Lion of the Blogosphere

The Real War on Science

John Tierney has a very long rant in City Journal that every liberal should be forced to read.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 21, 2016 at 9:12 am

Posted in Biology, Politics

59 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Fascinating article.

    The Philosopher

    November 21, 2016 at 10:44 am

  2. Wow, Lion, that was an amazing article that every person should read, period. It really gives you a glimpse into the belly of the beast and how liberals try to stifle free thought when it doesn’t fit their biases.


    November 21, 2016 at 10:53 am

  3. Everyone should read it, not just liberals. It’s a great article, thanks for alerting me to it.

    The lioncub

    November 21, 2016 at 10:53 am

  4. What on earth are all these poor defunded “climate scientists” going to do with themselves once Trump is POTUS? Will there be an influx of homeless climate scientists crowding the subways and streets with styrofoam cups extended, begging for “spare change, mister”?

    And what happens with the billions in “research funds” we used to lavish on them?


    November 21, 2016 at 11:01 am

    • Probably the majority of STEM PhD holders are on the government cheese in one way or another. It’s not just the university system. DoD/intel related offices and contractors are larded out with cushy, overpaid sinecures for these people. There’s also NIH and DOE and EPA and on and on. Relatively few “scientists” wind up in true private sector work.


      November 21, 2016 at 6:36 pm

  5. The Left’s view on science:

    The Left’s view on debate:


    November 21, 2016 at 11:30 am

  6. Trump’s approval is up to 46%. After his inauguration, when he starts building the wall, passes his infrastructure bill and begins the destruction of the immigrant community, I could see his approval going above 50%.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 21, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    • After his inauguration, when he starts building the wall, passes his infrastructure bill and begins the destruction of the immigrant community, I could see his approval going above 50%.

      We can only hope. But you didn’t exterminate the Trucons and libertarians after the election was called. They’re still alive and currently arguing against Trump’s infrastructure plans, which will be among his most popular initiatives among Rust Belt proles, on limited government grounds:

      What we will dwell on is whether the right understands Hamilton because it is the right that is supposed to sometimes get things correct. The evidence so far is meager.

      As far as we can tell the grasp the Trucon right and libertarians have about the founding father of the Republican Party is only a marginal, still inadequate, improvement.

      No, these Trucon Vermin were not exterminated by Otis the Index on the early morning of November 9th, 2016.

      Currently they are hand wringing about Trump’s plans for infrastructure. The fault they find with these is made on libertarian, small government grounds?

      Because we will defend Trump’s infrastructure agenda next week, and because the Trucons are still lost in space clinging to false libertarian and anarcho-libertarian arguments about the economic role of the Federal government, we offer this refresher definition of capitalistic, libertarian, and liberal economic systems, establish what the role of the government sector should be in each, and refute anarcho-libertarian economics in favor of capitalism:

      The Undiscovered Jew

      November 21, 2016 at 6:56 pm

      • Autism or very low verbal IQ is a minimum libertarianism requirement. You cannot believe anarchy could work if the people were of various races, with no united/authoritarian enemy, and without a central incentive/punishment system for deviant behaviour if you weren’t autistic.

        Autists simply extrapolate their rule following and low T behaviour to other humans. WORK HARD PLAY FAIR AND IF THE IRRATIONAL BULLIES BEAT ME UP THAN NOBODY WILL TRADE BASEBALL CARDS WITH THEM.

        You can judge a person’s political affiliation by their upper body strength and sense of fashion.

        The Philosopher

        November 21, 2016 at 8:00 pm

      • You cannot believe anarchy could work if the people were of various races, with no united/authoritarian enemy, and without a central incentive/punishment system for deviant behaviour if you weren’t autistic.

        Anarcho Libertarianism wouldn’t work in a racially homogenous state either because private actors can’t simultaneously have a profit motive and be trusted to create common business regulations without there being a conflict of interest. The first thing businesses would do in an anarcho-libertarian economy would be to create a cartel and/or monopoly to unfairly drive out competitors.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 21, 2016 at 9:42 pm

  7. It’s a great article but liberals aren’t gonna read it, and who cares what they think anyway?

    Otis, why do so many people think infrastructure bills are pork barrel nightmares? Are they, or is that Trucon/Cuck lying?


    November 21, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    • That’s the TruLibertarians and their partisans squawking.

      They are pork barrel projects but this type of pork does facilitate capitalism if the spending benefits the business environment in general for all private actors.

      There was all sorts of special interest graft associated with the railroad projects that were begun under Lincoln and continued by his Republican successors from 1865 to 1932. But this robber baron infrastructure built much of the industrial base that won WWII – New Deal boondoggles like Social Security didn’t build a single aircraft carrier.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      November 21, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      • A more general problem I’ve always found is why cuckservatives and autistic neoliberals hate infra spending.

        I remember Cochrane and Lucas had models where the economy would react to infra spending by consumers tightening their belts in anticipation of future tax rises to fund that spending, negating the stimulus (plus assorted effects of crowding out of private sector by raising yields).

        The models are dumb because autists don’t understand people don’t have future bias. Or debt is a magic money tree.

        But more generally non-autistic conservatives hate hate hate it. I would conjecture its because NASA, WW2, the intercontinental railroad etc prove that government is needed in the economy. And of course, that’s 1 step away from Stalin.

        Neoliberalism has given humanity nothing in 30 years beyond social media. Ahaha, even the internet is impossible without government corralling comp scientists and millitary people together.

        Neoliberalism is arguably a greater rust on the economy than its philosophical daughter – open borders – because the fundamental philosophy is to let 1-2% of the population run the economy for their Cayman bank account.

        The Philosopher

        November 21, 2016 at 7:54 pm

      • I don’t really understand any of this. I’m temperamentally in favor of spending on infrastructure but I’ve read all sorts of horror stories.

        I know that the 2nd Avenue Subway is being built by Skanska Comstock. The workers on those projects make amazing amounts of money. They are all proles.


        November 21, 2016 at 10:20 pm

      • I’m temperamentally in favor of spending on infrastructure but I’ve read all sorts of horror stories.

        I know that the 2nd Avenue Subway is being built by Skanska Comstock.

        All you need to know is that there’s money, power, Trump, and proles involved in infrastructure.

        Reach deep into your psyche for your inner Comstock and find a way to profit excessively from it…

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 21, 2016 at 11:22 pm

    • We want pork barrel nightmares. That is what the Japanese have been doing for the last 20 years and it has worked great.

      Otis the Sweaty

      November 21, 2016 at 11:05 pm

      • Don’t be so sure Japan isn’t a better place to live than the U.S.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 21, 2016 at 11:33 pm

      • But it is Lion.

        ~50% of Americans are either on food stamps, minimum wage, underemployed, out of the labour force or outright homeless.

        The Philosopher

        November 22, 2016 at 5:24 am

      • As long as Americans get jobs and not immigrants. First thing is to get rid of the illegals.


        November 23, 2016 at 11:34 am

  8. Biased and one sided. Man takes “progressives” to task for re-engineering society through eugenics while praising IQ fetishism. There is a clear link between the two.


    November 21, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    • What the hell is “IQ fetishism”?

      Finding that some races have a lower IQ on average than other races is not the same as trying to kill or sterilize anyone.


      November 21, 2016 at 3:08 pm

      • What the hell is “IQ fetishism”?

        It’s misleading to present this as being a solely alt-right or white nationalist concern anyway. If the left didn’t think that IQ mattered they wouldn’t insist so dogmatically that it must not vary by ethnicity or gender.

        Of course whether Republicans are as intolerant of left wing ideas as Democrats are of conservative ones is something of a moot point, because the cultural dominance of the left is such that even when mainstream conservative parties are elected they are in no position to persecute their enemies or curtail their activities. They are in government but not really in power.

        But a good contrast to make would be between the way modern heretics are treated like, for example, Hans Eysenck or James Watson, and the way Charles Darwin was treated in a period when the conservative, religious, patriarchal and reactionary forces held sway over Western society. Darwin was able to publish his Origin Of Species even though it threatened to overturn all the orthodoxies of his day, and the entire social order and hierarchies that went with them. He was able to freely debate his ideas. Such a degree of latitude would be unimaginable for ‘racists’ today, yet it is Victorian society that liberals tend to depict as being repressive and theocratic.

        prolier than thou

        November 21, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    • Is IQ fetishism your term for reality?

      Jason Liu

      November 21, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    • Yeah fair point. I thought that was a very scratchy argument. I’m not familiar enough with the eugenics movement history to know whether you could consider them ‘liberals’ of their time. It’s very charged to say something like that. He should have left that out.

      It does raise the broader point that the alt-right and very indirectly, conservatives in general today, are more anti-dysgenic in the sense they hold views against teen pregnancy, open borders, and so on while liberals used to hold the baton with population control, regulation and medical intervention in stem treatment and so on.

      Very fuzzy issue for both sides that lacks coherence. No side has thought about it much since Hitler. I’m aware the East Asians actively pursue eugenics through forcing rural peasants to have less kids and Steve Hsu’s CRISPR IQ research for China.

      The Philosopher

      November 21, 2016 at 5:45 pm

      • From what I recall reading, there were many leftists who were into eugenics (I fucking love science, man!), sterilized undesirables with some gusto and so on. It was continued long after WW2 so not just a nazi affectation, in case anyone wonders. And we still have some remnants, like notable eugenics figure Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood.

        Here is some generic info

        “After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[67]”

        Eheheheh, didn’t I just know it … Californians.


        November 22, 2016 at 5:11 am

  9. Hate to break it to you but theres way more reason to think that there’s significant anthropogenic global warming than significant racial differences in innate behavior. Race realists are able to come up with what they think is a compelling explanation of different levels of human development by exclusively focusing on the present and ignoring the constant flux of the relative positions of different groups throughout (even recent) history.

    Climate scientists are really smart and have a sophisticated (if incomplete) understanding of climate systems and unlike race realists, whose opponents are if anything more naive than they are, the people writing against AGW are incredibly prone to using misleading and inaccurate evidence as well as absurdly stupid reasoning (e.g there hasn’t been statistically significant warming over the last ten years therefore there is no global warming). Almost every anti AGW i’ve ever seen outside of “the climate is really complicated and hard to predict” has been completely countered by either thinking about it for five seconds or googling it.

    Which is not to say that there definitely is AGW or definitely aren’t racial differences in traits like intelligence.

    For someone always harping on proles you’re awfully prole in your anti gay and your anti climate science positions.


    November 21, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    • i agree with this. while i think the case for a genetic explanation for some between group differences in IQ can be competently made, it is still not a clear cut thing. the B-W IQ gap in the united states is the most heavily studied IQ gap with regards to this question, and while the evidence definitely more strongly supports a (partial) hereditary hypothesis over a purely environmental etiology for this gap, its not the lockdown, ironclad case that hbders crying foul about liberal hypocricies on science allege that it is. the best evidence supporting it is the minnesota transracial adoption project, and while the evidence there is very strong, it is only one study. the hbd blogger chuck (who is frankly one of the few people in the whole hbd blog ring who *really* understands the underlying science) laid out the case for both the hereditarian and environmental hypotheses and assigned each points based on the strength of the evidence. the genetic explanation edged out the environmental case, but not substantially.

      another point to make is that you can’t just extrapolate from one IQ gap to another. this is a common mistake hbders make. just b/c the iq gap between african americans and white americans is probably partially heritable, doesnt mean that the (very poorly understood and documented) differences between say, subcontinential indians and europeans, are partially genetic too. a genetic etiology for one gap doesnt necessarily imply one for all the gaps. you need more evidence for that, and theres hardly any when discussing IQ and group differences in a global context.

      the comparison with AGW is definitely asinine, and i dont really understand why the people here, who are normally so oppositional to most mainstream conservative/libertarian ideas (and frankly sound a lot more like the left when it comes to economic/wealth distributional matters), find this one so tough to accept or at least entertain the reality of. mainstream conservatives are overwhelmingly full of sh_t on everytihng, so why would you trust them on *this*? AGW a scientific question anyway, and i greatly lament that there is a ‘left’/’right’ split when discussing its underlying empiricism.

      james n.s.w

      November 21, 2016 at 8:09 pm

      • I’m an AGW agnostic, and the fact that I would use that term and that people are called AGW “deniers” makes it seem that the whole thing is more a religion than a science.. I’ve heard it suggested that people who don’t believe inAGW should go to jail. Science doesn’t usually act like that. So it makes a lot of people suspicious.


        November 21, 2016 at 8:41 pm

      • @rosenmob thats what holocaust denialists say isn’t it? “there must be something to holocaust denialism b/c people are calling for the arrest of people who deny the holocaust! theyre scared we’re right!” “science” doesnt act like that but idiots too. dont slander actual ideas just bc the green left thugs who glom onto the idea (who barely understand it anyway) are calling for the criminalisation of dissent.

        james n.s.w

        November 21, 2016 at 8:53 pm

      • I’m not one of the people who says AGW is a scam, I’m also an agnostic. Here is how I see it:

        1. There is no question that the planet is getting warmer
        2. The warming trend is consistent to with what we would expect the rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere to cause

        What I don’t know is how much of warming trend can be attributed to rising carbon and what the long term effects are. And I am super skeptical that there are any politically feasible ways of significantly reducing carbon emissions beyond simply reducing the human population.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 21, 2016 at 11:17 pm

      • @james n.s.w

        I see your point. But I think it is a lot harder to predict the future than to figure out what happened in the fairly recent past. There are still people alive who were in the concentration camps. There are many witness accounts. My dad was in WWII – in the RCAF as a pilot. He didn’t see the liberation of the camps, but my parents assured me it happened and I have seen films.

        I’m fairly old and have seen a lot of science that has been discredited just in my lifetime. And there have been a lot of predictions made that didn’t happen. Hell, in the 60’s and 70’s, I thought there would have been a nuclear holocaust by this time. Or all the birds would die from pesticides. If a nuclear war didn’t take us out we were supposed to have starved by this time because of the population bomb.

        So it is hard not to be a bit skeptical.


        November 21, 2016 at 11:37 pm

      • “What I don’t know is how much of warming trend can be attributed to rising carbon and what the long term effects are. And I am super skeptical that there are any politically feasible ways of significantly reducing carbon emissions beyond simply reducing the human population.”

        this to an extent i agree on. i’m not certain of the viability of renewable energy (though solar does seem to be becoming cost effective, but its hard to asretain), but reducing population growth by stopping immigration is the number one precaution we could and should be taking to mitigate any potential risks to the planet via carbon emissions in the short to medium term.

        reducing population growth and environmentalism used to go hand in hand before the green movement was co-opted by the globalists. there’s a political party here called the Sustainability Australia Party which advocate reducing immigration levels substantially for environmental reasons, but they essentially get ignored by everybody. the main ‘Green’ party here (gets about 10% of the vote) are as pro-immigration as all the other parties in practice. there’s no reason the non-growth worshipping, anti-immigration right can’t be working hand in hand with the (sane, intellectually honest) greens; our objectives align.

        james n.s.w

        November 22, 2016 at 2:40 am

  10. Egalitarianism is a more dangerous pseudoscience than just about anything in history, including stuff like bodily humors and phlogiston.

    Although I wouldn’t say China’s one child policy was based on scientific bias. Probably just a pragmatic measure that went on a little too long.

    Jason Liu

    November 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    • Phlogiston chemistry was not a pseudo-science. It was a scientific hypothesis that turned out to be *wrong* but was not particularly “bad” taking into account the evidence, experiments and general knowledge of nature in the 18th century.
      Similarly, climate science is not a pseudoscience. It may be wrong but it is done according to the standard procedures of any other contemporary science.
      Egalitarianism is not a science at all. It is a stance in political or social philosophy, or maybe a moral stance. It can lead to pseudoscience if it is taken as a scientific hypothesis and leads to suppression of research that clearly shows than men are not “equal”.
      Actually, there is not much research needed because everyday experience shows that men are obviously not equal. Otherwise I could try to compete with Usain Bolt if only I worked hard enough. But everybody knows that I could not as someone in his 40s and I could not have as someone who needed about 13 seconds for the 100m as a 14 year old because anyone getting ever close to world class levels would have run around 11 sec. or so at that age.


      November 23, 2016 at 8:02 am

  11. Global warming is real, and it is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gasses.

    Two in the Bush

    November 21, 2016 at 5:43 pm

  12. Tierney conflates eugenics and population control. The former has been validated by history and science, while only the latter has been discredited.

    50-100 years ago, despite much worse living conditions, the hereditary parasitic class was a fraction of what it is today. Ignoring the eugenicists of the time has had clear consequences. The way it was implemented in China was of course evil, as it made no distinction between people who are socially beneficial and those that are a drain.


    November 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm

  13. Oh jeez, not with the Taubes nonsense. Keeping fat low is a good recommendation and has nothing to do with why Americans are so fat.


    November 21, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    • Right. He lost me with that. (I used to be a Taubes supporter, became a skeptic. That example really weakened Tierney’s case.)


      November 21, 2016 at 8:11 pm

  14. There are several other instances of fraudulent left wing “science” in the post war years.
    For example the whole “Refrigerator mother” idea that cold mothers caused autism.

    This idea was perpetuated by, among others, the fraudulent child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim:

    Bruno Bettelheim was a world renowned professor at the University of Chicago for about 30 years. And he was a fraud.

    These sorts of ideas were perpetuated for many years and some older psychologists may still believe them.

    Another big cover up in science is the fact that alcoholism is mainly a genetic disease, and that some races are more prone to it than others. In Canada no researcher would dare say such a thing. The only acceptable thing to say is that the high level of alcoholism in First nations people is caused by their parents or grandparents being put in residential schools. There is no evidence for this, period, but If you don’t tow this line you are basically Hitler.

    But there is lots of evidence that the early French traders and Jesuits noticed that alcohol had a terrible effect on the natives more than 200 years before the first residential schools were built. For example:

    “The trade of alcohol with the natives in New France was very profitable for European fur traders but caused ravages in indigenous communities. The first laws concerning the trade of alcohol with the natives appeared early in the history of New France. Samuel de Champlain first outlawed the sale and trade of alcohol with the natives in 1636.[42] The first laws were aimed primarily at the French with the objective of cutting off the supply to the natives at the source. The punishment was often a fine, and in case of insolvability or repeat offense corporal punishment was applied. Natives who were found under the influence of alcohol would be retained until they gave up the name of the person who had given them the drink.[43]”

    The residential schools (which were in fact a very bad idea) were started by the leftists of the day, who wanted to save the Indian children from their drunken parents on the reserves.

    If we could talk openly about the genetics of the situation real treatments might be found.


    November 21, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    • That’s incredible. I never realised the native american history of alcohol abuse went back that far in the record.

      I know many people of Irish descent have had these issues, but its unclear for cultural or genetic reasons.

      And of course, East Asians and blacks hate alcohol.

      The Philosopher

      November 21, 2016 at 7:46 pm

      • Irish, Scots, Scandinavians and Russians all seem to have more alcoholism than people from southern Europe, Middle East, etc. But not near as much as, say, Canadian or Australian aboriginals, or the Inuit-type people in the far north of Russia.

        You needed agriculture to produce significant quantities of alcohol. Maybe the natural human state is to be prone to alcoholism, but in societies that created a lot of alcohol some degree of protection evolved — maybe a different mechanisms in different groups. In the northern fringes of Europe they perhaps haven’t been practicing agriculture and producing alcohol for quite as long as people further south, So they haven’t had as long to evolve protection.

        The natives in Canada had no time at all to evolve protection when suddenly hard liquor was made available to them.

        I didn’t know blacks don’t like alcohol. I’ve heard the San bushmen are very prone to addiction, as are the people of Mongolia, who where herdsmen rather than farmers. The people of Mongolia look a lot like the natives in British Columbia. Except for the Haida on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The Haida seem to be smarter and more productive than the other natives in BC. I’m guessing they came over at a later date but I don’t think anyone really knows, or it is not polite to talk about. Before Europeans came the Haida raided in huge war canoes as far south as California and took slaves.


        November 21, 2016 at 8:57 pm

      • “of course, East Asians and blacks hate alcohol” – that is so untrue. Chiense jappanese and korean drink so much they can stand in a contest with any russian.


        November 22, 2016 at 7:59 am

    • Bettelheim was definitely kind of an elaborate hack and I’m not sure how to categorize him politically, but the idea that “autism” can’t be developed as the result of poor parenting is simply wrong. Coincidentally, it’s very much the left that insists otherwise…the philosophy of the left is to approach everyone with kid gloves, and what’s the point in saying “you hit your kid too much” anyway? Better to let people believe that autism is purely a matter of genetics so they don’t get down on themselves and treat their kid even worse. In cases where the abuse is just so obvious and cruel, or when the abuser is no longer around for their feelings to be hurt, the diagnosis of “Reactive Attachment Disorder” is applied. RAD and Asperger’s are quite often indistinguishable.

      Clearly, autism is mostly a matter of genetics. When you observe an autistic person, you’re watching natural selection come to bear on our species. But there are certainly autistic folks who would’ve turned out much more normal if not for mom and dad.


      November 22, 2016 at 8:32 am

      • Very good point Klambake. I used to think parenting didn’t matter according to the scientific studies on the matter with twins, but talking to social workers, its pretty obvious that parenting makes a big difference, especially in relation to mental illnesses and personality disorders. It wouldn’t surprise me that pre-natal habits of a careless mother are also to blame. It just goes to show how much we still don’t understand when we survey Global Warming, alcoholism, neuro/mental illness, eugenics, and so on.

        The Philosopher

        November 22, 2016 at 9:43 am

      • The leftist position is generally that babies are a blank slate and genetics has little to do with how they turn out (but they make an exception for gays, transgendered, etc who they say are born that way.)

        I doubt if leftists really believe in their heart that babies are a blank slate, but they pretend to. Anyone who has had more than 2 babies knows that babies are born with personalities. Even dogs are born with personalities.

        But many leftists will freak out if you suggest that IQ is heritable at all.

        I certainly agree that extreme abuse or neglect could damage children, and even if it didn’t we should try to prevent it because it is cruel.


        November 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

      • “The leftist position is generally that babies are a blank slate and genetics has little to do with how they turn out (but they make an exception for gays, transgendered, etc who they say are born that way.)”

        Yeah the blank slate stuff relates to race and sex almost exclusively. But you see how they will flip when it’s convenient…for stuff like autism and LBGT. Lotta picking and choosing.

        It would be great to get a liberal biologist to go on a big rant about how babies are blank slates and then ask them how that applies to autism.


        November 22, 2016 at 3:28 pm

  15. The Real War on Science

    They will even wage war on scientific subjects that, at first glance, should not have any political implications at all. My favorite example of this type is their war on salt.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    November 21, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    • Everything Progressives have lectured us about regarding food has been dead wrong for 50 years.


      November 21, 2016 at 8:58 pm

      • “Everything Progressives have lectured us about regarding food has been dead wrong for 50 years.”

        A slight exaggeration. They were right on red wine.

        Lewis Medlock

        November 22, 2016 at 1:41 pm

      • A slight exaggeration. They were right on red wine.

        Aside from Prohibition (which targeted every form of alcohol), when did conservatives ever oppose wine?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 22, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    • Everything Progressives have lectured us about regarding food has been dead wrong for 50 years.

      I can see why they would oppose meat and fat on grounds of environmentalist ideology, but what possible political advantage did they gain from opposing salt?

      The Undiscovered Jew

      November 21, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    • Salt is basically poison for those who are fat and have high blood pressure to begin with. The main benefit in denying this is that heart attacks usually make for quick, inexpensive kills that don’t place much of a burden on society. Better that a lardass eats 15,000 calories at Taco Bell and has a heart attack than die slowly from something like cancer or dementia.


      November 22, 2016 at 8:43 am

    • Salt does cause high blood pressure. My aunt who has had stroke is being told to stay away from salt. They add salt to almost everything – even white bread or soups for financial reasons. Salt isn’t bad, but in a typical microwave dinner diet, people get way too much.

      Monosacchrides or high GI stuff like Mountain Dew isn’t bad either. I’m on the lucozade in the gym often. The problem is high blood sugar as a result has to be expended quickly in energy, and too many people drink coca cola and sit on a couch causing fat gain rather than deadlift.

      Dietary guidelines should mention the overall way these things fit into one’s lifestyle, which is more complicated than SALT BAD, SUGAR BAD, GREENS GOOD.

      (Although to be fair, greens are always good).

      The Philosopher

      November 22, 2016 at 9:48 am

      • Salt is basically poison for those who are fat and have high blood pressure to begin with.

        I’m not sure if they’re confusing correlation with causation – how many obese patients with high blood pressure are there who minimize salt intake to use as control groups? If they are obese it’s usually because they eat too many carbohydrates and salt is hard too avoid on that type of diet. They would wind up with high salt intake as an side effect of their high-carb diet which is unrelated to blood pressure.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 22, 2016 at 7:24 pm

      • Studies show that the normal American diet (which is supposed to be too high in salt) does not cause bad health outcomes.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 22, 2016 at 7:34 pm

      • Studies show that the normal American diet (which is supposed to be too high in salt) does not cause bad health outcomes.

        The body easily eliminates excess salt. The only major side effect of eating too much of it is vomiting.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 22, 2016 at 7:36 pm

  16. Very nicely done, though nothing anyone who hasn’t been reading your blog for a few years won’t know. 😉


    November 21, 2016 at 7:26 pm

  17. Slate is trying to sign up paying subscribers with an anti-Trump pitch.

    The ad is practically self-parody in its cluelessness. Every single face of their anti-Trump army is of a white libsoft, from the video that autoplays in the top banner, to the writers, guests and others pictured and illustrated. I mean, whiter than an alt-right meetup, which is SUPPOSED to be white. Has to be seen to be believed, considering progs get 45% of their votes from nonwhites. Guess having 45% nonwhites actually having a say in their editorial meetings wouldn’t be good for their cherished notions?


    November 21, 2016 at 7:47 pm

  18. Trump’s new video has tons of good policies: ban on executive admin people becoming lobbyists, investigation of immigrant visa abuses, rip up TPP.

    I was worried he’d become cucked by Master…let’s hope he doesn’t get Sirhan Sirhaned or Deepthroated by Master’s Deep State servants.

    The Philosopher

    November 21, 2016 at 8:10 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: