Being Vegetarian Shrinks Brain

Becoming a vegetarian could be good for the planet, but it's bad for your brain. Scientists at England's Oxford University have found that vegetarians are six times more likely to have brain shrinkage than those who include meats in their diets. The cause could be a lack of vitamins. Vegetarians are more likely than meat-eaters to be deficient in vitamin B12, which is mainly found in meats, and a B12 deficiency is known to cause anemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Oxford researchers examined 107 people between the age of 61 and 87 using physical exams, memory tests and brain scans. When the same volunteers were retested five years later, those with the lowest amounts of B12 had the most brain atrophy. And here's the political twist -- you knew there had to be one, right? -- more liberals than conservatives are vegetarians. Ba-rump-bump!

Obama Claims Health Care Costs Will Be Reduced
 
Obama has secured the commitments of six major trade associations to reduce the cost of health care spending by 20% over the next 10 years. The groups involved say that the success of their commitments rests on the passage of Obama's health care reforms (well, of course they do -- they had a meeting with the president and he wants universal health care - besides, maybe they're afraid he might just take their companies over, too), but no concrete methods of reducing spending have been detailed (then, uh, how do they know they can reduce health care spending by 20% over the next 10 years?). Obama predicts cost savings of $2,500 a year for a family of four. Huh? If you don't yet have a plan (there's that pesky word again -- like with GITMO) and you therefore don't know if you can realize the 20% savings, how can you say that would result in savings of $2,500 for a family of four? Just because it sounds good? Guess so. It's something like Team Obama saying all the time that they will either create X-number of jobs or save X-number of jobs. Create, I can understand, because you can check to see how many they created, but saved gives me a problem, because it seems a lot like proving a negative. You know, like, here's how many we didn't lose. Again, huh? How do you know, even if you hadn't done whatever it was that you did, that you still wouldn't have lost them -- that they might have been saved, or survived, in spite of whatever you did? Just askin' - Just sayin'.

Obama's Budget

Consider these facts, compiled by the Institute for Policy Innovation: Under the Obama budget, the nonpartisan, non-ideological Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the national debt will soar over the next 10 years from 40 percent of GDP today to 82.4 percent. Obama's budget also states that total federal borrowing will grow by $2.7 trillion this year alone, an increase of 27 percent in one year! The budget Obama proposed for this year increases federal spending by an incredible 34 percent, just compared to the previous year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever.

Pelosi's Tuna

Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa, employing 75% of the Samoan work force. In January 2007, when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage, thereby making Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's. In 2008, when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill for $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa." Can we all say "payback"? Or is that "payoff"? And Pelosi has called the Bush administration corrupt? Oh, please! So, remember to serve your next Star-Kist tuna dish with ample side dishes of hubris and hypocrisy, please. 

Napolitano Again

Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently declared that "...crossing the border illegally is not a crime per se." What? Makes me want to ask what part of "illegally" don't you understand? Or, if se didn't do it and it therefore wasn't per se, then who did it? I couldn't make this stuff up, folks. I'm just not that imaginative. Napolitano is definitely gaining on Biden for gaffes.....but I don't think she'll ever catch him. 

A little dated now, but still a goody -- my untiring communiques with my U.S. Representative and Senators

"I cannot believe you voted FOR the pork-laden Omnibus Act of 2009. At a time when our economy is struggling, at a time when President Obama has at least said he forswears earmarks, this legislation contained 8,500 - 9,000 of them, 60 percent by Democrats and 40 percent by Republicans. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

At least President Obama was ashamed enough about going back on his promise to eliminate earmarks that he signed it into law behind closed doors instead of at a public signing. I guess even he doesn't have that much hubris.

And why pass the Omnibus bill anyway? Why not just do a CR (Continuing Resolution) to fund the government for the rest of the year? The Democrats set up the current half-year funding requirement by only appropriating enough for the first half of the FY, probably in hopes that 'their guy' would be in the White House by the time it was time to fund the second half and with the intention of loading it up with pork in the process.

Shame on all of you who voted for this abomination of an Omnibus Act and shame on President Obama for not sticking to his word. He should have taken his red Sharpie and lined the pork spending out, vetoed the bill and sent it back to Congress. Shame on all of you who voted for this overblown and 'oink-ful' legislation."
 
Guess it's a good thing I didn't feel like telling them what I really thought, huh?

AIG 90% Bonus Tax

Here's a "barn burner" I sent my U.S. Representative, Gerry Connolly, back in March. I got an automated reply thanking me for my "interest," but I haven't seen much change in his performance since then, sad to say:

"Although you're still a freshman Congressman, your voting record so far is making clear that you vote lockstep along Democratic party lines and in keeping with Speaker Pelosi's desires. Your motto seems to be -- No independent thinking or action here, thank you!

Have you ever thought that maybe you were elected to be a Blue Dog Democrat? One with a little independence, one at least sometimes more concerned about his district, his state and his country than just his party?

Your voting for the targeted and punitive AIG 90% Bonus Tax is just the latest example of your Democratic party compliant ways and was an outrageously flagrant abuse and overreaching of the Congressional taxing authority.

Not only was it ex post facto, a bill of attainder, and therefore an unconstitutional overreach by Congress, it was also Democratic party political posturing of the most obvious and egregious kind -- done to appease the public that its Congress identified with its outrage and was doing something, as well as, and more pointedly, to obfuscate how many Democrats (at least Senator Dodd, Secretary Geithner, and some senior White House staffer, if not the President himself) were involved in allowing the AIG bonuses in the first place. You know, tucked away in that legislation which nobody read but Democrats produced and rushed to overwhelmingly vote for? Haste does sometimes make waste, or at least cause problems, doesn't it?

It's one thing to cast a populous vote "for the people," to symbolize the outrage of Americans over bonuses being paid to the very people who caused their companies to collapse and necessitated the use of taxpayer money to bail them out. But it's quite another thing to connive to vote as "cover" and "distraction" for mistakes your party made, and still quite another thing yet to ensure that such a vote is at least constitutional. You were elected to not only do the popular thing, your party's thing, but also the right thing, the legal thing, the constitutional thing. Your oath of office says so.

This is not a time in our country when simply going along to get along will suffice, Congressman. Increasingly, the American people are dissatisfied with their Congress, and not only the two major political parties but also individual Senators and Representatives are being tracked and examined. Accountability is not now expected of only your party but also of you personally.

We are watching, Congressman Connolly, and counting on you to do only the right things."

As President Obama (and his mad-about-you mainstream media minions) celebrated his recent 100 days press conference, one of the hard-hitting, probing and challenging (actually, probably scripted) questions asked of the president by a New York Times reporter was what has so far most "enchanted" him about being president.

Could Obama be becoming overexposed? Even some TV talking heads have begun raising that question, but Obama still seems to think, "Nah, people LIKE seeing me on TV, almost as much as I like seeing MYSELF on TV." Besides, I don't think he can help himself. Most narcissists can't.

But, back to the NYT reporter's question. Hmmm, is there a mirror in the Oval Office? Ideally, a full-length mirror, perhaps? If so, I'm pretty sure what has "enchanted" Obama the most so far is looking at his own reflection - as president, in the Oval Office. After all, remember that, to him, image is everything.

However, at another time and in another venue, Team Obama's smoke and mirrors imagery was recently challenged by no less than a Democratic senator, Senator Max Baucus from Idaho, who said to Treasury Secretary Tim "The Tax Cheat" Geithner, while he was appearing before Baucus' committee: "You created a situation where you cannot be wrong. If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say, yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Obama, Geithner and other Team Obama players saying they're going to "create or save" jobs, or anything else, for that matter, reminds me a lot of my days of overseeing and teaching security in the Army. If you've got an area to protect from intrusion, you do the best you can to devise a system, preferably a layered system, of barriers to control or prevent entry. But that's never a guarantee against a determined and resourceful opponent. So, the fact that you've not had a breach is not the same as assuming your security measures are all that effective. Another explanation may be that no opponent has yet attempted a breach. In other words, it's like proving a negative.

Another old joke in the security business told of a worker entering the office of a coworker, only to see him with a big tub and spatula spreading peanut butter all over his office furniture. Worker: "What the heck are you doing?" Coworker: "I'm keeping the elephants away." Worker: "Well, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen - that's not going to keep any elephants away." Coworker: "You don't see any elephants, do you?"

Yeah, a lot of what Team Obama says is like that.

On Tuesday, we had a historic presidential inauguration, and I hope most of you were able to watch it. For those of you who were paid or otherwise had to be physically there -- security personnel, TV and other media folks, politicians and pundits -- as well as those of you who wanted to be there for the "being part of history" thing, I salute you.

I've lived in Northern Virginia for over 18 years and have never gone to an inauguration, even for presidents I supported and for whom I voted. Heck, I don't even like to go into DC on a normal day, unless I just have to. Anyway, I watched the inauguration, but since I'm such a hedonist, no 20-degree weather or security hassles or taking an hour to get somewhere when it should normally only take 15 minutes for me. I did it from the comfort of my recliner in my warm and cozy family room -- with snacks, no less -- and probably saw more of it than most of you who were on the National Mall or along the parade route. And I was a part of the history of it, too, because it was the inauguration of an American president (well, at least so far as we know), and I'm an American.

This inauguration was historic because of Barack Obama being elected our first black president (well, half black anyway -- so, nominally in this country, black). However, it was also unprecedented in many other ways -- largest public turnout, estimated at about two million, give or take a couple of hundred thousand; biggest security force and most comprehensive security measures ever; largest number of inaugural balls, 10 official ones; and it cost the most, estimated at from $150 to $170 million.

Aside from all that unprecedented excess perhaps being a little misplaced, and not setting a very good example (another Washington Beltway double standard between politicians saying they identify with ordinary Americans versus their not behaving like they do) at a time of national and international economic distress, when many Americans have lost their jobs, can't pay their bills and also can't get credit, and/or have seen their life savings wiped out and their house values plummet, the inauguration itself all seems to have gone off amazingly well, except for: (a) only one report I heard of some lady amidst the throngs having a heart attack and being taken to a local hospital (hope she's okay), (b) the Chief Justice and President both flubbing the Presidential Oath of Office, which is not just something that has evolved as a matter of custom over the years, by the way, but is literally spelled out in the Constitution -- Article II, Section 1 (seems like one or the other, or both, of these two smart men would have memorized something they were going to say on national and international TV, or had it written down on a little laminated card, or something! -- but maybe they thought they were too smart for that); and (c) the president's inaugural speech, although containing some of what commentators call "muscular" language, being, quite frankly and for the most part, pretty pedestrian (which I'm sure was disappointing to those presidential historians and political pundits expecting that quotable FDR "fear itself" or JFK "not what your country can do for you" memorable inaugural speech line).

Sorry about that, but I think Obama, who used his soaring rhetoric to get elected, (1) figured he's been elected and now sworn in (sort of) and that he didn't have to soar, at least not for awhile, (2) has probably already gauged how stern and bad he made things sound in the inaugural speech against what he hopes he can report in his first State of the Union speech next January about how far he's brought us in just a year (yes, I give him credit for being that smart -- and calculating -- a politician), (3) desperately wanted to dampen expectations about what he can do, at all, much less how quickly, with the full plate of foreign and domestic issues he's said he has to tackle, and (4) even for as gifted a speaker as he is, he had a hard task to straddle between scaring us enough to let him do whatever he wants to do, while simultaneously reassuring us enough that he's the one who can save us -- no small "speechifying" task in and of itself.

All in all, a very satisfactory inauguration, full of the normal pomp and circumstance, always enjoyable and sometimes used to "distract and entertain the masses," and with no big blunders, accidents or incidents. Good show! Now comes the hard part, Mr. President, making all those promises and lofty goals really mean something to help people outside the Beltway.

Oh, and about that "couple of other things," it's four, really:

First, I heard a news blip sometime over the weekend that William Ayers had been turned back at the Canadian border. Well, initially I was surprised to discover that he was not at the inauguration, at least somewhere. I mean, he was one of Obama's earliest supporters, after all, and Jeremiah Wright was in town, although not at the inauguration itself. Of course, Tony Rezko couldn't be here because he's in prison, and Illinois Governor Blagojevich has his own problems, being impeached and all. The news blip didn't say why Billy Ayers was trying to get into Canada, instead of, say, at the inauguration or already trying to get on the Lincoln Bedroom guest list. Might just be a bit too early for that, though, I guess. It also didn't say why the Canadian border authorities refused him entry, but I've got new respect for them just being plain smart folks, those Canadians....eh?

Second, on the security for the inauguration: More security personnel worked to secure Washington, DC, on Tuesday than the number of troops we have in Afghanistan -- you know, the "good" war. The Secret Service managed a force of more than 40,000 people, including 7,500 active duty soldiers, 10,000 National Guard troops and 25,000 law enforcement officers. There are currently 31,000 troops serving in Afghanistan.

Third, Barbara Walters said on ABC's "The View" on Monday: "I think you can tell what the Administration is going to be like by what the First Lady wears." Huh? What kind of measure is that of the new Obama Administration? What kind of measure of anything is that, except for the new First Lady's own fashion sense, as adjusted by her fashion advisor(s)? Well, Ba-Ba Wa-Wa, I already knew you're a liberal -- that's pretty obvious by the different way you treat liberal versus conservative guests on your show -- but now I've got to wonder if you're not also just an idiot, or perhaps merely becoming senile.

And, finally and fourth, I don't know about you but I'm starting to gather my paperwork for filing my 2008 taxes. But then I thought, maybe I won't file them. After all, Timothy Geithner, Obama's pick for new Treasury Secretary (who will oversee the IRS, among other things -- like the spending of billions and billions more of our tax dollars), didn't file his for 2001 - 2004. That is, until he was caught. But, of course, once it was "brought to his attention" (and he was facing Congressional approval), he paid his taxes, plus all penalties and interest. Or so we are told. Well, at least for 2003 - 2004, he did. For 2001 - 2002, the statute of limitations, again, so far as we are told, made it "unnecessary" for him to pay any of that. Have you ever not paid your taxes and had a statute of limitations intervene to cut off your ever having to pay them? Just asking. And of course there's the ever-quotable Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry (Chicken Little, the sky is falling, the war is lost, Capitol Hill visitors stink, and I will not seat Norman Burris) Reid, who said that Geithner's federal tax filing faux pas was "just a hiccup" anyway. I wonder if Mr. Reid would view my not filing my taxes as just a hiccup? Hmmm, somehow, I don't think so. Evidently, another inside the Washington Beltway double standard. Ya think?!