…and their unintended consequences.
As Glenn says, the solution for this at the VA is to simply give the vets vouchers to seek medical care.
Long overdue. Of course, the problem is that many administrators’ jobs are dependent on this nonsense.
This characterization (and inability to distinguish between giving someone money and allowing them to keep what they earned) shows that Democrats do not believe in private property. Leftists never do. Unless it’s their own, of course.
Is the tide finally turning on it? It sure should be. This smiley-face fascism has gone on far too long.
A https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/12/21/ladies-gentlemen-take-places/ is good for all of us.
As I noted on Twitter, many people, ignorant of economics, are going to be surprised at how little reducing corporate tax rates will have on government revenue. Because corporations don’t pay taxes; they only collect them.
Corporations will “pay” less tax, but shareholders and employees will end up paying more, because their income will go up, and the increased economic growth from reduced prices will result in additional revenue as well.
Is it about to pop? It’s going to be very ugly.
Nina Teichholz has started a new organization to restore sanity to government dietary guidelines.
Dr. Sarah Hallberg and I are reaching out to you to ask you to support a group called The Nutrition Coalition, a non-profit based in Washington, DC, which has the sole of aim of reforming the decades-old Dietary Guidelines for Americans so that they are evidence-based, i.e., based on rigorous clinical trial science.
That’s why we are asking for an Inaugural Gift, to help our fundraising launch: a tax-deductible gift of $5, $10, $50 or whatever you can afford. DONATE HERE.
We need your support to educate policy makers, influencers and the public about the problems with the guidelines, so that people suffering from obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, among other nutrition-related diseases, get the sound nutritional advice that they need to become healthy.
The current guidelines have long been based upon weak science that has since been contradicted in large, government-funded clinical trials. Some of that original bad advice has been overturned: e.g., the caps on cholesterol were finally dropped in 2015.
These recommendations do not just lack a foundation in rigorous evidence. In some cases, they have been demonstrated to cause actual harm, particularly for those with metabolic diseases.
Will you make a tax-deductible gift of just $5 to reform the Guidelines?
Although you may think that no one relies on the government for their dietary advice, the reality is that the Guidelines are taught to/by nearly all healthcare practitioners—dieticians, nutritionists, doctors—working on the front line with patients. The Guidelines reach you, your family and your colleagues.
That’s why we need the Nutrition Coalition, and why our accomplishments are so important:
- In 2015, we proposed to the U.S. Congress that it mandate the first-ever outside peer-review of the Guidelines, by the National Academy of Medicine. Congress not only passed this mandate but also allocated $1 million for the study.
- That National Academy study came out just recently, with very strong language about how the Guidelines “lack scientific rigor” and fail to use a state-of the art systematic review methodology.
- Congressman Andy Harris wrote an op-ed on the Academy report, with the headline: “Mandate is clear: Flawed dietary guidelines process must be reformed.”
Americans follow the Guidelines, but their health has not improved. The process of drafting the Guidelines needs reform — but we need your help to support the sustained campaign this effort will require.
If you would like to DONATE to our worthy cause, so that ALL people have the chance to be healthy again, please CLICK HERE to make your tax-deductible donation!!!
Check out our website, along with our extremely strong Board of Directors and Scientific Council. We are launching with a serious team, and we aim for real reform. If you would like to make a significant contribution or have questions, please contact our Executive Director, Christina Hartman, at email@example.com
Seems like a very worthy cause.
Claire Berlinski (who we almost got to have coffee with in Paris a year ago), on #MeToo and if it’s gone too far:
If you are reading this, it means I have found an outlet that has not just fired an editor for sexual harassment. This article circulated from publication to publication, like old-fashioned samizdat, and was rejected repeatedly with a sotto voce, “Don’t tell anyone. I agree with you. But no.” Friends have urged me not to publish it under my own name, vividly describing the mob that will tear me from limb to limb and leave the dingoes to pick over my flesh. It says something, doesn’t it, that I’ve been more hesitant to speak about this than I’ve been of getting on the wrong side of the mafia, al-Qaeda, or the Kremlin?
But speak I must. It now takes only one accusation to destroy a man’s life. Just one for him to be tried and sentenced in the court of public opinion, overnight costing him his livelihood and social respectability. We are on a frenzied extrajudicial warlock hunt that does not pause to parse the difference between rape and stupidity. The punishment for sexual harassment is so grave that clearly this crime—like any other serious crime—requires an unambiguous definition. We have nothing of the sort.
…In recent weeks, I’ve acquired new powers. I have cast my mind over the ways I could use them. I could now, on a whim, destroy the career of an Oxford don who at a drunken Christmas party danced with me, grabbed a handful of my bum, and slurred, “I’ve been dying to do this to Berlinski all term!” That is precisely what happened. I am telling the truth. I will be believed—as I should be.
But here is the thing. I did not freeze, nor was I terrified. I was amused and flattered and thought little of it. I knew full well he’d been dying to do that. Our tutorials—which took place one-on-one, with no chaperones—were livelier intellectually for that sublimated undercurrent. He was an Oxford don and so had power over me, sensu strictu. I was a 20-year-old undergraduate. But I also had power over him—power sufficient to cause a venerable don to make a perfect fool of himself at a Christmas party. Unsurprisingly, I loved having that power. But now I have too much power. I have the power to destroy someone whose tutorials were invaluable to me and shaped my entire intellectual life much for the better. This is a power I do not want and should not have.
Yup. Read the whole thing.
[Update a while later]
The wandering eye is just part of the human anatomy.
Yup. We can control our behavior and fidelity, but it’s really hard not to look.
Plus, the up side of office flirtation.
And so far, so good for Claire.
So strange. Everyone likes it. I'd braced myself to hide under the bed, barricade the doors, and tell anyone who called I'd never even heard of this "Berlinski" woman. https://t.co/GkYA0jaKad
— Claire Berlinski (@ClaireBerlinski) December 7, 2017
Are women really victims?
Feminists of my mother’s generation resisted furiously the claims that women were too timid, too fragile, too neurotic and too easily upset to function in the public sphere. They won this battle. Sisters began doing it for themselves. Women took their places alongside men in boardrooms and political arenas, on lecture hall podiums and in operating theatres, in courts of law and in armies.
This is currently under threat from a cultural shift within feminism which has shifted the aim from female empowerment to status-by-victimhood. It threatens to undo the progress made for women, valorise fragility, discourage resilience, weaponise victimhood and fatally undermine gender relations. It’s not good for women to be treated as fragile victims rather than competent actors in the public sphere. It’s not good for either sex for men to become afraid that talking to women, complimenting women, criticising women, flirting with women or touching women in friendly greeting could destroy their careers and reputations.
You don’t say. One of the women who tells their story is my friend Amy Alkon.
[Update a few minutes later]
If you see ‘misogyny’ everywhere (even from other females!), then perhaps you need to step back and reflect. What is being objected to is not your gender but your behavior: your attempt to gain fame and build a career based on ‘victim’ status, your unfounded attacks on serious and responsible scientists in your field, and your irrational statements and general intolerance of anyone who is not in your ‘club’. This negative reaction to your behavior is not sexual harassment (or any kind of harassment) or discrimination.
Climate science has developed a perverse incentive structure that seems to reward this kind of unethical, bullying behavior — and I’m seeing more and more female scientists taking full advantage of this.
Unfortunately true. There are a lot of women in space and tech that I follow on Twitter, but I avoid getting into political discussions with them.
Sarah Hoyt: The sexual-harassment frenzy is madness, and must stop.
Can we be honest about women?
Thoughts from Sarah Hoyt on the ideological incoherence (and, as always, psychological projection) of the left:
All I was doing was pointing out he had no proof of his statement and in fact, there was plenty of proof to the contrary. Where it got interesting was his tactic in the argument. He started by calling me a snowflake and saying I was obviously hurt by what he said. I told him I wasn’t in the least hurt, just amused at his lack of reasoning, and furnished him with another half dozen names of great/rich writers. He tried to call me snowflake again, and then told me to go copulate with myself but in more common words. When that failed, he said he was deleting the thread because he’d obviously hurt people. Note that in none of this had he hurt me, not even with the profanity, nor had I or any of the people who agreed with me on that thread implied we were hurt. Somewhere between amused and appalled is not hurt.
I was discussing this argument with a friend later, and he said I was making the mistake of interpreting the words as words. Or of thinking any kind of thought was behind first calling me snowflake, and then saying he’d hurt people’s feelings.
He said that the whole thing was more a reaction on the level of “when I’m called snowflake it hurts me, so I’ll call her snowflake and that will hurt her” and when we didn’t cave to his argument, he couldn’t figure out how to get out of it other than apologizing for hurting our feelings.
He – he’s an academic – pointed out this is the whole point of post-modern analysis, be it of literature or society: words have no meaning and can be assigned arbitrary meanings according to the emotions they elicit.
He says that’s why the left is more and more resorting to shouting random slogans and words until it gets them the reaction they want. Not because they don’t know the meanings of words, but because they reject the idea that words have inherent meanings.
Like “pedophilia.” Or “liberal.”
Bob Zimmerman has thoughts on the fascist state of affairs at the universities.
Switch to our mobile site