It's going to be a long month.
Thursday, 26 July 2012
Everything is about the Olympics. Everything.
And the winner for dragging the Olympics into every news story, no matter how unrelated it may seem goes—inevitably—to the BBC...
It's going to be a long month.
It's going to be a long month.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
On the importance of defending small liberties
Via Churchmouse Campanologist (whose blog you should follow), Reason has a list of quotes from people fawning over Mike Bloomberg's ban on 'super-size' sodas. The perennially egregious Jamie "none of that low fat malarkey" Oliver makes an inevitable appearance:
But I was particularly struck by this quote from Prof. Lawrence Weisberg:
This is a common retort. Bloomberg's ban, we are told, is such a small infringement on liberty that it barely counts as an infringement at all. It only affects enormous bucket-sized guzzlers of fizzy garbage. Anyone who wishes to gorge themselves on pop can buy two smaller cups if they must. That being the case, those who complain must be hysterical libertarians and any protest against the law is self-evidently "ridiculous".
And so Michael Tomasky says...
The same argument was made in blunter terms by Drew Magary...
As a point of fact, it is untrue to say that Bloomberg has only banned obscenely large sodas which no right-minded person would want to drink. The ban applies to cups containing more than 16 American fluid ounces. 16 fluid ounces is only 480 ml, significantly less than a pint. Many's the time I have bought a pint of Coke in a pub and many's the time I have bought a still larger container in a cinema. I don't think I am alone in this, nor does it make me a glutton.
How many ageing revolutionaries get misty eyed when they think back to the culture wars of the 1970s, such as the Oz trial or the Gay News blasphemy lawsuit? Where were the 'liberal' pundits scoffing at the notion that producing juvenile pornography was too small a liberty to protect in those days? At whom were the left-wing taunts aimed at when the culture warriors were sticking it to the man by defending some obscure publication? Not at their fellow 'liberals', who could be relied upon to use every legal recourse to protect freedoms that the man on the Clapham omnibus thought "trivial" and unworthy of protection.
What is the Twitter joke trial if not a defence of small freedoms? It is universally agreed that the joke was unfunny, so where are the sneering commentators telling Stephen Fry to "shut the fuck up" and stop being a "pussy"? Where are the people saying "you can still make jokes about blowing up airports in private. Nobody's liberty's being taken away. Get over it"?
Where are the people who will fight to the death to defend the right of Ken Russell and Lars von Trier to release their tedious and puerile films when the multi-billionaire Bloomberg ("the man" by any description) decides on a whim to ban landlords from serving Pepsi in a pint glass? Where are these champions of free expression when the state decides to obliterate the tobacco industry's intellectual property or ban the drinks industry from advertising?
The truth is that we can get along just fine without 32 oz. servings of Sprite, just as we can get along fine without the director's cut of The Devils, smutty Rupert the Bear parodies and lame jokes about terrorism. The reason we protest when the state bans these things is not because we revere them in their own right, but because we hold freedom to have a value in and of itself.
It is inevitable that when the authorities infringe on liberty, they will start by targeting products and activities which have little public support. Free speech is undermined by focusing on extreme pornography and 'hate speech'. Civil liberties are undermined by focusing on terrorism and paedophiles. And the freedom to eat and drink what you want—arguably the most fundamental right of the lot—is undermined by focusing on 32 oz. sodas and wobbly-bottomed gourmands.
In each and every case, the enemy of liberty points to some nebulous definition of the 'public interest' to support his case (public morality, public safety, public health etc.), while the defender of liberty recognises that there is an important issue of principle at stake that goes far beyond the unpopular and perhaps unsavoury test case. We understand that the specific instance may seem "trivial" but the wider principle is not.
It therefore falls to the liberal to defend things which may be unpleasant, unpopular or of interest only to a small minority. It is his job to defend "trivial issues of personal freedom", not least because if he does so, he will never have to worry about bigger issues of personal freedom.
We hear a lot about how we shouldn’t be ‘nannying’ people with laws about how they live their lives, but with such a massive problem as the obesity epidemic to deal with, we are way past the point where can trust people to make better choices.
But I was particularly struck by this quote from Prof. Lawrence Weisberg:
"The trivial issues of personal freedom in this case pale before the public health and welfare exigency."
This is a common retort. Bloomberg's ban, we are told, is such a small infringement on liberty that it barely counts as an infringement at all. It only affects enormous bucket-sized guzzlers of fizzy garbage. Anyone who wishes to gorge themselves on pop can buy two smaller cups if they must. That being the case, those who complain must be hysterical libertarians and any protest against the law is self-evidently "ridiculous".
And so Michael Tomasky says...
This talk of “freedom” is absurd. No one’s freedom is being taken away. When the rule goes into effect, probably by September, assuming the city’s board of health votes it through (it's appointed by the mayor), New Yorkers will still be able to buy these beverages. And those who really feel that they will perish unless they have 32 ounces of Mountain Dew Code Red can simply buy two. Nothing is being banned, and no one’s being arrested.
The same argument was made in blunter terms by Drew Magary...
Democracy is not OH MY GOD THESE LAWS WILL MAKE US PUSSIES! Democracy is people working together to sort out just what the rules of society should be. Obviously, this process is labored and often hilariously corrupt, but that's what living in a "free country" is supposed to mean. It doesn't mean that you get to grab a gun and storm City Hall just because you think a soda ban is some kind of sign of the End Times. It's fucking soda. Don't be such a pussy that you can't live without a 42 oz. cup of the shit. If you're the type to flip out just because you can't have that, then who's the real pussy?
As a point of fact, it is untrue to say that Bloomberg has only banned obscenely large sodas which no right-minded person would want to drink. The ban applies to cups containing more than 16 American fluid ounces. 16 fluid ounces is only 480 ml, significantly less than a pint. Many's the time I have bought a pint of Coke in a pub and many's the time I have bought a still larger container in a cinema. I don't think I am alone in this, nor does it make me a glutton.
As for the magnitude of the liberty being infringed, no one is claiming that a ban on large sodas represents the "End Times" and no one thinks anyone is going to "perish" if they can't have an extra-large Mountain Dew. But what are defenders of liberty to do if not defend small liberties? In a liberal democracy, defending small liberties is the only thing civil libertarians should have to do.
How many ageing revolutionaries get misty eyed when they think back to the culture wars of the 1970s, such as the Oz trial or the Gay News blasphemy lawsuit? Where were the 'liberal' pundits scoffing at the notion that producing juvenile pornography was too small a liberty to protect in those days? At whom were the left-wing taunts aimed at when the culture warriors were sticking it to the man by defending some obscure publication? Not at their fellow 'liberals', who could be relied upon to use every legal recourse to protect freedoms that the man on the Clapham omnibus thought "trivial" and unworthy of protection.
What is the Twitter joke trial if not a defence of small freedoms? It is universally agreed that the joke was unfunny, so where are the sneering commentators telling Stephen Fry to "shut the fuck up" and stop being a "pussy"? Where are the people saying "you can still make jokes about blowing up airports in private. Nobody's liberty's being taken away. Get over it"?
Where are the people who will fight to the death to defend the right of Ken Russell and Lars von Trier to release their tedious and puerile films when the multi-billionaire Bloomberg ("the man" by any description) decides on a whim to ban landlords from serving Pepsi in a pint glass? Where are these champions of free expression when the state decides to obliterate the tobacco industry's intellectual property or ban the drinks industry from advertising?
The truth is that we can get along just fine without 32 oz. servings of Sprite, just as we can get along fine without the director's cut of The Devils, smutty Rupert the Bear parodies and lame jokes about terrorism. The reason we protest when the state bans these things is not because we revere them in their own right, but because we hold freedom to have a value in and of itself.
It is inevitable that when the authorities infringe on liberty, they will start by targeting products and activities which have little public support. Free speech is undermined by focusing on extreme pornography and 'hate speech'. Civil liberties are undermined by focusing on terrorism and paedophiles. And the freedom to eat and drink what you want—arguably the most fundamental right of the lot—is undermined by focusing on 32 oz. sodas and wobbly-bottomed gourmands.
In each and every case, the enemy of liberty points to some nebulous definition of the 'public interest' to support his case (public morality, public safety, public health etc.), while the defender of liberty recognises that there is an important issue of principle at stake that goes far beyond the unpopular and perhaps unsavoury test case. We understand that the specific instance may seem "trivial" but the wider principle is not.
It therefore falls to the liberal to defend things which may be unpleasant, unpopular or of interest only to a small minority. It is his job to defend "trivial issues of personal freedom", not least because if he does so, he will never have to worry about bigger issues of personal freedom.
Monday, 23 July 2012
Soda cranks
From the LA Times...
It never ends, does it?
Well, duh. Why else would the swivel-eyed, biscuit-hating, vegan, coffee-fearing cranks of the Center for Science in the Public Interest be involved?
What was that?
Does that not tell you something? How much empirical evidence would you like before you give up on a crusade that blames drinks—which provide just 7 percent of calories to Americans—on your bogus epidemic?
Sorry dude. Heard it too many times before. "All we want is non-smoking seats in restaurants, we're not trying to stop people smoking completely." It doesn't work like that with you guys, does it? Not really the compromising kind, are ya?
Besides, who are you to decide that Americans are going to go back to one occasional small serving? Get a job, sir, preferably one that involves minding your own business.
It's not controversial. It's not addictive. It doesn't meet any psychiatrist's criteria for addiction, the Center for Science in the Public Interest isn't a serious organisation and this is a non-issue. Next.
Bullseye. That's all it is. Now go away. If you want to know what makes people obese then don't write letters to the Surgeon General. Go see her personally and follow her to the canteen.
More than 100 health organizations and municipal public health departments, along with more than two dozen scientists, have asked the U.S. surgeon general to issue a report on sugar-sweetened soft drinks – akin to the landmark 1964 report on tobacco.
It never ends, does it?
A surgeon general’s report, the letter says, could evaluate the science and appraise the health effects of sugar-sweetened beverages. And it “would pave the way for policy measures at all levels of government.”
Well, duh. Why else would the swivel-eyed, biscuit-hating, vegan, coffee-fearing cranks of the Center for Science in the Public Interest be involved?
“I think people are coming around to the notion that sugary drinks aren’t healthy, and one of the astonishing things is that per capita consumption of [nondiet] carbonated drinks has gone down by 24% between 1998 and 2011, which is a big under-the-radar change in people’s drinking habits,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organizer of the letter.
What was that?
"...per capita consumption of [nondiet] carbonated drinks has gone down by 24% between 1998 and 2011..."
Does that not tell you something? How much empirical evidence would you like before you give up on a crusade that blames drinks—which provide just 7 percent of calories to Americans—on your bogus epidemic?
Jacobson said Friday that the “goal isn’t to wipe out sugary drinks completely,” but to return “soft drinks back in the place they were 50 years ago, an occasional small serving.”
Sorry dude. Heard it too many times before. "All we want is non-smoking seats in restaurants, we're not trying to stop people smoking completely." It doesn't work like that with you guys, does it? Not really the compromising kind, are ya?
Besides, who are you to decide that Americans are going to go back to one occasional small serving? Get a job, sir, preferably one that involves minding your own business.
And among the questions that remains in the debate over caloric soft drinks is whether there’s any addictive aspect – a question that remains unsettled. “That’s the blockbuster question – is sugar addictive? It’s certainly controversial.”
It's not controversial. It's not addictive. It doesn't meet any psychiatrist's criteria for addiction, the Center for Science in the Public Interest isn't a serious organisation and this is a non-issue. Next.
Jacobson said. “It may be that it tastes good so people like it.”
Bullseye. That's all it is. Now go away. If you want to know what makes people obese then don't write letters to the Surgeon General. Go see her personally and follow her to the canteen.
 |
| Surgeon General Regina M. Benjamin |
A most peculiar man
The gentleman above is Dr. Gagik G. Melikyan. He has written a book called Guilty Until Proven Innocent which I am aware of thanks to a review in Chemical & Engineering News. I have not read this book and probably never will, but it appears to be an extreme expression of the chemophobia of our times.
According to the review, Dr. Melikyan thinks that "consuming some substances found in nature can be as detrimental to the human body as exposure to hazardous synthetic compounds" and that "people should question the veracity of claims that certain “natural” products will improve their health or extend their lives."
I agree with that. Every substance encountered in the universe is a chemical (to quote Wikipedia.) Most, but not all, of the modern fear of "man made" chemicals is tree-hugging hippy crap rooted in scientific ignorance and appeals to nature. Such fears are particularly widespread in Prof. Melikyan's stomping ground of Californ-i-a. He, however, appears to be more fearful of natural chemicals than of the manmade variety, and he is prepared to take the precautionary principle to ludicrous extremes.
Melikyan firmly backs the notion of precaution, especially in the case of natural products that are complex mixtures of chemicals.
And that includes such everyday items as coffee...
He even examines an aqueous mixture that is almost sacred to many: coffee. He dares argue that people should forgo drinking java until scientists can show explicitly and independently that every chemical in coffee and all metabolites are safe for long-term consumption. He brushes off people’s passion for coffee. “There was life before coffee, and there will be life after it,” Melikyan states.
Such a task could easily take centuries. According to this (not necessarily authoritative) source, there are around a thousand chemicals in a cup of coffee, and proving total safety is not a simple matter. As coffee has been used for millennia, couldn't we just take its safety and efficacy as read? Apparently not, and tea doesn’t get a pass either.
“I am concerned that tea, a physiologically active natural extract, is made readily available to the general public,” he writes. “Maybe its consumption should be more restricted, more controlled, and scientifically monitored?”
As I mentioned, Dr. Melikyan is a resident of California and has absorbed the prohibitionist mentality of the Golden State.
Melikyan’s attacks on coffee and tea are just a warm-up for his mind-boggling policy conclusions, which he acknowledges will invite intense criticism.
"Fools! I'll destroy them all!"
"Once we have established the structures of all food compounds, their behavior inside the human body, the metabolic pathways, the structures of compounds enzymatically formed inside the body, and their physiological properties, we, as a society, can rest assured knowing that the products that constitute the bulk of the consumer basket are truly safe for consumption."
Note how "we, as a society" has become indistinguishable from "I, as a fruitcake".
The dose makes the poison, my friends. Forget that, and madness reigns.
Sunday, 15 July 2012
Britain's binge drinking crisis revisited
The success of the neo-temperance campaign depends on repeating the same facts over and over again, even when they don't deserve repetition and they're not really facts.
So I make no apologies for returning to a point I have made several times before: there is not an epidemic of binge drinking, as this document from the House of Commons library reminds us.
"Binge drinking" is defined as having more than 6 units for a woman and more than 8 units for a man on one or more occasions in a week, ie. four or more average drinks in an evening would do the trick for both genders. That is not "binge drinking", that is "drinking". If only one in five of us are exceeding these feeble limits, Britain is not a nation of binge drinkers, we are a nation of lightweights.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Guardian...
So I make no apologies for returning to a point I have made several times before: there is not an epidemic of binge drinking, as this document from the House of Commons library reminds us.
The prevalence of binge drinking among young men and women has fallen since 1998. In 2010 the prevalence among young men remained at 24% while among young women it fell to its lowest recorded level at 17%.
"Binge drinking" is defined as having more than 6 units for a woman and more than 8 units for a man on one or more occasions in a week, ie. four or more average drinks in an evening would do the trick for both genders. That is not "binge drinking", that is "drinking". If only one in five of us are exceeding these feeble limits, Britain is not a nation of binge drinkers, we are a nation of lightweights.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Guardian...
The UK Faculty of Public Health (FPH) says harmful drinking has become so common that "no nonsense" warnings displayed in a prominent place on alcohol products are needed to overcome widespread public ignorance about the dozens of medical conditions excessive consumption can cause.
Saturday, 14 July 2012
Graphic warnings for alcohol. Fancy that!
I would like to officially announce my retirement from warning about the slippery slope. If non-smokers haven't got the message after this, they never will...
The most ridiculous job title I've ever heard of from the most disgusting trade union in the country. A pox on her and a pox on the BMA, the FPH and every other organisation that goes along with this foul but entirely predictable policy.
"But all we want is non-smoking sections in restaurants. Is that too much to ask?"
Suck it up, suckers. Plain packaging for alcohol in about three years, I'd say.
And it's not just the UK Faculty of Public Health, of course...Alcohol packaging should carry graphic health warnings, urge doctorsCigarette-style images would help public understand excessive drinking's link to diseases and violence, says health body
Bottles of beer, wine and spirits should carry cigarette-style graphic health warnings to make clear that alcohol is linked to cancer, infertility and violence, doctors are urging.
The UK Faculty of Public Health (FPH) says harmful drinking has become so common that "no nonsense" warnings displayed in a prominent place on alcohol products are needed to overcome widespread public ignorance about the dozens of medical conditions excessive consumption can cause.
Arresting images, such as a liver after years of alcohol-related cirrhosis or a victim of violence, could force drinkers to realise the risks they take with their health, says the FPH, which represents 3,300 public health specialists working in the NHS, local government and academia.
The British Medical Association, which represents 140,000 of the UK's 200,000 doctors, also endorsed the FPH's call. "We support the use of written health warnings on alcohol products", said Dr Vivienne Nathanson, its director of professional activities.
The most ridiculous job title I've ever heard of from the most disgusting trade union in the country. A pox on her and a pox on the BMA, the FPH and every other organisation that goes along with this foul but entirely predictable policy.
"But all we want is non-smoking sections in restaurants. Is that too much to ask?"
Suck it up, suckers. Plain packaging for alcohol in about three years, I'd say.
Thursday, 12 July 2012
The open-minded Andrew Lansley
This is Britain's health secretary Andrew Lansley talking about the plain packaging consultation in April this year...
But hello! Who's this on the pro-plain packs website—a website that is largely funded by the government?
They're not even pretending any more, are they?
Truly, this consultation couldn't be more of a farce if it was being run by Inspector Clouseau and Mrs Doubtfire from a Torquay hotel.
"It is an open question at the moment. This is a particular issue .. we have got a whole range of measures to try and reduce tobacco smoking in this country and control tobacco.
"Would plain packaging of the type you are demonstrating, would it offer a significant additional health benefit? At the moment actually our minds are open on this subject - mine too."
But hello! Who's this on the pro-plain packs website—a website that is largely funded by the government?
They're not even pretending any more, are they?
Truly, this consultation couldn't be more of a farce if it was being run by Inspector Clouseau and Mrs Doubtfire from a Torquay hotel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)