In the midst of appropriately ridiculing Al Gore, Charles Krauthammer raises an interesting point:
Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming…
…because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised.
OK, so how is the global warming religion falsifiable? What would it take?
Life is getting harder for pimps. It may be the world’s second oldest profession, but one that has very little value added (it would have none if prostitution were legal).
Because they taste good, and they have essentially no relationship with coronary risk:
Overall, the literature does not offer much support for the idea that long term saturated fat intake has a significant effect on the concentration of blood cholesterol. If it’s a factor at all, it must be rather weak, which is consistent with what has been observed in multiple non-human species (13). I think it’s likely that the diet-heart hypothesis rests in part on an over-interpretation of short-term controlled feeding studies. I’d like to see a more open discussion of this in the scientific literature. In any case, these controlled studies have typically shown that saturated fat increases both LDL and HDL, so even if saturated fat did have a small long-term effect on blood cholesterol, as hinted at by some of the observational studies, its effect on heart attack risk would still be difficult to predict.
Actually, I have a simpler explanation — it’s simply an appealing theory, from a common-sense standpoint. You are what you eat, right?
Of course, it’s always dangerous to rely on “common sense” when it comes to complex topics like biochemistry. And yet the FDA builds such murderous concepts as the food pyramid on such shoddy research and thinking. Not to mention agri-industry lobbying, of course.
More thoughts from Elizabeth Scalia.
When I was growing up, it never occurred to me to aspire to get an Ivy League degree. Of course, I wasn’t even sure I wanted to go to college, and my high school grades (and lack of even taking the SAT) showed it.
[Update a while later]
“College for all” harms students.
From Clark Lindsey.
Thoughts on the incremental nature of the destruction of liberty. Unfortunately, it’s like a ratchet, and it’s a lot harder to get rid of bad laws than to create new ones.
When we last heard from Ezra Klein, he was explaining that it’s hard to understand the constitution because it’s over a hundred years old. Now, Jen Rubin takes the juice boxer to school on the nature of the judicial branch.
[Update a while later]
Losing a battle but winning the war against ObamaCare:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a statement stressing that Republicans had kept “their promise to seek repeal of the job-destroying health care law.” The House and Senate Republicans’ unanimity on ObamaCare repeal is an important message to the base and to independents who fret that politicians don’t keep campaign promises. Moreover, we now have a clear demarcation between the two parties on a central issue. If elections are about choices, voters will have a clear one in 2012. Republicans seem very happy about that. The Democrats? Not so much.
Well, they weren’t so unhappy as to not vote in lockstep with a political loser. People like Joe Manchin will have a tough reelection fight. That vote may have been suicidal, particularly after his campaign rhetoric.