 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought November 13, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
What imminent threat to your health are you worried about? Is it your weight? Does eating sushi frighten you? Junk food? Or, perhaps, is it milk? Two of the most effective and, thankfully, outspoken consumer advocates are Dennis and Alex Avery, a father and son team who head up the Center for Global Food Issues. If you want some fun reading about milk, visit www.milkismilk.com. In a recent blog on their website, Alex writes about a study that found that organic milk is no different from conventional milk. Moreover, research had determined that “organic” cows, those who graze in pastures, are actually less healthy than those bred and maintained in modern dairies. Alex cited a peer-reviewed Journal of Dairy Science research report that concluded (1) organic milk and conventional milk are identical; (2) organic dairy cows produce less milk than conventional cows; and (3) organic dairy cows are less healthy than conventional cows. You did not read about this in any mainstream media outlet. After twelve years of study, independent Swiss scientists from the University of Berne had produced the report. Why Switzerland? Think cheese! Think milk chocolate! Thankfully, I grew up in the 1940s when the United States began restricting the sale of raw milk products. The reason was simple enough. Raw milk was known to transmit several kinds of deadly bacteria that the process of mandatory pasteurization killed. Those bacteria had names such as Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella (some 1,600 variations), and Listeria monocytogenes. A child whose immune system was not fully developed could die from these forms of food poisoning and adults, too, could suffer meningitis, pregnant women could have a spontaneous abortion, and, like children, in its worst manifestations, an adult could die as well. So, why, today do we have all this hype about ”organic milk”? And why are People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals investing big bucks in a campaign to get people to stop drinking any milk or milk product? The answer is that the “organic” farming and ranching industry is big business. And PETA is just nuts. A group calling themselves the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a PETA front to lend credence to their nonsense and, in October, the Center for Consumer Freedom debunked their effort to get “warning labels” on all dairy products sold in the District of Columbia. David Martosko, the Center’s director of research said, “This is a group that runs TV ads claiming milk causes cancer. In 2003 PCRM president Neal Barnard told the FDA that cheese is ‘morphine on a cracker’ and ‘dairy crack.’” The Great American Milk Wars did get a tiny bit of attention in March when ABC News published an article about a feud between the organic dairymen and their corporate counterparts. Bear in mind, organic milk is largely sold on the basis of claims of what it does not contain. It is a form of scare campaign because, of course, it implies that conventional milk is dangerous while organic is “safe.” Some of the claims are baseless, such as the one that organic milk contains no hormones. Friends, all milk contains hormones. Nor do modern dairy farmers stand around feeding pesticides to their herds. While it is true that dairies are treated to knock down flies and other insects, and to control a rodent population, to say that organic milk does not contain pesticides is like saying it does not contain latex paint. Any evidence of anything more than trace elements of pesticides would quickly generate a visit from the Food and Drug Administration and other food safety government types. “Organic” is a marketing tool, not something based in the truth about modern dairy farming. In March, a collection of organic dairymen were fretting over whether United States Department of Agriculture regulations ensured that cows had sufficient access to grass in pastures as opposed to being fed a diet rich in both grass and grains. As noted in the Swiss research report, milk is milk no matter how it is produced. However, when you consider that the Organic Trade Association’s most recent survey of food sales between 1997 and 2003 showed a growth rate of 22.5 percent each year, generating $1.4 billion at the last tally, you can understand why such things take on an importance that has nothing to do with the true science involved. These days Americans have sufficient time and money to worry about all kinds of bogus health issues. In his new book, “Hypochondria Can Kill”, John Naish, a veteran writer on health topics, notes that “silly sicknesses are becoming epidemic…our appetite for the latest threat seems insatiable,” adding that, unlike previous generations and the health threats they experienced, “thanks to modern sanitation and medicine, those dangers are now no longer anywhere near so real.” Today, warns Naish, “the old demon, money, lurks behind much hypochondria.” Save some money and do your body a favor. Drink that nice, regular milk from the supermarket and put aside all the frightful things that people like PETA and others want you to believe. Life is too short to fret about milk. And besides, it really is good for you. |
||||||
It is amusing to listen to the media as they attempt to describe the current administration’s problems. My favorite is rocked by scandals. Really it's more like a bunch of wayward kids in a canoe running from one side to the other in tandem as they plumb the depths for something tangible to use. The left is out to find anything they possibly can as it attempts to justify its past rocky rides and tries to regain control. Those who are rocking the boat the hardest are finally starting to find they may have rocked a little too wildly as their own past and current motivations start to emerge. Quite a few have made comments regarding the Wilson claims, such as, "Well if it was common knowledge that his wife worked for the CIA why haven't we heard from any of those people yet?" That's not the way one defeats an adversary so that isn't the way it's being played. The second term for any President always brings a series of scandals that started earlier for the express purpose of regaining power. I think it was wise of the Bush team to ignore Wilson's rants and speeches. Because they ignored them it made the left think they were shying away from them or shrinking in fear. By not reacting to them it emboldened the left into elevating the claims for the purpose of making a little political hay. Now Major General Vallely (ret.) has come out swinging at Wilson. He says that it was Wilson who outed his own wife and there are others who have said this. Vallely said to World Net Daily that Wilson was a "total self promoter." They met when they were both to be on Fox News as analysts. He also said it was obvious that Wilson had his own agenda because his analysis strayed from reality. It was inevitable that the truth would come out. There will be others who have held their cards too. Fitzegerald interviewed I guess the only neighbors who were unaware of where she worked. What are the odds on that happening by accident? Not that Fitzgerald is doing this by accident. I think he might be doing it based on what Wilson is telling him. Maybe it's time to put Wilson's keester on the stand and see how he holds up. But that won't happen and it doesn't need to. The fact of the matter is that the investigation shouldn't have even been started except for the express purpose of doing what it is doing. It is keeping the leftists busy and placated. They are spinning their wheels as George and company hold the rear wheels off of the ground and carefully lift and carry the aft end around so they can drop it and let them slam into the wall immediately to their right. Then there is Senator Levine, another hog at the anti-America trough. This is what he recently said on Hard Ball. "I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to — look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that." Maybe he isn't aware that that is a direct violation of the cease-fire Saddam had with the United Nations. It wasn't a truce, it was a cease-fire and the terms were violated repeatedly. Maybe this bonehead doesn't see that there might be problems with Saddam giving the nukes to al Qaeda so they can slip one in a ship and take out a harbor. He also went on to say that the center of the war on terror is now in Iraq. It's almost as if he's afraid the terrorists might eventually attack us here or something. That hasn't ever happened so why now, right? I prefer them fighting over there rather than here. Then there is that
unbiased prosecutor going after Delay. He sure killed the left-wingers
dream of the criminal photo op. All three of the above situations involve
attention hogs and they’re over reaching. The problem with feeding
so heavily at the same trough all of the time is that eventually you're
going to get so darn fat that you become mobility impaired. Because
of their feeding frenzy none of these people are going to be as nimble
as they need to be to dodge the kind of fire they’ve been directing
at Bush. I hope they don't try to go after Bush and his team for hunting
on a baited field. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242 R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
The other day, I finally got around to seeing the 1999 movie, Election, directed by Alexander Payne (who also directed Sideways, which, for the record, contained the best rendition of drunk-dialing that the world has ever seen). Even though Election came out something like six years ago, I feel compelled to talk about it. Partly because it was an excellent satire of the American political system. Partly because I don’t have anything else to talk about. (Anyone else find it ironic, by the way, that George “Enemy Combatant” Bush urged “due process” for Scooter Libby? I can’t really write a whole column about that. But I thought it was interesting.) Anyway, Election takes place in a high school in Omaha, Nebraska. As it begins, we meet a girl by the name of Tracy (played by Reese Witherspoon), who’s running for president of the Student Government. We also meet Jim (a.k.a., “Mr. M” (a.k.a., Matthew Broderick (a.k.a., Ferris Bueller all grown up))), who’s one of those rare few teachers who actually “cares” about his students, who’s so rare that he manages to pop up in every movie that’s ever been made about students and teachers. Tracy is the kind of extracurricularly obsessed girl often found in predominantly white American high schools. Her fingerprints are all over everything from the yearbook committee to the student television station. In short, she’s a perfect fit for a job as tough and demanding as SGA president. We soon learn that Jim has designs on stopping her. This is when we meet Paul. Paul is a popular high school football player (played by perennial high school football player Chris Klein). Paul is out of commission at the moment due to a broken leg. He’s dumb as the DVD case Election came in, but he’s also the only honest and kind-hearted person in the movie. With this in mind, in the name of democracy, Jim convinces him to run against Tracy, who, up until now, has been running unopposed. Around the same time Paul announces his candidacy, we also meet his younger and less popular lesbian sister, Tammy (Jessica Campbell), who’s trying to maintain a fling with her not-gay friend Lisa. Lisa decides to drive the final nail in the coffin of their relationship by starting up with Tammy’s brother. And Tammy, in turn, decides to get back at Paul by challenging him for the presidency—thus making it an incestuous three-way affair. This is where the movie has its epiphany. It’s also where I begin to roll out the spoilers. So if you have any interest in seeing Election—which you should—then stop reading, because, as always, I have every intention of ruining it for you. During an assembly in the high school gymnasium, all three candidates must come to the floor and deliver their campaign speeches. Tracy is first. She delivers the most cockamamie, condescending, Al Gore-style lines you could possibly ask for. To put it simply, she does Al Gore better than Al Gore does Al Gore. (Or to put it in more modern parlance: She does Al Gore better than John Kerry did Al Gore.) “During this campaign I have had the opportunity to speak with many of you about your concerns,” she says. “I spoke with freshman Eliza Ramirez, who told me how alienated she feels from her own homeroom. I spoke with sophomore Reggie Banks, who said his mother works in the cafeteria and can’t afford to buy him enough spiral notebooks for his classes.” Kill me. Now. And hide the body. I’m begging you. Then Paul comes up to the mic to deliver his speech, and it’s dreadful. He looks down at the microphone and reads in a rambling, monotonous voice, promising students he won’t let them down as president—just as he didn’t let them down on the football field. While somewhat charming, Paul comes off as completely incompetent. What’s eerie about this is, Election came out in 1999—a year before the Bush-Gore election. And if Tracy is the annoying, overly polished, and disturbingly driven Al Gore of this movie, then Paul is without question its plucked-out-of-nowhere George Bush character (not that a state the size of Texas is nowhere, but you know what I mean). Finally, Tammy comes up to the microphone and delivers hands-down the best line of the entire movie—the line that makes the entire thing worth watching (even though the entire thing is worth watching anyway). People know Tammy’s candidacy is essentially a joke. She’s no one. A nobody. They don’t even give her the respect of shutting their mouths and letting her talk. That’s when she lays it on them: “Who cares about this stupid election?” she says. This shuts them up. “We all know it doesn’t matter who gets elected president of Carver [High School]. Do you really think it’s going to change anything around here; make one single person smarter or happier or nicer? The only person it does matter to is the one who gets elected. The same pathetic charade happens every year, and everyone makes the same pathetic promises just so they can put it on their transcripts to get into college. So vote for me, because I don’t even want to go to college, and I don’t care, and as president I won’t do anything. The only promise I will make is that, if elected, I will immediately dismantle the student government, so that none of us will ever have to sit through one of these stupid assemblies again!” The entire gymnasium jumps to its feet. Students are going wild. Over their raucous applause and the evil stares of teachers, Tammy concludes: “Or don’t vote for me. Who cares? Don’t vote at all!” Fittingly, it’s all downhill for Tammy from there. (Come on. When was the last time you saw a libertarian actually win something? For a bunch of committed free marketeers, libertarians are remarkably incapable of selling their souls.) She gets herself disqualified from the election and suddenly it’s back down to Tracy vs. Paul. Who wins from there doesn’t really matter. I won’t bother to spoil the rest of it for you. I will point out, though, that Tammy ends up receiving more votes than either candidate—sort of like the “silent majority” of non-voters in this country, which groups like Vote or Die try so hard to convert. The only other thing I’ll tell you about the ending is that the epilogue features a scene at the Museum of Natural History in front of the Missing Link exhibit, which depicts a couple of hairy half-human/half-monkey people standing straight up with their private parts hanging out. It’s not really integral to the story, but I wrote about it in my first draft and decided to print it ‘cause I liked how the sentence sounded. Election works on many levels, but, for me, the best thing it does is put elections in their place. Many books and films have raised significant questions about the political process—but that’s the easy part. Most Americans have significant questions about the political process anyway. Election takes it a step further and asks how much of that process ought to be taken seriously. And the answer is: Not much of it. Granted, running a country and running a high school are different. High schools don’t need student governments; student governments don’t really govern anything. Countries aren’t nearly the same. Anarchy could work in theory. But, in theory, so could government. Any number of things can happen when you pull the rug right out from underneath a big sprawling bureaucracy. It’s hard to tell ahead of time. After all, bureaucracies tend to control everything from food and water to electricity and road repairs. (Of course, I call them bureaucracies, but fans of the ‘30s would know them by their politically incorrect title: mobs.) But Election never asks us to outright dismantle the government. It just asks us to keep in mind that the government is little more than a really big carnival. That’s what I like about it. Because, really, that’s all you can ask. “We all know it doesn’t matter who gets elected president,” Tammy says. She’s right about that. It really doesn’t matter—whether here in America, or in Election‘s Carver High School. Every American president is going to do the same basic set of things. He’s going to preside over a bumbling bureaucracy. He’s going to grow the government. He’s going to rob Peter to pay Paul, or rob Paul to pay back Peter (whatever it takes to reverse the last president). He’ll show “strength” against something or another. He’ll show “compassion” for something else. He’ll “stand with” your congressman twice every four years. And he’ll restore “integrity” to Washington, as if there was ever any integrity there to begin with. (Read the story of how friends convinced Washington himself to run for president. You make the call.) The point is, maybe we do need a government, maybe we don’t, but all this pomp and circumstance they subject us to is just that: pomp and circumstance. No one’s going to “fight for you,” as candidates like to say. It really doesn’t matter who you vote for. Honestly. Vote for Donald Duck. Or Daffy. Or Peter, Paul, or Mary. Or Crosby, Stills, or Nash. Or Young. Vote for me. Vote for you. Vote for Jesus. Leave your ballot blank. It doesn’t make a lick of difference. Unless they’re running a total whack job like Mike Tyson or Genghis Khan for president, you’re basically just choosing between two equally fallible people: the overachiever who raised their hand all the time and annoyed you in high school (Al Gore, who got C’s at Harvard), or the simple but likable guy who believed in leadership, sacrifice, and other sports principles (George Bush, who got C’s at Yale). Presidents were never supposed to be national father figures. They were supposed to be receptionists—men who filed paperwork and signed bills into law. For most Americans, that’s all they are anyway. But with presidents now raiding homes for Cuban toddlers and personally choosing who should and shouldn’t be entitled to due process, it’s nice to have a movie like Election, which shows commanders-in-chief for the joke they mostly are. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
|
No column this week. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, October 30, 2005 2:40 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
