...a blog honoring the memory of Rev. L. Dudley Day, O.S.A., discussing cultural-social issues as he did in his publication, "Integrity," and as they are discussed around the dinner table at Holy Innocents Hermitage II
A USA Today article reports a new government study of 4k+ food items, ranked by calories, weight, and portion size.
Guess what?
There is little difference in the cost of a "healthy" diet versus a "tasty" diet...what's typically called "nutritious" food versus "junk" food.
The study's findings remind The Motley Monk of the television show "Myth Busters" in that many people---like The Motley Monk---believe that healthy, nutritious food is more expensive than tasty, junk food. That is, the less flavor that's added to basic proteins and vegetables, the more expensive it is. That's not only true of 5-star restaurants---less costs more---but of gasoline. Less lead in the gasoline is more expensive than leaded gasoline.
The study's findings are somewhat disturbing to The Motley Monk because his Mom drilled into his head as a youngster that what he'd have preferred for a snack---a Hostess wild berry pie---was more expensive than what she wanted him to eat---a banana or apple. Ditto for what The Motley Monk preferred for lunch---a McDonald's double cheeseburger---to what she forced him to eat---a chicken loaf or ham sandwich with lettuce.
If The Motley Monk only knew then what he knows now---the actual economics of eating "healthy" versus eating "tasty."
Actually, it wouldn't have made any difference. For some reason, Moms always have a way of winning those battles.
It used to be, at least insofar as The Motley Monk thought about things, that a young person had to be pretty smart to get into college. Isn't that what all of those SATs and ACTs tests were supposed to discriminate between---the "have's" and the "have not's"---meaning "brains"?
Most students did not seem to have prior knowledge of the drug and many were unable to learn about it during their search. The proportion of correct responses is even less encouraging if we consider that several of the people who arrived at the ideal solution had prior knowledge about ECPs....These findings suggest that despite the availability of quality health information on the Web, many students are unable to find accurate information about important health matters online.
The study found that 34% of the participants couldn't find any relevant information about emergency contraception. Worse yet, the majority couldn't identify the most efficient way to acquire emergency contraception when they "needed" to. (More on that "needed" part later.)
So much for being the smartest and most tech-savvy generation in American history!
Of course, the solution many people---including the study's co-authors---advocate is having local student health centers provide immediate access to emergency contraception because, of course, "time is of the essence." Yes, those adults know full well that those students "need" to terminate a potential pregnancy because that could ruin their collegiate years and those after graduation as well.
So, The Motley Monk concludes that today's undergraduates must be pretty stupid. Yes, "stupid" as in S-T-U-P-I-D.
Why?
"Plan A", of course, was to engage in casual, pre-marital sex without regrets. Having received all of the required sex ed curriculum during the elementary and high school years, today's undergraduates know full well how to make Plan A succeed.
But, they apparently don't. That's not ignorance but stupidity.
Believe it or not, more Democrats in Congress are lining up to keep those "evil" President George W. Bush tax cuts (BTCs). Well, not all of the BTCs. But, as The Motley Monk reported in a previous post, most of them.
The latest Democrat to chortle about keeping the BTCs for the "middle class" is none other than the U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi.
What's interesting to The Motley Monk about this story is Ms. Pelosi's definition of "middle class."
According to a Washington Post editorial---which advocates allowing the BTCs to expire at the end of 2012---Ms. Pelosi's "middle class" includes people earning anything < $1M/year.
Ms. Pelosi is so smitten with the idea of making the BTCs permanent that she sent a letter to the Speaker of the House, John A. Boehner (R-OH), calling for an immediate vote to make permanent the BTCs for income earners below $1M annually. She wrote:
By ensuring that the middle-income tax cuts do not expire, we will put money into the pockets of American consumers, saving the typical middle-income family thousands of dollars per year.
Of course, this puts Ms. Pelosi at odds with President Obama who also wants the BTCs extended, but only on income earners of $250k or less.
What Ms. Pelosi isn't saying, however, is that her tax scheme will benefit those earning $1M+/year.
...among the biggest beneficiaries of Ms. Pelosi's "middle class" largess would be those earning more than $1 million a year, because they would enjoy the benefit of paying lower marginal rates on the first $1 million of income. Indeed, an estimated half of the benefit of the lower rates would flow to, yes, millionaires.
So, Ms. Pelosi is playing politics. She's scheming so that Democrats can argue that the Republicans are opposed allowing the BTCs to expire even for millionaires.
The Washington Post will have none of it:
The risk of this particular pander, however, is that $1 million becomes the new, high bar; tax cuts below that level remain off-limits. Do Democrats really want their new slogan to be: “Almost as irresponsible as the Republicans?”
Imagine that! Ms. Pelosi is playing politics. She's scheming to appeal to her so called "middle class base" while trying to trick the Republicans into voting for her bill that would extend tax cuts for the so-called "rich."
"It's not government's responsibility to save our country. It's up to us to save our country."
When The Motley Monk heard a candidate for the U.S. Congress was "singing his song," The Motley Monk decided he had to investigate further.
As it ends up, the candidate making that statement is Mia Love, the Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, and the 2012 Republican Party nominee in the Utah's 4th Congressional District. Having captured 70% of the vote in the primary, Mrs. Love will face six-term incumbent Democratic Representative Jim Matheson in November 2012.
The daughter of Haitian immigrants, Love was born in Brooklyn and raised in Connecticut. She graduated from the University of Hartford, working afterwards in the private sector and as a flight attendant for Continental Airlines. After moving to Utah, Love met her husband, Jason, and converted to his faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, prior to their marriage. The Loves are parents of three children.
In 2003, Love was elected Utah County Council, becoming the first female Haitian-American elected official in Utah. After serving six years on the Council, she was elected Mayor of Saratoga Springs. Then, in January 2012, Love started her run for Congress saying:
As a wife and mother of three children, I believe the best hope for our future is to focus on fiscal discipline, limited government, and personal responsibility. These three core principles drive economic growth and opportunity.
Now that's music to The Motley Monk's ears! And, a genuine American success story, to boot!
Despite Mrs. Love's biography, the media is incredulous. How is it possible for a successful Black female politician to be (gasp) a "conservative Republican"?
Listen carefully to the line of questioning by ABC's Jonathan Karl in "Spinners and Winners." Keep an eye on his face as Mrs. Love doesn't follow Karl's script in the interview. Guess what's going on in Karl's mind during the interview.
Here's what The Motley Monk thinks is going on in Karl's mind:
"Black. Mormon. Conservative...(omigosh...this just can't be...she's even articulate!)...The Republicans have vowed to spare no expense to get her elected...(don't you get it...those rich White guys are using their money to use you to their evil ends)...You'll join the Congressional Black Caucus?...(how do you know they'll let you in, because you really aren't one of them)...Absolutely no...no tax increases....You did raise taxes...a slight rise in property taxes! (gotchya)....You are one of only two African Americans living in Utah not currently playing for the Jazz"...(because a blogger wrote that, it's fine for me to quote a statement with pretty obvious racist implications).
If that's not enough, the blogosphere is rife with ad hominem attacks. Take the following comment, for example:
Nice lady but not too smart, freedom is NOT FREE it is expensive and for very obvious reasons does NOT mean that you are free to do what ever you want to do.
What freedoms are being taken away from us? freedom to own guns? freedom to impose your views on others? freedom to trash those with whom you disagree?
HMMMM! some gop candidates want to take away a womans freedom to choose, our freedom to use contraceptives, or impose on our children their own strongly held fairy tales about creation.
"Not too smart."
"Take away...freedoms..."
Sounds just like comments made about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
All The Motley Monk can say is "Keep on running, girl!"
It seems that everything's got to be "sustainable"...including human beings, who perhaps are being too sustainable...which is unsustainable, of course, at least according to those who worship at the altar of environmentalism.
Worshipping at the altar of environmentalism
According to Kevin Mooney of the Capital Research Center, the population control organization based in Washington DC claiming 140k members, Population Connection (the former "Zero Population Growth" crowd), is advocating a 2.1 global "sustainable" fertility rate. Currently, the rate is 2.5.
"That's completely unsustainable!" PC members argue.
What's needed to meet the goal of global population sustainability is "family planning education."
Family Planning: Population Connection believes that quality family
planning services should be made available to all people who desire such
services. The nations of the world should agree to achieve this goal at the
earliest possible date. The developed nations of the world, including the United
States, should provide much of the funding necessary to implement this
objective. Population Connection recommends that states remove the
existing legal restrictions on contraceptive availability for teenagers and that
they enact legislation to guarantee access to both information and services.
Abortion and Family Planning: It is a fact of today's world that unwanted
pregnancies occur. Many of them are terminated by abortion. Where abortions are
not legal, women seek illegal abortions, at great risk to their health and
lives. Population Connection believes that every child should be a
wanted child. Achieving this goal would prevent the suffering of families and
the social problems that often follow the births of unwanted children. We therefore support laws and social practices that ensure access for
all women to medically safe and affordable abortion services. Population
Connection by far prefers prevention of unwanted pregnancies to abortion. Thus
we support research to improve contraceptive technology.
Population Education: Population Connection supports broad public
education about the consequences of continued population growth and the actions
people can take to achieve a sustainable balance of people, resources and the
environment in the United States and worldwide. We recommend that school
curricula nationwide include information on population dynamics and their
implications for society and the world; in addition, information concerning
human sexuality, contraception, family size, parenthood, and non-parenthood
should be provided.
Doesn't Population Connection's agenda read pretty much like that being advocated Planned Parenthood?
All of which reminds The Motley Monk: When his friends on the political left advocate "sustainability," The Motley Monk had better make sure they define terms.
The Motley Monk was delighted to read that yet another institution of higher education, the University of North Carolina at Greensville (UNC-G), is starting a Master's degree program in Latin.
The Motley Monk already hears the critics howling:
Latin?
Of what use is that "dead" language?
Who'd ever enroll in that program?
For all of those this-worldly utilitarians who view education as a "means" to an "end"---for example, college majors that lead to lucrative careers---what could be better than the study of Latin during the elementary and secondary school years?
Students studying Latin will have developed more a more sophisticated vocabulary...providing a great boost on those SAT's and ACT's. They will also be better writers, developing greater facility with grammar and syntax...providing a great boost on those crucial application letters and autobiographies that colleges require. But, best of all students studying Latin will be able to converse with some of history's greatest thinkers and writers...in their native tongue.
For example, someone who has studied Latin would know what the tattoo "Qui me alit me extinguit"---which is etched upon Angelina Jolie's anatomy---means both literally and figuratively, as all of that has been discussed throughout history by the likes of Paolo Giovio, Samuel Daniel, and Shakespeare.
Qui me alit me extinguit"
Students enrolling in UNC-G's program will:
have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of Latin grammar, syntax, and morphology;
have a strong grasp of the wide range of Latin literature, both in its own contexts and with regard to its influence on Western Civilization;
understand Classical culture and history;
know and use innovations in ancient language teaching and available tools for enhancing their own teaching and research;
be reflective practitioners of best practices in teaching Latin;
actively promote the values of a liberal arts education that derive from the study of language and literature: increased understanding of language, the encounter with cultures and modes of thought different from one's own, and heightened awareness of literary studies and methodologies.
Isn't that a great program, one that will prepare Latin teachers who will share their love for and knowledge of this language system with young people?
However, The Motley Monk isn't a utilitarian and it's that final "bullet point" that interests The Motley Monk most.
Why?
For all of those on the political left who are such staunch advocates of greater social justice, inclusiveness, and diversity, what would signal greater social justice, inclusiveness, and diversity than introducing young people to some of Western civilization's most maligned dead White males?
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently hosted and addressed a global town hall concerning "Civil Society" as the kick off for the the 2012 Summit of Our Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society."
Of course, The Motley Monk is aware that the topic of a "civil society" is code language for activists on the political left who want to bring “social change” and “democracy” to countries across the globe.
But, that said, listening to Mrs. Clinton's speech to that group of activists, one might mistakenly think The Motley Monk wrote much of this speech.
Take, for example, Mrs. Clinton's statement concerning the appropriate role of government in the lives of the governed:
[T]o make the case for civil society is really quite simple because government cannot and should not control any individual's life---tell you what to do, what not to do. (italics added)
What? This from a pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-centralized healthcare Democrat?
Then, too, consider Mrs. Clinton's statement about what constitutes a "civil society" which, she said, sets upon the three "legs" of an accountable government, a free-market economy, and civil society. All three legs must be equal, she observed, and any inequality harms a civil society.
In particular, note what Mrs. Clinton said about that second leg, the free-market economy:
The economy has to be in the hands of those who are the entrepreneurs and creative innovators.
What? This from a moderate social Democrat who has favored tax increases on those "rich" entrepreneurs and creative innovators---those citizens earning more than $250k---in order to subsidize more federal programs to aid all of the so-called poor and needy among us?
Don't believe The Motley Monk?
Here's what Mrs. Clinton said in 2010:
The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does]---whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms....
Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what---they're growing like crazy. And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty.
Could it perhaps be---just askin'---Mrs. Clinton has been following The Motley Monk?
