August 27, 2005
What doesn’t cause cancer?
Nanny-state bureaucrats, fresh off their largely successful effort to make smokers less numerous than sex offenders, are starting to feel ancy. After all, if there’s nothing to regulate and nobody to demonize, they might be out of a job!
Never fear, if you can’t regulate something that’s dangerous, invent a new danger!
Calif. AG Wants Warning Label on Fries
Potato chips and french fries could soon come with a warning label in California if the state’s top attorney prevails in a lawsuit filed Friday against nine fast food chains and snack-food makers.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked for a court order requiring McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Frito Lay and other companies to warn consumers that their fries and chips may contain acrylamide, a chemical the state says causes cancer.
A warning label. Nothing is wrong with warning labels, right? After all, you’re just informing the consumer.
Yep. That’s what they told smokers in 1965.
Now, if it was conclusively shown that this chemical causes cancer, I could understand the desire for labelling. Regulators, however, don’t seem to be concerned with such “facts”.
Acrylamide, a byproduct of chemicals and high heat, has been found at low levels in several foods. The lawsuit focuses on french fries and chips because they have more acrylamide than other foods, according to the Attorney General’s Office.
Frito-Lay spokeswoman Lynn Markley said there was no scientific evidence that acrylamide causes cancer. She said it was counterproductive for the state to sue the companies when California regulators are setting standards for the chemical under Proposition 65, a state law that requires companies to notify the public about potentially dangerous toxins in food.
When risk levels for acrylamide were added to Proposition 65 in 1990, the chemical was generally thought of as an industrial agent, used in food packaging and to treat sewage, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
But in 2002, a Swedish National Food Authority study reported that acrylamide occurred naturally in some starch-rich foods as a result of cooking or heat processing.
Other studies have found no link between foods containing acrylamide and a higher risk of cancer.
So let me get this straight. Acrylamide occurs naturally in quite a few foods, although slightly more so in fried potato products. And it might cause cancer, although that’s far from being conclusively shown.
I think I can make this a lot easier. The leading killer in the US is heart disease. Scarfing down large quantities of fatty, fried potato products will put you at much greater risk for heart disease than cancer. If you want to go after the fast food companies, this is a much more clear relationship. Of course, they’ve already done that. And I don’t want to give them more ideas.
Hey, so when are we going to get that warning label put on the sun? It causes cancer too!
If I was the President
I’ve seen this all over my normal reads lately, so I’m not going to attribute anyone except the original source and the guy who nominated me for UN Ambassador.
Say Uncle asks the following question:
By some bizarre set of circumstances, you are the president as of now. Name the first 5 things you’d do. Level of difficulty: it must actually be stuff the president is constitutionally allowed to do.â€
Hmm. My first thought is to ask for a ride to space. But since I don’t trust the Shuttle or Russian engineering, I’d have to find another way (more on that later). So here’s my five:
1) Communicate. I’d be on TV so much it would make Clinton look agoraphobic. I’d have a presidential blog, for those people like me who don’t watch TV. I would use this time to educate people as to why I am trying to do what I want to do. I think most of my political stances are based on logic and reasonable arguments, and if I reach out and try to explain that to the general public, it might change a few minds.
2) The veto pen would come out and be used constantly. I would tell Congress that I would veto any bill that I thought was too expensive. And that I would veto any new government program not related to national security.
3) Immediately ask every department of government to reduce spending by 10%, including defense. I’d hire outside consultants if necessary. Downsizing is not required, but efficiency is.
4) Fund research for science not by direct investments, but by prizes. This would be true of space exploration as well. Government funding of things can be useful if done right. But I’d let market investment pick the winners and losers, and government simply provide a reward as incentive.
5) Try to complete all of the above in a period of 4 years, because that would probably be as long as I would hold office 
August 26, 2005
Open Comment/Trackback Thread
I’m out of town for the weekend. I’ll be back midday on Sunday. I may post a little, and hopefully we’ll see something from Wilson and JimmyJ (since football season isn’t in full swing, they may still respond on weekends).
While I’m gone, consider this an open comment/trackback thread. Have fun.
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave linked with Governing "Least"
Fearless Philosophy for Free Minds linked with If I were POTUS
George W. Bush and the Holy Grail
This is funny. Really, really funny:
(Suddenly, standing before them, blocking their way, is the entire Democratic Caucus and their Party Chairman, Howard Dean.)
BUSH: Howdy, folks! Glad you’re all here, listen if we could just talk about some of what we need to do for the country…
DEMOCRATS: (In unision.) Nay!
DEAN: We are the Knuts Who Say “Nay!” and we shall say “Nay!” to you, until you appease us!
BUSH: Alright, then, perhaps we can work something out. What is it that you want?
DEAN: It’s not what we want that matters, for we have no positive agenda! It’s what we don’t want that matters!
BUSH: Alright, then, what is it that you don’t want?
DEAN: We don’t want our President to be… a shrubbery!
BUSH: Come again?
DEMOCRATS: (In unision.) Nay! Nay! Nay! Nay! Nay! Nay!…
Check out the rest, for every nerd like me (who can quote most of the movie), it’s great nostalgia!
August 25, 2005
Prima Donnas meet reality
My new guilty pleasure? Filthy Rich: Cattle Drive. They take a bunch of trust fund babies, who have never had to really work in their lives, and stick them out in the wilderness driving a herd of cattle from point A to point B.
A Heinlein quote sums it up perfectly: “Don’t handicap your children by making their lives easy.”
These kids are handicapped. One girl, Courtenay Semel, daughter of one of Yahoo!’s founders, had the audacity on the first day of the show to call her father and beg to be brought home. What, six hours of wilderness is too much for you? Fabian Basabe, the son of some Ecuadorian business tycoon, has taken on the role of rich kid union boss. He’s demanding luxuries like laundered clothes, servants to clean his dishes, etc. Living in tents for three weeks, and he thinks it’s supposed to be the Ritz.
These silly little kids seem to be offended that people should actually have to do these jobs. I think they must think they’ve traveled back in time to the 1800’s, when in reality, they’ve been so coddled and cuddled their entire lives that they think everything should be handed to them. Maybe a quick trip to reality will actually make it through their armor of self-entitlement, but somehow I doubt it. If nothing else, their tantrums are fun to watch.
Most “normal” rich kid? Noah Blake, son of not-guilty actor Robert Blake. Most attractive female on the show? The female ranch hand. Not empirically the hottest, but the cutest and most close to reality.
We’re losing…
Everyone’s blogging about how Hawaii has decided price controls will suddenly work, after decades of evidence to the contrary. Specifically, that it’s time for price caps on gasoline. Now, I don’t want to really deride them for this. Everyone else is. I’d rather wait until the shortages start, and then I’ll deride them for it.
But I came across this poll: Should the federal government cap gas prices nationwide?
Of course, I had to vote, just to make sure some sanity was represented. I thought it would sit no more lopsided than 60/40, although I wasn’t sure which way it would go.
Go. Vote. Check out the results… I was shocked.
As Boortz would say, I’ll bet they all went to government schools.
Door-to-Door
It was a cloudy day in Boston, suddenly there was a knock at the door…
Yesterday afternoon I was visited by a couple of….hmmm. Not really sure. Not sure what they were selling or why I was “the chosen one”.
Regardless, there was a tall black man in his late thirties and a short black man, no more than twenty. Tall man asked if I had a couple minutes. Couple minutes? I have all day, I work from home, after all. His lead-in was “do you think the state of the world is going to get worse, stay the same, or get better?” We’re making strides in the Middle East, despite what many would have you believe. There is progress in the Gaza Strip. And France still sucks. So my answer was “it’s going to get BETTER”. And I really believe that.
I’m not sure if that’s the answer he typically received. Especially around here with all these lunatic liberals. He then produced a Bible and asked if he could read me a passage. Oh boy, the bible came out. Where is this headed?
He read the passage. Something from Psalms, I think. About meek inheriting the earth, yada, yada. He then asked “do you think that one event is going to happen and it will rid the entire world of all evil-doers?”. I answered “no way, my man. There’s always going to be evil”.
Then he asked “do you think that God is going to allow the evil to continue to exist?”
“No. I don’t believe in God”
“You don’t believe in God? Is that from your upbringing?”
“No, I was raised Presbyterian. Just changed my views as I got older.”
For some reason, I am not sure this was the response he was looking for, nor do I believe that he typically got this response. He wasn’t sure what to say, so asked if he could drop off some literature about creationism and how it relates to science. (Earlier in the conversation I had indicated that I had a scientific mind and that was part of the reason I didn’t believe in God). I said “you bet, I love to read about all kinds of crazy stuff”.
Then he said his good-byes and was off to talk with some Catholics, no doubt.
So I was left with “what exactly was he selling?”
Just trying to spread the word of the Lord?
Selling Bibles?
Anti-War?
Well, I checked my mailbox…no literature about creationism.
Pure Nerd
Hmm… I write lengthy blog posts about tax policy and the intricacies of legislation. Why? Because I find it exciting and interesting to learn about something new. Yep, I’d call that pretty nerdy.
Hat Tip: Antigravitas
| Pure Nerd 60 % Nerd, 26% Geek, 47% Dork |
| For The Record: A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia. A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one. A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions. You scored better than half in all Nerd, earning you the title of: Pure Nerd. The times, they are a-changing. It used to be that being exceptionally smart led to being unpopular, which would ultimately lead to picking up all of the traits and tendences associated with the “dork.” No-longer. Being smart isn’t as socially crippling as it once was, and even more so as you get older: eventually being a Pure Nerd will likely be replaced with the following label: Purely Successful. Congratulations! |
My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The Nerd? Geek? or Dork? Test written by donathos on Ok Cupid |
August 24, 2005
FairTax post on the other blog
Chose not to cross-post, so check it out over there. It is in response to a challenge from Jon Henke of QandO fame to answer some criticisms Dale Franks originally posted on QandO.
Hot enough for ya?
For those geeky computer nerds out there, this is what happens to a nice copper heat sink and fan when it stops working, and the 2.4GHz P4 processor beneath it starts cooking…
Apparently copper is a good enough conductor to melt the plastic housing. Ouch.
Are higher oil prices good?
I was listening to Boortz on my way home for lunch today, which may have been a repeat as his Information Overload hour definitely was, but I heard something that piqued my interest. A caller suggested that higher oil prices were a good thing. Here was the crux of her argument:
Higher oil prices make it more profitable for American oil suppliers to actually drill and produce more oil domestically. Those oil tycoons become much more wealthy, and are then able to purchase and stimulate the economy. If the oil prices weren’t so high, those people wouldn’t be able to make that money, and thus the economy as a whole would suffer.
Specifically, she referred to it as a wealth effect. Boortz, who seemed a little preoccupied, didn’t quite understand the point she was making, and let it slide. In fact, for some reason he said that spurring domestic oil production was a “good point”.
It was one of the dumbest exchanges I believe I’ve ever heard.
Now, most of my readers know exactly where I’m going with this. Many of you can name the economic principle I’m about to cite. But I’m going to do it anyway (for Wilson’s sake).
This is a variation on the Broken Window Fallacy. A baker has his window broken, and passersby think that while his broken window is a bad thing, the fact that he will have to pay a glazier to replace the window will stimulate the economy. Think about it this way. Oil has gone up, so now Americans, in addition to Saudis, are profiting off the increased price. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? After all, people are making money that they can spend!
Not so fast. A few tycoons down in Texas are becoming very wealthy, and they are doing so by selling oil to the rest of the country. The real question is what happens to the rest of the country. High oil prices, in this case, are our broken window. Americans are paying much higher prices for oil and gasoline than they were a year ago, and that is money they cannot spend elsewhere. The money they are currently spending on oil or gasoline could be saved, invested, or spent elsewhere.
It’s very simple. Lower prices are better. If energy could be completely free, it would be ideal. However, without the ability to repeal the laws of physics, we can look at making it less and less expensive as a beneficial thing. Before the baker’s window was broken, he had a window and $100. After the window is broken, he has to have it replaced, and thus has a window and $0. If it costs me $30 to fill my gas tank and I have $50, I can have a full gas tank and $20 left over to spend on other things, and “stimulate the economy” in other ways. If it costs $50 to fill my tank, I have a full gas tank and $0.
So how exactly are higher prices a good thing?
August 23, 2005
Quick hits
Boxing Alcibiades brings us the Axis of ‘Up Yours’. Seems some of New Europe are sick of Putin pushing them around, and have found strength in numbers. Old Europe is going to be a little upset as well, as the liberal economies of eastern Europe start kicking their asses.
Eric doesn’t understand why the Left hates Wal-Mart so much. Here’s a hint, Eric. They’re anti-union. It doesn’t matter if they paid their workers three times what other companies did, the unions are against them and will continue to be.
Winds of Change excerpts a piece I’d read long ago but never linked. Think about what would happen if the Pharaoh of Egypt was faced with the modern conveniences of 7-11. It puts his silly pile of rocks (the Pyramid) into perspective.
Searchlight Crusade is da bizz-omb!
As promised, Dan of Searchlight Crusade has won my little contest. So I am obligated to tell all of you, dear readers, just how cool he is.
Dan has just completed hosting the eighth Carnival of Liberty. This is the second of the Carnivals that he has hosted, which takes quite a lot of work and dedication. He’s taken a little creative license (much like Stephen on Carnival VI), and led into each section of the Carnival with topical song lyrics. Such a hep-cat!
Dan has linked me many times, which shows he has great taste, but the one area his blog truly stands out is in real estate advice. Dan is a realtor, and he talks about the many ways in which realtors will work for their own interests rather than the buyers, and gives the straight truth about what to do if you’re a buyer. Since I just bought a house, that information would have been great about 8 months ago, but I can’t complain. Luckily I didn’t see any of the nasty behavior he talks about out of my realtor, and our house is great, so it worked out well. But even more important, he gives a dispassionate look at the real estate market in general. When 48% of the population acting like it’s going to go up forever, and 48% of the market is screaming that it’s ready to tank, Dan is part of the 4% that is actually looking at the underlying metrics and giving real analysis. His words have made me very happy that I moved out of California, where things are looking much more grim than other areas of the country.
So go. Check out Searchlight Crusade. Even if you don’t like it, it can’t be any worse than what you read here, right?
August 22, 2005
Tandem story
Got this in an email today… I’m not sure if this is real or just some email chain, but it’s pretty funny.
——————————————
Here’s a prime example of “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” offered by an English professor from the University of Phoenix:
The professor told his class one day: “Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right. As homework tonight, one of you will write the first paragraph of a short story. You will e-mail your partner that paragraph and send another copy to me. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story and send it back, also sending another copy to me. The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back-and-forth. Remember to re-read what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. There is to be absolutely NO talking outside of the e-mails and anything you wish to say must be written in the e-mail. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached.”
The following was actually turned in by two of his English students: Jennifer and Paul.
THE STORY:
(story beyond the fold, due to a little bit of language)
Updates
I went through and updated the blogroll considerably. Specifically, I completely revamped the left-wing side to make me appear more “fair and balanced” 
In other news, I added a link to Americans for Fair Taxation and to The FairTax Blog. I’ve been invited to co-contribute to the FairTax Blog, and I recommend checking it out over there if you’re interested. I’ll probably cross-post some of my posts here, but some may be exclusively posted there. If you’re looking for information on the FairTax, that’s going to be the place to go.
Last, any college football fans must be getting pretty excited about now. I’m very happy to be back in a place (the South) where my unhealthy college football addiction is “moderate”. People out there in California just didn’t understand. For all your college football news, go to College Football News. You might see me offering some trash-talk in the Big Ten forum…
« Previous Page — Next Page »
I’ve got $10 million for the first nanny-stater to (literally) put a warning label on the sun.
Comment by Quincy — August 27, 2005 @ 10:36 pm
Brad, There are more and more studies that show that young children who eat fries as little as 2 times a week are at a 27% higher risk of getting cancer. My 3 1/2 yr. old grandson loves fires. He would live in McDonald’s if you let him. What better place, a play yard and fries, Heaven! She is now making sure he eats the alternate of fruit and juice when he gets a happy meal. I have read that fries are more dangerous because potatoes are high starch and they are fried in those high heat deep friers. I wouldn’t mind seeing a warning sign on those items. I know, that is not what a liberterian does, but I approve of this particular warning.
Comment by Lucy Stern — August 28, 2005 @ 11:42 am
Lucy,
“There are more and more studies that show that young children who eat fries as little as 2 times a week are at a 27% higher risk of getting cancer.”
What does this mean? The chance was 1/10000000 and now it is 27/100000000?
“She is now making sure he eats the alternate of fruit and juice when he gets a happy meal.”
So instead of fat and starch (and cancer I guess) he gets pure sugar?
These are warning labels without any benefit to justify the cost.
I have been convinced of only two things that cause cancer:
(1) Life, and (2) Laboratory testing.
Comment by KJ — August 29, 2005 @ 4:23 pm