Beef, Ground on a Bias

Conservatives like to complain about the "liberal mainstream media."  A lot.  They blame the "MSM" for a laundry list of evils, for everything from fawning coverage of Democrats at the expense of Republicans to ignoring "real news" to gibberish about them advocating the indoctrination of kids.  Prime targets: New York Times, MSNBC, National Public Radio, ABC, CNN, and so forth.  (Always mysterious to me why Faux Noise with all its ratings dominance is excluded from the MSM category.)

This nonsense aside, there are much better grounds for pointing out liberal bias than whining about unfairness.  Case in point, today's New York Times article about the dangers posed by ground beef.  Starting with the horrific story of a young woman, Stephanie Smith, who became paralyzed after eating a hamburger tainted by E. coli, the writer goes on to describe "why eating ground beef is still a gamble":

The frozen hamburgers that the Smiths ate, which were made by the food giant Cargill, were labeled “American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties.” Yet confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria.

Using a combination of sources — a practice followed by most large producers of fresh and packaged hamburger — allowed Cargill to spend about 25 percent less than it would have for cuts of whole meat.

Those low-grade ingredients are cut from areas of the cow that are more likely to have had contact with feces, which carries E. coli, industry research shows.

Yuck.  E. coli is an ever-present danger, and apparently, my beloved hamburger is the biggest vector of this bacteria.  Who knew you could become paralyzed from E. coli???

Anyway, point well taken.  I will now never buy ground beef unless I know that it was ground at the grocery store from a good (single) cut of meat, or maybe if I'm buying from a local, reputable rancher.  I'm definitely never buying anything from Cargill.  I even applaud the Times for their fantastic exposé of meat grinding practices.  Good journalism.

But, then, they have to go and say this (emphasis mine):

Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the pathogen. 

WTF?  How do you make the leap from exposing unsanitary meat production practices to fingering the federal government for not sufficiently regulating meat grinding?  I don't need more federal laws, I just need more investigative pieces like these that uncover the unsavory side of food production so that I, as a consumer, can be informed and make appropriate choices.  This, dare I say, would be an old school conservative point of view.  Their liberal bias is what leads the Times to blame the federal government for not preventing all hazards out there.

Guilty Until Proven Guilty

The Connecticut medical examiner's office confirmed today what was apparent from the beginning of this tragic case, that Yale student Annie Le was indeed murdered.  For some time now, the media has been reporting titillating details about one of the police's "persons of interest," Raymond Clark, who worked as a lab technician on campus.  We know that the police detained him yesterday in order to take DNA samples and also searched his home and car.  We also know, thanks to the breathless journalists on the chase, where Mr. Clark lives, what kind of vehicle he drives, the name of his fiancee, his criminal record, and for all we know, his brand of toothpaste.

Now, this astonishing piece of investigative "journalism" from ABC News that all but condemns Mr. Clark as the murderer based on unnamed sources, scattered facts, innuendo, blog entries by his fiancee from last year, and "suspicions" voiced by a neighbor.  ABC News also ominously tells us that Mr. Clark's landlord served an eviction notice on him to kick him out of his apartment.

Have I mentioned the fact that Raymond Clark is not under arrest?  The police briefly detained and then released him because they do not have enough evidence to arrest him.  Here's what the New Haven Police Chief had to say:

At a press conference Wednesday evening New Haven Police Chief James Lewis said Clark has retained an attorney and therefore could not be questioned further.

Lewis refused to comment on whether there was a relationship between Clark and Le beyond working together in the same building. He would not speculate as to a potential motive.

The chief would not confirm whether Le had been a victim of sexual assault.

Clark is being monitored by the police. Authorities continue to question other people in the building but they have not served search warrants against anyone else.

"We're still in the process. We don't want to be accused of tunnel vision. We're still making sure who was in that building," said Lewis.

But, ABC Noise has no problem with tunnel vision, getting around the inconvenient fact that Raymond Clark was not actually arrested with this "journalistic" masterpiece of convoluted logic:

ABC News consultant and former FBI agent Brad Garrett said that though he had been investigated by authorities for days, it's likely police did not take Clark into custody sooner because he was not a threat to other students.

"If you do not believe they are a danger to anyone else, then you may let him go," Garrett said. "If this is a crime of passion, you're not concerned about anyone else."

Brilliant.  The fact that he was not arrested immediately is itself highly suggestive that he is guilty.  What the fug do they teach in journalistic ethics these days?

If the facts are so damn clear that Raymond Clark did it, then arrest him already.  Until then, the New Haven Police Chief should plug his leaky department and stop enabling the media that has already judged him guilty.

Let Them Eat Insurance

Over at The Corner (Conservatism is dead; long live conservatism), this illuminating piece from Mark Steyn on the subject of these so-called "death panels":

What matters is the concept of a government "panel." Right now, if I want a hip replacement, it's between me and my doctor; the government does not have a seat at the table. The minute it does, my hip's needs are subordinate to national hip policy, which in turn is subordinate to macro budgetary considerations.

Mark Steyn, have you always been a moron, or did you have to work at it?

Right now, if you want a hip replacement, it's between you, your doctor, and your insurance company. 1) The insurance company must first approve of your need to get a hip replacement (presumably to stop you from wistfully eyeing that new designer, rocket-propelled Nike hip even when you don't need a new one). If they don't approve it after examining your medical records and talking to your doctor, you're out of luck buddy. Pony up the $40,000 you'll need to pay for it yourself. 2) If they did approve it (because, you know, they're compassionate and all), you and your family must think about your insurance deductible and whether you can afford the $3,000 copay at this time--i.e., your insurance company indirectly has a seat at your kitchen table because they wrote the rules for your policy. 3)Perhaps you could only afford a catastrophic health coverage policy...you would be exploring the possibility of "falling down the stairs" so that you could be rushed to the ER and get some treatment there. Again, the insurance company is a factor.

Nothing is "just" between you and your doctor. Health care is rationed to those that can afford the insurance premiums. Even when you have a policy, someone else reviews your major health treatment decisions with you and your doctor and your family. Whether that's my insurance company or the government, I'm not sure which is worse, but I certainly don't think of one as better than another. Besides, I already trust my government to secure my liberty, so if they want to secure my toothless gums, I don't give a crap.

All that is assuming you have insurance to begin with! If you're too poor to afford it, and/or you work for a company that can no longer afford to pay for your coverage because of crazily escalating premium costs, you're out of luck. Now, maybe Mark Steyn can afford to simply write a check for his brand new Nike hip. Maybe he doesn't even need insurance. In that case, I'm thrilled for him. Most everyone else depends on having health insurance, thank you very much.

None of this means that I'm anti-insurance companies. They aren't the devil incarnate, they're just looking to make sure they stay profitable. They're just businesses, which is why it's weird to me that folks like Steyn would waste time talking about how the current system is more compassionate! What's compassionate about a system where you can't be covered for a pre-existing condition? What's compassionate about a system where if you lost your coverage for a few months because your company went bankrupt and you couldn't afford the astronomical COBRA payments to keep your policy active, any new policy would automatically exclude any disease you had been getting treatment on until then?

I think Mark Steyn, by opposing any change to our currently perfect system, is essentially saying that those who can't afford health insurance need to...wait for it...buy insurance!!! If that isn't the pinnacle of elitism, I don't know what is.

The Madness of King Huck - Part II

In my last post, I slammed Mike Huckabee for saying America shouldn't tell Israelis where they can live. I mistakenly assumed he hadn't thought through what this would mean for the prospects of a free Palestinian homeland. I was wrong. Huckabee went off the deep end. In the same trip he also said this:

Former U.S. presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said Tuesday while on a visit to Israel that establishing a Palestinian state in "the middle of the Jewish homeland" would be "unrealistic."

WTF?

What precisely does he want to do with the Palestinians already living there? Make them Israeli citizens? (FYI, they're not citizens. They're not citizens of any country.) Israel will never give citizenship to Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza because then Arabs would go from being 20% of the population to well in the majority. How do you like that?

Or, perhaps Huck thinks Israel should kick them all out. That would be the definition of ethnic cleansing.

If you have some time, please read around Haaretz and you'll see a vibrant debate and more balanced views within Israel. Huck has now planted himself in the far right of Israel! Is it sad that he's not seen as an extremist here in the U.S.?

One editorial note: in case you're wondering about my sudden focus on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I just returned from a two week trip stay in Jerusalem. It was an eye-opening trip, mainly because I saw and heard a much larger variety of views among Israeli Jews than among Americans back home. Especially, among the evangelican Christian folks who, like Huckabee, have based their foreign policy on the Old Testament. If you think that Bible-talk about God giving Palestine to the Jews is archaic stuff, think again. It is current foreign policy for much of America. I wonder what they and Huck think of the fact that Palestinian Arabs also include lots of Christians. Do they even know? Did the Huckster go to a local Arab Christian service while he was there? I suggest he go to one the next time he's there and tell them what he thinks of their plight.

The Madness of King Huck

From The Atlantic:

Mike Huckabee is in east Jerusalem today, and he had some critical things to say about President Obama's posture toward Israel. The U.S. should not "be telling Jewish people in Israel where they should and should not live," Huckabee said according to The Jerusalem Post; his traveling partner, a New York state assemblyman, called U.S. Israel policy a "horror."

Sigh.

The key (unstated) point, of course, is that Israeli settlements are popping up in occupied lands. Now, if you want to argue that you don't consider the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem to be occupied lands, you'd be consistent. Loony, but consistent. To cloak that explosive viewpoint in language about not meddling in another country's affairs is bullshit.

That said, if Israel were to invade the Sinai peninsula tomorrow and start settling it, would we condone that? Israel did that starting in 1967 and only a peace settlement with Egypt led them to withdraw in 1979. What if Israel were to re-invade Lebanon and settle there? Jordan? Egypt itself? Any of these scenarios (well, ok, maybe not Egypt) are plausible, all in the name of security. Where might King Huck draw the line at interfering?

Lastly...the truly grotesque problem with the occupation is that Israel is now in the immoral position of having different legal regimes for Jews and Arabs. If things continue in this vein, Israel will have no choice but to either expel all non-Jews or give full citizenship to them, thus irrevocably discarding the "Jewish" character of the country.

This is why this is a struggle for Israel's soul.

[edit] Yes, I realize Sinai is part of Egypt. Substitute some other country name and my point remains, unsullied by your taunts.

Mad Guy Loses Remaining Bearings

Zimbabwe is now accusing the West of waging biological warfare against that country by deliberately introducing cholera, which has killed nearly 800 people since August. The country's information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, called it a "genocidal onslaught" and a "calculated racist attack" aimed at paving the way for an invasion. As an example of how Mugabe's craziness continues to astound even the most jaded observers, the Associated Press stoically suggests that "Experts, however, blame the epidemic on Zimbabwe's economic collapse." U.S. Ambassador James McGee warned that the country was "turning into a failed state."

Yes...Zimbabwe is "turning" into a failed state. If the deterioration continues much longer, Zimbabweans might begin to starve or die of epidemics, and crime might explode.

A Zimbabwean friend of mine once suggested that they should argue that Al-Qaeda has taken root in Zimbabwe so that the West does actually invade and put Mugabe out of his misery.

ALERT: NUKE USE WOULD BE BAD!

In an uncharacteristically far-reaching assessment, the National Intelligence Council warned yesterday that, "...If nuclear weapons are used destructively in the next 15-20 years, the international system will be shocked as it experiences immediate humanitarian, economic, and political-military repercussions." This gloomy prediction came in the context of discussing a potential nuclear arms race in the broader Middle East if Iran were to acquire nukes. The Council aimed its extraordinary remarks at conventional wisdom that believes nuclear weapons could be used so long as they are judiciously aimed at achievable objectives, such as taking out terrorists or excavating large quantities of earth for building swimming pools. The Intelligents warned that nuke use would actually exacerbate the current financial crisis by, for example, reducing tourism to the affected areas, a major economic driver in Middle Earth. Detractors, however, pointed out that the report failed to take into account the numerous benefits associated with nuclear weapons, including a reduction in global warming effects due to the ensuing fallout cloud, and a much-needed elimination of those pesky butterflies that plague much of the earth. Nuclear hawks were tearful on reading the report, bemoaning the Intelligents' "extreme liberal activist tendencies," and warning that this would destroy the immensely profitable global nuclear arms market. "If that happens," they muttered ominously, "we will have no choice but to ask Congress for a bailout." They were also concerned that the report would cause the Iranians to hastily cancel their nuclear plans, but took comfort in the fact that the Iranian censors were unlikely to let their leadership read the study.

Sure, That Makes Sense

Federal prosecutors in Nebraska attempting to convict a felon for possessing a gun (it's not allowed), had just one problem: the man did not have a firearm.

What attorneys had on their hands was an American double-action revolver that was manufactured between 1880 and 1941.The problem is that federal code states that the weapon is not a firearm unless it was manufactured after 1896. Without a definitive production date, the gun was inadmissible as evidence.

Undeterred by this minor obstacle, they put on their creative thinking hats, doodled ideas on their conference room dry-erase board, voted on their favorite suggestions, and selected the winner: prosecute him for possessing live ammunition. Which worked, natch.

The morose criminal's defense had rested on the entirely plausible claim that some angry pedestrians he narrowly missed running over threw the gun into the back of his car, which was obviously easier for them to do than to shoot him with said not-a-firearm. There being no legal requirement that ammunition be of a certain vintage, the dude now faces 15 years in prison.

ZORG complains that this case demonstrates the problem of criminal laws that are excessively specific. And he raises the point that a functioning revolutionary war-era musket can just as easily kill someone as a modern revolver. (Thought experiment: would the musket's ball and powder be considered ammunition? Also, how exactly would prosecutors convict a dude who kills someone with such a weapon? By proving he "threw" a bunch of tiny pellets, because he couldn't have "shot" them with the not-a-firearm?) My question: does this case not in fact show the larger problem with having multiple laws that can be separately used to prosecute the same crime?

"Thank God She's Not Going to Have to be President from Day One"

(H/T to Halperin) That's McCain supporter, Sen. Lieberman, talking to Connecticut reporters about Ms. Palin's readiness to be vice president. In fairness, that's just half of his quote; the rest goes, "McCain's going to be alive and well."

My first reaction was that he just botched the delivery of that sentiment; presumably he was aiming for a statement of confidence in McCain's health, and not an "Oh God! President Quayle!" type shudder that went through a lot of people everytime Bush Sr. was taken ill. But, he continues:

"When I endorsed John in December of last year, I cited ... he was ready to be commander-and-chief on day one," Lieberman said.
Palin has come under fire from members of both parties as being ill-prepared to assume the role of commander-and-chief if necessary. Lieberman himself was the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000 and ran unsuccessfully for president in 2004.
"Let's hope she never has to be ready because we hope McCain is elected and live out his term," Lieberman said. "But if, God forbid, an accident occurs or something of that kind, she'll be ready. She's had executive experience. She's smart. And she will have had on-the-job training."

My emphasis. As Jon Stewart might say, they really don't want to win this thing, do they?

From the Dept. of the Absurd

Priceless "hypothetical" from The Corner today that apparently now qualifies for reasoned discussion:

Does the selloff on Wall Street have anything to do with the increasing likelihood that Obama will be our next president?

Well. I understand feeling morose about the trailing candidate's electoral prospects, and I understand partisanship and feeling a certain level of paranoia, but does it behoove an influential blogger like Kathryn Lopez to post such drivel? The worst part is the too-cute-by-half title: "Coincidence?"

If, on the other hand, Ms. Lopez believes this sort of thing to be worthy of discussion, I have some more fodder:
1. Coincidence? The weather in DC has steadily become cooler over the last few months while Obama's poll numbers have improved.
2. Coincidence? Wall St. has gone to crap ever since Tom Brady blew out his knee.
3. Or how about this? Republican prospects have really sucked since the economy tanked. Er, actually... Never mind. That one makes too much sense.