WalMart makes you skinny

Oh man. There is a study coming out of UNC which seems to suggest that people with access to WalMart/Sam's /Costco may actually be skinnier than those who don't shop at such stores.

In this summary, the study (which was assessing links between obesity and discount retail stores) actually showed that access to WalMart was associated with a lower body-mass index and a lower probability of being obese. Further analysis which included other discount retail giants seemed to confirm the effect; interestingly enough, WalMart's positive effect on weight was most pronounced for women, the poor, African-Americans and people who live in urban areas. There was also a positive correlation between better eating habits and the presence of discount club stores.

There are a few explanations given by the study authors. First is the substitution effect, whereby a change in prices relative to one another leads to, for example, cheaper salad prices (as compared to chip prices).

Another suggested explanation is the income effect. "If Wal-Mart sells food at lower prices--even if our incomes don't change--every dollar can buy more. Therefore, we're richer."

Is this a definitive study? Nah--not by a long shot. I kind of think of it as one of those "caffeine studies"--you know, the ones that come out every few weeks that have caffeine intake first associated with heart disease, then lower blood pressure, then increased mental acuity, or a variety of conflicting and seemingly unassociated outcomes.

It is interesting that the "conventional wisdom" would have it that big bad WalMart makes poor people fat and sells "bad food." Why do we believe this? I don't know. It's a commonly held belief. WalMart is often portrayed as the big bad monster destroying local communities and devouring the people that live in them. I do know that I have been surprised by what I am able to buy at the WalMart here in Rockettown. It's not Whole Foods, but it's not hard to find a variety of healthy foods to eat.

You can choose to believe what you want about WalMart. But this study won't exactly back up your prejudices.

Tiananemen Square

Tomorrow (June 4th) is the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. To re-cap, sensing the feelings of deep, radical change that were sweeping the Communist world in 1989, some 100,000 Chinese students gathered in Tiananmen Square in April of 1989, protesting for the continuation of market and political reforms that had been taking place under the leadership of Hu Yaobang, a pro-market, pro-democracy official who had just died. The protests widened across the country, but the gathering in Beijing captured world attention.

The Chinese government declared martial law, and made several attempts to send troops into the square, all of them met with resistance by both the students and the Beijing populace. Some of the most powerful images from Tiananmen Square include the Chinese goddess of democracy statue, and, of course, the lone man standing against the line of tanks. The video of him, repeatedly moving to line himself up with the tanks as they tried to drive around him is absolutely riveting. Finally, on the night of June 3-4, armored personnel carriers and armed troops surrounded and entered the square, firing and killing indiscriminately.

The estimate of the number of those killed is varied, as one might expect. The official Chinese government number is a paltry 241. More reliable estimates place the death toll any where from 1000 to 7000. The actual number, like the fate of that lone man, will never be known. However, we should bear in mind, as this article by Claudia Rosett states, "the high-end estimate of the number killed in the Tiananmen uprising is dwarfed many times over by the millions of Chinese who died under the horrific communist experiment of Chairman Mao: forcibly collectivized, rusticated, starved, executed outright or dispatched to the torments of China's prison camps, the laogai."

Some of the reactions to the massacre have been disturbing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein self-righteously compared the massacre to the shootings of 4 students at Kent State in 1970, a statement which is perhaps one of the most egregious examples of moral equivalency.Charles Freeman, who was recently tapped as President Obama's head of the National Council of Intelligence (nomination subsequently withdrawn), said in 2006 that the" truly unforgivable mistake" the Chinese authorities made at Tiananmen was not the brutal massacre of peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators, but rather "the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud." The Chinese communists were not "rash," but rather "overly cautious." That's right--you're overly cautious if you shoot down peaceful demonstrators.

Recently Secretary of State Clinton went out of her way to let China know that the United States will not let human rights concerns hinder our cooperation with China. Maybe that's how diplomacy is supposed to work, maybe that's the kind of treacle that the State Department has to spit out in order for the world to keep turning. I hope not. What happened 20 years ago, where an oppressed populace stood up for democracy and freedom, is too important to forget.

Alabama vs. Europe

Two recent observations came out that I find interesting in their juxtaposition.

First, as part of a study to examine American ideas about Islam, a college student dressed in a black abaya traveled to Arab, Alabama (yeah--never heard of it either) to see how the local townspeople would react to her attire. "I expected people to say, 'What is this terrorist doing here? We don't want your kind here,' " said Hailey Woldt, a 22-year-old blue-eyed Catholic, recalling her anticipation before stepping into a local barbecue joint. "I thought I wouldn't even be served."

Instead, Woldt’s experiment in social anthropology opened her own eyes. Apart from the initial glances reserved for any outsider who might venture through a small-town restaurant’s doors, her experience was a pleasant one.

Maybe she should be studying American prejudices about the South instead. You know how stupid and backwards us rednecks can be, staring slack-jawed at the terrorist Arab lady. One native Alabaman commenter noted that he’d feel safer in Birmingham in a turban than in San Francisco in a Bush/Cheney t-shirt.

The other study, commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League is a little more scientific and perhaps more disturbing. The ADL conducted a poll, which included interviews with 3,500 people - 500 each in Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Spain.

They found that 33% of Europeans blame Jews for the global economic meltdown. That's one-third to us crackers who don't unnerstan addin' and minusin' and 'rithametic.

In Spain, 74 percent of those asked say they feel it is "probably true" that Jews hold too much sway over the global financial markets. Nearly two-thirds of Spanish respondents said Jews were more loyal to Israel than they were to their home countries.

I thought those Europeans were supposed to be so much more enlightened than us, especially us Southern good ol' boys.

I guess you don't have to go all the way to Alabama to find religious prejudice.

Yes you can party

"This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.

Mr. Gunn is referring to the upcoming inaugural celebrations for President-elect Obama next Tuesday evening. Despite the dismal economy, continuing disturbances in the Middle East and talk of sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the word is that glitz and pageantry are in. At some $45 million dollars, this is set to be the most expensive inaugural. Evah.

Great, huh?

Yet four years ago, the AP was singing a different tune. The nation faced similar difficulties as we do now, but many in the press suggested that it would be in poor taste for Bush to hold a lavish inaugural celebration.

Here's an excerpt from the AP story in January 2005:

President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.

■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

■ A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year....

The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt's inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."...

I actually think this is a time for celebration, not chicken salad. Obama's inauguration is an unprecedented historic event in our nation's history, and he (and our country) deserve to celebrate. So this isn't about Obama being inappropriate--it's about the behavior, the hypocrisy of our press corps.

This is the kind of stuff they are reporting today:

"Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.

And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. "Just say you're doing it to help the economy," chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge.

For some reason, this brings to mind one of my favorite quotes by John Lennon, from a performance before the Royal family in 1963:

For our last number, I'd like to ask your help. The people in the cheaper seats clap your hands. And the rest of you, just rattle your jewelry.

An Enlightened Electorate, and a New Respect

Two stories here:

First, an interesting Zogby poll of Obama voters. In this poll, they didn't seem, well, very knowledgable. More than half (way more than half) could not identify which party controlled Congress. Seventy-two percent did not know that Biden had quit a previous campaign over charges of plagiarism. Almost 90% did not know about Obama's stance on the coal industry.

They were pretty informed on Sarah Palin, though. Most were convinced (falsely) that Palin said she could see Russia from her window. And over 90% knew that she had a pregnant teenage daughter.

This is not about how dumb Obama voters are; there are obviously Obama voters out there who are much more informed about our government (although the majority of this sample were high-school and college grads). And there were plenty of examples of McCain supporters during the campaign who were most likely dropped on their heads in the delivery room. It's about the meme that by and large, Obama voters were somehow hipper and smarter than those racist Neanderthals who voted for the other guy. The idea that Obama voters are more focused on the "real issues" is maybe not so true after all.

Second, the #2 guy at Al Qaeda (vice-president? deputy CEO? assistant to the regional manager?) used a racial epithet in a message to President-elect Obama, referring to him (along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice) as "house negroes."

And you thought we were going to be respected now . . . awwww . . .

President-elect Obama

Obviously, Tuesday was an historic day in the United States. Congratulations to President-elect Obama on his victory.

I was supporting McCain (could you tell? could you tell?), so this is not the outcome I wanted to see. But it is not the end of the world. I sincerely hope that Obama can bring some of the change that he talked about to our country. I want to believe that he actually has a viable and articulate vision, and that he (and the Congress) won't take our society too far to the left.

At the very least, this election marks a new chapter in race relations in this country. President-elect Obama was elected our first black president, largely because of white voters. With the apparent demise of the Bradley effect, and the obvious mischaracterization of many whites as bitter closet racists, I believe the idea of Amerikkka can be laid to rest. Racism did not end on the night of November 4th; perhaps it never will. But the change in this great country of ours is vast and powerful and positive. I hope that as a nation we can continue to rise above our past failings.

So now the right side of the blogosphere will enjoy a season in exile. It will be interesting to see how people react. From what I can see, most of the blogs have been offering their congratulations. And I'm not seeing a lot of gloating from the left, although Chris Matthews emphatically stated that his job as a journalist was to make sure that the Obama presidency succeeded.

(BTW, here's a piece from the Washington Post which talks about that nonexistent media bias. That's right--the Post actually admits [post-election, of course] that their coverage heavily favored Obama. Isn't that special?)

How do we keep from descending to the level of the "Bush=Hitler" robots who populated the left the last 8 years? I think that we have an opportunity to offer criticism in a way that many on the left seemed incapable or unwilling to do. I hope that we can express our disagreements in unified pro-American tones, rather than anti-Obama screeds. There should be no conservative counterparts of Bill Maher, Michael Moore, or Al Franken (who's still losing apparently). There is a vast difference between criticism and personal hatred. And don't talk to me about Ann Coulter, at least not until the day she is idolized by Hollywood.

Perhaps this will mark the beginning of an impressive and important change in American history. I hope so, like many others in this country; but I'm smart enough not to be holding my breath.

Free Speech

Yet another example of the chilling effect that the Bush administration has had on free speech.

Wafaa Bilal is exhibiting his videogame, "The Night of Bush Capturing," at the Freedom of Speech exhibition at FLATFILE Galleries in Chicago. In the game, players are sent on a mission to kill President Bush. "This is to raise awareness about the civilian toll in Iraq, and how a lot of them have been forced by the consequences of the invasion to become suicide bombers," Bilal said.

As Instapundit would say, they told me if Bush was elected, artists would feel intimidated in expressing their creative viewpoints.

Right.

Of course, this kind of thing is totally different.

Loaves and Fishes, a Minnesota-based community action group, is protesting the display of a combat simulation videogame at the Duluth Air Show. The Virtual Army Experience, used by Army recruiters, demonstrates what life could be like as a soldier. In one scenario, participants transport aid to threatened humanitarian aid workers while using machine guns and a missile launcher to wipe out terrorists who stand in the way.

Michele Naar-Obed, spokesperson for Loaves and Fishes, is outraged that a military-sponsored video game would be featured as an exhibit at an air show. She is quoted as saying, "I’m very upset over this. I think this is just insane that they would use this kind of venue to train our youth to kill people. . . we find it to be unacceptable and inappropriate."

Apparently, she is unaware that it is a military air show; the headline act is the US Navy Blue Angels. Most of the planes there are military planes. The Duluth Air Show is not a bunch of old guys in shorts standing around in a field, comparing Cessna stories.

Lileks has a good summation:

Inappropriate? At an air show? One can understand their anger if the simulation was mandatory, and children were herded into vast rooms, drugged up, forced to ride the Humvee sim then marched into a recruitment office and told they were signing up for a free trip to Disneyland, but that’s not the case. Somehow a sim about saving relief workers by blowing up terrorists is BAD, but a game in which one plays a criminal who drives around town running over pedestrians is okay.

The Army removed the same game at the request of Summerfest officials in Milwaukee.

“We’re determining it’s probably not something that we want to have shown at Summerfest,” John Boler, vice president of sales and marketing, said before the decision was made to request removal of the game.

The game drew criticism from Peace Action Wisconsin, which called it “totally inappropriate and offensive.”

“War games should NOT be presented as entertainment,” the group wrote in a press release. “War is NOT a game. Summerfest is meant to bring people together for a good time in peace, not to present opportunities to practice shooting people.”

No mention is made of whether any other activities (like a Grand Theft Auto demo) or performers at the festival drew the wrath and ire of Peace Action Wisconsin.

But I'm pretty sure they would have welcomed Wafaa Bilal.

Obama on Language

In today's world it just makes sense to be able to speak more than one language--no question about it. Here's Obama at a townhall meeting in Georgia yesterday:

You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, "We need to have English- only." They want to pass a law, "We want English-only."

Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

Okay--I don't think we need to have English declared as our National Language (whatever that would mean); I also agree that immigrants should and probably do learn English. But you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish? Why Spanish? Why not Chinese--the third most commonly spoken foreign language in the US? It's pretty obvious to me that the Chinese will be playing a much more major role in economic affairs in the future than any of our Latin American neighbors.

According to the Census Bureau, of the 20 non-English languages spoken most widely at home, the largest proportional increase in the 1990s was (drum roll, please)-- Russian! (Way cool!) Speakers of this language nearly tripled, from 242,000 to 706,000. (I am trying my darndest to increase that number to 706,001.) The second largest increase was among French Creole speakers (including Haitian Creoles), whose numbers more than doubled, from 188,000 to 453,000.

Perhaps learning to hable espanol may be politically expedient, but a little short-sighted.

It's this next bit that has most people disturbed:

You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?

Stoopid, embarassing Americans, clinging to their guns and their religion. Is there any stereotype about Americans that Obama doesn't subscribe to? We're just a bunch of loud-mouthed, arrogant, English-spouting rubes, stumbling through the flowerbeds, yanking on the tapestries, right? How 'bout those French? A lot of people hoped that Obama was beyond this sort of cliched thinking, you know, about "typical white people."

I'm pretty sure that if I found myself stranded on some backroad in Greece or Alsace-Lorraine, I would not be surrounded by smiling locals cheerfully quoting Keats and Dickens. And I am sure that some tourists here are often surprised that sometimes us provincials can understand their "furriner talk" purty good. According to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language, nearly one-third of students in grades 7-12 are taking a foreign language; not great, could be better, but not exactly the picture of xenophobic Neanderthals that Obama seems embarassed by.

In the immortal words of Senora Obama:

Usted sabe, esta conversación no ayuda mis niños.

Happy 4th!

Happy 4th of July! I love this country, warts and all. It is the far from perfect, but by far and as a whole, it is the greatest country on this planet. As this article notes, "After all, since humans climbed out of the trees and began surveying the lion-infested Savannah, none have ever lived in a period more prosperous, secure and stable than Americans do today. The U.S. is not only the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth now, but in all of history. There's never been a better time and place to be alive than America in the 21st century." The whole piece is an interesting read about the current spate of America-is-in-decline books.

There does seem to be an interesting dichotomy on how the two sides of the aisle view America, and specifically, their views on American patriotism. It really comes down to looking at the glass half-full or half-empty. It seems that the left always takes the more pessimistic view regarding this country. As Joe Klein writes in Time magazine, "This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right." Even among the blogs, you can tell who you are reading by the tone of the posts and comments. This piece exemplifies my point:

"A mother of a heroin addict, for example, is critical of her child's drug abuse and wants it to stop. The mother wants only the best for her child. Does the mother's criticism of the child's actions in any way illustrate that she does not love her child? On the contrary, it is because the mother loves her child and is devoted to her child that she wants her child to be better, greater than he/she is."

Yeah, that's it--let's think of America as a heroin-addict! Works for me!

As Jonah Goldberg notes, " . . . at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is." Does that mean that my government can do no wrong? Does that mean I should never question my government? No, not at all. I think this is the nub of the argument--America is a great country, whether or not we have had a great government, and sometimes in spite of it.

James Lileks hits the nail on the head with this one, pointing out the smugness with which a lot of critics look at this nation. In their world,

". . . we will never be a great nation until we all realize how much we suck, and then we will also realize it is wrong to be a great nation. For that matter, nationhood are overrated. (The only nation that gets to be a nation is France.)Nations are bad enough, but we’re something else:the only nation that has ever fought a war, acted in self-interest, had a good opinion of itself, permitted slavery, elected leaders who lacked a certain Olympian quality, had a popular culture that included simple catchy melodies and bright pictures, harbored racist attitudes, had a strong religious element, and contained a sizable amount of stupid people."

But this is what is so difficult about Obama, and his patriotism. Again, from Jonah Goldberg,

"I am absolutely certain," he proclaimed upon clinching the Democratic nomination, "that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." So wait, America never provided care for the sick or good jobs for the jobless until St. Barack arrived? That doesn't sound like the country most Americans think of when they wave their flags on the Fourth of July.
The notion that what America needs is a redeemer figure to "remake" America from scratch isn't necessarily unpatriotic. But for lots of Americans who like America the way it is, it's sometimes hard to tell when it isn't.

I want to emphasize a few things here. America is not above reproach; no one is claiming that. And criticism of America does not make one unpatriotic. At all. But it's okay to love your country, even if it's only once in a while.

And even if it's every day.

The Great Satan

The ongoing disaster in Myanmar from Cylone Nargis is this week compounded by the earthquake disaster in China. I haven't seen anyone directly blaming Bush for either disaster (at least, not yet), but perhaps the folks at DailyKos will oblige.

So, there is this article about disaster relief that I found to be well-written: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/credit_where_its_due1

THERE is a certain familiarity to the concomitant series of actions and reactions when disaster strikes in the world. The US stands ready, willing and able to offer assistance. It is often the first country to send in millions of dollars, navy strike groups loaded with food and medical supplies, and transport planes, helicopters and floating hospitals to help those devastated by natural disaster.

Then, just as swift and with equal predictability, those wedded to the Great Satan view of the US begin to carp, drawing on a potent mixture of cynicism and conspiracy theories to criticise the last remaining superpower. When the US keeps doing so much of the heavy lifting to alleviate suffering, you'd figure that the anti-Americans might eventually revise their view of the US. But they never do. And coming under constant attack even when helping others, you'd figure that Americans would eventually draw the curtains on world crises. But they haven't. At least not yet.

So it was last week. The US stood ready to help the cyclone-ravaged Burmese people. It did not matter that Burma's ruling junta was no friend of the Americans. With more than 100,000 people feared dead and many more hundreds of thousands left destitute, US Air Force cargo planes loaded with supplies and personnel started arriving in nearby Thailand to begin humanitarian operations in Burma. . . . The resentment that comes from needing the military and economic might of the US translated into the most absurd criticism. Jan Egeland, the former UN boss of humanitarian affairs, cavilled about the stinginess of certain Western nations. His eye was on the US. Former British minister Claire Short was equally miffed, describing the initiative by the US and other countries as "yet another attempt to undermine the UN", which was, according to her, the "only body that has the moral authority" to help.

I love moral authority as much as the next guy, but the UN's moral authority is a mighty hard sell given that the UN club includes the most odious regimes in the world, such as Burma. And notice how the UN's moral authority did not quickly translate into helicopters laden with food and water?

My thoughts exactly. What's left underreported is that one of Myanmar's best friends (BFF4ever!) is ---- CHINA! Yeah, they just got hammered by the quake, but the Chinese haven't exactly been using their leverage in the region and as an ally to pressure the Burmese military to let aid into the country. Yes--the same China that is THE stumbling block to a resolution to the evil situation in Darfur.

And they call us the Great Satan.