Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description

Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description

As about one hundred fifty blogs and national media have it, Homeland Security, that omnipresent Orwellian agency of Big Brother is up to no good on pornography. Certainly our former Attorney General spent far too many resources on the subject of pornography and its sibling, indecency. Power corrupts, and one of the first priorities of a certain mindset is supression of sexuality. Thus it is not surprising that cops of all stripes abuse their power in this way.

What is heartening, however, is that, in the instant case at least, the librarian had the Homeland Security operatives arrested, or at least removed from the premises by the police, and they seem to have had some career reverses as a result of their officious action. In spite of the concerns in some quarters over Howard Stern's flight from free radio in an attempt to be free of the brain police, there seems to be some sort of a balance between the sexually repressed Ashcrofts and the Libertines of the Left.

There will always be those who break the rules in pursuit of their own agenda. Cops will arrest masturbators, and Stern will claim that it is the brain police, and not the five hundred million dollars, that made him begin to charge for his show. But this is the everpresent struggle - to find a balance. In the case of the librarian vs Homeland Security, our right to view adult content won.

LMAOFOTGRITD

LMAOFOTGRITD

In the New York Times today there is an article about a study of diet in which it was found that low fat diets do nothing to extend human life. This shows one of the primary tenets of Zero Base Thinking, which is that, to a large extent, science is a political enterprise, and scientists are political creatures. Even their excuses echo the excuses of political failure. As in:

Dr. Dean Ornish, a longtime promoter of low-fat diets and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, Calif., said that the women did not reduce their fat to low enough levels or eat enough fruits and vegetables, and that the study, even at eight years, did not give the diets enough time.

That sounds the same as the excuses given by the Left for the failure of communism, i.e. not pure enough, not given a long enough time. Or maybe even that not enough have died. Yet.

It gets really funny when you hear the same quacks who told everyone to forego the best foods now making excuses, or outright denials of this study. In one article, for which "more than 50 specialists in heart disease, cancer and nutrition" were contacted, well, rather than having me characterize their responses, read them for yourself. A small sample:

"Should these results lead to any changes in public health recommendations? Absolutely not. Remember, the dietary goals of this study were not entirely reached, and there is enough reason to continue with research studies that would tighten up the weaknesses and then see the results." — Keith-Thomas Ayoob, nutrition and pediatrics professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

This quack is actually saying that, rather than following the advice one can garner from this "Rolls Royce of studies" we should continue to deny ourselves the finest foods for the rest of our lives, waiting for better information! What a laugh we had over this one at ZBT headquarters this morning!

What this shows is the limitations of science, and the extent to which politics and power considerations color all human activity. This study does not say that eating a healthy diet is not important. It does say that science does not know exactly what constitutes a healthy diet. And it shows clearly that the advice that has been given to us over the last fifty years by the scientific establishment, backed up by our government, will not be altered easily, and not by mere facts. Too much is riding on the continuation of the present regime, and new ideas, like the Atkins-style low carbohydrate approach to weight loss, will be blotted out.

As for me, I never stopped putting butter on my bacon sandwiches, never trimmed the fat off my pastrami. Imagine, all those poor fools who gave up one of the greatest joys of a life well lived, and now we gourmands get the last laugh. Color me as LMAOFOTGRITD. (For those who do not speak technogeek, that means "Laughing My Ass Off, Falling On The Ground, Rolling In The Dirt.")

Link courtesy of Daily Pundit.

Can Government have Any Secrets Anymore?

Can Government have Any Secrets Anymore?

In this age. which has been described as post-historical by Frank Fukuyama, can a nation be allowed to defend itself, when such a defense might require us to keep secrets from the enemy? That is the question before us, and it is taken up, or at least a part of it is, in an article in Commentary magazine that explores whether the New York Times can be allowed to release crucial secrets to the public, or can (and should) government take steps to stop such disclosure. As they state:

Ever since 9/11, U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement authorities have bent every effort to prevent our being taken once again by surprise. An essential component of that effort, the interception of al-Qaeda electronic communications around the world, has been conducted by the NSA, the government arm responsible for signals intelligence. The particular NSA program now under dispute, which the Times itself has characterized as the U.S. government’s “most closely guarded secret,” was set in motion by executive order of the President shortly after the attacks of September 11. Just as the Times has reported, it was designed to track and listen in on a large volume of calls and e-mails without applying for warrants to the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) courts, whose procedures the administration deemed too cumbersome and slow to be effective in the age of cell phones, calling cards, and other rapidly evolving forms of terrorist telecommunication.

I believe that, in a dangerous world, we must give this power to the government. It is, IMHO, one of the few powers that we must give them, but without granting it the power to defend us, there is no reason to have a government at all. And I must ask, just who is it who wants to take this power away from the government? After all, it can not be a mere coincidence that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01. They have managed to protect us through some means. Anyone who believes that we have been protected by the Transportation Safety Administration, or Homeland Security, has clearly not flown in an airplane in the last four years. Indeed, anyone who believes that, has no need of an airplane in order to fly.

Rational living in a complicated world requires making rational choices. This is not about the government listening into our conversations about sex, drugs, or rock 'n roll. This is not about the books we read. This is about survival itself. Anyone who believes that we are strong enough, and safe enough, to follow a 1960s peace rally line in truly dangerous times, must have left a large part of his brain back there as well. To protect us, the government must keep some secrets from the enemy. That necessitates keeping secrets from us. We have a choice on this. We can grow up, or we can surrender.