Da junk in tha trunk

Americans, especially women, are consuming far more calories than they did three decades ago, and the increasingly dreaded carbohydrate food group is to blame, according to a federal study released on Thursday. The finding, revealed in a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, comes amid repeated government warnings of a growing obesity epidemic in the nation as well as an explosion in the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets…. CDC researchers found that women between the ages of 20 and 74 consumed an average 1,877 calories per day in 2000, 22 percent more than in 1971. The average intake for males in the same age group was up 8 percent to 2,618 calories in 2000. The percentage of daily calories that came from carbohydrates, which include rice, bread and pasta, rose to 51.6 percent from 45.4 percent in women and to 49 percent from 42.4 percent in men during the period.

Jacqueline Wright, the lead author of the study, noted that the findings should not be seen as supporting the Atkins diet or any other food regimen that stressed low or no consumption of carbohydrates. “I think we need to focus on total calorie intakes,” said Wright, an epidemiologist with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. The study also found that consumption of fat, including saturated fat, which can clog arteries and lead to heart disease, represented a smaller percent of daily calories by the end of the 30-year period.

Let’s see… eat 22 percent more, get fat. That’s a tough one to figure out. IF YOU WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT, EXERCISE MORE AND EAT LESS. Sure, it sucks. But that’s your option. Atkins works because you can only eat so many protein calories before you get sick of eating, while almost anyone can knock down a bag of Oreos in a sitting, or at least a day. I’m sure a diet based on cardboard or eggplant would work too.

Liquidity trap

You want liquidity trap? You can’t handle liquidity trap! Scroll to the bottom, and notice how the peak is at 08 2003. This, in spite of interest rate accomodation and smoke coming off the printing presses. If Greenspan and company can bob, duck and weave their way out of this one smoothly, I may have to reconsider my opinion on the inefficacy of monetary policy.

Don’t mess with a big brain

Always fear to argue with someone who isn’t afraid to say “I don’t know.” Chances are very high that they’re playing on a completely different level.

Thomas Sowell writes: Once, after giving a talk, I was confronted by a lady in the audience who asked what some people regard as the ultimate question:

“What is YOUR solution?”

“There are no solutions,” I said. “There are only trade-offs.”

“The people DEMAND solutions!” she shot back angrily.

The people can demand square circles if they want. But that doesn’t mean that they will get them. What they are more likely to get is the illusion of a solution by someone seeking their vote.

What he said.

Why I’m not on Townhall

Paul Craig Roberts explains a number of things, including why I’m not an odds-on bet to ever be featured on Townhall. Fortunately, I don’t give the proverbial rat’s patootie. I don’t entirely agree with the eminent Mr. Roberts, though, as I think it is possible for a columnist to educate those who are already somewhat inclined his way, but are not as informed.

I tend to think of it more as providing ammunition. In any case, I”m just defending the mike.

It’s just a matter of time

I have no doubt that the terrible news about vaccines is going to make its way out before the public eventually. There’s no way that the Congress would have protected the manufacturers, distributors and docters from liability if they actually were anywhere nearly as safe as they’re claimed. I hope this is the beginning of the end of the charade, but we’ll see. You’d think there’s far too much money at stake for the veil to fall easily, but hopefully a few honest scientists will value millions of children’s lives more than their careers.

OTTAWA– After assuring parents that additives in vaccines don’t cause brain damage, scientists have found what they believe could be a “smoking gun” linking these additives to autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. In a study that was rushed to print on-line today, two months ahead of its scheduled publication in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, U.S. researchers have discovered an apparent link between thimerosal, a controversial mercury-based preservative once commonly used in childhood vaccines, to an increased risk of neurological disorders such as autism and ADHD. While most vaccines distributed in Canada have been thimerosal-free since the early 1960s, the preservative was used in the annual flu shot that doctors recommended this year for even healthy children. In tests on human brain cells, researchers found two natural chemicals — one compound that stimulates cell growth and also dopamine, which transmits nerve signals — are both key to a process in the brain called methylation.

Methylation helps DNA work properly and is crucial to the normal development of the brain.The team found thimerosal, ethanol and the metals lead and mercury all interfere with methylation. What’s more, thimerosal did so at doses 100 times lower than a child would receive after a single shot with a thimerosal-containing vaccine. “It was by far the most potent,” said investigator Dr. Richard Deth, a professor of pharmacology at Northeastern University in Boston. He said the study, which also involved researchers from Johns Hopkins University, the University of Nebraska and Tufts University in Boston, could account for the rising rates of autism since the early 1980s, when more thimerosal-containing shots were added to a child’s vaccine schedule.

A recent review of vaccine-related “adverse events” in the U.S. found a”significant correlation” between shots containing thimerosal and autism,the researchers report.

KMC on "marriage"

I’m generally loathe to continue a previous day’s discussion, so as to avoid beating a lifeless equine, but Kevin McCullough wanted to contribute his take by way of his column today. I don’t think I buy into the concept myself; Canada is showing that there’s no need for such a redefinition of marriage in order to crack down on the traditional and the faithful with newly manufactured hate crimes, while in other places, like Zurich, such “marriage” exists without any attendant speech codes and PC enforcement. As with gun control, a failure to look beyond the borders can sometimes create false dichotomies. But don’t take my word for it, go see for yourself.

KMC writes: …if a state were to give “sanctity” to an otherwise “immoral” activity then there is no need to worry about what that church says anymore. In fact, if the right hate-crime laws are passed then maybe … just perhaps … we can shut down those voices who say such things all together.

Maybe this argument might impress a few moderates and shaky conservatives who still believe that legality equates to morality. Since my libertarian logic rejects that concept, I’m left fairly cold by this notion. But, it is conceivable and it is true that the Stalinist nature of the American gay rights movement is surpassed only by the abortionette Left. Not being privy to the inner circles of the Lavender Mafia, I have no idea what the grand master plan behind such “marriage” is. The Norwegian and Swedish statistics suggest that most homosexuals aren’t actually interested in “marrying” and are highly unlikely to stay “married” even if they do go through with it . Perhaps the Gayfather will deign to enlighten us; I’m pretty sure our non-rabid queer friends have no more clue than we do.

Speaking of columns, I just turned in next week’s. I imagine we may get a few angry feminist sorts popping their noses in, assuming they aren’t too bent out of shape to fit. If nothing else, there should be some amusing fodder for the cannons. Just a little something to anticipate in case you feel the need to sharpen your knives over the weekend.

Ending abortion in South Dakota

The Aberdeen News reports: Opponents warned legislators that passing the measure would be a costly mistake. South Dakota will wind up in court, and the legal fees will be huge, they said, reminding state lawmakers that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1973 ruling that abortion is legal.

Excellent. If the infanticidists are reduced to arguing about the cost of legal defense, the pro-life forces must have the votes to push it through. And just how much of a cow town do they believe South Dakota to be if they think no one there has heard of Roe v. Wade?

This post brought to you courtesy of The Evangelical Outpost