Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Less Government! More Bacon!

Crime and Fed­er­al­ism’s tagline: “Because every­thing I was ever told is a lie.” Scott Green­field recently gave us a reminder of the truth of the propo­si­tion in TWA Flight 800 Remem­bered. Green­field was one of the hun­dreds of wit­nesses who saw “what [he] thought to be a fire­work shoot from the water up toward the sky, curve and explode.  It was not an explo­sion in the sky, but clearly some­thing that went from the water upward for a sig­nif­i­cant dis­tance” off the south­ern coast of Long Island on the evening of 17 July 1996—an obser­va­tion con­trary to the offi­cial “a fuel tank just exploded” gov­ern­men­tal expla­na­tion of events that night.

Green­field is a reli­able source; if he says that the gov­ern­ment is not telling the truth about TWA 800, the gov­ern­ment is not telling the truth about TWA 800. And Green­field says, “It’s not true.”

Why would the gov­ern­ment not tell us the truth about the cause of the dis­as­ter? It’s easy to think of rea­sons. But the “why” doesn’t mat­ter; seek­ing it may even be coun­ter­pro­duc­tive: by impos­ing our own logic on events we may deceive our­selves. By find­ing rea­sons for the government’s decep­tions, we might even delude our­selves into think­ing that there  are cir­cum­stances in which our gov­ern­ment might be trusted.

We’re bet­ter off know­ing that gov­ern­ment deceives us for its own rea­sons, and that those rea­sons are not nec­es­sar­ily know­able. Fal­sus in unum, fal­sus in omnibus. (Or at least in omnibus propin­quus. That the gov­ern­ment is not telling the truth about TWA 800 makes it much eas­ier to believe that the gov­ern­ment is not telling the truth about 9/11.) 

We’re bet­ter off always cut­ting the cards. 

Apro­pos of that, con­sider the US Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture, which we for some rea­son allow to tell us how to eat. In a demon­stra­tion of the politi­ciza­tion of its food rec­om­men­da­tions, the USDA endorsed “meat­less Mon­days” for its employ­ees and then, when the meat lobby com­plained, retracted its endorsement.

The USDA’s “MyPlate rec­om­mends that some­one my age eat seven “ounce-equivalents” of grains per day—that’s seven slices of bread, for exam­ple, or three and a half cups of rice, oat­meal, or pasta, for exam­ple. That’s about 140 grams of car­bo­hy­drates. The USDA also wants me to eat two cups of fruit a day, for maybe another 50 grams of car­bo­hy­drates. Along with this, the carb equiv­a­lent of three cups of Chunky Mon­key, the USDA wants me to eat lean or low-fat protein.

I hap­pen to know, because I have exper­i­mented, that if I eat lean meat and 190 grams of car­bo­hy­drates a day I’m going to get fat. If, on the other hand, I go light on the car­bo­hy­drates and get my calo­ries from fat (mmmm bacon) I’m going to get lean and feel good (I’m down 30 pounds in 18 months). I also know, because I have read, that this is the out­come pre­dicted by sound science.

So here’s the ques­tion: if we have an obe­sity prob­lem in Amer­ica (we do), and if con­sum­ing car­bo­hy­drates makes us fat (it does) and if the meat lobby is pow­er­ful enough to get the USDA to change its rec­om­men­da­tions (it is), what has to hap­pen before the gov­ern­ment stops deceiv­ing us about how we’re eat­ing our­selves to death?

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

3 Responses to “Less Government! More Bacon!”

  1. John David Galt says:

    Does any­one really pay atten­tion to those gov­ern­ment rec­om­men­da­tions? I never have.

    You sound like one of the plain­tiffs in a tobacco case, pre­tend­ing that tobacco exec­u­tives were fool­ing the pub­lic by say­ing we don’t know tobacco is addic­tive, when in fact every­body has known it since at least 1960 (and the execs were just cov­er­ing their anatomy, as I’m sure any attor­ney would have told them they had to).

    The con­nec­tion? Every­body knows that eat­ing too much makes you fat. If it still hap­pens it means that a large num­ber of Amer­i­cans would rather enjoy the foods they like than be thin.

    Who is any­one else — any­one at all — to crit­i­cize that choice?

    • Mark Bennett says:

      There you go again with your com­mon sense. It’s not “eat­ing too much” that makes you fat, but eat­ing too much of the wrong stuff. The more car­bo­hy­drates you eat, the more insulin your body pro­duces to deal with it, and the more calo­ries your body stores as fat.

      Whether the gov­ern­ment should be in the busi­ness of giv­ing health advice is an inter­est­ing ques­tion. Whether the gov­ern­ment should be in the busi­ness of giv­ing bad health advice (and indoc­tri­nat­ing our chil­dren with it) isn’t.

  2. Ric Moore says:

    Becom­ing dia­betic, at 50, of course the Doc­tors told me how to eat. I imme­di­ately went on sugar sub­sti­tutes, fol­lowed the guide­lines and got fat as a hawg at 240 pounds. Finally, read up on Adkins, dropped all carbs as best as I could, had the leafy greens and fruit, and three fried pork­chops for din­ner. I ate meat like it was going out of style. I slimmed down to 170 pounds in 5–6 months. Meat takes longer to digest, so there is less urge to snack. I used less insulin and tried doing com­pletely with­out it, work­ing hard dig­ging trenches in the yard for wiring pur­poses. I mon­i­tored my blood sugar and a really sweat induc­ing work­out cut my need for insulin by 2/3’s.

    Folks, it’s our lifestyle that’s slowly killing us. If I did as my Grand­fa­ther did, and stayed behind the south­bound end of a north­bound mule, I’d live far longer.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply