Much to my dismay, Madison has succeeded in passing a non-binding voluntary ban on trans fats. Although I commend them for making it voluntary, I severely condemn them for getting involved period. Just like global warming, second hand smoke and all of the other liberal panic de jour topics that we have been getting hit with over the past months, I question the legitimacy of the science and I question the legitimacy of government involvement.Being a man of science and logic, I try to ensure that my head rules over my heart. In turn, I avoid allowing the panic topics to get to me and instead choose to go out and do my own research before deciding to jump on a bandwagon. The difference then, between the others and me, is that I don’t believe in allowing the government or special interest groups rule my decision making process. I would rather know the facts and then be able to decide on my own whether or not I want to do something or not. it’s called freedom of choice.

Anyway, getting back to trans fats. I have done my research and have read arguments on both sides of the table. On one hand, I agree with the fact the trans fats probably aren’t very good for you - but then again, there are many things out there that aren’t good for you. Trans fats are just the current topic in the cross hairs. Then again I’ve been down this road before. I’m old enough to remember when eggs were under this same cross hair, and we all know what happened with that one.

See, this is the problem with going on a crusade with questionable science as your only backing. You may be right, but then again, you may be wrong (as was the case with eggs). In the case of trans fats, some of the ill health effects are fairly well proven. Other claims are very much based on speculation (yet the anti-trans fats crowd touts them as facts in stone).

So, health effects aside, why have trans fats suddenly come under fire? See, this is why my red flag goes up when topics such as this come up. After all, if trans fats are as bad as they’re made out to be, why has it taken over 100 years before reaching this level of panic? In fact, trans fats were introduced in 1902 and have been used extensively since then, yet only now are people concerned about the health effects? I can’t help but to call bull on this one.

As far as I can see, this is the saturated fats craze for the 2000’s. Remember the original craze from the 1980’s? According to the massive public campaign, there was nothing worse for you than saturated fat. Eat saturated fats and you’ll probably die. This was due in part to CSPI (Center for Science and Public Interest). At the same time, CSPI exonerated trans fats and specifically claimed that “All told the charges against trans fats just don’t add up. And by extension, hydrogenated oils seem relatively innocent.” In fact, CSPI nutrition director Bonnie Liebman said: “The bottom line. Trans shmans!”

So, in response, congress passed a food labeling act and required food manufacturers to disclose saturated fat content. Interestingly, due to pressure from CSPI and other special interest groups, restaurants changed from using oils containing high levels of saturated fat t0… partially hydrogenated oils.

Interestingly, six years after slamming saturated fat and exonerated trans fats, CSPI demanded that trans fat content on food labels, and cycle of pressure to change begins again.

So, I can’t help but to ask: Is this science or panic? After all, there are some curious facts out there that need to be addressed, and most of these special interest health groups aren’t answering them.

For instance, typical trans fat intake has remained the same since the 1960’s, yet life expectancy has continued to go up. Also, low fat diets lower HDL levels in the body much more so than diets high in trans fats. Approximately 25% of trans fats consumed come from natural sources (i.e. red meat)… Of total fat intake, trans fats make up only about 3%, whereas saturated fats still make up 14% of the average diet. Also, the National Cholesterol Education Program of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute says:

“What’s Public Enemy No. 1 with respect to cholesterol raising? From a dietary standpoint, it’s saturated fat.”

Yet, here we are, going after trans fats as if somebody were putting arsenic in our food. But why? Has the use of trans fats really been killing off Americans any more than other products? Has it’s use lowered our life expectancy? No, of course not. Since 1902, our overall health and life expectancy has certainly gone up - significantly at that. In fact, according to WebMD, between 1970 and 2002, deaths related to heart disease dropped 52%. Need more proof? How many people in the military are dropping over from heart disease? Want to know a secret? The military has made pretty good use of trans fats over the years due to it’s stability and shelf life. Hell, that’s one of the reasons that boat food was so damned good. A little chow cooked up in some Crisco. MMMMM, good!

So, with all that said, here is my official stance:

Moderation. Trans fats should be considered within your total diet and lifestyle. Yes, trans fats are bad for you - however really not much worse than saturated fats - and should be limited. However, trans fats do not cause heart disease. Trans fats may contribute to heart disease, but so do saturated fats, salt, and a whole host of other food items. So here’s the bottom line… Trans fats in moderation and a healthy lifestyle will not kill, however trans fats in higher levels and a less than healthy lifestyle probably isn’t good for your health and heart.

As for Madison, well, as I have said before. I don’t believe in any sort of government involvement. I don’t believe in regulation - however non-binding it may be - over people’s right to choose. Jumping on the panic bandwagon does nothing to teach people responsibility for themselves. It breeds dependence on the government to tell them what they should or shouldn’t do, which is not a good way to be. I’m sorely disappointed in this decision, and will work against any attempt to make this a statewide issue (which is the next move by Madison and Informed Consumers Equal Improved Health).

Keep your hands out of our freedoms.

Check out the Trans Fats FAQ

Yep, that's something to be proud of, that's for sure.

For the first time in five years, the number of abortions has risen in Minnesota in 2006. This effectively stops the decline seen in previous years in Minnesota and the country as a whole. Although I suspect that this current trend will be seen across the country, I don't have those numbers yet. However, given the information at hand regarding Planned Parenthood's numbers for 2006, I fear that my suspicions may not even come close to the reality or gravity of the situation.

However, that much aside, let's just look at Minnesota, who's numbers were just released from the department of health:

• The number of Minnesota abortions rose 5% (703) from 2005 to 2006 -increasing the total number to 14,066. Of course, this is just the reported numbers.
• Not only did the total number go up, the total number of girls under the age of 18 increased by 16%.
• Planned parenthood averaged 272 abortions per month for the first 6 months of 2006 which then increased to 329 per month for the second half of the year.
• Planned parenthood saw an increase of 648 abortions last year, which makes up almost all of the increase seen last year
• 28% of the abortions performed were funded by the government
• of the 14,066 abortions, only 102 were due to incest or rape and only 162 were due to fetal anomalies. On the other hand, 9,598 just didn't want children
• 42% were on their second on more abortion.

So dare I ask what's going on out there? I know it's taboo to point the finger at places like Planned Parenthood, but it's hard not to. As far as I'm concerned, Planned Parenthood is the McDonalds of the abortion industry. Quick and easy, they're there to take care of your mistakes, right?

Ok, so I'm not some pro-life nut job... However, I'm certainly not a big advocate of the abortion on demand culture that has been allowed to cultivate. As far as I'm concerned, there were only 264 (1.8%) truly legitimate abortions performed last year. There were probably others, but it's a case-by-case thing as far as I am concerned, and the numbers I would approve of are much lower than 14,066.

But that's certainly not popular opinion these days, is it? The culture that we have grown and nurtured over the past decades - the culture that teaches its people that there are no real consequences to their actions so they might as well do as they please - is certainly looking ugly, isn't it? I guess I have to ask: Is it worth it? Is it worth shrugging off the moral decline so that you can live free and do as you please?

People ask why the numbers are on the rise, but I think it's pretty obvious. Despite Planned Parenthood's arguments against it, I think the finger can easily be pointed at them. After all, what sort of message is being portrayed by opening up an "Express Clinic" in a mall? They might not perform abortions, but they do sell the morning after pill and they can certainly get you hooked up with a clinic that does perform abortions. They claim to be targeting upper and middle income women and girls. They also claim to be catering to people who want "untraceable" services (i.e. no insurance bills).

Express Clinic, eh? I guess I'm curious as to when we'll start seeing drive-thru style order boards popping up in abortion clinics. Just point to the picture or order by number. Pay the fee and spread-em.

Of course, Planned Parenthood is making some wild claims in the defense.  They have even gone so far as to claim that teaching abstinence in sex education is responsible for the increase in abortions. Seriously.

I don't claim to know all of the answers, but I certainly can draw some logical conclusions. Decades ago, parents taught their children that there were consequences to their actions. Over the following decades, consequences were taken away, and parents no longer taught their children about consequences. These days, the right to act without consequences has become common place. Organizations like Planned Parenthood provide "express" services to women who want a quick answer to their little "mistake."It's even reaching the point where children don't even need to inform their parents of their abortions, and clinics strive to achieve confidentiality - even from women and girl's own families. The only real consequence that remains is that a woman has to take time out of her busy day to visit a clinic.

Of course, the answer is easy. Quit being stupid. Quite living your life as if there aren't any consequences. It's not hard to not get pregnant. If Planned Parenthood would put half as much effort into teaching people to not be stupid as they do defending their abortion rates, maybe some progress could be made.

But whatever. That's just me thinking outside the box again. 

For the first part of this topic, please refer to my previous post.

Continuing the saga, it amazes me just how shady the Democrats are. Their activities are often times absolutely transparent - yet they work quietly and secretly as if they think they're pulling something over on the rest of us.

So, getting back to that bastion of socialism otherwise known as Madison, we find ourselves staring down the throat of yet another of the Democrat's slick maneuvers that simply exemplify their disregard for "what's best" in lieu of fairness and money.

It would seem that my original suspicions regarding the extent to which the distributors played a role in this fiasco were closer to the truth than even I could have suspected. It would seem that, while the Democrats and distributors claimed that their push to ban direct sales of wine to retailers by local wineries was all about "fairness," there was also a monetary value associated with it as well. Big surprise, right?

One could have suspected that there was something sour going on when a piece of legislation that specifically targets and threatens local wineries could be slipped into the state budget bill under the cover of darkness without the wineries even knowing about it.  I mean, maybe I'm just thinking outside the box here, but I would figure that part of having an open government would have meant that the wineries were involved and at least given a chance to debate the legislation before it was put out to a vote. But that may just be my wild and unconventional thinking again. I'll try to control that.

So, as much as I like to point the finger at the Dems for doing silly things, they don't often do things like this because they're bored. There was something else at work here - and that something else was money.

See, although the local distributors are operating under the guise of "fairness," the truth of the matter is that they want a piece of the action. Wisconsin wineries are a quickly growing industry in the state, and it's an industry that's generating money... Money that the local distributors want their piece of too. Right now, local wineries are allowed to sell their wine through local retailers without having to sell through a distributor. This enables small wineries to stay in business and helps keep wine prices down for the consumers. Hell, any time you can cut a middle man out of the equation is a good thing. That's just basic economics.

But that sort of thinking usually pisses off the middle man, and when people can't get their way, who do they turn to? Why, the Democrats, of course! Turn to the people who can be bought off and who can be so easily swayed into doing things by working the word "fairness" into the conversation. Turn to the people who don't care what sort of damage they might do to the local economy so long as they are there to ensure that everything is fair and equal.

Don't believe it? Well, the numbers don't lie (although politicians are certainly adept at denying connections) and since campaign finances are publicly available, we can find out all sorts of dirty secrets. Like the fact that employees at Madison's General Beverage Sales, Inc. contributed more than $20,000 to state democratic campaigns in 2006. It's even worse if you go back through 2005. You can look at all the numbers here via Opensecrets.org if you're bored.

How convenient. Of course, General Beverage is one of the only wine distributors with statewide reach. Do you think that this little piece of legislation would benefit General Beverage? You bet it would.

So now we can do some math here:
"fairness" + money + democrats = ?

What are we getting here? Who's really benefiting from this? The democrats got money plus they get to feel good because they're creating more "fairness" in the world. The distributors get money because now they will be able to get a piece of the action. The local wineries get... Run out of business if they're too small to be able to hire a distributor. Loss of revenue due to the use of a middle man... The consumer gets... Higher prices. Loss of a selection of local wines... The state tourism industry gets... Hit because of a loss of wineries which are becoming a staple of the state's tourism industry...

Need I go on?

This is just another perfect example of how the Democrats work in this state (and this country). Underhanded dealings,  last minute amendments to bigger bills, late night votes, going after industries without allowing them any involvement... It's all in a good day's work, right?

As before, I urge you to write your state representative and ask that they stop this thing at the assembly. The senate didn't give us a chance, so now it's up to the assembly to do the right thing and do what's right for the state and the state's local industry.

Find and contact your representative here.