheerios is a food product, and General Mills is making a health claim. (WTF?)

I think this belongs in the "we're doing this because we can" department, to be honest. General Mills has been advertising Cheerios as helping to lower cholesterol for years, yet it is suddenly an issue for concern a handful of months after an extremely liberal Democrat takes power?

The Washington Times editorial finishes by saying, "This is a prime example of the nanny state running amok. Only the government would work to classify a breakfast cereal as a drug for the offense of having correct information on its label."

Read the penultimate paragraph:
Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, applauds the FDA's determination and cautions that Cheerios is a "21st-century version of snake oil" that "could dissuade consumers from following proper medical advice on taking cholesterol-lowering drugs and proper dietary advice." The harm supposedly is that customers will read the label as saying that if they eat Cheerios, they can eat bad things in their diet and still get the benefits Cheerios claim.
I emphasized the (un)think(ing) tank's name for a reason: those bastards are doing their damnedest to take all the pleasure out of eating.

First, there's no "snake oil" here, not when General Mills has scientific documentation. Second, this is the shibboleth that these asshats always use: "If this goes on, people will eat and eat and eat and not eat right." "Right", by the way, meaning the way they want you to eat.

Okay? These are the guys who suggested that kale juice was an acceptable alternative to milk.

These are the guys who managed to ruin Olestra for the rest of us. Olestra was perfectly safe, having been approved (ironically enough) by the FDA--but by blasting the media with warnings about "anal leakage" they managed to keep people from buying products made with the stuff, thus ensuring that manufacturers withdrew the products. And so you now have two choices for potato chips: you can eat ones fried in vegetable oil, with all the carbs and fats, or you can eat that tasteless shitty "baked" crap. The douchebags at the Center for Science in the Public Interest have taken away your ability to buy potato chips with all the carbs but none of the fat which nonethelss were as delicious as the actually-bad-for-you kind.

And why? Because some people would eat an entire bag of potato chips, somehow thinking they were eating healthier.

These buttplugs are all about protecting a tiny, stupid minority of people who are incapable of making their own decisions about what to eat, and how much. And the rest of us suffer for it.

I really hope that General Mills fights this nonsense and wins. This is horseshit.

* * *

Roger Hedgecock asserts that the Democrat Party is "Drenched in the blood of slavery", and he lays out his arguments pretty well.

My only problem with the article is a small one: he asserts that "...no Republican has ever been a member of the KKK," and I'm not sure you can make such a sweeping statement. I would wager than there have been some Republicans in the KKK. I think the spirit of the statement is correct, but not the letter, as no real true and honest Republican would be a member of that cabal of nimrods.

Those on the left will answer that statement with, "Oh yeah? What about David Duke?" But David Duke is exactly the kind of person I'm talking about.

Notice please that David Duke was a Democrat until 1988.

* * *

Well, it's Monday, which means work tonight. I'm still a little stiff from all the garage stuff yesterday, but not prohibitively so.

It would have been good if I could have cut the grass yesterday. We had another gullywasher of a thunderstorm early this morning. So when I do cut the grass (probably not before Wednesday now, sigh) it's going to be like mowing hay. Argh etc.

* * *

Just enough time to go kill some stuff in Azeroth before bedtime. Later!

#1604: Carter 2.0

Krauthammer says it all.

We have a unique opportunity here to strike a blow against the very regime which took our embassy hostage in 1979. We would not have to fire a single round of ammunition; we wouldn't even have to load our guns. All we need is for our President to issue a ringing condemnation of the course which Iran's political leaders are taking to attempt to quell the post-"election" riots. All we need is for Obama to stand up and say, "What you are doing to your people is not right; you must stop this. We support your peoples' quest for freedom."

Instead he is doing his damndest to keep the regime in power. He's legitimizing it at every step, and only political expediency drove his mildly harsh comments this past weekend: he knows that not saying anything more than the bland pap he emitted previously will lose him points in the approval polls.

From here it looks as if Obama is on the side of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, not freedom and human rights.

What is happening in Iran right now has nothing to do with American foreign policy; it's not happening because of American interference in the middle east nor is it happening because we support Israel. (Nor the war in Iraq!) It's happening because the people of Iran have finally had enough of the totalitarian thugs. It is not--it is never--"meddling" when an American President speaks out in favor of freedom and human rights.

George W. Bush would have told the people of Iran, "Win freedom! Win, and we'll help you however we can!" But this mealy-mouthed politican Obama sits on his hands and tries to equivocate, to stand on both sides of the issue so that when there is a resolution he can take political advantage of it. His own desires take precedence over the freedom of millions, and he will gladly exhange the lives of many for the advancement of his own goals.