Milk Dud

Here is an article that caught my eye titled “5 ways milk doesn’t do a body good. It’s a The Week story apparently based on an opinion piece in the New York Times.

The gist is that there are reasons why humans should not drink milk, or at the very least, the downsides to such consumption. But the reasoning is a bit flawed; to say the least. I take down the five (really four and one half) arguments below. “Checks” indicate my support with the argument. “Milk dud” indicates I think the argument falls short.

First description of problem: I’m guessing they put it up top is because it’s the best. Anyway, the article notes milk is high in calories and saturated fat. The article notes that milk has the same calorie load as soda on an ounce for ounce basis. Also: Sugar. Egad! And the story notes milk consumption is linked to type 1 diabetes and that milk contains as much saturated fat as French fries.

My thoughts: Since when did calorie load become the absolute measuring stick for food health? Just about everything seems inflated when compare to carrots or kale, so should we only be eating those things? (yes, I realize comparing something to unhealthy soda is a bit different than comparing it to healthy kale). And I thought we had largely given up the saturated fat fear, but I’ll go along.

Fat, half check; diabetes risk, check; calories, half check.

Second description: A lot of people can’t drink it. Like, 50 million people and 90 percent of Asian-Americans and 75 percent of African-Americans!

My thoughts: Um, Ok. A lot of people can’t run a 4-minute mile or do a triatholon either. My son Liam and many others can’t handle penicillin-based antibiotics (that’s 20% of this family!). This argument is so irrelevant that I’m not sure what to say.

Lots of people can’t drink it! Bad argument. Milk dud.

Third description: Milk is often full of chemicals. The article notes additives have been blamed for skin conditions, acne (aren’t they the same?) and inflammation. Its source appears to be Blisstree’s Deborah Dunham, who notes that we are the only species to drink milk from another species.

My thoughts: Let’s ignoring the boogieman of “chemicals” and the fact that “chemical” doesn’t equate with bad or harmful. “Natural” products can sometimes be more harmful than “chemical” ones. Even then, lots of products are full of chemicals. Tea has photochemicals like HGCG that are very good for you. Merely saying “chemical” isn’t going to win me over. Secondly, we are also the only species with a legal system, or cars, or clothing made from the hides of other species, but I doubt you would use that argument for those items. And besides, I think the cross-species milk drinking probably has a lot to do with the fact that in nature, species tend to be hostile to one another.

Chemicals! I hate doing this based on the unreasonable fear, but half-check for at least listing potential problems, even if they are shadily sourced.

Fourth description: Many people are allergic (hey, didn’t we see something like this already?). Milk follows only peanuts as a food allergen.

My thoughts: Allergies! This is literally the end of the argument. So, are we to abandon peanuts? And once we’ve abandoned peanuts and milk, are we then going to abandon the new #1 and #2 allergens? Something has to be #1 on the list. Not going to cut it. Milk dud.

Fifth description: You don’t need milk for strong bones. Exercise and Vitamin D contribute to strong bones.

My thoughts: Yeah, but just about every food has an alternate supplier of the nutrients its supplies. Life isn’t about optimizing nutrient delivery; at least mine isn’t. Absolutely deplorable. Milk dud

The article ends on an odd note by quoting someone at Lifehacker regarding the health benefits of milk, but then says you should drink milk because you enjoy it and not for its health claims. Um, what? This despite the fact that the opening paragraph of the story noted that milk is “packed with nutrients” and helps kids grow taller.

Awaiting a ruling

Just a quick update to say that I’m excited for tomorrow’s Supreme Court ruling on the challenges to the PPACA (Obamacare). I’m a nerd, and currently a law nerd; I know.


Still, this represents one of those cases where a perfectly good and desirable outcome – everyone having healthcare – can be gotten through a means that is deleterious. There are ways to ensure universal healthcare (though maybe not obtainable politically) that would ensure its constitutionality. Instead, some individuals let an end goal we can all probably sympathize lead them down a path from which there is probably no return.

If you can be forced to purchase healthcare because it affects everyone, you can probably be forced to purchase or consume certain foods (broccoli being the one most named) because that too is used by and affects everyone, especially after healthcare is federalized. And what about voting? Elections affect everyone and national elections certainly affect interstate commerce. Can we be forced to vote? I would argue that the answer to all three (healthcare, food and voting) should be answered in the negative. Allow for the mandatory healthcare, however, and I see no line that requires exclusion of food and voting.

Maybe those two wouldn’t happen today, but without a line they could, and in all likelihood would, eventually happen.

Dalai "Quote Machine" Lama

I don't post quotes very often, because I generally find people tend to use them in place of actual, good, intelligent arguments.  As if having posted Quote X effectively wins the argument.  Fact is, you can find a smart-sounding quote to support just about anything.  They are the original sound bite.  A good quote can add finality to an argument, but it doesn't comprise an argument.  Most conflicts are much too complicted to be resolved in a quote.  Sadly, many people seem not to know this and merrily go about with it anyway.  Confirmation bias and all.

Having said that, here you go:

"I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether." - Dalai Lama

I told you so

It happened faster than I thought, but I have to say I told you so.

The board/commission that will consider banning large sodas is also making noise regarding popcorn and milk-based drinks such as milkshakes and various coffees.

First they came for cigarettes, then candy bars, then soda, then coffee, then popcorn, then ... [hey, you know what has a lot calories, pizza, burgers, hotdogs are a nutritional wasteland almost on par with soda, and also: food in general].

I for one would rather enjoy a nice unhealthy food every now and again and die 5 years earlier than not enjoy the food and die 5 years later, probably after a long, insidious disease that deprives me of every enjoyable part of life.  Life is to be enjoyed, not just lived.

Hopefully by the time pizza is illegal, assisted suicide will be legal.

UPDATE: I changed the last sentence.

Cigarettes yesterday, soda today, burgers tomorrow

When I say I support gay marriage, even though I don’t think its constitutionally protected (at least not under any sensible reading of the due process clause), its because of outcome like the following.

Several years ago people began to bang the drum for heavy regulation of cigarettes as a public health issue. Cigarettes are horrible for you, and I don’t and have never smoked. I don’t support it and frankly, if you smoke, I think you are an idiot. And in public places, the public should be able to ban smoking, but not in private places, so bars and restaurants should be able to allow smoking. But this compromise wasn’t enough, and public policy makers went after these establishments as well.

“No, no,” they said to those who worried about what this could mean down the road, “this is where it ends. Cigarettes are a unique case involving a product that is hazardous as used. It is limited to this one case.”

Except now the use of trans fats is all but illegal (and actually illegal in New York). Also in New York, salt is all but illegal. And then you get Newsweek columnist Michael Tomasky supporting New York’s ban on soda’s containing more than 16 ounces (but not in convenience stores; or grocery stores).

Ok, you say, someone out at a movie or at a McDonald’s can buy two 16 oz sodas if they want more soda.  Same price.  No a big deal. Soda really doesn’t have much in the way of a redeeming quality, so its an easy target.  Obesity is epidemic.  Obesity is clearly unhealthy. Maybe you can see the logic here. I for one can understand the thinking.  If you drink too much soda you really are an idiot, and if you wind up fat, you really only have yourself to blame.  This all makes this is a pretty unique case, correct?

Certainly, except that this is where Tomasky goes next:

“Are bacon-cheeseburgers next? As a practical matter, no. Sodas are an easy target because there is nothing, nothing, nutritionally redeeming about them. But might there come a day when the New York City Department of Health mandates that burgers be limited to, say, four ounces? Indeed there might. And why not? Eight- and ten-ounce burgers are sick things.

“As a practical matter, no.” It’s also not often practical to wage a 2-front war. But once the war on 1 front is won, it makes perfect sense to turn your eye to that other front. So once the battle over 16oz+ soda is over and people are still fat, perhaps then it will be more practical.

When you try to accomplish something good without regards to the means, this is where you can end up.  Because now there is no limiting principle.  Why stop at 4oz burgers.  An eight ounce burger (Tomasky's "sick thing") is twice as large as a four ounce burger, but a four ounce burger is twice as large as a 2 ounce one.

In fact, fried patties of ground meat are certainly one of the, if not the, least healthy ways to eat beef.  Why not ban burgers?  Practical?  Not right now.  Once we are down to 2 ounces per burger, maybe.  And plenty of people will tell you that eating beef isn't healthy anyway.  Why not just ban meat consumption.  Again, as a practical matter, it won't happen today, but I'm not worried about today, I'm worried about tomorrow.

Check out http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/03/newsweek-writer-we-have-this-liberty-bus for more likeminded commentary.

Blue Team, Rose-colored Glasses

V.P. Dick Cheney: Gay marriage is a state issue that the federal government should not get involved in = horrible policy and enemy of the "good."

President Barak Obama: Gay marriage is a state issue that the federal government should not get involved in = hip hip hooray, the "first gay president" and this Newsweek cover.

Is this partly on Newsweek?  Sure.  Is there some leeway for other parts of what they probably believe (Cheney that homosexuals are probably bad people, though his daughter is a homosexual; Obama that it is perfectly acceptable), yes.  But the policies and the way they want the issue treated is essentially the same.

If anything, I think Obama is cast in a worse light, since he was for gay marriage before he was against it and then in favor of it and supports federal intervention into such issues, whereas Cheney, as far as I know, has been consistent in his position and is generally in favor of state resolution of such issues.  Obama essentially came over to Cheney's position and got praised for it, while Cheney was demonized.  People love to talk about making politics more congenial, but its not only the demonizing that adds fuel to the fire.  This type of deification for taking a non-position that is already the position of the opposition doesn't help.

So... its not so much that Obama is great and Cheney is the devil as it is that Obama is a Democrat and Cheney is a Republican.  Got it.

The Beastie

Turns out, Oprah (in a kind of pre-"Oprah" Oprah mode) and Tipper Gore revealed the true turning point in society in 1986.  It was the Beastie Boys.

Yes, even in 1986 it was impossible to raise Christrian children in our X-rated society.  It's sad that so many of those now 30 yearish old kids have all turned to Satanism due to our society and are wildly accepting of whatever denigration is put in front of them.  So much so that children these days have no boundries or rules and essentially run wild in the street in their rag clothes, clutching knives to their chests - but only when they can't afford guns.