Folks here probably know about the BMI– and possibly are familiar with my, ahem, “issues” with it as a tool of diagnosis; anything that bases treatment choices on the assumption that bones, fat and muscle all weigh the same, and people are identically proportioned, is going to get me angry. Add in it being changed in 2000 by over 2kg/m2 (so that “overweight” is 25kg/m2; BMI is weight in kg divided by height in meters, squared) to make it easier to calculate and remove the differences between men and women and…well, I’m getting distracted.
Anyways, the BMI is the basis for the “obesity epidemic” we’ve all heard about, and there are calls for action on the following theory that this generation will die earlier than their parents.
Shockingly, some scientist actually decided to do research to see if being over-weight or obese by this BMI standard resulted in dying earlier. It’s clear that if you’re heavy enough, you do die earlier, but that’s diagnosis by examining actual people, not by applying a broad standardized calculation. Everyone knows that if you’re over-weight, then you’re going to have more health problems, so you’re going to die earlier.
There’s a problem: they didn’t confirm what “everyone knows.”
The news will seem heaven sent to those contemplating a new year diet, and contradicts the received wisdom that being fat reduces life expectancy. It is the second time that research studies led by Katherine Flegal, a distinguished epidemiologist from the National Centre for Health Statistics at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Maryland, US, have studied the link between obesity and mortality.
In 2007 the same group caused consternation among public health professionals when they published the results of a similar analysis that also showed being fat does not shorten life. Walter Willett, professor of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, dismissed the finding as “rubbish”.
Dr Flegal told The Independent she had decided to conduct a second, larger, study on the same theme to counter the sceptics. She and her team examined results from 100 studies from around the world, involving three million people and 270,000 deaths.
Who knew that the art of healing people may not work so well when you try to remove individuals and judgement from the mix?
I really, really wish I were joking about the title, but I’ve actually heard several folks seriously suggest this. (Hugh Hewitt show had a co-host/guest suggest “dropping the abortion issue,” for example—thankfully, Hugh pointed out that was…not a great idea.)
In a campaign where social issues were not focused on, where the SoCon vote was assumed, where the entire point would be “It’s the economy, stupid” and our turnout dropped hugely… we should really ditch these social conservatives entirely and try to peel off some Democrat voters. I was one of the folks that was saying at the beginning that we could not just assume we’d get our own base and that all we needed was to go after other groups, though I—like many others—thought that things were obviously bad enough that maybe the base could be taken for granted.
We tried the “shut up about social issues, focus on the financial short-term disaster.” Shock shock, it didn’t work. The “of course” votes didn’t show up, as best we can tell at this early of a time. Of course there was fraud and probably voter suppression, but we knew from the start that we’d have to win so big that they couldn’t cheat.
I know the thinking Libertarians believe that Social Issues hurt us, and if we’d just drop them it would improve—but they ignore that if you let people do all the stupid stuff they immaturely desire, they are going to want to be saved by someone else. (I’m ignoring the sub-group of thinking Libertarians that thinks having children at is a “personal choice” with no serious effect on the future of society, and mostly only something that ‘women want while they leach off men.’ I wish that last part was not a very slight paraphrase.) Of course, thinking Libertarians think social issues hurt because when thinking Libertarians recognize the cause and effect of libertine personal actions in creating demand for a leech-State, they become at least isolationist conservatives, rather than Libertarians. But I’m digressing.
So, we tried assuming that the rah rah Abortion!! stuff on Obama’s side would be enough to 1) get half our base out, and 2) get them to vote for Romney. Clearly, that was wrong.
We focused on the economy. I think we did pretty well on that, considering that Obama and Co could lie their tails off about what we actually said. (It’s a given, sadly.)
That makes me think that we maybe should’ve beat on the military side of things a bit more as well. I have friends who are still active duty who thought I was blowing smoke up their rears when I told them there was never a protest when the Ambassador was killed, when that was known just days after the attack. (Power Line linked an interview in a UK paper that included quotes from the guys who were opening a hospital with the Ambassador; they were on the phone when the attack started, and there was no mention of a protest, which would’ve been a pretty big deal.)
So, we need to actually make our own case, try to win the base before we try to peel folks off, and probably improve our communication networks. I’m going to work even harder on applying this in person—when someone says something incredibly untrue in person, I’m going to politely correct them. Yes, it’s uncomfortable and socially awkward, but that is what the other side’s tactics depend on. At some point, the drunk in the party has to be confronted. We’re there and past.
This is going to be especially hard on religious people. There are a lot of very nice people who…well… voted for Obama because that’s what “nice” people do. It’s never easy to stand up to family, no matter how wrong you know they’re being.
From over at John Wright’s place, I heard mention of a guy who went from being the head of the Secular Free Thought Society (no jokes, please, they write themselvers) to converting to Catholicism, as told in State Press Magazine:
Imagine society’s collective shock if Hillary Clinton were to join the National Rifle Association…
Josh Horn’s friends were hit with a shock wave of that magnitude when Horn, then an ardent atheist, announced his resignation as president of the Secular Free Thought Society, an ASU club known for its skepticism of religion. Horn had committed the ultimate taboo and sealed his self-imposed excommunication with one act: he decided to become a Catholic.
Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of folks lamenting how modern art (especially Modern Art) doesn’t have anything to compare to, oh, the great cathedrals of Europe—according to some, doesn’t even have a decently sized mural. Usually comes with a lot of talk of how soul-killing Walmart and their sort are, but not always.
Yeah, that old favorite; Mr. Wright enters the fray again over at his blog, in a rather long and detailed post asking if science fiction is inherently opposed to religion.
Because this is the internet, the comments rather quickly head into attacking religion (ours and his, specifically), which he answers by explaining in detail the reasons he’s now Catholic.
I was inspired to post what is mostly a “hey, go read this!” after several great comments by folks other than the author, culminating in this one:
If some earnest scientist did the experiment outlined above, and then said to the nearest Catholic (not even going as high as the Pope) “I have conclusively proven that what you say happens during the celebration of the Eucharist does not, since this sample still has the same qualities of wine after the words of institution were spoken as it did beforehand, and so it has not turned into the blood of an Iron-Age Semitic male from Roman-occupied Galilee, and so all your beliefs are false and God does not exist”, then the Catholic would say “Dude, I *know* that already. We talked about it back in the 13th century, even before they had spectrometers or chromatographs: Tommy A gave a definition of transubstantiation where he puts it in the technical philosophical language of “The accidents remain the same but the essence changes”.
That’s “fast” like “quick,” not “fast” like, well, “fasting.” I do go meatless, but that’s entirely beside the point. The idea is things to make when the weak week is ending and I’m longing for a stiff drink ready for the weekend. Maybe I’ll make a tradition of it, we’ll see.
Expect it to be thrifty, too, because I’m cheap like that.
Safeway has some lovely “party sized” dinners that I got because… well, they were about 25% off, and I’m lazy sleep deprived, and I love both lasagnas (five cheese and meat, respectively) and orange chicken. Grabbed the cannelloni because it sounded like something to try.
$7 for five to ten servings. Usually ten bucks plus tax. Easily two evening’s dinner for us with the toddlers, plus a generous packed lunch.
Cooking time is a bit on the low side—by which I mean you’ll want to set it for the low timer, check it, and then let it go to the high suggested cooking time.
The cannelloni was… er… well, TrueBlue says it didn’t taste right. It tasted like salsa made of green peppers mixed with basic pasta and a good white cheese sauce to me. Kept its form very well.
The cheese lasagna is WONDERFUL. How good is it? My husband willingly ate it when I wasn’t cooking only non-carne meals. This is the guy that complains there’s not enough meat in his steak and potatoes….
The meat lasagna is good; not great, but better than I could make, and probably less expensive. The meat seems to be rather spicy sausage, but not bad at all. (Note, this is not to be interpreted as “spicy” or “hot” by the measure of most folks; more along the lines of mild-to-medium salsa. Yes, I’m a wimp.)
Haven’t tried the Orange Chicken yet, we’ll see.
(update: fixed the name of the not-very-good baked dish; I blame that line from the Godfather movies)
His list of credits is pretty impressive.
No, he wasn’t Catholic, but he was very American, and who hasn’t used Mayberry as a metaphor? Either way, may he rest in peace.
In reverse order:
Jeanne G. over at Knowledge Hungry is musing on how faith is sometimes used to justify sinful behavior.
This picture showed up on my facebook:
This is going to meander. It’s more of a thinking-out-loud type post than really having a specific point. Can I call it a meditation?
So I got married. And suddenly, like the boy thing had hit, the motherhood-thing hit. I wanted children.
In retrospect this is vaguely puzzling. Look, guys, I was always awkward around babies, vaguely puzzled by toddlers and often outright scared of school age mons– er… children. So why the heck did I want kids? Who knows? Perhaps biological imperative. Perhaps insanity. I wanted eleven children.
I’ve had a mania for reading According To Hoyt for the last week or two—goodness, it’s almost like reading Chaos Manor or TOF’s Place, but more feminine in a way I can’t quite put a finger on but find highly appealing (my kind of gals!) and with WAY more folks commenting—and there are a lot of things that I have a very easy time relating to. Not a sensation I’m accustomed to. ^.^
I’ve always understood that kids are Important, especially babies, and they need special protection—but that doesn’t mean I’m a fan of cuddling or entertaining them. Everything you do is Important, and I didn’t know what to do, so I saw no reason to volunteer to screw up. At the same time, I always knew I wanted a true mate and children, and knew that these weren’t contradictions; my mom was NOT the baby crazy member of her family. Both she and my dad were thought to be “confirmed bachelors” when they met and married, ended up having the second-most kids of any of their siblings.
Or, as the Author over there put it: Theology of the Body, Rishathra and the Cyberpope.
Warning: Mr. Wright’s style can be a bit startling until you’re use to it, just keep in mind: if he’s totally outrageous, he’s probably joking. It also helps if you’ve got a love for classic pulp science fiction and a sense of the absurd. Continue reading
I’ve had it suggested that I write about motherhood a bit; be careful what you ask for.
….Yeah, I’m posting on that. Some idiot talking head makes a slam at a grandmother with MS and everyone has to comment about it. I think I have something worth saying, though, rather than just talking about it because it’s big.
I’m a stay at home mom. A home-maker. A house wife.
I have worked outside the home, before I got married, in a very similar field—I was a Petty Officer in the Navy, specializing in calibration. (Making sure things that measure are accurate enough.) Before that, I was in another similar field, at least sort of—I was a ranch kid.
Perhaps some folks look at those things and are curious—what on earth is the connection between being a mother, working with cows and fixing stuff that’s used to fix planes and ships?
Apparently, he’s staying busy.
SuburbanBanshee has two very good posts on the topic– the first has the great opening of “seldom have I enjoyed myself more watching a speech at an airport.” The second one is on what he said at Mass, with the bonus of an honorary mention of the Swiss Guard Ninja Death Squad Elite. (Which doesn’t exist.)
Have I mentioned lately that the fellow has guts?
even when you didn’t do it.
A few minutes ago, I was dancing around with my two year old Princess, and the baby Duchess got herself into a corner again– she can’t turn or go in reverse, yet. Princess, of course, wanted me to dance with her, so I said: “Princess, I can only handle one baby at a time!”
As soon as the words left my mouth, I thought of “selective reduction,” and the kids that won’t ever have a chance to play with mine. I’ve never done anything like that, but it still poisoned my mood. A silly, small example, but it’s interesting how having words to hold a concept can help you identify it, even when it’s tiny.
– or so they say. “They” being random folks online, who seem to have picked it up from Huffington Post, or maybe Daily Kos.
To be fair, the original claim was that 98% of women (footnote in small type: at risk for unintended pregnancy) contracept, and came from the Guttmacher Institute; if you don’t know who they are, they’re probably the source for 90% of the crazy-on-the-face-of-it sex related claims you’ve seen online, usually after a couple of rounds of rephrasing and from-memory citation.
Here’s the short form of how they got it:
So the study tells us only that 98% of women of child-bearing age who want to have sex without having babies use some form of birth control. That qualifies as a sort of “d’uh” moment.
He’s got the long form, with details, at the link; it’s VERY long form, and I don’t want to copy all of it– TheOFloinn opens with an introductory course on statistics.
That said, honors for pointing it out first, digging into the statistics and being a reporter who actually did reporting goes to Mollie at Ricochet:
“So I guess we could say that among women aged 15-44 who had sex in the last three months but aren’t pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant, 87% of women who identify as Catholic used contraception. It’s worth pondering just who is left out of this 87%, other than, you know, everyone who doesn’t use contraception. Great stat, team journalist! I mean, the study was designed to find only women who would be most likely to use contraception. And it did.
Notable in the comments is someone making the argument that the Church’s current stance against the birth control, sterilization and abortion causing drug mandate is the same as arguing for laws preventing business on Sunday. Seems to me that a better comparison would be fighting a law that requires all businesses to be open on Sunday.
Looking at that title, I really wish I could make a post worthy of it!
That said, this will have to do, I suppose.
There are enough geeks on this blog that I can hope someone else read the old defense of The Empire from Star Wars, written long before the new movies came out; it can be summed up as “great, they killed the Emperor. Hello, power vacuum– who’s going to pay the police now? Who’s going to be in charge, the Hutts?”
In keeping with the season, I offer this from NRO:
Scrooge: The First 1 Percenter.
Either way, such actions are not really going to do much to improve the human condition. I contend that Scrooge, before he became “enlightened,” was already doing more to help his fellow man than any of the other main characters we meet in A Christmas Carol. Moreover, by giving away a substantial portion of his accumulated fortune, he drastically reduced his ability to do even more good in the world. Continue reading
Growing up, my family had a lot of odd conversations, especially on the rare occasions we watched TV. One of these led to my mom pointing out that a lot of the “strange” things that the Bible told the Jews to do were not just for religious reasons (I think it came out of a TV character using ‘religious’ as a synonym for ‘serves no practical purpose’)—they made very good practical sense, too. Simplest example, pork is horrifically dangerous if you don’t have a fridge and don’t know about invisible dangers. Continue reading