Complexicated Voting Strategery

I found this article interesting:

What's A Perverse Voter To Do?
Vote McCain to advance top liberal initiatives and the Democratic Party; vote Obama for the health of the GOP and the vindication of Bush.
by Jonathan Rauch — Saturday, Oct. 25, 2008
(http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20081022_3411.php)

I gather Mr. Rauch is a liberal. Maybe, then, he's betting his commentary could "trick" more people into voting for Sen. Obama than it pushes toward Sen. McCain. Nevertheless, his piece poses some fascinating hypothetical projections based upon some interesting reminders from history. At the very least, it's entertaining.

(Incidentally, where I really have to disagree with Mr. Rauch is his conclusion that we have two very good candidates from which to choose. Both have "potential for greatness"? I suppose it's possible; but not likely. "[T]the two most singular political talents of their generations"? [So Pres. Clinton and Rep. Gingrich aren't comparable because their from an in-between generation? We're only considering really old and really young politicians?] Maybe. But has "political talent" alone ever made a great president? Sure FDR, Kennedy and Reagan arguably had political talent; but is that what made many consider them "great"? I think this election process has gradually boiled down to the least substantial candidates. It's sad when some of us begin to pine (all too late) for Gov. Romney, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Dodd, Rep. Hunter, and Sen. Biden (at least he's on a ticket); I guess those people just weren't interesting enough. All they had was a lot of relevant public policy experience and knowledge.)

Can't Yoga and Christmas Trees Just Get Along?

Some parents in Canada believe yoga stretches constitute religion and that for that reasons teachers ought not teach them in an exercise program. The article "B[ritish] C[olumbia] school yoga classes slammed" has the details.

I believe that calling the yoga exercise (the stuff mostly taught in America on exercise videos and at YMCAs, etc.) a religion is like claiming that giving someone a gift on Christmas is a way to commit your life to Jesus.

I understand yoga physical exercises to be extracted from the philosophy, Yoga, developed in India. Yoga is a part of the Hindu religion (but also important in Buddhism and Jainism). Yoga apparently consists not only of postures, but also meditation, social action, devotion and study. Unless these kids are doing all this stuff according to Hindu practice, they are not going to become Hindus, no matter how hard anyone tries.

However, I note that many non-Christians have been very extreme in reacting to practicing in schools connected with — though not promoting — Christianity, e.g., Christmas trees and parties, etc. Often, the media views these people as defenders of civil liberties and religious freedom.

The reaction of the parents fighting the yoga stretches is fanatical overreaction. Perhaps, it should give us some perspective, though, on the liberal protesting that crosses the line to fanaticism: against prayers in school? — understandable. Against a Christmas tree — what happened to 'tolerance'?

So I don't think the yoga exercises should be considered a problem. If people in the Canadian school in question like their jobs, however, I hope that yoga-leading teacher is avoiding using words like "energy", "soul", "being", etc. during yoga stretches.

Cooking/Freezing in Plastic Causes Cancer?

I recently received an email forward that I was at first inclined to believe, but then I began to doubt its accuracy. It warned about cancer dangers of cooking and freezing in plastic. The email's text follows.

Cancer update -- Johns Hopkins -- Cancer News from Johns Hopkins:

1. No plastic containers in micro.
2. No water bottles in freezer.
3. No plastic wrap in microwave.
Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This
information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as
well.

Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer.

Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze
your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from
the plastic. Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle
Hospital, was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons. Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.

This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your life!

The information about dioxin and plastic is not accurate. That having been said, I have been avoiding heating food in plastic containers for about 8 years. There is reason to believe this is a good preventive measure. (That's why I was inclined to just accept this one as valid.) The freezer thing appears to be out of nowhere.

But how can I claim the information is not accurate? Snopes.com is a good starting point for any suspected urban legend or email forward. The snopes article about this forward (and related ones) is http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cookplastic.asp. For more solid corroboration, go to Johns Hopkins' own page about the subject at http://www.bms.jhmi.edu/JHI/English/Media/Find_an_Expert/FE_RolfHaldenJuly05.asp.

Here are some relevant excerpts (bold emphases mine) from the Johns Hopkins feature:

[Question:]
What do you make of these email warnings that claim dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles?

RH [Rolf Halden, Ph.D., Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health]:
No. This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don’t think there are.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Halden later says:

In general, whenever you heat something you increase the likelihood of pulling chemicals out. Chemicals can be released from plastic packaging materials like the kinds used in some microwave meals.
. . .
If you are cooking with plastics or using plastic utensils, the best thing to do is to follow the directions and only use plastics that are specifically meant for cooking. Inert containers are best, for example heat-resistant glass, ceramics and good old stainless steel.

__________________

I stopped microwaving in plastic after reading what Andrew Weil, M.D., wrote in his 1997 book 8 Weeks to Optimum Health: " . . . never microwave food in plastic containers, because the microwave radiation can drive plastic molecules into the food; use only glass or ceramic containers and waxed papers or a paper towel for a cover." (p. 87) Curiously, a search at Andrew Weil's site generated nothing on cooking in plastic.

So, microwaving in plastic doesn't seem to be connected with cancer or any other specific disease. Still, it's an easy preventive measure to avoid unnecessary potential contamination of food.

It's not time, though, for me to toss my plastic ice cube trays.

"Simultaneous Use of Fork and Spoon Incites Disgust" OR "Great Job Transcending Negative Francophone Stereotypes"

I think when they move from one culture/country to another, people should generally assimilate to the public courtesies of the country to which they move.

This example, however, is obnoxious: A Filipino boy attending a school in Canada was ridiculed for using eating utensils differently, and the intolerance was rudely defended by administration. See "Filipino table etiquette punished at local school"

It is possible that the boy in question has other behavior problems, and the principal or the newspaper reporter are blundering miserably in communicating the real situation. Failing that, some of the mean-spirited people at that school ought not to be working with children at all.

Why Hillary in 2008?

There is a lot to say about Senator Hillary Clinton. This editorial writer seems to have said one of the most important things that needs to be said: Please don't run for President.

What I keep wondering is why so many Democrats or liberals think she would be such a good candidate. It's to the point where I have wondered whether this was just a wildly popular myth, or a bad dream. Some numbers, however, would indicate, sadly, that it is not.

Maybe liberals and Democrats are just so flustered by the success of folks like President G. W. Bush that they can't think straight; they are grasping at straws. This hypothesis would explain
the puzzle of why democrats seemingly went with Kerry as the "pragmatic" choice in 2004 and would be doing the opposite by picking Senator Clinton.

But why? Some ideas:

A) Maybe (as I alluded to above), they think Kerry lost because he was a practical, moderate choice, so they want to go with a real liberal this time.

B) The Hillary-backers all have a crush on her, because she's moderately attractive, a politically-correct liberal, but still willing to put up with a libertine mate. (Some may even, like Michael Moore, have an extreme pathological version of said crush. Moore: Senator Clinton is "one hot [&*#%]-kicking feminist babe")

C) Democrats are rabid to produce the first female President of the United States and are terrified that someone like Elizabeth Dole or Condoleeza Rice will take that dream away from them.

D) They believe moderates have forgotten that she is married to Former President Bill "Fellatio" Clinton, that she is a liberal and the object of widespread ridicule and aversion even as she tries to build an alternate reputation as a carpet-bagging moderate Senator. They think people don't view her as a power-hungry opportunist using President Clinton' not-so-very-good name to facilitate her ambitions. They instead believe that most people see her as an experienced, principled, middle-of-the-road public servant who only seeks to use her humbly-gained status to help ordinary Americans.

E) Maybe they are fully aware of all her flaws and think that because her negatives are out in the open — rather than in need of being dug up (a little), as with Kerry — that she'll do better. (Oh yeah. I like this idea.)

F) They think she'll be running against President George W. Bush current low ratings instead of these guys.

G) They secretly know that she is a specially-designed super-automaton who will who use her telepathic-laser-ray eyes to hypnotize the voters into not only being able to use voting machines and ballots, but also to vote for her.

Honestly, I just don't get it.

Why Kerry in 2004?

In the 2004 presidential election, Democrats rejected these folks: seemingly   principled liberal — Dean —, a principled, but not telegenic moderate, — Lieberman —, and a telegenic, but inexperienced kinda'-moderate — Edwards. (I left out Clark on purpose. Shortly after his candidacy, I concluded he was incompetent. Probably, though, he just got started too late, and thus was too unknown. I just forgot Gephardt. Enough said about that.)

I argue that they rejected them for a more pragmatic choice. Now just wait, Kerry didn't turn out,  to be a very pragmatic selection, and I don't just mean because he didn't win. He had baggage (the "unfit for command" stuff) and he was not as moderate as some at first thought. Moreover, an analytical, intelligent candidate just appears to the public to be indecisive, waffling or pandering. Not to mention the actual waffling. It seems to me, though, that many liberals thought Kerry was a good compromise, he was not your typical liberal on the outside: he was a war veteran, had some experience in foreign relations, and didn't seem ultra-liberal. Again, Iowans, New Hampshirites and other perhaps didn't do their homework, but I think they initially thought their war hero was a pragmatic choice when war and terrorism were lead issues.

But maybe I'm way off. Maybe they just loved his irresistible charm and melting good looks.

I almost didn't vote for the guy because he mispronounced "bratwurst" and thought that the Packers played at "Lambert Field."

Open Season on Cheney

I'm no conservative, however . . . Is it really that big a scandal that the White House did not release information about the Vice President accidentally wounding a fellow-hunter for — Brace yourself! — a full-day?!

Dumb liberals (as opposed to just liberals) — like some Democratic leaders in Congress and CBS — have a knack of just jumping on any news that comes out and trying to get everyone riled up about it ... in hopes that, somewhere, somehow a Democratic will win an election. I don't know ... we might need a committee to rethink this strategy ... Dr. Dean? Would you have any time to volunteer?

Enough of that. It's depressing. Let's start making fun of Cheney JUST FOR FUN ...

I can't do better than: Scalia to Decline Future Duck Hunting Invitations from Cheney

But I would add that Bush would be wise not to hunt with his V.P. either, lest he become a lame duck a couple of years early . . .

OK ... sorry about that ...

Cold Town

I like the bright blue sky and the white sheets of snow.
I like the skeletons of summer trees forming
an entanglement of earthy lace, blurring
the houses' details of decay (chipping mortar, and oldening paint). I like the slow air and cold motion of smoke and steam.

This poem is not about the horrors of the Iraq war,
nor about the ignored lot of poor and sick,
nor about loyalty of our soldiers, nor freedom, nor
country nor flag; nor about the intoxication of our cities with pushers and killers, and our rivers with poison.
So sue me.