JOURNAL: Previous | Next | Current | Index

31 March 2001

Rant on Various Topics

Listening to: Cross Canadian Ragweed

Yesterday was leg day on the weight training schedule, and I've not done one machine (the leg press) in quite some time. Strength wasn't really a problem -- I was able to lift what I had previously been lifting -- but man, are my hamstrings SORE today. This is a good thing in a certain sense, because it means I hit muscles I haven't been working properly, but it also has forced me to walk around gingerly today. I share only as background to this: it has put me in the proper mood to rant about a number of topics.

* * * *

I vacillate between two competing opinions on journalists: 1) many journalists are consciously or subconsciously pushing an agenda, whether it's in politics, economics, the environment, fitness, or whatever, or 2) many journalists who appear to be pushing an agenda are really just stupid and sloppy.

That old conundrum was brought to mind this week by a Time article Jaffo blogged, entitled "The Low-Carb Diet Craze." I was expecting to see an expose on the dangers of the Adkins (and similar) diets, which preach low-carb/high-protein ingestion to promote a process known as ketosis (which seems a little bit scary to me, but hey, I'm just a layman). Instead, the author has lumped together with Adkins a number of diets that are based (directly or indirectly) on reducing intake of high-glycemic-index foods (such as simple sugars, but also foods that cause elevations of blood glucose levesl similar to sugar after they are consumed). The problem -- most of those other diets are NOT low-carb diets!

One diet in particular, the Sugar Busters diet that I've adopted in modified form (see my nutrition page), is lumped in, even though it encourages consumption of carbs. What it does DISCOURAGE is the consumption of foods that, when broken down by the body, elevate blood glucose to levels that are similar to eating table sugar! Foods that do this tend to be highly refined carbs (pasta, breads and other foods containing enriched flour), and also some veggies such as potatoes (very bad) and corn (very bad -- ever wonder why animals are fed corn to "fatten" them up prior to slaughter?) and carrots. Other carbs -- virtually all other vegetables, "grainy" breads in moderation, any fiber you want, are highly recommended by the diet, even required. So to lump this diet in with "low-carb" diets is just dishonest.

So the question is, is there an agenda being promoted, or just a journalist who is lazy and dumb? Hard to say. The glycemic-index argument is a little complicated, and is certainly not accepted widely by the diet industry. It is based on the premise that rapidly elevated blood sugar levels promote insulin release that mobilizes fat storage -- and that a diet that maintains regular blood sugar levels would act just the opposite. That's really NOT that complicated, even if it remains controversial. But to the author of the piece, it DOES seem to be complicated:

The science behind these diets is less intuitive than the old fat-makes-you-fat theory and therefore easier to argue over. Each of the low-carb diets is a variation on the theme that cutting down on carbohydrates and thus decreasing blood-sugar levels will cause the pancreas to produce less of the energy catalyst insulin. With less insulin to draw on, the body is forced to burn fat reserves for energy, thus leading to a quick weight loss. Opponents argue that cause and effect have been reversed: excess insulin is caused not by too many carbs but by being too fat.

Note that the author really DOESN'T capture the argument FOR sugar busters (which does not claim to be a "quick weight loss" diet) and allows the opponents of such diets to use circular logic (people who have gotten fat because their consumption of high-glycemic-index foods has, over time, led to such insulin releases as to make them insulin RESISTANT becomes "fat people just have more insulin" -- duh, but why?!). However, after reading the piece several times, I STILL can't decide if the author is just dumb and doesn't understand the arguments on either side all that well, or if he has a real bone to pick with the glycemic-index folks. Certainly, lumping all of the diets together with Adkins (which is guilty of SOME of the evils he discusses) isn't very honest, and conveys the impression that any departure from "conventional" dietary wisdom is a "craze." That seems to be promoting an agenda.

* * * *

Promoting an agenda is a nice segue to John McPain and his crusade against the First Amendment. I refuse any longer to entertain the notion that what he is promoting is campaign finance "reform." Prior to any amendments, his "legislation" was offensive and likely to be struck down on First Amendment grounds (background: Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976) and subsequent court decisions affirming). But Senators on the right and left have offered amendments to this hideous legislation (some successful) that, off the record, they ADMIT raise constitutional questions. Some Senators, too cowardly to vote no on the legislation, have apparently supported such amendments SO THAT THE COURTS WILL STRIKE DOWN THE LEGISLATION. It's a shame those Senators aren't caught saying such things on the record, because it strikes me that supporting legislation one believes to be unconstitutional would be legitimate grounds for impeachment!

But seriously, a couple of things are problematic here. First, I don't WANT everyday politics decided by the courts. Political questions ought to be decided by the people, NOT by the courts. The Constitution clearly spells out the legislative function (as distinct from the judicial function). For a legislature to pass blatantly unconstitutional legislation (it looks like this will pass) because doing their jobs -- voting yes or no on political questions straight up -- is too hard and they would rather leave it to the courts is just a sad abdication of constitutional responsibility. We have been heading in this direction for a long time (hell, we just went there for the first time in a national election), and if I wanted to take the time, I could probably tie it to the Progressives (evil bastards). But instead, I'll move on to my second point, which is: even on a less technical/less legalistic level, what McPain and friends are doing is patently offensive to the principles of the regime. The Founders were concerned with protecting political speech above all else (the Supreme Court has later expanded the original protection to include other forms of "speech," such as art that depicts religious figures being defecated and urinated upon). Now, here comes McPain (and an ignorant bunch of journalists who love this man who apparently believes he was elected Co-President) who OBVIOUSLY knows better than the Founders, and who is specifically targeting POLITICAL SPEECH with his legislation, and nary a whimper is raised by anyone other than Limbaugh (who has been exceptional) about the assault on the First Amendment. It is a sad day to me when so many people as so dispassionate about something so fundamental.

Of course, some media outlets ARE contending that the recent ex-post-facto anti-sunshine law passed by the State of Florida to appease the wife of that dead redneck racecar driver Dale Earnhardt (she did not want autopsy records released to the media, as required by the state's sunshine laws at the time they requested them) IS an assault on the First Amendment. It probably is (and I have serious doubts how it can be made retroactive to cover a sunshine request already submitted). But isn't something wrong when the media is upset about THAT alleged assault on the First Amendment and silent about an assault on fundamental principles of the regime in terms of the First Amendment? And doesn't it say something about Florida (as if the election fiasco weren't enough) that it considers such a matter the highest political priority in the state?

* * * *

Now that I'm good and warmed up, I might as well conclude with this: I AM TIRED OF DAVID HOROWITZ'S GRANDSTANDING! As Joan Walsh put it recently (and the fact I've blogged this occasionally PMDD-challenged Salon writer twice in two days is scary enough), "By refusing to run his ad blasting reparations for slavery, cringing campus journalists are giving the racial provocateur publicity that money can't buy." And that seems exactly what Horowitz wants: publicity. I recall fondly my days in Springfield, MO when I (recently converted to libertarian-conservative views) and my merry little band had great fun provoking reaction with pamphlets, an alternative paper, a bbs, and probably other ways I've forgotten (too many beers). We believed in the cause, yes, but we also believed in drawing attention to our cause. Then we grew up, and some of us got web pages. *grin* But the important point -- we grew up. Horowitz has never grown up. He's simply gone from being an attention-craving, irrelevant left-wing hippie to an attention-craving, slighly-less irrelevant right-wing hippie (with stock portfolio, conventional clothing, and better haircut -- this ain't your father's hippie!).

Mind you, I am amused with and a little sympathetic towards Horowitz's effort to expose the PC culture on college campuses. As a student, I fought that crusade in the trenches, and I can attest that the PC-Left is almost beyond belief. I wish a few editors/publishers of college papers, instead of behaving like PC-squishes, would have looked up and told Horowitz, "We don't publish advertisements that, in our judgment, are intended to inflame segments of our readership. Sorry." Had Horowitz approached me and our libertarian-conservative rag The Bear Review (which was constantly in need of cash), I would haven't have run it either. I might have invited him to submit it in editorial form, and I surely would have penned my own personal response to it (more on that below). Did that make me a member of the PC-Left? Did it make me anti-free-speech (if you are inclined to answer yes, reread what I wrote above on THAT topic)? What exactly did it make me? Probably, less of a reactionary hippie than Horowitz is today (even as a student).

In a private email, the Lovely Evelynne responded to my criticism of Horowitz (previously veiled in comments on the weblog -- I LOVE the fact that Evelynne has noted them) with the suggestion that whether we always agree with Horowitz, the libertarian right NEEDS flamethrowers like him to counter the Je$$e Jack$offs (my term, not hers) of the world. That may be true -- but I think we HAVE flamethrowers who approach things a little differently. Rush Limbaugh and P.J. O'Rourke are great examples. I don't always agree with them (okay, not entirely true -- I do tend to agree with PJ most of the time, AND he makes me laugh), but they illustrate the absurdity of the left by poking fun at them while STILL advancing a coherent view of their own. But the key is that these two are ALWAYS poking fun. Humor is a great weapon when it is backed by an element of truth, which helps to explain the success of both PJ and Limbaugh. Incidentally, it also makes me think that if there were ANYONE on the left who was both funny and articulate, that person could enjoy similar success. But reactionaries like Horowitz who have so few positives to offer, and whose flamethrowing is certainly ego-boosting and occasionally hurtful? I don't need THAT sort of flamethrowing on my side.

And on reparations, he IS on my side, for I too am opposed to reparations. But I'm opposed for far different, perhaps even contradictory reasons. I oppose reparations not because I don't see slavery (and racism) as institutions that have caused (to this point) irreparable harm, but because I don't think reparations will FIX the harm. When I read this ad of Horowitz's, what I see is someone arguing against reparations as if slavery and racism were a tort -- and that the circumstance isn't a legal tort that should be remedied by reparations for many reasons: not all blacks can show harm, all blacks are better off than they would have been in Africa(!), the perpetrators of the alleged tort were few and are all dead, etc. I see someone who isn't at all concerned about the problems caused by racism and slavery, and someone who is not only unconcerned about those real problems, but he would just prefer to be done with it. After all, it's not his fault -- so why discuss it any more? I dissent.

When I was in my own radical libertarian-conservative hippie phase as a college student, I remember having a similar conversation with my good friend Tom Hanna (who, incidentally, introduced me to Ayn Rand's writings). I sounded very much like Horowitz. And Mr. Hanna pointed out to me that I would be right save for one thing: slavery was a "peculiar institution" perpetuated by the US government that caused lingering harm to blacks, and that even if we, individually, were not guilty for the peculiar institution, we cannot deny the lingering harm of that peculiar institution to a particular race of people. The ensuing racism -- Jim Crow laws existed not that long ago -- did much to perpetuate the second-class standing of blacks for many years. It's easy to knock down the straw man of slavery/racism as a tort, since "individuals" or "groups" cannot be directly tied to the damage alleged. But the issue is improperly framed as a tort. What we are talking about was constitutionally protected slavery that was transformed (after the Civil War) into institutionalized racism in the form of Jim Crow laws. Granted, we have come a long way since then, but our government and laws perpetuated this sorry, immoral state of affairs. To go to Horowitz's extremes, wouldn't that suggest that everyone but immigrants (since they presumably weren't descended from people who consented to these government wrongs by living here) were guilty of this non-tort?

Regardless of guilt, problems related to this institutionalized racism still exist for many blacks. If you don't believe it, let me ask when is the last time you ventured into a predominantly black part of your city and had a look around? Further, let me invite you into the Third Ward (near U of H and Texas Southern) of Houston, an area of unbelievable squalor that I used to ride through on the bus on trips to campus (a little scary, I'll admit). Just because Horowitz doesn't go to these places doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'll be the first to argue that reparations are not going to fix the Third Ward, or the lingering effects of institutionalized racism in this country more broadly. Like Horowitz, I oppose reparations. But conceptually, Horowitz isn't that far from proponents of reparations. The proponents want a payment that will finally, magically solve the problem of racism. Horowitz effectively wants blacks to "get over it" and attempts to sever the nation from any responsibility for the harms of its historical institutional racism. I think they're both wrong -- that the government does have a legitimate role to play in the amelioration of the lingering effects of institutional racism. I don't know how to go about it necessarily -- certainly, Horowitz is right to suggest emphasizing responsibility over the race-baiting of Jesse Jackson -- but I'm not comfortable pretending there is NO issue, as Horowitz does. It's an issue that's liable to be with us for a while.

But to conclude: No, I don't need that sort of flamethrower out there convincing otherwise reasonable people that ALL libertarian-conservatives share his views on this issue and, as a consequence, obfuscating the real issues. I think I'd rather go it alone.

[Posted @ 12:29 PM CST]


Powered By Greymatter


If you can read this, your browser does not fully comply with standards. You can still view the site via the navigation bar below.

Reductio (old) | Journal | Glossary | Search | Bio | Photos | Disclaimer