Monday, November 21, 2005


Political correctness is not easily definable except by one's own morality, common sense and love of country. It is a nebulous, ethereal, slippery, unsubstantial commodity attacking the very core of the American existence. It has everything to do with disrupting the American culture and value system and constantly moving against the grain. You can no longer do the "right thing." The moral and proper lessons of our history have become perverted and no longer prevail. The Socialist/Communist crowd, the Democratists, have made the dose much more palatable for the masses by altering the main thrust of educative Marxism from economics into cultural terms.

Throughout our history we have mainly operated with two main parties. There has always been political differences with each party feeling that it is the best one for running the country...and when the battle ended, they shook hands and went back to determining which were the fastest ways to fleece the proletariat. It is now different and much more serious. The present differences stem not from political motivation but from ideological idolatry. How best to turn this nation into one led by a strong federal, centralized government and call it what you will. In our history we have never had so much venom and hate spewing from the mouths of these leftists. There is no longer fear of repercussion from an apathetic, now well conditioned, civically ignorant and apathetic populace.

We see American tradition and values being flouted and trampled on in our lives and in the courts on a daily basis. The incremental repression of our values, freedoms, rights and liberties are ever in motion. To wit: Political correctness is political corruptness legalized. When the aid bill for the victims of Katrina was passed there were billions added as pork for all the congressmen. No morality, no contrition, no remorse, just money to be taken over the heads of victims. When one Senator was asked as to why this was being done he stated with a laugh, "It has to be for this is the one sure way we have for getting re-elected. He is representative of the same group which normally is lifeless, colorless, listless, clueless and usually paralyzed by fear of doing the wrong thing which might hurt its re-election possibilities. However, when it comes to a question of money they wheel and deal with unaccustomed alacrity.

Political correctness has legitimized tyrannical behavior. The Leftists used the college campuses as breeding ground by indoctrinating idealistic and hapless youth. No one other than a Liberal was allowed to speak without disruption. With the University's blessings, of course.

One leftist organization in Michigan did everything in its power to keep from the state ballot a proposal which would allow any person regardless of race, gender, creed or whatever to have equal treatment in the University Admissions process. Its best efforts did nothing more than delay the ballot proposal one year. Its tyrannical behavior, of which it boasted, was nothing more than a symptom of the political correctness in which we are presently enveloped and condoned in every facet of our lives including the Halls of Higher Learning. On the other side of the coin we have teachers and professors who cannot speak freely out of fear of reprisal. Thus inadvertently committing themselves to the sin of omission. A form of communicative suppression, so to speak.

In the courts, the politically correct judiciary who have infiltrated the system over the years have not been without shame in destroying the very core of our being as a nation. They did take Constitution 101 in Law School but only for the opportunity of shredding it. Teachers and Professors are unabashedly indoctrinating our youth without fear of reprisal. In the name of freedom of speech. Why would we allow a Ward Churchill to vomit hatred of America in the classroom and a Kamau Kambon to address college students with the colloquy that white people want to kill us but at the same time not allow an individual to yell fire in a crowded theater? This is political correctness in its finest hour.

The Islamic schools are growing like topsy throughout the country. Some fear that they are teaching hatred of our country. Why worry -- this has been and is being done in American schools already. We're not doing anything about it so why be concerned about the Islamic schools? It is not politically correct or fashionable to confront, attack or be too concerned with enemies of our country. I would call this the tyranny of the minority. Some just call it unmitigated idiocy.

The herd syndrome has conditioned us. Once a nation of fiercely independent people we have now been conditioned to dependency. Our defense against political correctness is as inept as the still used useless prevent defense in football. We loosen our defenses near the end of the game and wonder why all of a sudden the quarterback is able to gobble up so much yardage.

Political correctness has infiltrated our military to a debilitating dimension. We must give thanks to a defense department now fossilized which puts our troopers at risk since it has inculcated the fear of court martial if any soldier shoots first. When our men and women are faced with savages who hide behind women and children and who dress themselves in garb other than that of a warrior we must give them first crack at us. Bringing a political agenda unto the battlefield where the main concern is how others view us instead of allowing our soldiers the maximum protection is the acme of depravity in the utilization of proper military tactics and strategy in warfare.

At the close of the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, Ben Franklin was asked if the representatives present had formed a Republic or a Monarchy. He replied, "A Republic if we can keep it."



Bad diets costing the British taxpayer billions?

Panic: 'NHS picks up 6 billion pounds a year bill for our bad diet', reports today's Daily Telegraph. Researchers working in the British Heart Foundation (BHF)'s Health Promotion Group at Oxford University brought together figures on NHS costs broken down by disease, and compared them with figures from the World Health Organisation (WHO) which attribute percentages of each disease by cause. The main claim is that 'food-related ill health is responsible for about 10 per cent of morbidity and mortality in the UK and costs the NHS about 6 billion pounds annually'.

Don't panic: Even the researchers accept that their results are 'crude estimates', although they think they are probably reasonable. They are, nonetheless, estimates based on other estimates.

The headline figure sounds incredible until you realise that the NHS spent around 70 billion pounds in 2002, increasing to around 88 billion pounds in the current financial year. So while 6 billion pounds seems like a lot of money, it actually reflects the huge sums now spent on healthcare as much as it might be an indictment of our diets.

The figures still need to be treated with caution. They are based on WHO figures suggesting that diet contributes about 15 per cent of all life-years lost to death and disability. However, such estimates are prone to re-evaluation, as the embarrassingly massive downward revision in US obesity-related deaths earlier this year demonstrated. US health authorities produced a figure of 400,000 obesity-related deaths in 2004, but now the accepted figure is in the region of 75,000.

It's also worth noting that the category of '15 per cent' who die of 'bad diet' includes not just those who are overweight and obese (6.9 per cent) but also those who have a low fruit and vegetable intake (2.3 per cent) and consume a lot of saturated fats (6.4 per cent). Yet the links between ill-health and all three of these factors is much more controversial than is suggested by such bald estimates. All estimates of deaths from any lifestyle cause (smoking, eating, alcohol and so on) are produced by extrapolating risk factors from small studies, each with their own methodological problems, to whole populations. There is plenty of room for error in such an exercise.

Above all, it is laughable to suggest that all this death and illness would disappear if we all just switched to eating fruit and salads and avoided burger bars. But such news reports help groups like the British Heart Foundation to bang the drum in favour of greater levels of spending on their particular concerns.

The wickedness of salt

Panic: A report published this week suggests that people in Britain consume too much salt, and that reductions in salt intake could cause a significant reduction in cardiovascular disease. Why 6g? A Summary of the Scientific Evidence for the Salt Intake Target, produced by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC), argues that a reduction in salt intake from current average levels of about 9.5g per day to the government's 6g per day target would lead to a predicted 13 per cent reduction in stroke and a 10 per cent reduction in coronary heart disease.

One of the report's authors, Dr Susan Jebb of the MRC, said: 'It is important for people to understand the links between salt and high blood pressure and to recognise the importance of reducing salt intake as part of broader lifestyle changes to decrease the risk of heart disease and stroke.'

Don't panic: While a link between salt intake and cardiovascular disease seems plausible, there is little direct evidence to support this report's assertion. High blood pressure is a well-known risk factor for heart disease and strokes. Reducing salt intake seems to lower blood pressure for many people, although for some people it has no effect whatsoever - and for a few, leads to an increase in blood pressure.

However, little research has been done into the direct effect of salt intake on the risk of ill health. What we do know is that the human body is very adept at regulating salt levels in the blood so that excess salt is excreted. This capacity to adjust salt levels has been crucial to our ability to cope with changes in temperature and diet, and our ability to adapt to living in a very wide range of different climates. It seems that the government and medical researchers would prefer to downplay this sophisticated mechanism in favour of salt regulation by guideline.

Moreover, blanket advice to cut salt intake may even cause harm. Sudden changes in temperature, due to a heatwave, exercise or travel to a hot country, can cause those accustomed to milder temperatures to suffer sodium deficiency. The current obsession with cutting salt intake may increase this risk.

The data linking salt intake with health is contradictory - and if there is a positive benefit, it is likely to be small. Reducing salt may help the seriously hypertense, for whom any means of reducing blood pressure is beneficial. For the rest of us, reducing salt in our diet is more likely to lead to bland food than better health.


No comments: