So What Next? Personal Sugar Monitors?

In typical governmental/bureaucratic fashion, we find yet another idiot policy that was implemented – it has no apparent effect – and the answer is to keep on doing what doesn’t work:

Policies that rid Maine high schools of sugary drinks seem to have had little impact on teenagers’ overall intake of sugar-laden beverages, according to a new study.

The study compared four high schools that eliminated soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks from cafeterias and vending machines with three schools that did not take such measures.

Researchers found that over one school year, students in both groups of schools cut down on their average daily intake of sugary drinks — but there was no evidence that the school soda bans led to greater reductions.

Seems like teenagers know how to get sodas and if they aren’t present in school they still will be able to satisfy their thirst as they wish.  Pretty straightforward application of logical thinking supported by research findings.

And the answer from the school ‘administrators’?

Lead researcher Dr. Janet E. Whatley Blum said she would not conclude that such school policies are “ineffective” based on these findings.

Students’ consumption of sweet drinks did go down, she told Reuters Health; the study just failed to find a statistically significant difference between schools that cut back on sweetened beverages and those that did not.

Boiled down to its essence, this answer means “we didn’t find what we wanted, but that doesn’t prove anything.  We are still sure we are right”.

And some hugely interesting afterhtought seems to have come to the nanny-state researcher:

On average, the study found, students at both groups of schools curbed their intake of sugary beverages to a similar degree over the school year.

According to Blum, keeping such drinks out of teenagers’ reach during school hours may not be enough.

“School appears to be just one source of sugar-sweetened beverages for youth,” she said, “and it may be that an educational component…is needed to have an effect on consumption from sources other than school.”

Do you actually mean parents might have an influence on their children’s consumption of beverages?  Knock me over with a feather.

But don’t look to find any soda dispensers in those Maine schools – ever again.  Nanny has spoken and even if they have to do this study over again 1000 times, they will eventually get the results that prove what they want.

Bailout Idiocy

John Hawkins is really on fire with this one:

If the GOP supports this ridiculous bailout plan, so be it, but understand two things: Number One, I don’t give a d*mn how many 10 million dollar earmarks you oppose, there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative who supports throwing 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money down a rathole in a socialistic government bailout — especially after the other bailouts have failed. Don’t tell me that the same guys who said the other bailouts would fix our problems — and were one hundred percent wrong — probably aren’t entirely wrong yet again when they say the country is going down the tubes if this bailout doesn’t happen. They were egregiously wrong then, so why should we believe them now? Let me tell you straight out: I don’t believe them and I don’t support this bailout.

Number Two, let me make another prediction: if a bailout plan of that size is passed, the Democrats will turn on the plan five minutes after they vote for it and blame the Republicans for it. Since Bush is behind the plan, their attacks will resonate with the American people. Additionally, large chunks of the GOP’s base will be furious over the deal, too, with good reason — and it will likely wreck John McCain’s chances of winning the election.

OK – obviously something needs to be done to help stabilize the markets.  Bank runs aren’t good for anyone, and the fact that the Sarbaines-Oxley “mark to market” rules are causing a fiscal firestorm means that we have some kind of sanity to be restored.  But just flat out giving a pass to Wall Street and the people who took out loans they could never afford to repay is rewarding stupidity.

Yes – making some kind of commitment to ensure that sound financial institutions can keep doing business means we need to have some government action.  But I thought Bear Stearns bailout would do it.   No – taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – wait, giving $85 billion to guarantee AIG.  At what point do they come to realize that whatever formula they are using for a bailout ISN’T WORKING?

Insanity – doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

So – how about looking at doing something different?  Repeal the capital gains tax for 2 years – see what some of those assets that have been tied up forever are worth in accounting for these losses.

But, please God, don’t just give a bunch of Socialists calling themselves Democrats control of the entire US Financial system.  In 10 years you will have to go before some government board to get a mortgage of any type.

Hilllarycare Preview 2155

Mixed Sex Wards? Oh come on – there won’t be any more private or semi-private hospital rooms. You will be on a ward and its going to be with whoever they want to stuff in there. Women and Men together? Its cost-effective. After all – the health care bureaucrats need their year-end bonuses.And don’t you just love the weaselly worded response from the Health Minister. Does it remind you of someone parsing the meaning of the word “is”?
clipped from
Lord Darzi, the Health Minister, told the Lords yesterday: “The Government is committed to single sex accommodation, not single sex wards – they are two different things. The only way we are going to have single sex wards in the NHS is to build the whole of the NHS into single rooms (really?)…that is an aspiration that cannot be met.
“We used to have single sex wards 15 years ago but medicine has moved on.”
Note his words carefully. There is no mention of mixed sex wards – only “accommodation”. In other words, the Government is no longer committed to the provision of “single sex wards” but to “single sex accommodation”, a piece of fudging which means, in essence, that mixed sex wards will continue to exist
  blog it