There's P. J. O'Rourke content over at the Weekly
Standard. P. J. is eviscerating the Washington Post writers
trashing the anti-ObamaCare movement.
Us right-wing nuts sure is scary! That's the message from the Washington Post. To put this in language a conservative would understand, the fourth estate has been alarmed once again by the Burkean proclivities of our nation's citizens. The Post is in a panic about (to use its own descriptive terms) "birthers," "anti-tax tea-partiers," and "town hall hecklers."The term argumentum ad verecundiam is used, which I had to look up.
President Obama pledged, both tirelessly and tiresomely, to favor
"science" over "ideology" in formulating federal policy. That's
a good point to keep in the back of your mind while reading
by Gary Taubes on how science and public policy
interact on what you might think would be a very simple issue:
the health implications of salt consumption. It's not exactly
an "everything you know is wrong" article, more like "the whole
issue is way more complicated than you could imagine."
Everyone knows the recommendation: "Eat less salt and you will lower your blood pressure and live a longer, healthier life." Taubes says this message has been pounded into the citizenry for decades with "the indisputable force of gospel". The only problem is:
While the government has been denouncing salt as a health hazard for decades, no amount of scientific effort has been able to dispense with the suspicions that it is not. Indeed, the controversy over the benefits, if any, of salt reduction now constitutes one of the longest running, most vitriolic, and surreal disputes in all of medicine.A good thing to remember when the food nannies start hectoring you (or the legislature) with high-sodium horror stories. (Via Megan.)
I laughed out loud at the picture on this post
at Protein Wisdom. But you may need to be A Certain Age
to get it. For you youngsters, Hulu has a collection of clips
demonstrating the genius of Ms. Emily Litella.