MTheads

Public Schools Produce Parents too Stupid to do What's Best for Own Children

Aaahh!  Why do some people who slather over choice in just about every arena in life think educational choice for parents trapped in bad schools is equivalent to destroying public education?? 

NYT's article With Vouchers, States Shift Aid for Schools to Families has garnered the regular fascist/marxist comments from the kind of people without children trapped in bad schools.  We'll get to that in a second. 

But first, one thing about the article that bothers me is the assumption that it's legislators who are redefining education:

A growing number of lawmakers across the country are taking steps to redefine public education, shifting the debate from the classroom to the pocketbook...

It's not the states that are redefining public schools; it's the people who have to live and pay taxes to crappy school systems that are redefining education!  Again, it's that ignorant implication that the State is the only free actor and people are simply statistical aggregates.

Now for some miscellaneous snippets from a proponent and from a critic quoted in the article:

Mr. Komer at the Institute for Justice called for a shift of focus. “We happen to take the view that parents know best,” he said, “and are the best accountability measure to make sure that things are done properly for their kids.” (I love you.)

“This movement is doing more than threaten the core of our traditional public school system,” said Timothy Ogle, executive director of the Arizona School Boards Association. “It’s pushing a national policy agenda embraced by conservatives across states that are receptive to conservative ideas.”(Everything he said is true.  Now imagine exchanging some words and making this statement about same sex marriage. What a bigot!)

And here are some comments from those who assume they know better than parents actually in the now:

There is no doubt that the ultimate goal for Arizona is the total destruction of public education in favor of private schools and charter schools run by corporations. (Yeah, free of doubt like a Stalinist show trial.)

My biggest beef with all of these voucher programs is that they lead to re-segregation of the educational system. Not just by race, but by class, religious, social and intellectual proclivities. (Otherwise, our public schools are so racially, socially, and economically well integrated.  Let me guess, you're from Vermont.)

Currently, many middle class and poor families are not well enough informed to know that they might soon lose one of the benefits that has been granted to American families for a long time. (By ill-informed you mean not passive enough to accept things as they are?)

In my humble opinion, many parents of the neediest (educationally and income-wise) kids have absolutely no clue about what's good for their children. (Go look up humble in the dictionary.)

Conservatives have been trying to destroy public education for decades.(Public education is destroying public education.)

This is all part of the GOP's plan to destroy public education and support church schools. Typically these programs have NO accountability...(Umm, these programs are accountable to the parents and students, genius.)

To be fair, and to be pleasantly surprised, many readers of the article defended the right of parents to guide their own children's educations, to include providing vouchers.  Imagine!  Our very own tax money being given back to us to use as we think best!  God, this must strike fear into the hearts of reactionaries everywhere! I'm all warmed inside to see so many people finally coming around to understanding public education has to be freed from its Medieval guild structure if it is to ever evolve.       

Post Update:  I take it back.  The comment section is now awash with spittle spewing stooges.  Yes, the face of public education.                                                                                                                                      

Soon...It'll be Spring II

Soon....It'll be Spring.

Tax on Fat was Going to be Just the Beginning...

In case someone out there isn't a fanatical data collector on the low carb diet and hasn't kept up with the case of Denmark's government taxing "unhealthy" foods, here's an article in The Economist on it: A Fat Chance.

Let's just say it didn't work out.  In the comments, some people surmised that the Danish government is always looking for things to tax and it just categorized fat as a health risk in order to extract more kroners.  Or they really really cared.  This time the populace fought back. 

Fast Facts on Denmark

1) I got married in Denmark.  So, I'm quite the authority.

2) Denmark is surrounded by LCHF countries.  Around 25% of Swedes eat low carb.

3) Everyone speaks English better than most native speakers of English.

4) If you get married there on one of their wedding packages, you will be asked at least five times if you have ever had relations with a family member.  Relations means sex.  Not sure if this is how they see the rest of us, or if they themselves have a problem with it.

5) They will spike your complimentary bottle of champagne with sleeping drugs so you'll miss your dinner reservation and be forced to eat at a Chinese takeout on your wedding night.

6) They are all good looking.  What have they done with all the unattractive people?  (Read Uglies by Scott Westerfeld....)

Monday Snow Madness!!!!

Looks like six more weeks of getting away with wearing sweat pants weather. 

 

Not everyone is happy with the snow.

LCHF Log and Book List

My LCHF diet:

All and any meat products.  Cheese, salami, and liver pates.  Eggs, cream, and bacon everyday.  Lots of vegetables like greens, cabbages, and cauliflower.  Butter, bacon fat, and coconut oil.  Coffee, water, and wine. 

No grains.  No legumes.  No sugar.  Little processed foods.

That sums it up.

Books I've read on this topic:

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

Why We Get FAt: And What to Do About It by Gary Taubes

The New Atkins for a New You by E.C. Westman, S.D. Phinney, and J.S. Volek

Wheat Belly by William Davis

Rich Food Poor Food by Mira and Jayson Calton

The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living by S.D. Phinney and J.S. Volek

The Paleo Solution by Robb Wolf and Loren Cordain

The Paleo Diet Revised by Loren Cordain

My favorite books are Gary Taube's --- so stuffed with facts and studies.  I also enjoyed Rich Food Poor Food.  I learned so much about hidden ingredients and how to choose various products by quality characteristics.

My least favorite books have been the Paleo books.  They're heavy on ideology in a way that reminds me of my vegan and vegetarian days.  In Paleo world, food isn't simply good or bad for you, food either heals or sickens.  Good food pulsates with warm wishes and healing substances while bad food corrupts and sickens. And which does which depends how we choose to weave their foody roots into our pre-historical Eden, called the Caveman Days.

But, I still enjoyed the books.  Paleo eating has a lot to offer the low carb eater, if you can get past the rituals and new age optimism.

Workout Log with Picture!

Here's a pictorial update on my accumulated muscle mass:

Look at those oddly long arms...try doing a pull up with those.

I haven't weighed myself for a month so I don't know that.  But belly flattish (four kids explains the -ish part) and clothes fit the same.  I need to get a scale.  My legs are bigger too.  I'll get a pic of those one of these days.

I've finally made some gains in the leg department.  I'm up to 145lb dead lift and squat.  Took long enough.  My lower back was the weakest link. 

My LCHF diet is still going fine.  I felt very weird for over two months - kind of hollow and dead inside, hahaha not that bad, but odd.  Now I can't tell any difference.  Maybe I have more energy, but I've always been fairly energetic.  I'm definitely less hungry.  Sometimes I can't eat anything at meal times.  I am drinking close to a cup of heavy cream a day in my coffee.  That could explain things.

 

 

Is it about Health, or Class?

One of the arguments made by Bloomberg's benign fascist army is that we've already bowed our heads in submission to all kinds of safety ordinances, laws, and regulations.   For example, regulations covering seat belts, child seats, motorcycle helmets, texting while driving, smoking, guns, etc.  So what's the problem with limiting soda portions?  Such a small thing...

As an argument, this argument is flawed (tut quo toe, or something like that).  As a persuasive appeal to our logic in a risk averse, complex regulatory environment, it's pretty good.  We can all find regulations and laws we agree with.  Some regulations, like child car seats, would be difficult to make a case against without sounding heartless -- yes, but it's my child's risk to take.  Helmets save lives, those who text while driving are idiots, bazookas in town homes are risky, etc. Most of us accept these limitations to our choices.

So should we accept any regulation or law our State deems for our own good because most of us buckle up?  Of course not. Each proffered regulatory limitation needs to be judged on its own particular merits.  We need to balance individual and public safety with the ideals of personal responsibility and individual freedom.  We all know this.  Which is why those who've decided they need to rescue us have to ratchet up their warnings: 

“Obesity is one of America’s most deadly problems, and sugary beverages are a leading cause of it,” Bloomberg said Sept. 4 in Queens,

“To not act would be criminal,” said board member Susan Klitzman, a professor and director of the Urban Public Health Program at Hunter College in Manhattan.

One could argue that after tobacco, sodas might just be the biggest killers via preventable disease in the country. Yet just as 32 ounces seems to be the new normal, so does death by preventable disease. - Mark Bittman

Again, I chose random, cherry-picked quotes, sort of like the way our self-selected superiors choose the health threat of the moment.  Why soda and not snack foods?  Why soda and not alcohol? Why soda?? Maybe because it's the kind of people who like to drink huge sodas.  Maybe because our leaders are actually convinced that our greatest national threat are sugary soft drinks.

 What if sugar is really responsible for so many of our current health problems?  Would I be for limitations then?  Probably, if I thought it could actually be enforced.  But I'd have to be pretty convinced that sugar was a health hazard all on its own and that its restriction outweighed our right to choose to consume it -- like crack.  And all sugary products would have to be included.

 What a nightmare trying to enforce a sugar ban!  We could go after the producers straight off, demonize and tax them.  And then we'd have to regulate or ban or tax cocoa, sweet chocolate, cakes, ice creams, cereals, sweetened teas and coffees, cocktails, and other sweetened products.  Or we could just stick with sodas - simple, obvious, and self satisfying in a since you can't control your behaviour I'm going to do it for you kind of way.

Benign Fascism

I'm so glad to see Bloomberg's attempt to control soda and other random sweet fluid portions fail.  Thank God for that New York judge; now let's hope it stands.  I can understand the neurotic need to control the behavior of other people in the name of doing it for their own good, I am a mother and a wife, but what worries me is how many people want Bloomberg to succeed or think he didn't go far enough.

Reading the comments in the NYTs, one can't help thinking that the people who want more control over other people's behavior assume themselves to be better in thought and deed than those they want to change.  It's disgusting.  They worry so much about those fat families going to the movies and buying gigantic sodas..then many of them link the large sodas to their own increased health care premiums.

Some examples:

...I will end up paying for their heart disease because they will end up on Medicare. You may want to live in a society that lets people rot to death in the gutter if they made poor choices earlier in life or were too lazy, stupid, or unlucky to have saved enough money for a triple bypass in their old age...

...The Big Gulp you drink damages me when I have to pay for your medical care when you get diabetes and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for your treatments...

...I applaud Mayor Bloomberg's initiative. Government has a positive role to play by encouraging or leading behaviour that is manifestly in the public interest...

 ...While sized-up soda is lauded and welcomed by Americans, Europeans see it as being extreme vulgar. It furthermore manifests the lack of moderation and refinement in the U.S. consumer culture...

...Perhaps if ordinary people realized their tastes were being deliberately manipulated, preying on subliminal messaging, taste profile optimization all in order to extract more money from their pockets they could be "trusted" to make well founded decisions...

...There are certain populations in many urban areas that disproportionately consumer sugar in the form of sodas and juice, are disproportionately obese and/or diabetic, and also disproportionately rely on government services (i.e. tax dollars) to cover their health care...

...There are many ways our government could make society smarter, healthier, safer, and wealthier, if people didn't get so up-in-arms over every little liberty they've heretofore taken for granted...

Then, after posting these revelatory comments, these sages head out to the nearest cocktail bars.  I know because I read the entertainment section of the Times.  No lack of articles on drinking.  No bashing drinkers of expensive French brandy - sooo healthy.

Alright, to be fair, I really had to go looking for these comments.  So entertaining!  Even 2/3 of NYT readers think Bloomberg is overreaching. But that fascist one third...worrisome.

We all think we're strong enough, good enough, wise enough to wield the government for good, but, in the end, it will gain power from your efforts and destroy you.  Or is that the Ring of Power?  Either way, good to keep in mind when trying to control other people's behavior you happen to find distasteful.  Work on your own soul.

 

The Hungry Beast Within...

I've tricked, er...encouraged my husband into eating low carb with me.  Considering I do all of the cooking, that wasn't hard.  And he doesn't even realize it yet.  No, he suspects. 

His problem with the diet so far is the inconvenience of making quick meals low in carbs.  When you're running out the door, it's much easier to eat a quick bowl of cereal or grab a sandwich.  Now, he throws some pre-cooked sausages into the microwave.  But that'll get old eventually.  I'm good with cheese cubes, liverwurst, and coffee, but he wants something more...traditional.  Pussy.

But the biggest change in the townhouse has been our daughter's change from strict vegetarian to meat eater.  Now, she was a vegetarian in name only because she really didn't eat any vegetables.  Cerealtarian or carbotarian or crappofoodoterian would have been more accurate. 

When she started waking up with black circles under her eyes, I was done with her diet.  I bought her a double quarter pounder and barely got my fingers out of the way in time.  So now I work very hard to make sure she is eating high quality meat almost everyday.

Unfortunately for my family when I think I'm right about something, I go on an unceasing propaganda campaign that can only end when they have all converted to my way of thinking, or I've been done in Murder on the Orient Express style.  But I never sleep.  I just keep sweeping the world like the eye of Sauron looking for ever more obscure documentaries, books, and blogs to make them watch and read.  Oh, they will turn, they will turn.  Or they can make their own damn dinner.