Emotional...

... Bissage.

"The American way of eating has become the elephant in the room in the debate over health care."

Ha ha. Get it? The elephant? That's you, reader. You're fat, says Michael Pollan. And you are a big — a huuuuge — part of the problem the government needs to solve. Pollan links to a study that supposedly shows that the reason we spend twice as much on health care as Europeans is because we are so grotesquely tubby. How can the government come between you and your food?

Cheap food is going to be popular as long as the social and environmental costs of that food are charged to the future. There’s lots of money to be made selling fast food and then treating the diseases that fast food causes. One of the leading products of the American food industry has become patients for the American health care industry.

Greedy corporations are making you fat and costing the health care system money. They are so greedy that — how awful! — they are selling food cheap. Expensive food also makes you fat, of course, but it's less obvious who's making money selling expensive food and thus harder to blame the evil corporations. 

The market for prescription drugs and medical devices to manage Type 2 diabetes, which the Centers for Disease Control estimates will afflict one in three Americans born after 2000, is one of the brighter spots in the American economy. As things stand, the health care industry finds it more profitable to treat chronic diseases than to prevent them. There’s more money in amputating the limbs of diabetics than in counseling them on diet and exercise.

Oh, here are the money-mad limb-hackers Obama was warning us about. Now, what I want to know is what is so terrible about the fact that most of the health-care money is spent treating diseases? Why should healthy people be consuming a bigger portion of the money? It's a good thing that people are left alone to take care of themselves and that health care professionals are used to do the things we can't do for ourselves. Of course, it would be nice if people didn't get diseases, and maybe a lot more of us could have long, disease-free lives, with little consumption of health-care resources if only we did more prevention. But would it change anything to give people ample free sessions with professionals who tell us to do what we already know we ought to do? The doctors actually don't have a clue how to get us to stop overeating (or — as if it would help — push us into a vigorous exercise program).

Pollan gets an economic theory going. He says health insurance companies drop customers after they get diseases, but if new law prevents this and requires them to charge all customers the same rates, then, they will have a strong new interest in preserving health and, allied with government, will stimulate the creation of government programs, policies, and laws aimed at stopping us from eating so damned much.

When health insurers can no longer evade much of the cost of treating the collateral damage of the American diet, the movement to reform the food system — everything from farm policy to food marketing and school lunches — will acquire a powerful and wealthy ally, something it hasn’t really ever had before....

In the same way much of the health insurance industry threw its weight behind the campaign against smoking, we can expect it to support, and perhaps even help pay for, public education efforts like New York City’s bold new ad campaign against drinking soda. At the moment, a federal campaign to discourage the consumption of sweetened soft drinks is a political nonstarter, but few things could do more to slow the rise of Type 2 diabetes among adolescents than to reduce their soda consumption, which represents 15 percent of their caloric intake.

"Bold new ad campaign"? Nicely, the NYT includes a link. Here's the ad:

It's a run-of-the-mill public service ad? What is bold about it? Picking on one product? Using tax money to pay for it? Oh, I see, it "graphically depicts globs of human fat gushing from a sideways drink bottle." I couldn't tell by looking at it. So shoving disgusting images in our face is bold. How admirably edgy of New York City. What's next? Pictures of ugly fat people slobbering over hamburgers? Something like this?



Throw all the taxpayer money you want into preventive care and raise the price on our too-cheap food. Blare nauseating ads at us. But we will still eat. We already care and we already don't want to be fat. We're not fat because corporations are greedy or because you can't get a free appointment with a nutritionist. We're fat because of the deep, innate appetite that saved our ancestors from famine and motivated them to eat whatever they could find to survive. We are here thanks to those profound desires, and life is all too easy these days. The unfortunate consequence of the beautiful amplitude of modern life is that we grow too big.

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage said:

It’s funny that some people look at that ad and see “globs of human fat gushing from a sideways drink bottle.”

Not me.

I see a dog’s head with a dagger in it, a penis, and the word “sex."

Makes me want to consume alcohol, but I don’t know why.

Faking the hate.

Meet Maurice Schwenkler, the new Ashley Todd.

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage:

Our young Mr. Schwenkler, a/k/a the Gangster of Love, would have done better to have spent his spare time watching reruns of "thirtysomething," learning how to be an adult.

Let's speak of the pompatous of politics.

"But seriously, in this movie there is no sex. No violence. No eye candy. No action, really, except what’s in your imagination."

"But there are ideas. Oh, how there are ideas! And there is a kind of benevolent godliness to it. And there is a way to live your life."

All I can say is just: Be sure to drink your Ovaltine®.

"THE THEATER IS ALIVE!!1!!!!!!1!!!"

The wonderful Bissage comments on the old post titled "'My Dinner with Andre,' my favorite movie, is now available as a Criterion Collection DVD":

Mrs. Bissage and I watched the Criterion release last night. We were both spellbound.

Unfortunately, houseguests arrived just as Andre started his grand surrebuttal. Crap!

Oh well. We agreed this morning we’ll watch it again later this week.

One remark, on the merits, I will hazard to make. As I’m sure you are sick of hearing, Professor, I was involved (half-assedly) in the theater back in the late-seventies/early-eighties. Well, what of it? The thing is, I watched the movie and I was astounded by how much the dialogue reminded me of actual conversations from back in the day.

“Authenticity” is not the be-all and end-all, of course, but that movie is absolutely brimming with theater-culture authenticity, at least according to my experience.

Yep. We really used to wear blindfolds and sit in a circle and listen to each other breathe and stuff like that.

THE THEATER IS ALIVE!!1!!!!!!1!!!

Ha!

And, once again, here's the link to buy the DVD.

"Recently inspired by the great Althouse, I resolved to do more with this blog."

"And I found myself wanting to see if I could post a photograph I took all by my little old self...."

"We await the President’s evidence that the nation's pediatricians are striking it rich with unnecessary tonsillectomies."

"'You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats,' President Obama explained at Wednesday’s press conference. 'The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.' If that’s what he really thinks is wrong with U.S. health care — and with the medical profession — then ObamaCare is going to be even worse than we thought."

***

Is the government's approach to medical care going to be more solidly based on science and less focused on dollar amounts than the system we have now? Or is it the other way around? Obama impugns doctors, because, supposedly they care about money more than science, but, without evidence — and considering the rarity of tonsillectomies — he doesn't seem too well grounded in science.

And he's been presenting his program mainly as a way to save money, so he's openly admitting he's about the money, in which case, why bash doctors for being about the money (if that's what they are)? Obama talks as though he'll only deny us expensive treatments that are less effective than cheaper ones, but I'm trusting that far less than I trust my doctor.

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage writes:

At this very moment, presidential aides are lining up pediatricians to invite to the White House for a beer.

Donald's Designated Driver says:

Personally, I'm glad that our President has the balls to take on Big Tonsil.

"Cool it, Fellas! When I'm done let's all get high on the ammonia fumes!!!"

I love the comments thread over at YouTube — the source of the post title.

Cripes! Like they've never seen a white funnel cloud come out of a hot blonde's house!

looks like a 70's porn movie, lol.

:-D Just love that tornado music.

Heh, that one surfer kinda looks like Nicolas Cage! I can remember that tornado (& trippy musical accompaniment) somewhat freaking me out as a child.

I never knew there was a time where a strong ammonia smell was a good thing...

Ha ha. I never knew there would be a time when the stupid things I tried to avoid would be things I would go out of my way to make everyone look at. Or — for insiders only — the things I eschewed would be things I espewed.

***

This post is inspired by the poem wonderful Bissage wrote about the sink rainbow.

"Obscene, but absolutely hilarious."

According to Right Wing News.

Okay, now I know what's right-wing hilarious. And I'm a little scared.

Especially the part that got me thinking about egg salad.

IN THE COMMENTS: The wonderful Bissage:

I can’t watch the video right now. I’m probably not the only one, so let’s see if something else might suffice:

Bill Bennett walks into an upscale D.C. nightspot and is surprised to see Pat Buchanan sitting at the bar eating an entire chicken. He watches in amazement as Mr. Buchanan tears into the hapless bird and doesn’t stop until all that remains is one chicken wing.

Mr. Bennett says, “You know, Pat, I can’t help but notice you ate that entire bird except for the right wing.”

Mr. Buchanan wipes the slobber and chicken bits from his face and says, “Well, there’s a reason for that but it has nothing to do with my right-wing political inclinations.”

And with that, the ghost of William F. Buckley appears out of thin air and kicks them both in the balls. They double over in agony and fall to the floor. Mr. Buckley sits down at the bar and orders an egg salad sandwich.

The End.

"The perfect smackdown": "Is Barack Obama white?"

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage said:

I remember vividly the time I was carrying my books, walking to summer school, when some bullies threatened to beat me up.

I countered with the perfect smackdown: "Oh yeah? Is Gerald Ford a cocksucking little faggot?"

I spent that summer in a wheelchair.

"99.9 percent of the callers who called in to that show just talked about me like I was a dog."

"What mattered is that there was somebody out there in that audience who was listening — who needed to hear it was OK. And that was the only person I was worried about."

IN THE COMMENTS: knox said:

I suspect Althouse is contrasting this gentleman's behavior with that of gays protesting Prop 8?

Whatever, it's a nice story. A brave--and generous--thing to do, engaging with a hostile audience like that. He deserves props. No pun intended.

Bissage said:

I don’t pretend to be very sophisticated about the merits or politics of same sex marriage and I don’t intend to ever do the work it takes to get sophisticated.

And I don’t feel very strongly about the issue, one way or the other.

That said, I’m sure that if I’m ever standing in a voting booth and I’m thinking of Mr. Brown, I’m going to vote in favor of same sex marriage.

If I’m thinking of some of the more virulent characters who advocate the cause of same sex marriage, some of whom comment here at Althouse, I’ll probably vote no.

I’m sure there are enough people like me out there to make the difference; people disinclined to reward hostility.

I’m sure that makes me an ignorant bigot to some people.

Barack Obama has a Flickr photostream with a Creative Commons license?

Thumbs up!



Thanks, Barack Obama!

I learned this reading Jac's new post "3 thoughts on Election Day 2008 (with photos of the Obama family watching the results)." Jac's post is worth reading too. I liked this:

Considering that I've been supporting Obama since he announced his campaign in early 2007, I was surprised that my own reaction on the night of Election Day was muted. I had to tell myself, "You should be really excited."

Maybe this is because I assumed he'd win, so I'd already gradually absorbed the news.

Maybe it felt wrong to be gleeful about how America is transcending its history of prejudice on a night when California, of all states, deprived people of their right to marry who they want regardless of gender.

Maybe it's that Obama has such a facility at making you feel like you really know him personally that seeing him win was like seeing your friend become president. Sure you'd be happy for them, but you'd also be nervous about all the things that might go wrong.

Ha ha. I like this as an idea for a screenplay: The main character is a lifelong friend of a guy who becomes President.

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage suggests a pop culture reference in a video clip (and I demonstrate my ability to make the clip start in exactly the right spot):



AND: Hey, it's the bus!

It snowed today in Madison.

And then it looked like this:



IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage writes:

That is a beautifully composed photo. And with its colors and atmosphere it speaks to the remembrance of youth long past when . . .

Woah!

Take a gander at the rack on that fire hydrant!

Nice!

(Now, what was I saying again?)

ricpic writes:

WOAH!

I was gonna write a poem all blowzy for beauty
When Bissage put out my pompous light.
Now I can't write a poem pretentious and snooty
'Cause Bissage called my bluff: that's not right!

The other beagles are all: Hey, how did he do that?

(Via Bloggingheads.)

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:

That sort of resourceful canine determination to escape is ordinarily associated with the French breed known as papillon.

Touch-screen voting machines screw up... right in front of the video camera.

Even as a voting official demonstrates how he's just fixed the problem by "recalibrating" the machine. Terrible!

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:

I’ve actually had good luck with those touch-screen voting machines.

One time I cast my vote and lights flashed and bells rung and then . . . JACKPOT!!!

A whole heaping pile of chads came pouring out!

Sweet.

"Why McCain is getting hosed in the press."

According to Politico, it's not that journalists simply want Obama to win. Politico says journalists are actually pretty good at adhering to "professional obligations," they aren't big ideologues, and they don't even like Obama personally. (They "find him a distant and undefined figure.") They used to love McCain, because of "his accessibility and iconoclasm and supposed commitment to clean politics," but they've fallen out of love, not because they want him to lose, but because he's not accessible anymore:

McCain’s decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine, strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sellout....

Meanwhile, Obama has benefited from the "[j]ournalists’ hair-trigger racial sensitivity," "his ability to minimize internal drama and maximize secrecy," and the sheer fact of his "momentum":

A candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage (about his or her big crowds or the latest favorable polls or whatever). And a candidate who is perceived to be doing poorly tends to have all events viewed through this prism.

Not coincidentally, this is a bias shared by most of our sources. This is why the bulk of negative stories about McCain are not about his ideology or policy plans — they are about intrigue and turmoil. Think back to the past week of coverage on Politico and elsewhere: Coverage has been dominated by Sarah Palin’s $150,000 handbags and glad rags, by finger-pointing in the McCain camp, and by apparent tensions between the candidate and his running mate.

These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad. This always happens when a campaign starts to tank.

Shorter version: It's McCain's fault he's getting hosed.

INT THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:

Politico’s explanation makes sense to me. An illustration should help. Have you ever seen a blind man cross the road trying to make the other side or a young girl growing old trying to make herself a bride?

That, of course, takes us to the real question: What becomes of Sen. McCain when they finally strip him of the handbags and the gladrags that the Grand Old Party had to sweat to buy?

ADDED: Drudge says:

POLITICO: DON'T BLAME US FOR THE BIAS, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN SUCKS...

"Does same-sex marriage threaten your freedoms of speech and religion?"

The L.A. Times has a point-counterpoint (as California voters face the decision on Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage). Dean R. Broyles, president and chief counsel of the Western Center for Law and Policy, says:

In a chilling statement, Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and thoughtful gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, said that when push comes to shove and religious- and sexual-liberty conflict, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

The actual evidence is overwhelming that this conflict is not imagined but very real. Unfortunately, religious freedom and free speech are increasingly on the losing end of the equation. In 2005, Swedish minister Ake Green was sentenced to jail for preaching about homosexuality from the New Testament book of Romans (the conviction was eventually overturned). New Jersey's Ocean Grove Campground, a religious nonprofit, lost its tax-exempt status in 2007 because the organization refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony. In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston stopped doing adoption work rather than be coerced by the Massachusetts to place children with same-sex couples. A Massachusetts father was arrested in 2007 when he would not leave the school because the administration stubbornly refused to acknowledge his legal right to opt his child out of ongoing homosexual indoctrination occurring in a kindergarten class.

This year, two Christian doctors here in California were successfully sued for violating state civil rights law because they asserted their right of religious conscience by refusing to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. And famously, just this month, a first-grade class went on a "field trip" to watch its lesbian teacher's wedding in San Francisco.

While legal protections for free speech and religious liberty have been a critical component of our nation's core civil rights protections for more than 200 years, laws granting special rights to those engaged in homosexual conduct are the legal "new kid on the block" -- and this new kid is proving to be an 800-pound gorilla.

Lorri L. Jean, chief executive of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, responds:

Come on, Dean: Do you really think that people will believe your incredible claim that there is "ongoing homosexual indoctrination" in any kindergarten class, let alone that such indoctrination would be required if Proposition 8 fails? That's ridiculous. Proposition 8 has nothing to do with education, and you know it. All the voters have to do is read the language of the measure itself. Proposition 8 is about one thing and one thing only: eliminating rights and treating one group of people differently under the law. That's just wrong.

Jean doesn't really want to understand Broyles's point, and, frankly, Broyles doesn't want to make his point clearly. They are locked in the end stage of a political battle, where wringing out votes is crucial. So they argue strenuously and obtusely.

Let me see if I can make Broyles's point. I think he means to say that if same-sex marriage remains a legal right, enshrined in state constitutional law, then homosexual relationships will come to be regarded normal and good, and, consequently, anyone who objects to them will start to look like a bigot who should not be permitted to have his way. Thus, in order to preserve the right to discriminate against gay people and to keep schools from teaching children that gay couples are perfectly nice and so forth -- all things Broyles wants -- it's important to outlaw gay marriage, because it will be a powerful force in changing perceptions about gay people and those who think gay people are doing something terribly wrong.

Now, with Broyles's argument clarified, what do you think of it?

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:

The problem with this fight is it has been framed in all-or-nothing terms.

But there’s a middle-ground for compromise.

Same sex marriage should become the law of the land but only if it’s interracial.

That’ll buy us some time.

"Judge Carol E. Jackson overrules the law and allows child sexual predators to stalk the darkened streets Halloween night..."

"... looking for their next victim. Is your child next? Call the University of Michigan Law School at ... and ask them why their graduates want your children to be raped."

There's a new court decision blocking a state law that "prohibits 'all Halloween-related contact with children' and allows sexual offenders to leave their homes from 5 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. only if they have 'just cause,'" and Happyshooter, a commenter at Volokh Conspiracy, spins out a spoof of the sort of attack ads that are aimed at the judges who must stand for re-election.

(Judge Jackson is a federal judge, with the lifetime job that will spare her any real attacks of this kind.)

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:

It’s a sign of progress that President Obama will be appointing federal judges who have the empathy to understand what it’s like to desperately crave the unblemished skin, firm body and innocent erogenous zones of a child.

"He is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage" -- Colin Powell endorses Obama.

On "Meet the Press. "Obama displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge... He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:

Since when did “intellectual curiosity” become a big selling point for Commander-in-Chief, anyway?

Oh yeah, that’s right, ever since eight years of teh Most Stoopedisht Pretzledent in teh Historectomy of teh Universed Worzlzd EVVVAAARRR1!!!

Way to sell it, Colin baby!

In anticipation of Friday's debate, the NYT sizes up Obama and McCain.

John M. Broder on Obama:

Some of his chief strengths — his facility with words, his wry detachment, his reasoning skills, his youthful cool — have not always served him well and may pose significant vulnerabilities....

Mr. Obama has a tendency to overintellectualize and to lecture, befitting his training as a lawyer and law professor. He exudes disdain for the quips and sound bites that some deride as trivializing political debates but that have become a central part of scoring them. He tends to the earnest and humorless when audiences seem to crave passion and personality. He frequently rises above the mire of political combat when the battle calls for engagement.

He's just too good for these lowly debate-like exercises those feeble Middle Americans depend on to formulate their pathetic little opinions... sayeth the some who deride this awful trivia.

This was seen most starkly at last month’s forum at Saddleback Church, where... Obama gave long, discursive answers to questions on loaded topics like abortion and personal moral failings, while Mr. McCain stole the show with earthy anecdotes and humor.

“Obama clearly knows how to float like a butterfly,” said Alan Schroeder, who studies media and the presidency at Northeastern University, “but he needs to work on the sting-like-a-bee part.”

Because you know how deadly dull those discursive butterflies are. If only he could spice things up with a few strong one-liners? I disagree. I think Obama needs to make what is his natural style more coherent. He shouldn't flutter and then sting. He should speak in strong, well-structured sentences that are always comprehensible and devoid of "you know" and "uh" filler. Let Obama be Obama, but make it excellent Obamatude.

Katharine Q. Seelye has the matching piece on John McCain:

He has used fairly consistent techniques during his roughly 30 debates on the national stage: he is an aggressive competitor who scolds his opponents, grins when he scores and is handy with the rhetorical shiv....

He uses short, active verbs that project strength, and he can connect with audiences on a visceral level using down-to-earth language....

“McCain’s major weakness is looking wooden, and when he’s out of his comfort zone, his sound bites become weaker and his evasions of questions become more obvious,” said David Lanoue, a political scientist at the University of Alabama and an expert in presidential debates.

... [D]epending on his level of contempt for his opponent, he can drip with condescension, even as he sits calmly with his hands folded in front of him, smiling....

David S. Birdsell, who specializes in political communication and presidential debates at Baruch College, said Mr. McCain could be “irascible and pugnacious and clearly stoked by personal animosity.” It will be a challenge for him to keep that side in check, Mr. Birdsell said, especially toward Mr. Obama, who is 25 years Mr. McCain’s junior and who Mr. McCain believes has not paid his dues.

“Can McCain restrain himself?” Mr. Birdsell asked. “And will Obama have the ability to place the pinpricks at the right moment to elicit that negative, slashing, awkwardly grinning McCain?”

Pinpricks... bee stings... Will McCain get irascible?

It's funny. By these 2 descriptions, both men sound like they're at their worst when they display disdain, and both have a way of trying to smile their way into looking like nice guys in spite of that disdain. That might be quite amusing to watch, and there's a danger that America will tune in to be turned off by both of these men.

Anyway, the articles, taken together, make it seem as though McCain has a big advantage. He only needs to do his usual thing and not act like a jerk. Obama will need to struggle to prove his gravitas without boring us to tears.

Or am I falling prey to a nefarious NYT effort to structure expectations for the benefit of Obama? Does the NYT reach anyone who isn't already for Obama?

IN THE COMMENTS: The wonderful Bissage says:

America craves authenticity.

That’s why McCain and Obama should work fast to perfect the techniques of method acting.

Sure, there might be some off-putting red-faced veiny neck stuff going on.

And maybe some mumbling.

But America doesn’t want a President who will pantomime gravitas to us.

America wants a President who will feel his gravitas at us!

I added the links in service to Bissage's awesome allusiveness.