Obama Blames Bush. Again.

Ice Bucket Irony

What to do about ISIS?

What should we do about ISIS?  (Or as the president prefers, ISIL, which uses the French diplo-speak term Levant for the mideast, and after all who amongst us doesn’t get a tingle up their leg from using French diplo-speak?)  Whatever you call it, we should do everything we can at the local level, here in the US, to prevent domestic attacks from these extremely dangerous jihadists.  Overseas, we should retreat from areas where ISIS may attack.  Beyond that we should probably pray.

I realize this is a contrarian position.  There seems to be a bi-partisan consensus forming that the Obama administration must take bold and decisive action to fight ISIS “over there, so we don’t have to do it here”.  Never mind that this sentiment was once known as “The Bush Doctrine”, and that it’s repudiation is one of the core ideologies of our current president -- it only makes sense as national policy with a competent Commander in Chief.  Barack Hussein Obama is not and will never be that person. 

If you want to occupy the student union, Obama is your guy.  If you want to choose brackets for March Madness, Obama is your guy.  If you want to hear platitudes read off a teleprompter, Obama is your guy.   If you want to hear how this country is racist, guilty, flawed, corrupt, unfair, mean, nasty, sexist, and has a crappy constitution, Obama is your guy.  If you want to play golf, attend fundraisers, and do talk shows, Obama is your guy.  But if you want to communicate with deadly radical jihadists in the only language they understand, the language of force, I’d recommend anyone other than Barack Hussein Obama, and that includes my Labradoodle.  

So let’s prepare ourselves here and do everything we can to ensure the jihadists can't hurt us.   Beyond that, let's do nothing until we have a competent president.  Will there be chaos and mass casualties?  Perhaps.  But going to war with an incompetent commander would be like having open heart surgery performed by a comedian -- better to do nothing, pray, eat healthy, and get to the gym.

America, We Have a Problem

I have no idea what happened in Ferguson, MO, and neither do you.  And we all agree any unnecessary death is a tragedy.  But we have a judicial system to deal with bad cops, if that turns out to be the case.  Rioting, looting, Molotov cocktails, death threats, and the like, should be singled-out as inexcusable no matter what the facts turn out to be.  Justice can only be served through our judicial system and that takes time, patience, civility, and wisdom.  Instead of making that case convincingly and emphatically, as a president should,  Barack Obama spoke to the nation in bland platitudes and equivocated.  

America, we have a problem.

(Update:  Obama spoke to the nation again yesterday (8/18) and again equivocated.  If he wanted to avoid further violence, looting, anger, and hate, he could have explained to those calling for "death to Darren Wilson!" that we have a judicial system and that the facts will come out as they do in every public case, especially when there are dozens of eye witnesses as there are in this case.  But this case should not be tried on TV, or in the streets,  or from the pulpit, or with molotov cocktails.  Instead he drew a moral equivalence between our judicial system and looting rioters.  Think about this America --  The President of the United States, for political reasons, does not want to prevent further violence, looting, anger, and hate.)

August Super Moon

#WhenMoronsVote

PEACE PRIZE PRESIDENT POUNDS ISIS!  Today Obama began the third Iraq war, which of course was completely avoidable had he not failed to keep a deterrent force in place.  We were no longer losing soldiers there on a regular basis, the peace was holding, the government was bad, but not as bad as Hussein, it was a nascent democracy that was free to elect new leaders, and it was costing us very little to be there and deter radicals like ISIS.  But no, Obama had a campaign promise to keep so we pulled out completely and left a vacuum.  In the last week alone, ISIS murdered some 3000 civilians in Iraq.  That's in one week.    

So now we are bombing from 30,000 feet, which of course is the preferred method for Peace Prize enthusiasts.  I'm sure Obama will use the Israeli system of dropping leaflets, making phone calls, and knocking first before bombing.  Hey, that's what he did in Libya, right?

In light of this, it's time to revisit the whole series of "Obama is Awesome!" cartoon videos.  Here they are in order:







 

An Open Letter from Benjamin Netanyahu to The American People

Dear America,

I too share your desire for peace.  Like you, I am tired of the seemingly endless cycle of violence.  It gets to the point where no one can even tell you where it all began.  And certainly each side has its own version of history!  

I have a unique proposal that will once and for all put and end to this conflict.  Of course, some hard choices will have to be made.  I know I can trust the American people to hear me out, and give this some careful thought.  If we agree that peace is the desired outcome, and that neither side has been able to secure it yet, what choice do we have but to try something new?  Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity, right? 

Let’s look at some of the elements we can all agree on before getting into the specifics: 

1. Both sides believe their positions are justified and worth fighting for. 
2. One side has the military might, and the other suffers disproportionate casualties. 
3. Both sides would like to exist and govern themselves in a manner to their liking. 
4. The international community has put its faith in “land for peace” as an appropriate solution.

In light of the above, I do recommend swapping land to allow the nation-less to establish their own self-governed nation.  The new nation would be free to pursue all the freedoms enjoyed by nations everywhere:  they will be able to arm and defend themselves, they will be free to trade with other nations, they can make and produce all the things they currently produce and disseminate.  They would be free to establish Sharia Law if they please.  We may not agree with the things they produce, what they disseminate, or how they treat others, but it would be their country, ruled by them, sovereign, free, and independent. 

There are already examples of Muslims living peacefully with non-Muslims all over the world.  Several such examples are already right in your own country.  Dearborn, Michigan is sometimes referred to as “Dearbornistan” owing to its majority Muslim population.  There are similar examples throughout the US in numerous states.  Perhaps the best example is Illinois, which has more Muslims per capita than any other state, and no one thinks of Illinois as a terror state!

Once established, this new state would be a beacon for like-minded people to immigrate to and live in peace, free of the oppression they currently experience thanks to the endless conflict.  Bombings, raids, drone attacks, captures, prisons, -war itself - will no longer be an imperative!  I know this will not be easy, but it must be done and it must be done now!

Therefore, I believe Illinois would be the perfect place to establish the new state of “al Qaedastan”, or if you prefer, “ISIS” (Islamic State of Illinois and Syria”), a two-state solution, which will once-and-for-all end the violence.  Finally, America and al Qaeda, living side-by-side in peace.  Join me America, and stop this madness now! 

Sincerely,

Benjamin Netanyahu

Prime Minister, Israel

P.S.  A majority of The UN has already endorsed this proposal.  This must be done at once if the US hopes to remain among the community of nations.

P.P.S.  I also believe that Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the political prisoner currently in your custody, should be freed like Nelson Mandela, and would likely rise to lead the new nation of al Qaedastan.  Furthermore, I have taken the liberty to nominate KSM to the Nobel Committee for consideration for the peace prize.  As expected, they are onboard 100%!

USA vs. Europe

I find myself in a bit of a conundrum.  Having just gotten back from a trip to Europe, my seventh in about a dozen years, I continue to be amazed by the visible and tangible evidence that Europe is kicking our butts in a number of economic areas.  Sure, I’m aware of the things we like to focus on when we poopoo Europe’s economic performance:  structural unemployment, highly socialized economies, bloated governments, frightening demography, etc.   Nevertheless, their stuff is just better than our stuff.  Just about everything that is manmade is of a higher quality, better maintained, and more functional in Europe than in the US.  And yet, I have always thought that big-government Europe could never compete with the US with its emphasis on individual liberty and limited government.  How can these bloated bureaucracies be kicking our butts when it comes to making and maintaining high quality stuff?   Apparently I need to rethink my premises.

First, some observations from my most recent trip.  The eye popping differences began with the flights.  As it happened, we flew Lufthansa over and United back.  No surprise: Lufthansa won hands down.  The Lufthansa Airbus A340-600 was new, staff was courteous (and gorgeous), food good, even in coach the silverware was metal, and alcohol, including good wine, was available without additional charge.  The United return was an aging Boeing 767 in bad need of an overhaul (as was the staff), alcohol was extra, and halfway through the flight the bathroom was out of toilet paper and remained so the rest of the flight. 

We flew into Munich where the escalators all worked, the luggage carousels purred, and the rental cars were all BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, and VWs in excellent condition.  When we landed back in Newark, somewhat depressed by the return flight experience, the first escalator we encountered was, appropriately, not working. 

Of course, tourists usually see the best of what a locale has to offer.  But the same can be said of where I live in the US.  I spend nearly all my time in areas that cater to tourists and are analogous to the areas I’ve visited in Europe.  ( I know, pinch me!)  That said, I am blown away by the level of construction and the quality of the properties in Europe.  You cannot even compare high-end construction in the US with the same level in Europe.  What we call the finest door or window in the US wouldn’t even qualify for a shed in prosperous parts of Europe.  The same can be said for just about every detail in high-end construction.  Europeans build for the long run.  In the US, most of what we build is disposable and reflects that. 

Infrastructure in Europe also wins hands-down over the US.  Trains throughout Europe are superior, even in the indebted countries like Italy and Spain.  They run on schedule, go fast, and can take you (and your bike and dog) just about anywhere.  Roads, funiculars, cog railways, and even hiking trails have been built and are maintained to an amazing degree in the most inhospitable of places.  Autobahns are plenty smooth at even 100mph.  You can hike for hours up just about any mountain in the Alps, and chance upon ancient Inns that are only accessible by foot (or now helicopter), and get a beer, a delicious meal, a hot cappuccino, and often a room. 

On the technology front, again a mismatch.  I’m proud that much technology originated in the US, but Europe has adopted it as well as anywhere.  Smart phones, computers, and broadband internet are ubiquitous.  Some things however haven’t made it the other way across the pond.  Anyone who’s stayed in a European hotel knows that the key card must be inserted before the power goes on.  How many coal fired plants could we do without if we adopted this simple idea?  European waitstaff enter orders digitally and remotely, accept credit cards remotely, and hence can serve more tables more efficiently than we can with our centralized and more manual systems.  I believe this is a consequence of the European custom where the waitstaff works for the restaurant and is paid a salary, versus the US custom where the waitstaff largely works for the diner via tips (a system I prefer as a diner, btw).  Seems to me better efficiency would benefit restaurants and diners, but this technology has not been adopted in the US. 

Back when I first visited Europe in 1974, the rap on the old world was that you couldn’t find decent toilet paper and the commode would likely be a hole in the floor.  No more.  On this trip I encountered a public bathroom halfway up a mountain, in Italy no less, that practically wiped your bum for you.  Electronic toilets, electric doors, faucets that both washed and dried your hands, and door handles that changed color to indicate occupancy.  It was a level of technology and excellent design in a public restroom I’ve never seen anywhere in the US. 

So, how is Europe able to have bigger government, more redistribution, more regulation, hence less economic freedom, and at the same time produce tangible things that are superior to ours?  The answer is that they do not necessarily have less economic freedom.  Despite the best intentions of our founders, in many ways Europeans today are the economically freer people! 

For twenty years now The Heritage Foundation has published a ranking of countries based on economic freedom.  At current standing the US is #12.  Switzerland is #4.  Overall, four European countries beat the US:  Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, and Estonia.  Of the top twenty, ten are European.  And yet, I believe Heritage understates Europe’s economic freedom and overstates ours. 

Wherever you go in Europe you see things you would never see in the US.  Swimming pools have diving boards, hotels have trampolines, and in the Alps, parapenters (hang gliders) and squirrel suit flyers are everywhere.  Sometimes people die or are injured doing these things, but Europeans are free to take these risks, and businesses are free to offer these experiences.  A tort system that supports litigious actions effectively limits our freedom in the US without specific laws banning behavior.  I once tried to rent a mountain bike in NJ but was told insurance rates due to litigation made that impossible.  The result is a loss of freedom and economic freedom.  Heritage does not account for the effects of our tort system and our lawsuit culture on economic freedom. 

Also, remember how we were supposed to be the country specifically designed to have limited government and unprecedented liberty?  Remember how that was the thing that made us “exceptional”?  Well, according to my calculations, six European countries have more limited government than we do, and some of them are prosperity powerhouses:  Switzerland, Slovakia, Estonia, Poland, Ireland, and Norway (which is tied with the US).   Moreover, three more are within the margin of error:  Luxembourg, Czech Republic, and the industrial powerhouse of Europe, Germany. 

(*This is a larger list than the one Heritage arrives at.  See note at the end for a full explanation of the method I use versus the one Heritage uses.)

Sure, not everything in Europe is awesome.  There are slums in Europe just as there are in the US.  Having fast trains, nice buildings, great cars, and amazing infrastructure doesn’t create a classless society.  To do that you have to go full Socialist, or full Communist, and then you end up with none of the above, except of course the slums and a few grand palaces. 

Here’s the upshot: 

Europe is highly decentralized, being made-up of sovereign nations, often with semi-autonomous regions within those nations.  The US is now highly centralized with states that have fewer rights than ever in our history.  Decentralized systems are inherently more resilient.  Europe is a place where you can find limited government, reasonable regulation, democracy, human rights, personal accountability, prosperity, freedom, rule-of-law, etc. all in one place, though certainly not everywhere.  The US is a place where you cannot find all those things to that degree in a single place thanks to centralization.  Advantage Europe. 

Europe now does its redistribution in the right place thanks to the Euro - away from the political entity that prints most currency (The ECB).  The US redistributes at the federal level where it also prints it’s currency setting up a fatal conflict of interests.  National debt per capita is currently $30,504 in the Euro countries.  It is $55,228 in the US.  Advantage Europe. 

Europe is a place where citizens can drive as fast as they please, but they are accountable.  The US is a place where the federal government dictates driving speeds.  Europe is a place where public swimming pools have diving boards, hotels have trampolines, and citizens are accountable to use them responsibly.  The US is a place where its citizens are denied many freedoms due to a litigious tort system and centralized federal power.  Advantage Europe.

The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world along with a tax system that seeks to tax foreign earnings as well as domestic.  European countries only tax earnings in their own country, hence many US companies are doing"inversions" where they merge with smaller European companies and move their headquarters there.  Advantage Europe.

Europe produces better stuff, and in many ways, a better standard of living.  They just do.  Much of this is cultural, but the result is undeniable.  Advantage Europe.

I used to maintain that the US was a place with unmatched adherence to the rule of law, a constitution that protected our rights, limited government, economic freedom, and a future second to none.  Now I admire Europe. (With a caveat for demography, although ours isn’t looking too good either!)

(Update - Certainly one reason Europe produces better stuff is due to history; Europe, and especially Germany, have a highly evolved Guild System in place, which has been churning out the world's best tradesmen and craftsmen since before Columbus sailed to the New World!  But that does not diminish the role of economic freedom in determining the quality of goods in a nation.  All one need do is look at the examples of East and West Germany, or North and South Korea where similar cultures resulted in radically different outcomes due to freedom, both political and economic.

Also, whenever discussing economic history, particularly when comparing the US and Europe, the role of WWII must be acknowledged.  A major reason for US economic power in the post WWII world was due to the fact that we emerged the largest intact industrialized nation by far.  Europe and Japan were smoldering ruins, and China was still in loincloths.  Those days are long gone, yet we are still enjoying the fruits of that post WWII world with our dollar being the world's reserve currency.  Imagine how our $18 trillion debt will look if the dollar loses that status?)     

*Note on government spending:  My ranking of government spending differs from Heritage’s in two ways:  I compare government spending (all federal, state, and local) to just the private sector portion of GDP for all countries.  Heritage uses both the public and private part of GDP in the denominator, which is problematic especially in measuring the US, which has been on a money printing, borrowing, and stimulus binge.  To correct for this, I consider only the private portion of GDP (GDP less Government Spending) for all countries.   The Heritage formula is, Total Government Spending divided by GDP, and mine is Total Government Spending divided by (GDP less Government Spending). 

Also, Quantitative Easing is not specifically accounted for in Heritage’s government spending numbers.  I do include it because it is government spending. 

For a full explanation of my method see “The True Tax Rate is 70%!” 

All numbers come from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) data.  (not all European countries participate in the OECD)

The Immaculate Recession

Two days ago, on June 25^th 2014, the third update to GDP numbers was released for the first quarter of the year, and the latest numbers show a GDP change of -2.9%.  This is pretty amazing since the consensus opinion going into the quarter was for +2.5%, the advanced estimate in April was for +0.1%, the first revision in May was for -1%, and now the second revision in June is a whopping -2.9%!

Even in a business like economic forecasting and reporting, which is known for being particularly dodgy, this discrepancy is unusual.  But there may be a simple, though not comforting, explanation for this wild swing. 

Consider that the official definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.  Therefore, the lower the first quarter, the easier it will be to avoid the “R” word when the second quarter is reported.  For example:  if the first quarter had actually been -1.5% and the second quarter comes in again at -1.5%, that would ring the recession bell and the overall 2014 GDP would be -1.5%.  But if the GDP really is -1.5% after two quarters, and the first quarter is reported as -2.9%, then the second quarter can be reported as +1.4%, and no recession will have officially occurred!  Call it the immaculate recession. 

Now you might be saying, “that’s ridiculous , the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is a highly respected non-partisan government agency which would never manipulate official numbers to benefit incumbents during an election year!”  Yeah, tell that to the victims of the IRS, FDA, FBI, INS, DOJ, NLRB, NTSB, Fish and Wildlife, etc, etc, etc. 

Update: Oh, and remember this?  Census "faked" election 2012 jobs report.

Ben Stein Hits the Mark

Ramirez Hits The Mark

Lifted from Investors.com, with apologies.

Oops, the IRS lost the email, sorry!

Having some fun in the face of tyranny...

Here's the raw photo.  Feel free to download and make your own meme!

I spent $1.5T & 640 days, and all I got was this lousy terrorist!

Indeed.

Taliban - a Song Parody Video

Myth: Hey, this prisoner swap is the same thing Israel does!

One of the lies Obama likes to invoke is, "Hey, I'm not doing anything unusual here; everyone does it!"  Thus, when the Bergdahl fiasco blew-up in his face he invoked history saying, "Hey, this is what happens at the end of wars!"  Which of course is interesting because he skipped the signing of the treaty.  As far as I know there is still a violent jihad being waged against us by the very people Obama just released.  That makes this different from any such prisoner exchange in history.

Another lie we hear is, "Hey, the Israelis do this all the time, and they really know how to fight terrorists!"  What we have done has no relationship to what the Israelis do.  If you want some insight into what the Israelis are up to when they release prisoners, watch the movie "The Green Prince".  The eponymous prince in the movie is Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Hassan Yousef, one of the founders of Hamas. (The flag of Hamas is green, hence "Green Prince".)  Mosab Hassan Yousef was imprisoned by Israel for terrorist activity, but subsequently was released after being secretly flipped by a sophisticated and successful effort to infiltrate Hamas.  Israel knows what they are doing.  They are playing a long game in an endless struggle for survival.  


One may speculate that perhaps we have a similar program and one of these five Taliban generals has been flipped.  Really?  Does anyone reading this believe Barack Obama knows what he is doing and is operating a successful operation to flip Gitmo detainees and infiltrate the Taliban?  Remember, this president has taken virtually no prisoners and sought no new intelligence since taking office. 

      

FLASHBACK: My Labradoodle would not have traded five key terrorists for a likely traitor...

Hey, don't blame me, you were warned...

What’s All This Fuss About Vets and Healthcare?

As Emily Litella would say, "What's all this fuss about about vets and healthcare?"

I made one phone call yesterday and got an appointment with a top neurologist in under 24 hours.  That is incredible service by any standard.  Of course, in this case I paid cash, the provider was in private practice, and the doctor was the vet not the patient.  The patient is expected to make a full recovery and will soon be back to eating voraciously, running around, and wagging his tail.

To those like Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama who told us that vets had the best healthcare system available and it should be a model for the whole nation, I say they were looking at the wrong vet system.  Veterinarians are the only doctors working in a totally privatized system today.  Theirs is the best healthcare model in terms of quality and service in the US, and in fact on the entire planet. 

So while our military vets are dying on VA waitlists, while all citizens are now subject to the bureaucratic nightmare that is Obamacare, while the poor suffer on substandard Medicaid, and while the aged are herded into the socialized system that is Medicare, our pets are enjoying state-of-the-art medicine in the best private healthcare system in the world.  Heck-of-a-job America.  

Crossing the Rubicon

Fed Up - A Movie Review

(Revised and abridged to coincide with the broader release of "Fed Up") 

“Fed Up” is a new documentary about diet, health, and the epidemic of obesity and its complications.  Made by executive producers Katie Couric and Laurie David, and directed by Stephanie Soechtig, the film chronicles the struggles of a handful of overweight kids and intersperses their stories with interviews of politicians, scientists, and practitioners explaining how we got here and how to fix it. 

If you have not heard of this film, you will soon.  “Fed Up” was one of the hardest tickets to get at this year’s Sundance Film Festival.  Apparently food and diet are very potent topics.  And this film is potent.  It has all the right elements for a successful documentary:  a scary health story everyone can relate to, a big name narrator - Katie Couric, good production, plus all the right villains, heroes, and victims. 

• Villains:  big sugar, big corporations, lobbyists, political villains (mostly Republicans), Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, George W Bush, etc. 
•  Heroes:  concerned professionals - doctors, scientists, nutritionists, political heroes (almost all Democrats), Bill Clinton, Tom Harkin, George McGovern, etc.
• Victims:  kids, minorities, the poor.

Unfortunately, “Fed Up” is deeply flawed.  While the movie does do a good job of telling the sugar story, it misses the carbohydrate forest for the sugar trees.  It also has an overt political agenda which blinds it from seeing the true culprits.  Along the way it glosses-over and misrepresents some key elements and ultimately alludes to the wrong solutions.  When all is said and done, “Fed Up” is the equivalent of a jumbo tub of popcorn ladled with salt and trans-fats -  you will enjoy it while it lasts, but it will leave you worse-off in the end.

Here’s the movie in summary: 

• Too much sugar in our diets has led to an epidemic of obesity, which has led to a host of health problems, and ultimately will lead to premature death for millions.  Children are most at risk. 
• Greedy big corporations and lobbyists threw money at venal politicians, and got them to conspire against our health interests, which caused it all. 
• Therefore, the cure is for big government to step in and stop the greedy corporations from harming us for profit. 

According to the movie, a key turning-point which led to our obesity epidemic was a 1977 government report titled “Dietary Goals for the United States”, aka The McGovern Report.  This was the first time the federal government officially weighed-in on diet.  Here are the report’s six goals:

In the  “Fed Up” version of the story, The McGovern Report and subsequent government efforts had the science right, but big greedy corporations and their lobbyists twisted the findings, put pressure on weak politicians, and got them to water-down the government recommendations.    

It makes for a great story and a powerful documentary, but it is pure nonsense.  The government has never gotten the science right!  Ergo, the central premise of “Fed Up” is wrong:  Our obesity epidemic was not caused by greedy big corporations, but rather by big government hubris, mistaking consensus for science, and incompetently engineering the diets of three hundred million unique individuals.  This is the real story behind our obesity epidemic.   

Governments don’t do science, they do consensus.  In 1977 the biggest health issue of the day was thought to be heart disease.  A consensus had formed among health professionals that heart disease was largely due to a diet high in meat, eggs, and dairy.  Fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol were our main enemies, with sugar and salt bringing up the rear.  The government accepted the consensus and mistook it to be settled science. 

The late author Michael Crichton (“Jurassic Park”, “Andromeda Strain”, etc) had some choice words about the difference between consensus and science: 

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

When government mistakes consensus for science, it doesn’t just print a flawed report.  A cascade of bad decisions and policies result with untraceable negative consequences.  Subsidies, taxes, penalties, regulations, etc. all get employed to support the flawed  consensus, and real damage can result.

For instance, we now know that McGovern’s first goal – to increase carbohydrate – was a monumentally bad one.  Since the consensus was that we should eat less meat, eggs, and dairy - all sources of protein and fat - we therefore had to increase the only thing left - carbohydrates.  The text of the report stresses increasing primarily "complex carbohydrates like whole-grains, fruits, and vegetables”.  Sounds harmless right?  Eh, not so much.

We now know that many of the so-called complex carbohydrates, like the ones The McGovern Report told us to eat for 60% of our diet, are just as bad as sugar.  There is no metabolic difference between a modern whole-wheat bagel and a can of Coke.  In fact, according to William Davis, MD, author of  “Wheat Belly”, modern whole-wheat flour is more glycemic (blood sugar spiking) than even table sugar!

It turns out that overeating bad carbohydrates is what is making us obese.  It’s not sugar alone as “Fed Up” would have us believe!  Some of those bad carbohydrates are the very ones our government has been pushing on us for nearly forty years.    

I call all the bad carbohydrates GLUE.   Any carbohydrate is GLUE if it meets these criteria:

•           GLycemic (blood sugar, and/or insulin spiking)
•            Un-nutritious (low in nutrients)
•            Energy-dense (highly caloric) 

GLUE includes all sugars and sweeteners, refined fruit and fruit juice, refined grains including anything made from flour, and refined starches.  (In general, the less a carbohydrate looks like its original form, the more likely it is GLUE.)     

This puts many so-called complex carbohydrates in the GLUE category, including pasta, crackers, bread, cereal, and some rice.  These are the things our government has been telling us to eat more of for nearly forty years!  Even if it says “whole-grain” on the label, it is likely GLUE.  "Fed Up" spends all of 30 seconds talking about carbs other than sugar!  All of the morbidly obese kids and families featured in the film are not just sugar addicts; they are carb and GLUE addicts, which is completely ignored by the film.

The second, third, and fourth goals of The McGovern Report were concerned with reducing fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.  We now know that fat does not make us fat, that saturated fat does not cause heart disease, and that ingested cholesterol does not raise our bad cholesterol (LDL), but does raise our good (HDL). We now know that the consensus was wrong about all this too. 

One of the unintended consequences of The McGovern Report, as the movie does point-out, was the substitution of sugar for fat in processed foods. Thanks to the report’s recommendation that fat be reduced, food companies responded by replacing the flavorful fat with sugar and other sweeteners like HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup).  After all, sugar was the lesser of evils according to the report!  Moreover, HFCS was thought to be healthier then sugar according to the consensus.  Plus, it was cheaper thanks in part to corn subsidies and sugar import restrictions.  This made it economical to put HFCS in practically everything. Yay!  Thus the report shot itself in the foot - twice.

Another unintended consequence of the report was the substitution of trans-fats for saturated fats.  The report singled-out saturated fats, so corporations replaced them with man-made trans-fats.  We now know trans-fats are a proven health threat.  We also know that the generic recommendation to reduce saturated fat was irresponsible.  “Fed Up” does not mention this.  (See this from just the other day: "Study Questions Fat and Heart Disease Link")  

There never was a unanimous consensus on diet.  Dr. Robert Atkins, a NY cardiologist, became famous for popularizing the low carbohydrate diet.  His 1972 book, “Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution” chronicled his observation that his patients did better eating low carbohydrate diets.  The modern consensus was dead wrong according to him and many others who came before him.  Carbohydrate was the culprit, not fats, saturated fats, cholesterol, or just sugar.  He went on to correlate the emergence of our obesity epidemic with the advent of a diet high in refined carbohydrate.  From the 1960’s, until his death in 2003, and continuing today, he is called a denier, ridiculed, ostracized, demonized, and was even sued. 

(Consensus sometimes behaves like religious fanatics - it burns its heretics at the stake.  Say, is that a torch-bearing mob coming my way?)

Now that the flaws in the consensus have been exposed and millions are dying, the clueless culprits and their apologists (like those who made this movie) are trying to pin the blame on their favorite scapegoats – greedy big corporations.

That’s not to say that corporations do not play a role.  They make our food after all.  But corporations only make the products we demand.  We were instructed by the consensus and our government to eat more carbohydrate first, avoid fat second, avoid saturated fat third, avoid cholesterol fourth, and finally to reduce sugar and salt.  We demanded that corporations supply us with foods meeting those priorities.  And that’s just what they did!  The fact that we went on to consume way too much of the sugary stuff is not their fault.  It’s our fault!  The movie gets this basic cause and effect backwards.

Overlooked entirely in the movie is the role of the 1992 FDA Food Pyramid, which doubled-down on the faulty consensus from The McGovern Report.  It’s hard to find a more recognizable and influential symbol of our dietary trend the last quarter century. Bread, cereal, rice, and pasta, all GLUE, were to be the very foundations of our diet.  Again we were told to eat the wrong things by our government.

Ironically, Bill Clinton is one of the film’s heroes and appears multiple times.  He was elected president the year the Food Pyramid debuted.  He along with his administration bought into the consensus and irresponsibly promoted The Food Pyramid for eight years. 

The federal government is still at it today.  As I’m writing this, I became aware that the USDA has published a children’s book and is urging grandparents to read it to their grandkids as a bedtime story.  The book features cute kittens explaining the current version of the Food Pyramid, which is called “My Plate”.  The first food group on My Plate, and the largest, is - “The Grains” – bread, crackers, rice, and noodles.  Big government is still mistaking consensus for science, still pedaling GLUE, and still puzzled by the ongoing obesity epidemic! 

Finally, there are the movie’s solutions. The main suggestion is to compare the diet caused epidemic to the smoking caused one, and learn from the successful campaign against smoking.   On this basic point I concur.  But the movie implies more. 

The good guys are all big government types:  Mike Bloomberg, Bill Clinton, Tom Harkin, for example.   While the bad guys all lean (relatively) smaller government:  Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush.  As I have shown, big government has largely caused and prolonged this epidemic.  How likely is it that even bigger government can solve it?

NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a hero in the movie.  He famously banned salt, big sugary drinks, and trans-fats from restaurants and stores in New York City.  Not just for kids, but for adults too.  This is the problem with Bloomberg-ism, and the movie’s implications: we are all children in the eyes of the nanny state. 

In the most blatantly disingenuous edit of the movie, Sarah Palin is shown speaking about how parents should be responsible for feeding their own kids and not government.  In the very next clip she is seen sipping a Big Gulp.  The implication is clear:  government is the only entity which can be trusted to make good choices.  The edit is clearly designed to paint Palin as stupid and irresponsible.  The audience gasped at this edit both times I saw the movie with some muttering aloud, "What an idiot!"  Of course, the Big Gulp was a prop Palin employed during a speech in NY in defiance of Mike Bloomberg’s attempted ban on big sugary drinks.  Shamefully, the filmmakers don’t reveal that.  The courts agreed with Palin in the end.

Surely, government can play a role as it did with cigarettes and kids.  Advertising GLUE and unnatural food to kids could and should be barred, as should selling GLUE and unnatural foods to minors without adult permission.  But this has always failed because of the consensus definition of "junk food".  According to the "Fed Up" and consensus definition, a ban on junk food for kids would include such things as cheese, egg yolks, and a burger patty!        

If government wants us to change our eating habits, it should start by admitting the errors of the consensus for the last forty years.  The McGovern Report has been proven wrong about fats, meat, eggs, cholesterol, dairy, and now even salt.  Those are not the things that are killing us.  Too much GLUE and unnatural foods are what's killing us.  The government mistook a consensus for science, focused on the wrong culprits, and has been giving us bad advice for forty years. 

“Fed Up” misses this incredible story of government hubris, mistaking consensus for science, misinformation, and tragic unintended consequences.  Instead, it preaches more bogus consensus – corporations are evil and big government can save us. 

Further Reading

The real solution cannot come from a government prone to confusing consensus with science, nor from politicians who sell policy to the highest bidder (from any party).  It has to come from people educating themselves.  Many people have adopted low-carb, “paleo”, whole-food, and no grain eating habits without the government telling them to, and they are getting thinner and healthier. 

Here are some book suggestions which may help you:

Gary Taubes

"Good Calories, Bad Calories"

"Why We Get Fat"

William Davis, MD

"Wheat Belly"

Robb Wolf

"The Paleo Solution"

Mark Sisson

"The Primal Blueprint"

Liz Wolfe, NTP

"Eat The Yolks"

And of course, Dr. Robert Atkins

"Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution"

(*Many thanks to my lovely nutritionist wife Pam for her help in writing this piece, making me read these books, and for keeping me healthy despite myself.)

Originally published 4/2/14.  Reposted upon release of the film 5/9/14.  Revised and abridged 5/24/14.

If you like your VA, you can keep your VA. Period.

There seems to be a lot of outrage regarding the VA hospitals death panels.  From the President on down, politicians in both parties are "mad as hell" and will not rest until they get to the bottom of this "unacceptable" situation.  This makes me laugh...and cry at the same time.

The assumption everyone is making is that the VA exists to provide the best healthcare available to our vets.  Ha!   If it was true, the outraged parties might have a shot at fixing it, but it's not true, and that is why the VA is as unfixable as the IRS.  No mortal put in charge of the VA, as currently defined, could ever fix it because it is impossible for a nationalized, unionized, and politicized government agency to provide excellence on any level.  If we really wanted vets to have access to the best healthcare, we would let them choose their own doctors and hospitals.  

And don't tell me our military is an example of a government agency which provides excellence.  The military is an exception only because it is non-union, has it's own code of justice, and usually avoids politicization.  Heck, unlike the VA, you can still get demoted and even fired from the military!  (Well, at least you used to be able to.  Getting fired is almost impossible these days, and it is one reason the military is also sliding downhill.)  

Here're the facts:  The VA exists primarily as a jobs program for (mostly Democrat) unionized political constituents.  The VA is also a slush fund for (mostly Democrat) politicians and a funding source for (mostly Democrat) politicians.   Those are its primary functions.  Treating vets is simply a means to an end, and the end is money for Democrats.

No President, Secretary, or Superhero can squeeze excellence out of a nationalized, unionized, and politicized organization.  Barack Obama is the poster-boy for nationalizing, unionizing, and politicizing everything within his grasp.  Feigning anger and concern for vets is just the latest bald-faced lie from this President.     

  

    

Why The VA Is So Screwed Up, And Why It’s Obama’s Fault

Unless you get your news from NBC, CNN, ABC, New York Times, Comedy Central, CBS, Washington Post, LA Times, MSNBC, or al Jazeera, you probably know that the Veterans Administration has death panels and secret waiting lists which are killing veterans, or more accurately, letting them die rather than doing the hard expensive work of treating them, healing them, and prolonging their lives.  In other words, the VA is performing exactly as designed.  Come to think of it, the entire federal bureaucracy is performing exactly as designed.  The IRS, Fannie and Freddie, The State Department, Obamacare (HHS), The Obama Administration, and all the rest in this “mismanaged carnival of stupidity” (to repurpose Alec Baldwin’s words) are all performing exactly as designed.  What’s more, it’s all Obama’s fault. 

No, I’m not suggesting that President Barack Obama himself is making the day to day decisions at the VA, HHS, IRS, or any one of the alphabet soup exemplars of tragic dysfunction which we call government.  He is far too busy watching college hoops, fundraising, partying with Jay Z, golfing, and dishing one-liners from behind a teleprompter to be involved in running anything.  Running stuff is icky and hard.  Besides, Obama doesn’t ever want to risk having his fingerprints on any part of this travesty.  Yet despite his attempts to float above the mess, his signature is everywhere, for he is the modern ideological leader of totalitarian big government and has been it’s most ardent champion since coming on the national scene. 

Barack Obama is a perversion of King Midas:  everything he touches gets nationalized.   Got a problem with student loans?  Nationalize it.  Got a problem with health insurance?  Nationalize it.  Got a problem with housing?  Nationalize it.  (Don’t forget: as Senator, Barack Obama was known as the “Senator from Fannie and Freddie”.)  Got a problem with curriculum?  Nationalize it.  Got a problem with anything, the answer is always the same: nationalize it.  And when you nationalize it, you politicize it.  Hence, everything becomes political. 

You would think the VA is a healthcare system for veterans.  You would be wrong.  The VA is first and foremost a jobs program for political constituents that was originally set-up to treat veterans but now does so as an afterthought.  You might think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were mortgage companies for the poor.  You would be wrong.  Fannie and Freddie are first and foremost political operations that originally were set-up to provide mortgages for the poor but now do so as an afterthought.  This goes for Obamacare, student loans, the IRS, and every other agency, policy, statute, and corner of the federal government under this President and those before him who shared his philosophy. 

The framers of our constitution knew this could happen.  They knew totalitarianism and all-powerful government would politicize everything and turn it into a horror show.  That’s why they gave us a “charter of negative liberties” which says “what the federal government can’t do to you…” (to borrow Barack Obama’s own derisive words.).  The constitution specifically limited federal power.  It was a check on totalitarianism and a wall against nationalizing and politicizing everything.  Well, it used to do that anyway.  Not so much anymore. 

No president in our history has openly denigrated the concept of limited government and done more to deliberately undermine it than this president.  Dead veterans, dead ambassadors, more than a doubling of dead soldiers in Afghanistan, death panels, a government weaponized for political purposes, and a mismanaged carnival of stupidity from top to bottom are the inevitable result. 

Fed Up with "Fed Up"

I saw the food documentary “Fed Up” the other day and have a lot to say.  “Fed Up” is a film about diet, health, and the epidemic of obesity and its complications.  Made by executive producers Katie Couric and Laurie David, and directed by Stephanie Soechtig, the film chronicles the struggles of a handful of overweight kids and intersperses their stories with interviews of politicians, scientists, and practitioners explaining how we got here and how to fix it. 

If you have not heard of this film, you will soon.  “Fed Up” was one of the hardest tickets to get at this year’s Sundance Film Festival.  Apparently food and diet are very potent topics.  And this film is potent.  It has all the right elements for a successful documentary:  a scary health story everyone can relate to, a big name narrator - Katie Couric, big name cameos, good production, plus all the right villains, heroes, and victims. 

• Villains:  big sugar, big corporations, lobbyists, venal politicians (mostly Republicans), Fox News, Sarah Palin, George W Bush. 
•  Heroes:  concerned professionals - doctors, scientists, nutritionists, do-gooder politicians (almost all Democrats), Bill Clinton, Tom Harkin, George McGovern.
• Victims:  kids, minorities, the poor.

Unfortunately, “Fed Up” is deeply flawed.  While the movie does do a good job of telling the sugar story, it misses the carbohydrate forest for the sugar trees.  It also has an overt political agenda which blinds it from seeing the true culprits.  Along the way it glosses-over and misrepresents some key elements and ultimately alludes to the wrong solutions.  When all is said and done, “Fed Up” is the equivalent of a jumbo tub of popcorn ladled with salt and trans-fats -  you will enjoy it while it lasts, but it will leave you worse-off in the end.

Here’s the movie in summary: 

• Too much sugar in our diets has led to an epidemic of obesity, which has led to a host of health problems, and ultimately will lead to premature death for millions.  Children are most at risk. 
• Greedy big corporations and lobbyists threw money at venal politicians, and got them to conspire against our health interests, which caused it all. 
• Therefore, the cure is for big government to step in and stop the greedy corporations from harming us for profit. 

According to the movie, a key turning-point which led to our obesity epidemic was a 1977 government report titled “Dietary Goals for the United States”, aka The McGovern Report.  This was the first time the federal government officially weighed-in on diet.  Here are the report’s six goals:

In the  “Fed Up” version of the story, The McGovern Report and subsequent government efforts, had the science right, but big greedy corporate interests twisted the findings, put pressure on politicians, and got them to water-down the goals.   

It makes a great story, but this is pure nonsense.  The government has never gotten the science right.  Governments don’t do science, they do consensus.  Sure enough The McGovern Report was a turning point, but that’s because the report was based on a flawed consensus!

In 1977 the biggest health issue of the day was thought to be heart disease.  A consensus had formed among health professionals that this malady was largely due to a diet high in meat, eggs, and dairy.  Fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol were our main enemies, with sugar and salt bringing up the rear.  The government accepted the consensus and mistook it to be settled science. 

When government mistakes consensus for science, it doesn’t just print a flawed report.  A cascade of bad decisions and policies result with untraceable negative consequences.  Subsidies, taxes, penalties, regulations, etc. all can be employed to support the consensus, and if that consensus is wrong, real damage results.

The late author Michael Crichton (“Jurassic Park”, “Andromeda Strain”, etc) had some choice words about the difference between consensus and science: 

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Science is particularly elusive when it comes to diet.  One of the big challenges is the chronic nature of bad eating habits - there is often no immediate negative effect, and it can take years for health problems to emerge.  Another challenge is the fact that people are all unique in their level of activity, genetic make-up, and medical history.  Animal studies do not always correlate well with humans when it comes to diet.  And finally, controlling variables when humans are involved over long periods of time is nearly impossible.  Nevertheless, science has been putting a dent in the consensus.

For instance, we now know that McGovern’s first goal – to increase carbohydrate – was a monumentally bad one.  Since the consensus was that we should eat less meat, eggs, and dairy - all sources of protein and fat - we therefore had to increase the only thing left - carbohydrates.  The text of the report stresses increasing primarily "complex carbohydrates like whole-grains, fruits, and vegetables”.  Sounds harmless right?  Eh, not so much.

We now know that many of the so-called complex carbohydrates, like the ones The McGovern Report told us to eat for 60% of our diet, are just as bad as sugar!  There is no metabolic difference between a modern whole-wheat bagel and a can of Coke.  In fact, according to William Davis, MD author of  “Wheat Belly”, modern whole-wheat flour is more glycemic (blood sugar spiking) than even table sugar!

It turns out that overeating bad carbohydrates is what is making us obese.  It’s not fat, and it’s not just sugar as “Fed Up” would have us believe.  Some of those bad carbohydrates are the very ones our government has been pushing on us for nearly forty years!

I call all the bad carbohydrates GLUE.   Any carbohydrate is GLUE if it meets these criteria:

•           GLycemic (blood sugar, and/or insulin spiking)
•            Un-nutritious (low in nutrients)
•            Energy-dense (highly caloric) 

GLUE includes all sugars and sweeteners, refined fruit and fruit juice, refined grains including anything made from flour, and refined starches.  (In general, the less a carbohydrate looks like its original form, the more likely it is GLUE.)     

This puts many so-called complex carbohydrates in the GLUE category, including pasta, crackers, bread, cereal, and some rice.  Even if it says “whole-grain” on the label, it is likely GLUE.  These are the things our government has been telling us to eat more of for nearly forty years.  Of course, when Americans are told to eat these things, most of what they buy is not whole-grain.  Americans have developed a taste for refined, bleached, white flours and starches, and this was the case before The McGovern Report.  Knowing this, and then telling Americans to eat more GLUE, is downright insane.

Below is a USDA graph showing how The McGovern Report actually influenced our food supply:

According to the USDA, fat trended down and carbohydrate skyrocketed shortly after The McGovern Report in 1977.  The graph also shows a similar availability of carbohydrates prior to the 1950s, but prior to WWII, USDA data was at best a guess.  Either way, back then we ate much less GLUE, and hence obesity and its complications were not epidemic.

(If you are wondering how I can make all these claims and not provide footnotes and citations, remember this is first and foremost a movie review.   And I'm a blogger not a scientist, Jim!  Suffice it to say my wife is a nutritionist, and she makes me read all these books.  If you’re interested in reading some too, a good one to start with is Gary Taubes' “Good Calories, Bad Calories”.  Taubes appears briefly in the film too.  I'll link more sources at the end.)  

The second, third, and fourth goals of The McGovern Report were concerned with reducing fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.  We now know that fat does not make us fat, that saturated fat does not cause heart disease, and that ingested cholesterol does not raise our bad cholesterol (LDL), but does raise our good (HDL). We now know that the consensus was wrong about all this too. 

One of the unintended consequences of The McGovern Report, as the movie does point-out, was the substitution of sugar for fat in processed foods. Thanks to the report’s recommendation that fat be reduced, food companies responded by replacing the flavorful fat with sugar and other sweeteners like HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup).  After all, sugar was the lesser of evils according to the report!  Moreover, HFCS was thought to be healthier then sugar according to the consensus.  Plus it was cheaper thanks in part to corn subsidies and sugar import restrictions.  This made it economical to put it in practically everything. Yay!  Thus the report shot itself in the foot - twice.

Another unintended consequence of the report was the substitution of trans-fats for saturated fats.  The report singled-out saturated fats, so corporations replaced them with man-made trans-fats.  We now know trans-fats are a proven health threat.  We also know that the generic recommendation to reduce saturated fat was irresponsible.  “Fed Up” does not mention this.  (See this from just the other day: "Study Questions Fat and Heart Disease Link")  

In short, the consensus was dead wrong on many levels.  Ergo, the premise of “Fed Up” is wrong:  Our obesity epidemic was not caused by greedy big corporations, but rather by big government do-gooder hubris, mistaking consensus for science, and incompetently engineering the diets of three hundred million unique individuals.  This is the real story behind our obesity epidemic.

I’m not suggesting that we could have entirely avoided this had the federal government not issued dietary goals based on a bad consensus.  We were well on our way to a crisis, downing Coca-Cola, Wonder Bread, and Mary Janes long before government got involved.  But the government managed to exacerbate and prolong the situation by repeatedly instructing us to eat more GLUE, and that continues up to this day!

There never was a unanimous consensus on diet.  Dr. Robert Atkins, a NY cardiologist, became famous for popularizing the low carbohydrate diet.  His 1972 book, “Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution” chronicled his observation that his patients did better eating low carbohydrate diets.  The consensus was dead wrong according to him.  Carbohydrate was the culprit, not fats, saturated fats, cholesterol, or just sugar.  He went on to correlate the emergence of our obesity epidemic with the advent of a diet high in refined carbohydrate.  From the 1960’s, until his death in 2003, and continuing today, he is called a denier, ridiculed, ostracized, demonized, and was even sued. Atkins may have not been right about everything, but it turns out he and the many others who came before him were onto something.

(Consensus sometimes behaves like religious fanatics - it burns its heretics at the stake.  Say, is that a torch-bearing mob coming my way?)

Now that the flaws in the consensus have been exposed and millions are dying, the do-gooders and their apologists, like those who made this movie, are trying to pin the blame on their favorite scapegoats – greedy corporations.

The movie makes a huge point of showing how the lobbyists and big food corporations pressured politicians to tweak the government recommendation in their favor. Admittedly, these parties had their own economic interests in mind, and they did put pressure on politicians who predictably folded.  But in the end, none of it had any effect because the consensus was wrong in the first place!  The McGovern Report’s very first goal was for us to consume more carbohydrate, much of it from GLUE.  Blaming this epidemic on efforts to water-down government reports is like blaming a butterfly for a hurricane!

That’s not to say that corporations do not play a role.  They make our food after all.  But corporations only make the products we demand.  We were instructed by the consensus and our government to eat more carbohydrate first, avoid fat second, avoid saturated fat third, avoid cholesterol fourth, and finally to reduce sugar and salt.  We demanded that corporations supply us with foods meeting those priorities.  And that’s just what they did.  The fact that we went on to consume way too much of the sugary stuff is not their fault.  It’s our fault.  The movie gets this basic cause and effect backwards.

Overlooked entirely in the movie is the role of the 1992 FDA Food Pyramid, which doubled-down on the faulty consensus from The McGovern Report.  It’s hard to find a more recognizable and influential symbol of our dietary trend the last quarter century. Bread, cereal, rice, and pasta, all GLUE, were to be the very foundations of our diet.  Again we were told to eat the wrong things by our government.

Ironically, Bill Clinton is one of the film’s heroes.  He was elected president the year the Food Pyramid debuted.  He along with his administration bought into the consensus and irresponsibly promoted The Food Pyramid for eight years.

The federal government is still at it today.  As I’m writing this, I became aware that the USDA has published a children’s book, and is urging grandparents to read it to their grandkids as a bedtime story.  The book features cute kittens explaining the current version of the Food Pyramid, which is called “My Plate”.  The first food group on My Plate, and the largest, is - “The Grains” – bread, crackers, rice, and noodles.  Big government is still mistaking consensus for science, still pedaling GLUE, and still puzzled by the ongoing obesity epidemic! 

Finally, there are the movie’s solutions. The main suggestion is to compare the diet caused epidemic to the smoking caused one, and learn from the successful campaign against smoking.   On this basic point I concur.  But the movie implies more. 

The good guys are all big government types:  Mike Bloomberg, Bill Clinton, Tom Harkin, for example.   While the bad guys all lean (relatively) smaller government:  Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush.  As I have shown, big government has exacerbated and prolonged this epidemic.  How likely is it that even bigger government can solve it?

NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg is featured near the end of the movie.  He famously banned salt, big sugary drinks, and trans-fats from restaurants and stores in New York City.  Not just for kids, but for adults too.  This is the problem with Bloomberg-ism, and the movie’s implications:  there is no distinction between children and adults.  We are all children in the eyes of the nanny state. 

In the most blatantly disingenuous edit of the movie, Sarah Palin is shown speaking about how parents should be responsible for feeding their own kids and making the right choices.  In the very next clip she is seen sipping a Big Gulp.  The implication is clear:  the filmmakers are painting Palin as irresponsible and they do not believe she is capable of making responsible choices for her kids.  Therefore Palin and all parents need big government to do that for them.   Of course, the Big Gulp was a prop Palin employed in defiance of Mike Bloomberg’s attempted ban on big drinks.  Shamefully, the filmmakers don’t reveal that.  The courts agreed with Palin in the end.

Surely, government can play a role as it did with cigarettes and kids.  Advertising GLUE and unnatural food to kids could and should be barred, as should selling GLUE and unnatural foods to minors without adult permission.  That would be a big help.  But “Fed Up” is too busy covering for big government’s mistakes and demonizing big corporations to ever get that helpful.  The movie suggests a ban on sales and ads for "junk food", which under it's own definition would include such items as cheese, egg yolks, and a hamburger patty!

If government wants us to change our eating habits, they should start by admitting the errors of the consensus for the last forty years.  The McGovern Report has been proven wrong about fats, meat, eggs, cholesterol, dairy, and now even salt.  Those are not the things that are killing us.  Too much GLUE and unnatural foods are what's killing us.  The government mistook a consensus for science, focused on the wrong culprits, and has been giving us bad advice for forty years. 

“Fed Up” misses this incredible story of government hubris, mistaking consensus for science, misinformation, and tragic unintended consequences.  Instead, it preaches more consensus – corporations are evil and big government can save us. 

Further Reading

The real solution cannot come from a government prone to confusing consensus with science.  Nor can it come from politicians who sell policy to the highest bidder (from either party).  It has to come from people educating themselves.  Many people have adopted low-carb, “paleo”, whole-food, and no grain eating habits without the government telling them to, and they are getting thinner and healthier. 

Here are some book suggestions which may help you:

Gary Taubes

"Good Calories, Bad Calories"
"Why We Get Fat"

William Davis, MD

"Wheat Belly"

Robb Wolf
"The Paleo Solution"

Mark Sisson
"The Primal Blueprint"

Liz Wolfe, NTP
"Eat The Yolks"

And of course, Dr. Robert Atkins
"Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution"

(*Many thanks to my lovely nutritionist wife Pam for her help in writing this piece, making me read these books, and for keeping me healthy despite myself!)

Originally published 4/2/14.  Reposted upon release of the film 5/9/14.