September, 2016 archive
And Now for Something Completely Different 0
Via Media Matters.
David Singerman looks at the recent JAMA article revealing the sugar industry’s machinations to manipulate the nation’s masticators. A snippet:
Looking back at the industry’s transformation of sugar (an edible substance derived from a plant) into sucrose (a molecule), we also see the roots of “nutritionism” in United States policy. That’s the idea that what matters to human health is not food per se but rather a handful of isolable biochemical factors. As food critics like Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle have argued, nutritionism is better at helping processed-food companies market their products as healthy (“with Omega-3 added!”) than it is at promoting our well-being.
Do read the rest.
Still Rising Again after All These Years 0
Or,”If you want them to have a work ethic, don’t spare the whip.”
Words fail me.
The Candidates Debate 0
Walter Cronkite would turn over in his grave at our broken punditocracy.
Via Balloon Juice.
It’s Catching 0
Trumpling the Discourse 0
Jennifer Lin shares her misty water-colored memories of dealing with the Donald when she was young reporter for the Inky.
Nearly 30 years ago, the Republican presidential candidate, incensed over an Inquirer story about his casinos, called her in her New York office, said she had “s- for brains” and said she worked for “a s- newspaper,” Lin said.
Then he called her editor and referred to Lin as “that c-,” Lin said.
Details at the link.
Special Snowflakes 0
More stuff you can’t make up.
At a Glance 0
I have nothing to add.
Nothing To Do, Nowhere To Go 0
Jobless claims rose by 3,000 to 254,000 in the week ended Sept. 24 from a five-month low in the previous period, a Labor Department report showed Thursday.
The less-volatile four-week average of claims dropped to 256,000, the lowest since April, from 258,250 in the prior week.
The number of people continuing to receive jobless benefits declined by 46,000 to 2.06 million in the week ended Sept. 17, the fewest since July 2000.
If you follow the link, you will see that Bloomberg’s headline falls upon its fainting couch clutching its pearls that Bloomberg’s “experts” were wrong.
Honestly, I don’t know why they bother.