Let me break down what this idiot is saying: he's essentially telling us that chain restaurants are using MIND CONTROL! to make us fat!
"Come now," you say. "'Mind control', Ed?" Well, check this quote out, emphasis mine:
The challenge is how do we explain to America what's going on -- how do we break through and help people understand how their brains have been captured?Their brains have been "captured"! Big Food is using mind control science to make you eat!
...reading the article further reveals what's really behind this. The guy has an eating problem himself:
"I was a fat kid," he said. "I grew up in the world of Entenmann's cakes. I was pretty much of a science nerd. If you looked in my refrigerator in college, it was Entenmann's."But you see, this proves that it's not his fault! It's Big Food controlling his brain and making him eat!
Every few years, Kessler would go on a diet and apply the kind of discipline that enabled him to earn a law degree from the University of Chicago while attending Harvard Medical School. "I'd lose weight and over time gain it back," said Kessler, who also completed a medical residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore at the same time he worked as a staffer to Sen. Orrin Hatch. "I couldn't control it."
The man who took on Big Tobacco was helpless when confronted with a plate of chocolate chip cookies. He couldn't focus on anything else until he had eaten them all.
Do you know why people crave food with fat and sugar? Because it's survival food, that's why. Food which is high in fat and sugar is what our bodies need to survive in the wild. It's an instinct we have that's left over from the time when we were scarcely more advanced than apes; it's an instinct to get us to eat as much of the high-density fuel as we can because--in the wild--you never know where your next meal is coming from.
In civilization, such a reflex is a problem, yes. Some people have trouble resisting the siren song of yummy food more than others do, yes. And yes, companies that make their money by selling food do their damnedest to make it as tasty and appetizing as possible. None of this is wrong.
What is wrong is becoming a crusader to make other people suffer for your own lack of willpower.
* * *
What is dark energy? Well, if you try to derive equations to describe it from quantum mechanics, you get a force which is 10120 orders of magnitude too strong, that's what.
It's bunkum, that's what it is. We don't understand something about the universe but it's easier to come up with something ludicrous than it is to go back to the beginning and re-think our ideas.
It's perfect: come up with a force which is not predicted by any prior science to explain why something we didn't expect is happening. Don't look at the theory and ask, "Okay, what is wrong with the theory".
* * *
THIS is how you deal with piracy. Boortz tells the tale of an Italian cruise ship with Israeli mercenaries aboard. Pirates try to do the piraty thing. Mercenaries open fire. Pirates decide to "seek other opportunities".
In the meantime other pirates seize unarmed vessels. I think the moral of the story here is obvious. (Obvious, that is, to anyone who is not a liberal.)
* * *
Vox Day discusses Obama's first 100 days, and his discussion is both accurate and non-complimentary.
* * *
(I almost wrote "complementary" instead of "complimentary" there. Sheesh. If you know why that's an error, award yourself a cookie.)
* * *
Orlando Police chief is angered by public criticism. Her answer? Sue, of course.
Her lawyer is using a legal theory which has been struck down by the Florida Supreme Court as a legitimate cause of legal action. So it'll be interesting to see how far that case can go in Florida.
* * *
Here is another link from Boortz; this was under today's "reading assignments". The article begins by focusing on a woman who voted for Obama and who is on a city council somewhere in South Carolina:
Now Obama is president, and she still believes he will help rescue Greenwood County. But her enthusiasm has faded into a wary optimism. "He's only one man, and there's a lot to get done," she says, a predicament she knows all too well.Soon she is going to be finding that Obama isn't going to solve anyone's problems, least of all the problems faced by the little people.
The article focuses on another woman who is unemployed and trying to find work (and who is being helped in her quest by the first woman in the article). What's wrong with this paragraph?
On Day 85 of the Obama presidency, Hackett wakes up and swaps her usual blue sweat pants for a pair of ironed capris and a denim jacket. Eight silver bracelets are divided between two wrists. Her hair is pulled into tight dreadlocks, which a friend twisted until 11 the night before. As Hackett stands up to leave her parents' house, she completes her outfit with a pair of pink high heels, purchased at the bargain price of $15.99 because she managed to squeeze into the children's size.Chances are, anyone who can hire you to do useful work is not going to think "classy" when they see someone wearing dreadlocks, pink high heel shoes, and denim. I'm sorry, but that's the facts.
"I want people to look at me and think, 'Classy,' " Hackett says. "I don't want nobody thinking I'm some know-nothing loser."
It would be well for those who thought Obama would fix everything to divest themselves of that conceit. He's not going to fix squat; from the end of the mythical "first 100 days" it looks like he's going to do all the typical tax-and-spend Democrat things that make things worse instead of better.
Which is not to say that I don't feel sympathy for their plight. Look, believe me, the article tugs at my heart strings as much as the next guy. But the solutions to these peoples' problems are not going to come from government. Obama can't do anything to help them--couldn't even if the US became a totalitarian communism tomorrow morning. (Notice please how well people lived in the glorious worker's paradise of USSR. The "proletariat", I mean, not the party officials. Hint: they had to stand in line to buy a few rolls of toilet paper.)
* * *
Fred Barnes on the 100 days of Obama. I like this:
n foreign policy, Obama appears confident his overtures to America's adversaries will pay off. In fact, being respectful and accommodating to Iran, Cuba, and others in the hate-America camp is part two of the Obama Doctrine (part one is multilateralism). But as nice as diplomatic deference sounds, it invariably fails. The enemies of freedom and democracy never reciprocate.Obama has fallen into the trap too many politicians fall into--I've said it before--of thinking that the baddies will like him even though they never liked any other Americans, and they'll come around and be reasonable.
Nor are Iran and Cuba in a reciprocating mood. Obama's civility toward Iran, and a key concession in arms talks, have been answered with the jailing of an American reporter, sped-up efforts to produce nuclear weapons, and fresh attacks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After Obama eased travel restrictions to Cuba, he was encouraged by Cuban leader Raúl Castro's willingness to discuss all issues. Within days, Fidel Castro trumped his brother and shot down any prospect of softening Communist rule.
Scipio made an interesting point the other day about the governing elite:
It is also an error to think that when our ruling classes travel abroad they are going to investigate differing views and so increase their own knowledge of the world. Not so. They travel abroad and spend time with those who possess exactly the same opinions as they have. Some US senator will spend a few days in some Latin American capital and then boast that he understands how Latin Americans think—all 400 million of them no less—when the reality is that he talked to those with the same world view as his own. His increase in knowledge is exactly zero. But the food was great.Obama and his ilk expect our enemies to be Just Like Them but with different aims. They think that they can talk and come to some understanding, to compromise...and the bad guys count on that conceit, because they can get concessions and--more importantly!--time to finish readying themselves for whatever perfidy they plan to perpetrate. Hitler, for example, used Chamberlain's conceit to give himself enough time to prepare fully for his conquest of Europe; and when the time was right, he utterly ignored any and all of the compacts and treaties that were inconvenient to his plans.
This is really nothing but narcissism, and most internationally known politicians and intellectuals practice it. Their travels abroad are just a form of self-love. This is the point of all those UN conferences, all those Davos meetings, all those IMF affairs, all those World Bank get-togethers—they exist solely to give the ruling classes of the world a place where they can hobnob with their own kind. One would think with all their education, all their experience, all their speaking tours, all their scholarly articles and all their published books that they would actually be able to solve some of the world’s problems. But no, the problems go on and so do all those overseas gab fests of the ruling class.
Anyone who thinks he can talk a madman out of his plans must be, himself, a little mad. The sad thing is, that kind of madness is reinforced by all the other madmen who share it.
* * *
So, GM has officially killed off Pontiac.
Here's a question: why didn't they get rid of GMC? GMC sells trucks--the exact same trucks which are sold by Chevrolet. The only difference is badging--the only difference--and it seems like GMC could be folded into Chevrolet and allowed to wither on the vine.
I notice that GM finally managed to get rid of Saturn, too--Saturn's non-GM style really bothered the corporate types.
See, SUVs and trucks are profitable because there's a hell of a lot of margin in them. A typical pickup truck is pretty close to its forebears in technology: ladder frame, solid rear axle (typically with a leaf-spring rear suspension to boot), longitudinal transmission, pushrod engine, and so on. All of these components are mature technologies; we know how to make them both durable and cheaply, so they last a long time and can take a lot of abuse but don't require a lot of expensive engineering and testing and QC. Heck, we've been building multicylinder pushrod engines for the better part of a century and V8 pushrod engines since at least the 1950s. (I know there are earlier examples, such as the 1917 Chevrolet V8, but the current small block Chevrolet V8 is not a descendant of that engine.) Solid axles go all the way back to the beginning of mass-produced automobiles--if not farther--and we used leaf springs on horse-drawn buggies.
At the same time, trucks command high prices because a lot of people want them and use them. SUVs have replaced minivans (which themselves replaced station wagons) as the vehicle of choice for suburbanites.
In the late 1990s, when Ford was making its huge Expedition (or was it the Excursion?), Ford made $15,000 profit for every one of those trucks it sold. Even after discounts. Why? Because the truck itself was cheap to produce.
That's why GMC made the cut and Pontiac didn't. A GMC truck is a Chevrolet with a different badge, and a truck is profitable because most of the model year update engineering consists of assembling proven components under new sheetmetal.
* * *
So let me get this straight: Because the Republicans opposed a measure which passed, the swine flu epidemic is the GOP's fault?
And spinning through the comments for that post, I find that Mexico has socialized medicine. INteresting.
* * *
All of the cool kids are doing it. Maybe I needs me an Eee.
* * *
This is too damn long. Let it be known that I am going to take a personal stand now against too-long blog entries!