Quotulatiousness

September 5, 2011

“Listening to some foodie types, you would think that anything that has been remotely industrially processed was as deadly as nerve poison.”

Filed under: Food, Health, Media — Tags: — Nicholas @ 10:48

Rob Lyons calls out hypocritical attitudes toward processed food:

Listening to some foodie types, you would think that anything that has been remotely industrially processed was as deadly as nerve poison. Yet even food snobs eat plenty of processed food. It’s just the right kind of processed food.

A great illustration of the fact that there is nothing wrong, per se, with processed food is a little bit of self-experimentation by Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University. Last year for 10 weeks, Haub ate a Twinkie bar every three hours instead of a meal, adding variety to his diet with Doritos, Oreos and sugary cereals. He kept up some semblance of good nutrition by taking multivitamins and throwing in a few vegetables, too.

But most importantly, Haub stuck to eating no more than 1,800 calories per day — well below the 2,500 calories per day usually suggested for men. The result was that Haub lost 27 pounds. This ‘convenience store diet’ may not have been ideal, but in many respects his health appeared to be better. His cholesterol test results suggested he was in better condition than before, despite this diet of ‘junk’.

August 27, 2011

QotD: Consistency

Filed under: Africa, Middle East, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:58

We are all glad that the Gadhafi regime is purportedly on its last legs. When I visited Libya in 2006, tragedy was what I saw—and a friendly population under the yoke of a psychopath. But I don’t think we have had much idea of what we were doing in Libya—a sort of diplomatic pastime secondary to presidential jet-setting and golfing. Moreover, I don’t see any hypocrisy in critiquing our confusion over Libya, as a supporter of the removal of Saddam Hussein. Wanting to use American power and influence to its fullest extent when going to war is preferable to not wanting to use all our power and influence when going to war. The hypocrisy is rather on the Left, which once damned the principle of intervention against an Arab Middle East oil-exporting nation that had not recently attacked us, only to support intervention against an Arab Middle East oil exporting nation that had not recently attacked us. In the Left’s defense, one could argue their consistency is that it’s OK if you have a UN vote, but irrelevant whether you have consent of the U.S. Congress.

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was the object of 23 different Congressional authorizations (one should go back and read that October 2002 long list of “whereas”es), had been in hot and cold wars with us since 1991, attacked four neighbors, and in the heart of the ancient caliphate was hosting all sorts of terrorists. In a post-911 climate it made sense to reckon with him. Indeed, I think one of the great untold stories of Iraq was the carnage of Islamic terrorists who by volition promised that Iraq would be the central theater in jihad, flocked there, were killed and wounded in droves, and lost—and vastly weakened their cause. But in contrast, the West was apparently in the middle of a weird charm offensive with Gadhafi (one advanced by bought-and-paid-for American academics, European oil companies, and multicultural elites), and the result by 2010 was that Libya was considered no longer the 1986 Libya that Reagan had bombed.

Victor Davis Hanson, “The Middle East Mess”, Works and Days, 2011-08-24

August 25, 2011

Look at what they actually do, not what they say

Filed under: Economics, Europe, France, Government — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:36

Tim Worstall peers behind the curtain of those noble, generous French fat-cats who wrote the letter to the French government, insisting that they be taxed more. It’s not a pretty picture:

All very jolly and public-spirited you might think, but applying a little bit of economic theory reveals that they’re somewhere along the “speaking with forked tongues” to “lying toads” continuum.

That bit of economics is the concept of “revealed preferences”: translated out of the jargon it just means don’t look at what people say, look at what they do. For example, Liliane Bettencourt, the L’Oreal heiress, is one signatory calling for higher taxes on herself: it’s also been widely reported that she has received tax refunds under French “fiscal shield” provisions intended to limit taxes on the wealthy to 50 per cent. Madame, if you really want to pay higher taxes, just don’t cash those cheques.

We see the same sort of call everywhere of course. All sorts of people call for higher taxes: it’s just that very few actually pay higher amounts of money. We can see this in both the UK and US.

The US has an account, “Gifts to the United States”, specifically for charitable-minded citizens. Send them a cheque, they’ll cash it and spend the money on government. Last time I checked, the figures they received were $2,671,628.40. Roughly speaking, 1 cent per head of population. OK, so, yes, taxes were too low in the US that year. By exactly that amount.

The UK numbers aren’t even that good. In the same year only five Brits sent in cheques to the Treasury and four of those people were deceased. No, the fifth was not Polly Toynbee, despite the impression one might get from her columns (well, I don’t know it wasn’t her but I’m sure she would have urged the rest of us to do the same if it were).

An FOI request revealed that from 2002 to 2009 actual living people contributed £7,349.90 to the Treasury, over and above their legally due taxation. No, not each or per year… but in total.

There’s literally nothing stopping people from paying more taxes than they actually owe: every jurisdiction appears to allow people to give more money voluntarily. The US government even allows it to be done electronically. So, if you feel you’re not paying “your rightful share”, go right ahead and give it to the government. If you don’t, you’re demonstrating that you really don’t feel under-taxed after all.

August 19, 2011

If you want to take the moral high ground, you must live up to it

Filed under: Britain, Media — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 15:27

James Delingpole has a bit of advice for the BBC and the Guardian:

The liberal-Left has many vices. But surely the most noisome one of all (in a crowded field) is its rank hypocrisy. If you’re going to take the moral high ground — as Lefties will insist on doing at every opportunity — the very least you owe the world in return if you have a shred of compunction, decency or intellectual consistency is to demonstrate more integrity than those you are impugning. And if you can’t do that, then bloody well shut up.

In the last few months, you can’t have helped noticing, the liberal-Left media, led by the BBC and the Guardian, have been dwelling on the News International phone hacking scandal with a shrillness and hysteria and foaming moral outrage out of all proportion to the nature of the offence.

Am I defending phone hacking or the leaking by police of confidential information to newsapers? Of course I’m not. I think it’s a horrible, grubby practice which must have left all the people who were victims of it feeling soiled and discomfited. But a) as we saw in the cities of Britain last week (and we’re also seeing on the stock markets) there are many problems far more deserving right now of the media’s crusading attention. And b) it’s not as if News International’s imprints which were the only newspapers playing this game. The gutter end of journalism is, of necessity, an unscrupulous, highly competitive business. Tabloid hacks stand or fall on the number of scoops they get over the opposition. It would be stretching the bounds of credulity to claim that other papers, besides those owned by Murdoch, have not engaged in similar dirty tricks.

August 18, 2011

Hypocrite Tim “former stoner” Hudak wants other stoners punished

Filed under: Cancon, Law — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 16:30

Tim Hudak is absolutely determined to leave no space between his position and that of incumbent Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty. They’re both admitted former drug users who think (because they got away with it and weren’t caught) that there’s no need to decriminalize or legalize marijuana:

“I was a normal kid, I had a normal upbringing, a normal life in university so I experimented from time to time with marijuana,” Hudak told reporters. When asked when he last smoked, Hudak replied: “Quite some time ago.”

Hudak also said he does not support the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has also said he has tried marijuana in the past.

May 23, 2011

The heterosexual wedding boycott

Filed under: Law, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:13

Rich Benjamin is engaged in a boycott of his friends’ heterosexual weddings because most states do not allow homosexual weddings. He thinks he’s being ideologically pure and striking a blow for equality. What he’s really doing is being an ass and alienating his friends without cause:

I picked up my jangling cellphone one recent Saturday to hear the elated voice of Zachary, my longtime buddy and college classmate. “I just proposed to Caroline,” Zach announced, inviting me to the wedding and angling to plot logistics. “So when are you flying in?”

“Oh, I’m not coming to your wedding,” I said.

It’s true. I’m boycotting all heterosexual weddings.

How utterly absurd to celebrate an institution that I am banned from in most of the country. It puzzles me, truth be told, that wedding invitations deluge me. Does a vegan frequent summer pig roasts? Do devout evangelicals crash couple-swapping parties? Do undocumented immigrants march in Minuteman rallies?

I know what he’s trying to do, but it’s hard to think of a more hurtful way of pointing out the inequality of gay and straight couples to people — one assumes because they’re close enough to him to invite him to their wedding — who are already on his side.

A poll last month showed Americans are split on same-sex marriage. A narrow majority, 51 percent, supports it, while 47 percent do not. Though Zach falls into that slim majority, he scolds me for being “peevish.” He says he resents me for blowing off his special day, for putting political beliefs ahead of our friendship and for punishing him for others’ deeds. But screaming zealots aren’t the only obstacles to equal marriage rights; the passivity of good people like Zach who tacitly fortify the inequality of this institution are also to blame.

They’re proof of a double standard: Even well-meaning heterosexuals often describe their own nuptials in deeply personal terms, above and beyond politics, but tend to dismiss same-sex marriage as a political cause, and gay people’s desire to marry as political maneuvering.

What many straight people consistently forget is that same-sex couples aren’t demanding marriage to make a political statement or to accrue “special rights.”

But you are using their marriage to make a political statement. Consistency? You make a point of explaining that you’re not an activist yet you scold Zach for his “passivity”?

April 11, 2011

Political grandstanding at the expense of Muslim women

Filed under: Europe, France, Law, Liberty, Religion — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:22

Josie Appleton points out the logical inconsistencies of the various European “Ban the Burkha” movements:

In spite of the grave crisis of the Euro, the French cabinet will today (19 May[, 2010]) find the time to discuss a draft law banning the wearing of full-face veils in public places. Spain has just slashed public wages and is on the verge of economic collapse, yet the minister of work yesterday made the effort to visit Lleida and voice his support for the mayor’s plan to prohibit full Islamic facewear in the streets. Last month, Belgium’s coalition government had dissolved and there was talk of splitting up the country, yet the parliament managed to unite 136 out of 138 deputies to vote through a law banning the burqa and niqab.

How is it that European leaders, in such difficult times, have invested such energy in the matter of women’s facewear? Why was a Spanish schoolgirl who insisted on wearing a headscarf so fascinating as to draw the media’s attention away from government cuts? Why such detailed discussions on the intricacies of Islamic veils? Newspapers feature pullouts on the different forms of Islamic veil, and commentators explain why the niqab is so much worse than the shayla or the chandor, and indeed how the hijab is fine and even liberating for Muslim women.

The burqa-ban laws were introduced with such displays of speechmaking that anybody would think the fate of these countries hung on this single point of principle. One Belgian deputy admitted that ‘the image of our country abroad is more and more incomprehensible’, but said this near-unanimous vote banning the burqa and niqab rescued ‘an element of pride to be Belgian’. A French commission on the veil said the veil was ‘contrary to the values of the Republic’ and the parliament should make it clear that ‘all of France is saying “no” to the full veil’. The Spanish work minister said this clothing ‘clashes fundamentally with our society and equality between men and women. The values of our society cannot go into retreat.’

Lovely sounding stuff in front of the microphones, to be sure. Good photo ops for ambitious politicians, to a clamour of general approval and risking the loss of very little: there were so relatively few women wearing these articles of clothing — and few of them or their husbands/fathers/brothers likely have the vote anyway.

Now, pay heed to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Many of these women now have a choice: disobey the family head by going out in public without wearing the niqab/hijab/burkha (and risk beatings or even honour-killing), or follow the dictates of the family head and risk being arrested by the gendarmes.

How, exactly, is this going to benefit those poor women?

Update: The ban in France was passed in October and goes into effect today:

The centre-right government, which passed the law in October, has rolled out a public relations campaign to explain the ban and the rules of its application that includes posters, pamphlets and a government-hosted website.

Guidelines spelled out in the pamphlet forbid police from asking women to remove their burqa in the street. They will instead be escorted to a police station and asked to remove the veil there for identification.

[. . .]

In Avignon, Vaucluse, Reuters TV filmed a woman boarding a train wearing a niqab, unchallenged by police.

“It’s not an act of provocation,” said Kenza Drider. “I’m only carrying out my citizens’ rights, I’m not committing a crime … If they [police] ask me for identity papers I’ll show them, no problem.”

France has five million Muslims, but fewer than 2,000 women are believed actually to wear a face veil.

Many Muslim leaders have said they support neither the veil nor the law banning it.

January 31, 2011

Showing their true colours?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, Law, Liberty, Technology, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:42

To mark the Egyptian government’s shutdown of cellphone and internet access to their angry citizenry, the US government wants to have the power to do the same. Subtle, eh?

Legislation granting the president internet-killing powers is to be re-introduced soon to a Senate committee, the proposal’s chief sponsor told Wired.com on Friday.

The resurgence of the so-called “kill switch” legislation came the same day Egyptians faced an internet blackout designed to counter massive demonstrations in that country.

The bill, which has bipartisan support, is being floated by Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposed legislation, which Collins said would not give the president the same power Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak is exercising to quell dissent, sailed through the Homeland Security Committee in December but expired with the new Congress weeks later.

The bill is designed to protect against “significant” cyber threats before they cause damage, Collins said.

Got to admire the balls of brass required to introduce legislation to do something in America at exactly the same time the US government is demanding that Egypt restore their citizens’ internet access. Breathtaking hypocrisy.

Update: By way of American Digest, a most appropriate image:

August 31, 2010

Commercial hypocrisy, oilsands edition

Filed under: Environment, Media, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:03

Ezra Levant isn’t amused by some US businesses trying to make political statements by slagging Alberta’s oilsands while being less than clean themselves:

Walgreens is the largest pharmacy chain in the U.S.

It’s also corrupt.

For years, they secretly altered their customers’ prescriptions, without their doctor’s knowledge, in a giant insurance scam across 42 states. They targeted Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans. So they were stealing from taxpayers and the poor at the same time. That kind of big thinking is why Walgreens is number one.

Walgreens replaced inexpensive drugs with drugs that were up to four times more costly. Only when an honest pharmacist finally blew the whistle on them were they stopped — and fined a whopping $35 million.

Are you ready to take moral lessons from Walgreens? Because they’ve just announced that they’re switching their trucks to fuel that doesn’t come from Canada’s oilsands — as an ethical statement.

Taking ethical guidance from Walgreens is sort of like taking abstinence lessons from Hugh Hefner.

I’d call for a boycott of Walgreens, but they don’t have any stores in Canada (and, despite their name, they are no relation to Walmart).

But Walgreens isn’t the only moral hypocrite to come out against Canada. So did The Gap, which also owns Banana Republic and Old Navy.

Do yourself a favour: Don’t buy their clothes.

May 13, 2010

QotD: Because your government cares about your health

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:55

If there ever was a reason to get the Ontario government out of the liquor business, this is it. While taxes on booze will drop on July 1, thanks to the introduction of the province’s new Harmonized Sales Tax, the price of your favourite poison will actually increase because — wait for it — the government doesn’t want to turn you into an alcoholic.

[. . .]

Actually, the whole modus operandi of the LCBO is counter-intuitive. At the same time that it preaches social responsibility, the LCBO inundates Ontario households with glossy brochures that take lifestyle advertising to new heights. The latest one cheekily invites customers to take “French lessons”, and features winsome couples in various states of embrace (hey, aren’t the French always making out?). A concurrent radio campaign features a sexy French-accented female voice extolling the virtues of Bordeaux. You get thirsty just listening to her.

Such campaigns are designed to make Ontarians drink more, not less, of course, funneling more cash into LCBO coffers and keeping its employees on the public payroll at juicy union wages. All fuelled by taxes and a staggering mark-up of 71.5% on that latest imported bottle which pairs so well with flank steak and frites.

This kind of hypocrisy is but one reason why the government shouldn’t be in the liquor business. The others include higher prices, less consumer choice, and the general inefficiency inherent in any monopoly business, whether public or private.

Tasha Kheiriddin, “Lower taxes, higher prices, courtesy of your local LCBO”, National Post, 2010-05-13

February 10, 2010

It’s not the affair that disqualifies him for mayor, it’s the lies

Filed under: Cancon, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:50

Royson James sums up the Adam Giambrone scandal pretty well:

Mayoral candidate Adam Giambrone can be gay if he wants to, or bisexual. This is Toronto.

Giambrone the playboy can have a 19-year-old girlfriend on the side, a common practice among the political elite of the day.

Giambrone the TTC chair can use the couch in his city hall office to bed Kristen Lucas late at night when he should have been using the office to solve customer-relations problems at the TTC.

Giambrone the defender of the public purse can even give his girl and her mother inside information about an upcoming transit fare hike while barring commuters from hoarding tokens in advance of the said fare hike.

And when caught with his pants on the ground, the man with the clean-cut, fresh, youthful image can admit only to having an “inappropriate” text message relationship with the girlfriend, as if it amounted to mere digital sex, a peccadillo.

But the 32-year-old city councillor can’t do all that and expect Torontonians to embrace him as their mayor.

Update: Giambrone seems to have realized it’s over: he’s announced that his bid for mayor is over.

February 3, 2010

More on Premier Williams’ medical decision

Filed under: Cancon, Health, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:07

Following up to yesterday’s post on Newfoundland and Labrador premier Danny Williams and his decision to seek care out-of-country for his heart condition:

I have always argued that every Canadian should be free to seek treatment wherever he or she wants. Elective or lifesaving, complicated or straightforward, it is none of my business where Danny Williams goes for his operation, or who pays for it.

True, there would be something of a hypocrisy factor at play if Mr. Williams has preached the virtues of Canada’s state-monopoly care and now, when he has to put his faith in the system, he has flown the coop rather than stand in line for a treatment he could receive here.

But we don’t know what exactly is wrong with the brash and charming politician, who is one of the few chunks of flavour in the floury roux of Canadian politics. Perhaps what ails him can only be fixed south of the border — in which case, the province might even have paid for his treatment in a foreign clinic.

The point I am trying to make here is that only because we have turned health care into a political hot potato are any of us even wondering whether the premier is justified in going to an American clinic.

Well, when an ordinary person has to wait months and months just to see a specialist, and then wait even longer for surgery, while the political class can (apparently) get immediate attention and care, it becomes difficult to continue believing that all Canadians are entitled to equal care . . .

I can’t disagree with Lorne Gunter here:

What I resent is the way premiers and prime ministers won’t free you or me to buy insurance that would enable us to procure first-class care in times of need. What I resent is the way many limousine liberals lash us to the mast of the good ship Medicare, then run off to the United States when it’s their lives or their families’ on the line. They are like public school trustees who send their kids to private school.

February 2, 2010

Not the first, certainly not the last

Filed under: Cancon, Health, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:10

Danny Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, will be having heart surgery later this week. This is a bit of a surprise to most, as he’s known to be a regular exerciser and hasn’t missed time for illness recently. Here’s Kenyon Wallace’s report:

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is to have heart surgery in the United States later this week, a press conference this morning is expected to confirm.

Media reports last night suggested the popular 59-year-old Premier has opted not to remain in his home province or country for the scheduled surgery, opting instead for treatment at a U.S. institution. The exact destination is not known.

“I can confirm that Premier Williams did leave the province this morning and will be undergoing heart surgery later this week,” said Mr. Williams’ spokeswoman, Elizabeth Matthews, in an email to the Canadian Press.

Not the first Canadian politician to elect to get medical care in the United States, and (on past experience) he’ll certainly not be the last one either. A cynic might note that the leaders don’t have the same confidence in the Canadian healthcare system that the people do . . . or it might be that politicians see themselves as far too important to have to wait until their turn under our system (where wait times are a quiet shame).

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress