Nik Zacharias argues that we conscienti­ous omnivores have no real long term solution to the problem of factory farming. The truth is our solution just doesn’t jibe with his ideology that states a “huge part of the problem is over-consu­mption and the ubiquitous nature [...]]]> Once again, the ideology of vegetarian­ism trumps reason and logic.

Nik Zacharias argues that we conscienti­ous omnivores have no real long term solution to the problem of factory farming. The truth is our solution just doesn’t jibe with his ideology that states a “huge part of the problem is over-consu­mption and the ubiquitous nature of animal products.” This begs the question.

What were humans eating before modern agriculture? The answer is animals.

He even goes so far as to list all of the problems with vegetarian­ism from a socio-econ­omic standpoint (including the potential for slave labor and unsustaina­bility) and then dismisses them outright as a problem that can be solved in the future. This is the worst kind of apologetic­! That the short term gain of vegetarian­ism is worth “animals [who] are also incidentally killed in crop agricultur­e,” “no guarantee that all our food choices will be sustainabl­e or healthy,” and “sustainable and animal-fre­e products could also involve the use of slave labor and terrible conditions for workers.”

But who cares? You vegetarian­s are, by definition­, more conscienti­ous than omnivores. People who eat meat never consider the ramificati­ons of their consumptio­n! We are blind and ignorant of our effects on the planet. Otherwise we wouldn’t be eating meat! QED

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

“I believe that if a Higher Power does exist, demonstrations of existence and the creation of miracles are an unnecessary proof. I think that these are the requirements of a scientifically driven society, but we [...]]]> My friend and fellow Guinness Book of World Records holder has an interesting comment for me about my last post:

“I believe that if a Higher Power does exist, demonstrations of existence and the creation of miracles are an unnecessary proof. I think that these are the requirements of a scientifically driven society, but we must not assume that since it cannot be proven physically means that it does not exist. Perhaps it would be more correct to assume that since it cannot be proven physically then it does not exist in our particular universe. I am going to assume, for the sake of example, that you love your wife. Now you know that you love your wife. Love is not something which can be measured or quantified or even seen and yet you know that it exists. Perhaps it can be physically recorded in synapses or chemical changes in the body, but these examples cannot begin to explain the feelings, the attraction, or the care that is associated with love. You could buy her flowers, cook her dinner or give her a massage, and yet none of these actions are necessary or truly define what it is to love. I believe that this is a quality that a Higher Power would possess. How can one quantify love, understanding, sympathy or empathy? And how would these things be measured? And yet, I believe, they exist.”

I wanted to respond more thoroughly to this than in the comments section.

Certainly I think it is difficult to quantify something as nebulous as “love.” It is also quite easy to perceive that love exists outside of these compassionate and thoughtful actions which the feeling of love motivates. In fact, let us assume that is true: Love exists outside of the actions which it motivates. Now, let us presume that those actions, buying flowers, cooking dinners, giving massages, and even chemical changes do not manifest themselves in any way. Then how can we figure that love even exists? You could only say that love exists outside of some physical realm that we can perceive with our mundane senses. And yet, we learn about love through the actions of people we presume love us. In fact, if they do not act in ways we perceive as love we come to question whether or not they love us at all! How often can someone say they love you without showing the constant and subtle and overt actions that convince them it is true before you really question their feelings for you? This is the impetus for the now overused cliche, “But what have you done for me lately?”

I presume that we all think that love could exist without the associate actions, but I don’t think anyone would be very confident about assigning loving to a person who never acts lovingly.

The same with god or Higher Power. Certainly, we can presume that a god exists outside the realms of perception but without objective actions or proofs of communication there is certainly reason to question it’s existence. We may feel that god exists for us, but if it doesn’t exist for us all then what is missing? Either love and god are subjective human experiences that occur within our realm of mundane senses or it is of no use to us.

I am also putting aside the fact that something supernatural cannot affect us by definition. Otherwise it would be a natural occurrence.

Why are Harold Camping and his followers considered crazy by other Christians? So they think that Jesus is returning tomorrow at 6pm. Why is that crazy? Especially when 40% of Christians think Jesus will return within their lifetime. And all Christians think Jesus will return at some [...]]]> I just wanted to make a quick point.

Why are Harold Camping and his followers considered crazy by other Christians? So they think that Jesus is returning tomorrow at 6pm. Why is that crazy? Especially when 40% of Christians think Jesus will return within their lifetime. And all Christians think Jesus will return at some point in a manner similar to that which is described in the Bible.

So who is crazy? Camper’s group professes to know the day. The difference in crazy is a matter of degree. In fact, I have more respect for Camper’s followers in that they have the courage of their convictions and have fulfilled their duty to God as they see it. Many have given up their wealth, their families, their jobs to wonder in poverty and proselytize the Word of God. How many modern Christians have the courage to do this?

One might argue that knowing a definitive date makes it easier to sacrifice yourself since you have the believe of an imminent reward. But what of those 40 percenters who believe Jesus will definitely return within their lifetime? Isn’t one lifetime of hardship and sacrifice for the Lord a small price to pay for an eternity at His right hand? Especially if you are so certain of His return.

I suspect that the ones charging Camper’s followers with crazy are somewhat insincere about their belief or they don’t want to give up their earthly luxuries for a certain event with an uncertain date. I mean, come on! They’re not crazy!

I am appalled at the treatment that Bradley Manning has received at the hands of our government. I would have thought that draconian measures of this nature were reserved for the annuls of medieval history, or at least, the Bush Administration. The charge recently brought against him of “aiding the enemy” is so [...]]]> Mr. President,

I am appalled at the treatment that Bradley Manning has received at the hands of our government. I would have thought that draconian measures of this nature were reserved for the annuls of medieval history, or at least, the Bush Administration. The charge recently brought against him of “aiding the enemy” is so broad with far reaching implications about government accountability that I have serious doubts about whether or not you or your cabinet is seriously concerned about human rights or liberty or democracy.

If the US military means to make an example of him to avoid risking other leaks that would benefit Americans but possibly embarrass the military or our nation and our allies then I propose two solutions:

1. Stop doing those things that you and everyone else knows is wrong and could lead to embarrassment.
or
2. Join the wide ranks of the unabashed imperialists who do not peddle in hypocrisy or doublespeak.

Speaking to a brick wall,

Levi Wilson

I like Ron Paul. He doesn’t bullshit and he tells you where he stands. But I find that the principled Libertarian stance against taxation and progressive taxation to be puzzling. There is always some vague explanation about markets and their efficiency but I always get the nagging sense [...]]]> Psyche! Taxation is not the enemy of liberty.

I like Ron Paul. He doesn’t bullshit and he tells you where he stands. But I find that the principled Libertarian stance against taxation and progressive taxation to be puzzling. There is always some vague explanation about markets and their efficiency but I always get the nagging sense that what Libertarians are really pissed about is giving a portion of their money to people whom they view as lazy or deficient in proper character. It’s unfair to take away money from hard working people and give it to the less deserving, they reason. That’s what they perceive taxation to be about so why not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ron Paul has said,

‎”A casual acceptance of the principle behind high taxation, with an income tax and an inheritance tax, is incompatible with a principled belief in a true republic. It is impossible to maintain a high tax system without the sacrifice of liberty and an undermining of property ownership. If kept in place, such a system will undermine prosperity, regardless of how well off we may presently be.”

Of course, this isn’t true and saying so doesn’t make it so.

Taxation, especially progressive, has it’s place in a civilized society. To quote Adam Smith, a favorite of the free marketeers:

“…the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.”

Also,

“When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, & etc. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, & etc. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country.” (emphasis mine)

His justification is that public services including maintaining infrastructure and defense benefit the whole and therefore ought to be supported by the whole. But, (and I presume the real issue is not the libertarian stance on what ought to be the maximum function of government) he also understood that the poor are not necessarily so because of a fundamental character defect and the rich are not necessarily so because they are so diligent. Those who are diligent and rich become so by taking advantage of a vast and efficient (sometimes) infrastructure supported by taxpayer moneys. As my prominent comedian friend mentions, he doesn’t mind paying higher taxes because he uses more of the roads and phone lines and other public services, etc, than the average person to make his money. This is the case with most people who make lots and lots of money. They take advantage of existing infrastructure and technologies maintained largely through public funding to garner their wealth. Granted, this is not always the case, but there are forums to create public subsidies to aid corporations and businesses and individual entrepreneurs who are mostly funded by private investment (This doesn’t work perfectly, but again, baby and bathwater). A wage worker at McDonald’s doesn’t take advantage of public services to their fullest extent and his work is supported by private infrastructure which is why he makes a negotiated wage and McDonald’s takes a majority of the profit. Therefore, the wager’s taxes are low. McDonald’s in turn benefits from an exponentially large proportion of publicly maintained infrastructure for its daily operations and therefore pays more taxes. So, as it turns out progressive taxation is fair. But it has to be understood in the proper context. It is too easy to take for granted the infrastructure that makes our lives and livelihoods tenable and how they are maintained.

With this in mind, I do not take the principled stance that taxation is theft or an enemy to liberty. Freedom, as they say, isn’t free. In no case in the history of the world has liberty been a free commodity. We fight and die for it. Sometimes we pay for it.

Actually, my wife and I went on an ice cream tour of Princeton, NJ. And well met it was, indeed! There is plenty of ice [...]]]> It’s January and I’ve been absent for a while. In spite of the Holidays I didn’t eat as badly as I wanted. More ice cream than normal. But what’s normal?

Actually, my wife and I went on an ice cream tour of Princeton, NJ. And well met it was, indeed! There is plenty of ice cream to be had in quaint downtown Princeton.

The first stop was The Bent Spoon. The Bent Spoon is right inside Palmer’s Square and serves some very unique and well crafted gelato styled ice creams as well as sorbet. I usually mix a scoop of their vanilla with blood orange sorbet. It’s as good as you imagine. This go around I got eggnog, a flavor which New York City’s Van Leeuwen overwhelms me with a delightful blast of nutmeg. Not so much nutmeg in TBS’s eggnog as the spicy twang of rum. In fact, so much rum hit my nose it seemed like I was eating a shot glass! But then again, I’m not a rum person. The  rum cake I got in the Bahamas overwhelmed me. That being said I’m sure the single malt sipping aristocrats that inhabit the neighborhood surround one of the nation’s premiere Ivy League schools would have reveled in it’s oaky bouquet. It is oaky, right? That’s the kind of wood this whiskey is stored in? For a Kentucky boy I know precious little about it!

I have to say, TBS was a traditional stop for me. But my taste for it has waned as of late. I can’t put my finger on it.

Next stop, world famous Thomas Sweets! It’s world famous as Albert Einstein’s favorite ice cream. Well, not exactly. I was told this once but TS was founded in 1979 and Einstein died in 1955. Of course, with his work on Relativity he could have traveled to the future and had it. Turns out the picture on the wall of Einstein licking ice cream is just that. Einstein licking anonymous unbranded ice cream. That isn’t to say TS doesn’t have good ice cream. This is another traditional stop for me and anyone else who frequents Princeton. This place will mix any candy bar or cookie into a mash of diabetic coma inducing sugar bomb of awesome. Just order any of their various flavors and choose among their large array of crumbled sweet confections. They toss it into a giant industrial mixer and Zappho! You’ll never be the same.

Last stop, The Halo Pub. This is a curious establishment to me. I wouldn’t have even approached the place had my wife not told of some vague legend of ice cream from this storefront. It looks exactly as advertised. A pub. In the front is a small sign with a crude painting of ice cream. But once you get inside you find a dizzying selection of hard ice cream as you would never have imagined. At the ready is usually a lone weary and bedraggled scooper with one huge arm failing to service the small line of people ordering ice cream, coffee, and attempting to pay for ice cream or coffee. Once you get the ice cream you realize THP is one of Princeton’s best kept secrets. The milk is from a local farm, the ice cream is just sweet enough without overwhelming the other ingredients. The pub quickly overtook TBS as my favorite ice cream joint.

I had vanilla and pistachio.

Reading the article I noticed he previously [...]]]> Rush Limbaugh has finally pointed diet and exercise for the Liberal Left conspiracy that he’s always known it to be. That’s probably why he’s still a fatty. He’s referring to a new report from CNN that describes a professor who apparently lost weight eating nothing but Twinkies.

Reading the article I noticed he previously tried to lose weight with the conventional low-fat mostly plants and whole grains diet. I also found that the prof didn’t only eat Twinkies when he abandoned the conventional “healthy” diet. He just didn’t exclude Twinkies. I imagine what he did was increase his fat intake as that is considered a no-no. In my opinion increasing fat is a good thing, even saturated fats (though I wouldn’t recommend the artificially hydrogenated fats this guy is eating.). Doing the opposite of the USDA recommended dietary guidelines allowed him to lose weight and increase his blood profile even while eating processed junk foods! This is similar to the experience of comedian Tom Naughton who created a minority report documentary as answer to Morgan Spurlock’s Supersize Me. Naughton spent one month eating nothing but McDonald’s and lost weight while improving his blood profile. The film is called Fathead and it’s very enlightening. His blog is also very informative, funny, and well researched. You’ll find plenty of ammo to fire at the low-fat advocates in your life.

Of course, eating junk food is anathema according to the Paleo Diet ethos, but I’m not one to shun a good dessert (as long as its gluten free and not too often eaten). Also, keep in mind that eating is a communal activity and it doesn’t pay to limit your diet so much that you alienate your friends and any ability to socialize. We, as human animals, are social creatures and while I believe health is the most important quality of life consideration, family and friends are a very close second. And if you can’t go out for a chocolate mousse every once in a while you’re going to miss out on some important social time.

Even if a Paleo Diet regimen will lengthen your maximum lifespan (which is no guarantee) life is still short and relationships are what make it more tolerable. I’ll have the cheesecake.

Update: John Durant points out (correctly) that professor Haub and many people can lose weight restricting calories and eating nothing but crap. Is it healthy? No. It creates a situation some of my Paleo buddies call “skinny fat.” You’ve seen her. She’s really skinny. Not so much in a Twiggy kind of way but more of an Auschwitz kind of way. She eats a salad for lunch. Maybe a bagel with low-fat cream cheese for breakfast. A sugary Jamba Juice later in the day. She probably only consumes around 1300 calories a day. She has no muscle tone because she lacks muscle. If she stands up too fast she passes out. That is skinny fat.

I worked with a girl once who decided she would lose weight by trimming her calories to 400 a day. She didn’t show up for work one day because she collapsed on the subway after 5 days. She’s not fat. She doesn’t have an eating disorder. She just thought that’s how you lose a couple of extra pounds quickly. And why wouldn’t she think that? Calories in, calories out, right?

I’m not particularly advocating eating Twinkies all day and every day. I just don’t think dessert should be excluded. When I have a mousse its usually followed by a week of very strict eating. Granted, a homemade mousse is a far cry from a highly processed Twinkie. Mousse (or ice cream, or cheesecake, the only things in which I indulge regularly) has generally three ingredients if made from scratch: Eggs, milk, and sugar. Twinkies have… Well, who knows what Twinkies are made of but I’m certain one of the ingredients is hydrogenated vegetable oil. And I’ll never touch the stuff.