http://weiner.house.gov/news_display.asp...

Weiner just lived up to his name by withdrawing his amendment, which would have substituted single-payer for the House bill favored by Democratic leaders. That coward sickens me right now even more than Obama, Pelosi, Emanuel, Hoyer, and Reid put together.

So I guess I hit a nerve with my food fight post, or rather, several of them. I think it's worth breaking down some of the comments and sub-discussions into a longer series. One topic that seemed to bring out the very Correntian best in folks: how we define "obese."

Reader Jeff W points us to this helpful link from the CDC, in which they have determined that there have been "noticeable increases" in the number of overweight or obese people in this country. Reader Aeryl questions the methodology with this link. Other comments in that thread had other definitions and methods to measure the size and number of "healthy" bodies.

I'm a long way from my scientific research days, but I'll say that generally, I think obesity is both a "nature" and a "nurture" issue. On the Nature side: I fully recognize that the FSM has been kind to people in my family; we're generally tall and thin with only a modicum of exercise effort and don't tend to "overweight"-edness until quite late in life, if at all. I doubt I could find the link for it now, but I recall reading a fascinating report about a group of indigenous people from South America, recently relocated from their ancestral lands to a reservation. Apparently, in a single generation they went from thin and fit to outrageously overweight. The report's conclusion was that they had evolved to live on a fat-poor diet for thousands of years before being relocated and fed "government cheese" instead of their previous natural, "jungle food" diet, and as a result their bodies were incredibly efficient in terms of fat storage. "Too" efficient when fed a more modern diet, and thus their current obesity.

I'm tossing out those two examples and asking for your thoughts, because before we can make policy progress on the "nurture" argument, it's important to correctly frame the "nature" part.

How do you define "fat" and "obese?" How should government, for the purposes of health and food policy? How important is identifying obesity as a public health "problem?" Then there are questions about how Big Industry (Fashion, Food, the Exercise-Industrial Complex, etc) define "fat." Definitions generated by the discourse of the Patriarchy play a role as well.

And once again, consider this an open thread for recipes, especially those good for people who want to reduce or change their body's shape. Warning: I will delete comments that are inappropriately insensitive to people who don't conform to mainstream body shape standards. Consider this is a safe space for people of all body shapes to contribute.

Tristero recently caused a bona fide flame war at the normally staid and Serious Hullaballoo comment community, in those two posts about food. I didn't really find too much of what he said outrageous or stupid, and I respect the fact that he came right out and admits that he eats what he likes because it tastes good. I confess I didn't think the Hullaballoo community had it in them, way to sling that pizza across the lunchroom, kids!

I just wanted to make a couple remarks and see what others think, because I believe that food is a critically important topic in many political debates, from those on the environment, health care, racism and more.

From my perspective, it's beyond obvious that far too many Americans aren't eating well. I was shocked, moving to this Heartland community where I now live, by the contrast of people's shapes here, vs places like DC and Chicago. That is, people in flyoverland really run to fat, in my eyes. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but the 'beautiful body' culture of my previous environment is almost nowhere to be found here, except among the Greek set of the local big state university. And I suspect those young women are not unfamiliar with some unhealthy food habits like binging and the dangerous, speedy drugs that make crash dieting an easy task.

Anyway, I bet I could get most of you to agree that the problem isn't just a regional one, and that there are many areas in which the quality of our food and the habits people have consuming it could be improved. But as the comments at those two posts remind me, a lot of people seem to have the attitude of "You can take my daily Twinkie when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands." What can be done to change that?

Further, I guess I don't understand the idea that people like me are overly righteous food snobs. Do people really want to have diabetes and be obese? I can't believe that. I understand that not all people have good food choices, but I would hope that if they did, they'd make them, at least most of the time. I'd also think people would enjoy the benefits that come with "progressively produced" food, organics and locally grown, food free of synthetics and chemicals and suchlike. That kind of food really does taste better. And if food is about satisfaction, well...I guess I just don't get the resistance to that.

A friend of mine recently introduced me to a terrific restaurant in this area, after long months of my despairing of ever finding a place that compares to the upscale, "progressive" dining option I had when I lived in big cities. It's in a town that defines "podunk backwater." It serves locally produced, organically grown, reasonably priced, fucking outstanding tasty food. And it's doing really well as a business, apparently, even in this Depression we're having in this state. So I know there's 'a market' for better food. My question is: why are so many people resistant to good food and healthy eating habits, in favor of unfood horror found at fast food restaurants or the junk food aisle? Marketing? Ignorance? Addiction to unhealthy but "good" tasting things like corn syrup and trans fats?

Also: consider this a Saturday Morning open recipe thread, if you've got any. I'm always looking for new cooking ideas, especially now that "chef" is practically my 4th job.

I hope that everyone realizes that the Pentagonian Establishment is very much in the midst, and not at the start of, trying to push back at Obama's promise to close Gitmo, and the left's push for this thing to close since we've known of its existence.

This is why it is so incredibly important that the left push him harder than ever before and constantly to close this house of horrors down, as well as all of the others we know and don't know about, because he's being pushed very forcefully (more forcefully, in fact) from the right to "stay the course" on Gitmo.

So, back in November and December, the opposition in the Canadian House of Commons was all in a huff (as they should have been) by the Conserative-lead government's fiscal plan that included a plethora of non-progressive/regressive-minded cuts and tools such as suspending federal workers' right to strike.

Bleh, don't ask me what I'm doing up at this hour. But: an observation from my slothful couchsurfing during my vacation/forced restfulness period. The Sci-Fi channel really, really sucks. I mean, goat's genitals sort of suckitude. Which is a horrible shame. I enjoyed "Farscape" and "Serenity," which as far as teevee goes, really weren't so bad. But this crap that they are broadcasting now? Unwatchable. What happened?

At least we have some Hope for the film world. Hyperion is being made into at least a couple of movies. I'm horrified they seem to be rewriting some of it, but glad that Simmons is the one doing the rewrite. If anyone can force the difficult narrative sequence into film logic, I guess it's him.

Playahata speculates:

As of Playahata.com press time rumors have it that Barack Obama is set to fill his Secretary of Commerce slot with The rockefeller republican, Lawyer Richard Parsons and Astronaut Charles Bolden Jr to head NASA. If so it would be the first time African Americans have held either slots. Although both Republicans, Parson calls himself a Rockefeller Republican, which is a person who is conservative when it comes to economic matters, and more liberal concerning social issues.
Bolden on the other hand does not like to be identified by party at all.Bolden pictured below, is A former astronaut who has made four trips into space is reportedly a leading candidate for the top job at NASA. The former test pilot left NASA in 1994 after 14 years of service to return to the Marine Corps, where he rose to the rank of major general. He retired in 2003.

I really hate the term 'Rockefeller Republican.' It reminds me of the draconian Rockefeller drug laws of NY state. Anyway, I guess this is affirmative action we can believe in. Or something.

This is going to get me in all kinds of trouble, but feh, what else is a blog for?
Exhibit A:

CHICAGO (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama says he is saddened by allegations that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to trade favors for Obama's Senate seat—and says he had no contact with the governor or his office on the matter.

The governor was arrested Tuesday on federal corruption charges. Prosecutors say Blagojevich wanted to give Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Obama says he will have no further comment on the matter because it is an ongoing investigation.

Where have I heard those phrases before? Hmmm....

Now, the first part I put in bold is critical, as it related to Axelrod's words in this video. Notice how Axelrod is very careful not to say what subject, or any other relevant details, about what the conversation was concerning. Gee, I wonder why?

I am really trying here. It's a hard, fine line to walk. I don't want to be overly rhetorical, or run away with the latest emotion-based villification of the moment. I'm not looking for attention, and I already know: few, if any politicians in DC are going to "satisfy" me. Etc. But there are a couple of different ways to contrast and compare these two links, and most of them don't make Team Obama look good.

Boilerplate: I've read the pdf, I know what Blago said about Obama; it's clear they didn't get along and I'm inclined to believe that Obama was, let's say, too professional a politician, to get involved in Blago's blatant and sloppy corruption. But then an unpopular blogger (hey, just like me!) throws this out there, and what the hell am I left thinking? That we can't be cynical enough, and that "not quite a lie" is the new "lying their asses off."

I'm so fucking sick of it. Team Obama: just say, "Sure, we talked to him about the appointment choices. He wasn't too fond of ours. You know what he wanted in return for it? Money. We weren't prepared to give him any. That would've been wrong, and corrupt." Can't you see how much better you'd look right now if you'd said that? No, I guess you can't.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from 11-10-2008.

Do we invoke our better angels, and march forward into a strong, bright future for American citizens and residents, regardless? It's up to us to do this, one step after another, one day at a time.

Ladies and Gentleman, please give a warm welcome to  Read more…

John McCain's running mate is above the law of the state she governs, apparently, and in her own words is nothing less than a feminist:
"It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

This is my selective review of the draft of the Democratic platform (changes might still be made). I'll just highlight the stuff I really like or dislike. You can go read the whole thing itself, just follow the link. Here we go

Preamble

"A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good. A people that prizes candor, accountability and fairness insists that a government for the people must level with them and champion the interests of all American families. A land of historic resourcefulness has lost its patience with elected officials who have failed to lead."

Uh oh, this does not start well. Partisan division is NOT the problem. Republican governance is. Creative solutions are good, but they include first sending the Republican leadership back to the hole they crawled out of.

"And so, Democrats –through the most open platform process in history –are reaching out today to Republicans and Independents who hunger for a new direction and a reason to hope."

I think I'm going to need a puke bucket AND a large supply of barf bags to make it through this.

  Read more…

War is always about money, in the end. I'm way behind on my newsreading, and so I totally missed this until this morning. At least some civilians are being allowed to flee. What's at stake here? Who are the key players? And Thanks, Chimpy, for opening the Pandora's Box of "wars of choice are great!" Anyone with details willing the share them, I'm grateful. It bodes ill that he's already using rhetoric like this:

"I must protect the life and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are. We will not allow their deaths to go unpunished,"
Dmitry Medvedev, Russian President

In light of the different posts on good and bad Democrats I thought I'd post on the principle of party invariance and why I think it should be considered for PB2.0.

I have simple needs and to obtain my vote the Democratic and Republican candidates can easily meet them.

• Dismantle all of the faith based creations of his predecessors.
• Eliminate “Don’t ask, don’t tell”.
• Appoint a substantial number of gays and minorities to leadership posts in our military services and truly integrate our military.
• Put the criminals from prior administrations in jail, now!
• Restore the personal freedoms of Americans.

• There is no other candidate on the ballot.
• Someone puts a gun to my head and forces me to vote.

What is the rush to end this thing? Why the hurry to have it over? What, exactly, are so many people concerned about? All the wrong things, apparently. There are more and better reasons for her to persist than not.

Hillary should continue her pursuit of the Democratic nomination because:

I interrupt work on my dissertation to join WV, KY in giving a great big cheek scratch to the media and Obama's WWTSBQ minions in the blogosphere. Here's my song dedication to ya'll. (You can fast-forward to the last minute or so.)

I just got off the phone with an Israeli friend, and we had some fun joking with each other about the timing of the call. I was reading this post from a very strong Obama supporter, and I complimented the author on his honesty and willingness to say what needs to be said. Short version: it's not "anti-semitic" to point out that in critical, large, expensive media states like NY and FL, the people raising a lot of money for Dem candidates in those states, as well as pulling state-level political strings (think backroom superdelagate type games) are also "Jewish," whatever that is supposed to mean*. Nor it is anything less than fact to say many of these fundraising powerhouses really think Israel can do no wrong, and that because of their great influence on the political process here at critical moments, overall American ME and I/P policies are warped. I'm very proud of Boo for reminding us that it's virtually no different with Cubans in FL; I'd add other single/special interests like the so-called 'farm lobby' in the plains states, or even the so-called gay lobby in small Eastern states in which some gays have both money and overrepresentation/overempowerment in local political circles. That's just how politics works right now here. If you've got money/friends with money, and you play your cards right in your state, when the Presidential candidates come to your 'hood, you make them say what you want to hear: in Spanish, Yiddish, or flatland drawl.

But then I thought more and more about Boo's confidence that Obama wants to do more, and better things for the Palestinians even as he takes the standard, ironclad, pro-Likudnik hardline. (Way not to impress your own people, Obama. Tone deaf much? Or do you just think they don't matter?) Still, I think Boo could be right.

At least now we know why NARAL endorsed Obama. From The Politico (emphasis mine):

In an interview with Politico, NARAL President Nancy Keenan said the group’s nine-member political action committee chose Obama after extensive deliberation that included studying the two Democratic candidates’ delegate counts (both pledged and superdelegates), their viability in a matchup against the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, and their cash on hand.

How quickly we forget. Remember when proof of Obama's crossover appeal was his win in Elko, NV:

Obama’s strength in rural Nevada speaks to the breadth of his appeal and to his campaign’s organizing efforts in Republican strongholds that Nevada’s Democratic Party has traditionally written off...

“What they found is that people in rural areas see themselves in Barack Obama. They see him as a true American success story. They see him as representing something new and fresh.”...

Haven't heard about Elko much these days. I wonder why?

[Welcome, InstaPutz readers.]

[Welcome also, Taylor Marsh readers, thanks to Grey.]

After Hillary Clinton’s historic 41-point victory in the West Virginia primary, two questions loom: How long will Barak Obama cling to his shattered dreams of the presidency, and how much damage will be done to the Democratic Party by his stubborn and divisive refusal to accept the obvious?

UPDATE – Below: How will Obama win an Electoral College majority? at Salon by Paul Maslin, former pollster to Howard Dean. (h/t BDBlue)

UPDATE 2 – Below: Skirting Appalachia, an Op Ed in the NYT opining on Barak Obama’s Electoral College strategic options by Charles Blow, Art Director at National Geographic -and why not? (h/t again to the sharp-eyed BDBlue)

Few people I know, actually do. A piss-poor description is at Wikipedia. Since it's the most recent thing I've read, I'd recommend Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Had I been around in the 1850s, I'd have been a Whig with a keen eye on the new Republican Party. If I had a pony in the 1860 GOP race, I will say, probably to the amazement of the historically ignorant, that I would have been a Seward booster (can't vouch for that link, but read some books, too!). Yeah, Lincoln was good, but I think Seward would have been better--experience and a strong ideological base are important, IMO, not to mention a kick-ass wife like Fanny.

For my mere support of Hillary Clinton, I have been called a racist, more times than I can count. One of the refuges I have found in this crazy blogosphere, has been Anglachel's Journal.

In her post today, she touches on a subject very close to me.

I know a lot of Hillary supporters refer to her speech at the UN Women's conference in Beijing in 1995. So, today, I decided to take a closer look at the whole speech, especially in the context of Senator Obama's remark on abortion and the need to respect the anti-choice position (just like we should respect and understand anti-LGBT positions). Again, remember, this speech was delivered 13 years ago, on one of these trips that Hillary took where she just shook hands with officials and watched little girls dance (snark). The audio is embedded below, otherwise, I selected a few excerpts (the full text is here, with video as well).

  Read more…