On the way to work today I heard a comment from a representative from the "Center for Science in the Public Interest", say that a medium movie theater popcorn was as bad for you as "three quarter pounders with twelve pats of butter". You know what that means kids; time to call BS on someone.
(http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-mcdonalds-quarter-pounder-cheese-i53977)
(http://citygirlbites.com/blog/archives/399)
(http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20091119/movie-theater-popcorn-a-calorie-bomb)
(http://fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/butter?portionid=29480&portionamount=1.000)
(http://www.storyofwellness.com/2011/11/03/like-eating-3-quarter-pounders-with-12-pats-of-butter/)
So first we tally the claim. Three Quarter Pounders = 1530 calories, 78g fat, (36g saturated), and 3570mg sodium. Plus 12 pats of butter at: 432 calories, 48.72g fat (30.816 saturated), and 12 mg sodium. This totals to: 1962 calories, 126.72 g fat (66.816 saturated), and 3762 mg sodium.
Now they were comparing to the worst case they could find, but let's use their example.
Regal Cinemas medium popcorn: 1200 calories, 60 grams of saturated fat. They don't list the sodium for that particular one but the other worst case was 1500mg. (that was a large BTW) Also I should point out that their numbers, as tested, were significantly higher than what was reported by Regal Cinemas.
So the popcorn is all saturated fat, so that is easily enough compared. Let's do some math.
1962 - 1200 = 762 calories less for the popcorn.
126.72 - 60 = 66.72 less g of fat
66.816 - 60 = 6.816 less g of saturated fat and
3762 - 1500 = 2262 mg less sodium. (one metric crap-ton)
The short story is the popcorn isn't doing you any favors if you eat the whole damned tub yourself. But it is hardly as bad as eating three quarter pounders with twelve pats of butter. In fact, it seems they overstated their case by a whole hamburger, (510 calories), plus several shakers full of salt.
Also apparently they expected you to swallow the big shovel of fertilizer they were passing around.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Reproductive rights and the church
Attention: if you have a short attention span skip ahead to the conclusion; then become angry because you do not understand where it came from. This will likely be a long one.
There has recently been some to-do over the government's insistence that employers pay for birth control. The Catholic Church, as was expected, became indignant. See, they run the second largest social services charity in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities) Care to guess the largest? The U.S. government! Hooray for you, you got it right. Keep in mind the two largest charities as you read. The "compromise", which was laughable, at best, was that insurance companies pay for it.
I say this is laughable because, as anyone who works in healthcare knows, most hospitals of decent size, are self-insured. The Catholic Charities is easily of sufficient size. So if their insurers pay for it... oh wait what does self-insured mean again? The other angle to laugh from, is that insurance companies are better off paying for birth control. Recent errors in packaging aside (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/birth-control-recall-norgestimat-ethinyl-estradiol-tablets_n_1304950.html), birth control is by far cheaper than the birth, and subsequent healthcare of a child. That is to say insurance companies have been covering birth control to a greater degree lately, for purely financial reasons.
The separation of church and state is a two way street. Catholic Charities is completely within their rights to not cover birth control, on moral grounds. Especially figuring that it is cheaper to cover birth control than to not. The people who work there are free to work elsewhere, should they object. That is the idea behind a free market. If I object to any aspect of how I'm treated at work, I can leave any time.
Now to the other part of the joke. The issue of "reproductive rights" Someone's reproductive rights are violated when they are told they are not allowed to produce offspring. They are violated when they are forced to produce offspring. They are not violated when they are expected to pay for their own Norgestimate.
By that logic, as a firearm owner, my employer should be required to pay for my gun safe. Allow me to explain. I have made a choice to engage in an activity that I am not legally compelled to engage in. Gun ownership = Sex, in this argument. The safety measure to prevent unintended consequences should, under this logic, be paid for by someone other than the person who made the choice to engage in said activity, in this case my employer. Birth control = gun safe. It sounds idiotic when you look at it from the gun standpoint, because it is idiotic from the birth control side.
We are then left with two questions. "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?"; and "Why are they allowing it to become a debate about reproductive rights?" First we will address the latter. They are turning it into an issue of reproductive rights because it brings high-profile attention from people who will win that argument. Bear in mind that it never was about reproductive rights. Next, let's look at the first question; "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?" Remember how they are the second largest charity provider. Why does McDonald's charge less than Burger King? To try to eliminate the competition. Ask a Communist: remove religion and people will have only government to cling to for charity.
Now if you'll excuse me, my tinfoil hat is interfering with my computer...
There has recently been some to-do over the government's insistence that employers pay for birth control. The Catholic Church, as was expected, became indignant. See, they run the second largest social services charity in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities) Care to guess the largest? The U.S. government! Hooray for you, you got it right. Keep in mind the two largest charities as you read. The "compromise", which was laughable, at best, was that insurance companies pay for it.
I say this is laughable because, as anyone who works in healthcare knows, most hospitals of decent size, are self-insured. The Catholic Charities is easily of sufficient size. So if their insurers pay for it... oh wait what does self-insured mean again? The other angle to laugh from, is that insurance companies are better off paying for birth control. Recent errors in packaging aside (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/birth-control-recall-norgestimat-ethinyl-estradiol-tablets_n_1304950.html), birth control is by far cheaper than the birth, and subsequent healthcare of a child. That is to say insurance companies have been covering birth control to a greater degree lately, for purely financial reasons.
The separation of church and state is a two way street. Catholic Charities is completely within their rights to not cover birth control, on moral grounds. Especially figuring that it is cheaper to cover birth control than to not. The people who work there are free to work elsewhere, should they object. That is the idea behind a free market. If I object to any aspect of how I'm treated at work, I can leave any time.
Now to the other part of the joke. The issue of "reproductive rights" Someone's reproductive rights are violated when they are told they are not allowed to produce offspring. They are violated when they are forced to produce offspring. They are not violated when they are expected to pay for their own Norgestimate.
By that logic, as a firearm owner, my employer should be required to pay for my gun safe. Allow me to explain. I have made a choice to engage in an activity that I am not legally compelled to engage in. Gun ownership = Sex, in this argument. The safety measure to prevent unintended consequences should, under this logic, be paid for by someone other than the person who made the choice to engage in said activity, in this case my employer. Birth control = gun safe. It sounds idiotic when you look at it from the gun standpoint, because it is idiotic from the birth control side.
We are then left with two questions. "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?"; and "Why are they allowing it to become a debate about reproductive rights?" First we will address the latter. They are turning it into an issue of reproductive rights because it brings high-profile attention from people who will win that argument. Bear in mind that it never was about reproductive rights. Next, let's look at the first question; "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?" Remember how they are the second largest charity provider. Why does McDonald's charge less than Burger King? To try to eliminate the competition. Ask a Communist: remove religion and people will have only government to cling to for charity.
Now if you'll excuse me, my tinfoil hat is interfering with my computer...
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Don't be that guy who ignores the rules of the road
Ok, I know what you are thinking.
"I am a great driver but you should see the clowns I share the road with on my way to the office."
In the U.S. our sense of driving skills is interwoven with our sense of self worth. I often wonder why I am able to insult someones job performance or manhood without so much as a snicker but If I tell them they are a bad driver I am met with enraged silence or actual violence. My theory is that driving is one of the most "American" things you can do and by being bad at driving, you are somehow a social aberration that should be driven out of the village with torches and pitchforks.
So I propose we look at why people suck at driving.
1st- The way you drive is directly linked to the type of person you are. If you are a nice person, you will generally be a courteous driver. If you are an "A" type personality you may be more aggressive on the road than generally is considered safe. However certain people are aggressive when they drive and timid most other times. I suppose that the reason for this is that driving gives you a feeling of power that you can only get in a few other places. In your car you are the captain of the ship and are responsible for the lives of your passengers and other roadway users.
So the first step of being a better driver might be to recognize our own driving tendencies.
2nd- Men and women suck at driving for different reasons. (Warning Sweeping Generalizations ahead.)
I will address men first because I am a man and I understand how we think a little better. Men who are driving poorly tend to be focused on showing everyone around them how they are so good at driving that they can ignore the rules of the road.
"Obviously these rules were written for all the other terrible drivers and the police will only pull over a pro driver like me if I do something really stupid."
Men have driving hubris because they are taught that they are the best drivers and that bending traffic rules is ok if you don't get caught. The safety of other roadway users becomes secondary to them showing off and getting to where they go quickly and with as much elan as they can muster. In short men drive like idiots because they are selfish and do not consider how their stupidity can hurt other people on the road.
Keep in mind that twice as many men are killed in car collisions each year than women. That isn't to say that they get in more accidents. Men simply suffer from the "hey watch this" syndrome and take bigger risks with their automobiles. So my advice to men is to slow down and realize that you are not the greatest driver ever and you don't have to prove yourself out on the road with other people. Do that at home by being good to your family.
Women...You are not the most important person on earth! Despite what your family and society has taught you, you are not a princess or special in any way. Immaturity behind the wheel is not limited to men. Woman act as if they are alone on the road or more accurately, as if they should be alone because they are the most important person and what they are doing trumps what anyone else is on the road to do. They are in contrast to men because they are not trying to prove their worth by driving but rather they are demonstrating their worth by downplaying the importance of all other roadway users.
In short, women are bad drivers because they are selfish and don't consider the needs of other roadway users as being important.
See what I am getting at.
Simply put, good driving is a product of courtesy. If you respect the rights of others then you will be a good driver. If you are selfish, your driving suffers. Keep in mind that you may think you are so good at driving fast or multitasking that your friends recognize your skills and respect you. In actuality they probably make fun of you behind your back. (I know I do)
So what can we do to avoid being "that guy?" It may be as easy as realizing that you are not the only person on the road. Thinking of your car as a means of transport instead of proof of how important you are is an important first step to better driving.
We need to think of our driver's licenses as a social contract that says we will do our best to keep the roads safe. Once we realize driving is a responsibility to be taken seriously, then we will drive with the safety of our fellow citizens in mind.
"I am a great driver but you should see the clowns I share the road with on my way to the office."
In the U.S. our sense of driving skills is interwoven with our sense of self worth. I often wonder why I am able to insult someones job performance or manhood without so much as a snicker but If I tell them they are a bad driver I am met with enraged silence or actual violence. My theory is that driving is one of the most "American" things you can do and by being bad at driving, you are somehow a social aberration that should be driven out of the village with torches and pitchforks.
So I propose we look at why people suck at driving.
1st- The way you drive is directly linked to the type of person you are. If you are a nice person, you will generally be a courteous driver. If you are an "A" type personality you may be more aggressive on the road than generally is considered safe. However certain people are aggressive when they drive and timid most other times. I suppose that the reason for this is that driving gives you a feeling of power that you can only get in a few other places. In your car you are the captain of the ship and are responsible for the lives of your passengers and other roadway users.
So the first step of being a better driver might be to recognize our own driving tendencies.
2nd- Men and women suck at driving for different reasons. (Warning Sweeping Generalizations ahead.)
I will address men first because I am a man and I understand how we think a little better. Men who are driving poorly tend to be focused on showing everyone around them how they are so good at driving that they can ignore the rules of the road.
"Obviously these rules were written for all the other terrible drivers and the police will only pull over a pro driver like me if I do something really stupid."
Men have driving hubris because they are taught that they are the best drivers and that bending traffic rules is ok if you don't get caught. The safety of other roadway users becomes secondary to them showing off and getting to where they go quickly and with as much elan as they can muster. In short men drive like idiots because they are selfish and do not consider how their stupidity can hurt other people on the road.
Keep in mind that twice as many men are killed in car collisions each year than women. That isn't to say that they get in more accidents. Men simply suffer from the "hey watch this" syndrome and take bigger risks with their automobiles. So my advice to men is to slow down and realize that you are not the greatest driver ever and you don't have to prove yourself out on the road with other people. Do that at home by being good to your family.
Women...You are not the most important person on earth! Despite what your family and society has taught you, you are not a princess or special in any way. Immaturity behind the wheel is not limited to men. Woman act as if they are alone on the road or more accurately, as if they should be alone because they are the most important person and what they are doing trumps what anyone else is on the road to do. They are in contrast to men because they are not trying to prove their worth by driving but rather they are demonstrating their worth by downplaying the importance of all other roadway users.
In short, women are bad drivers because they are selfish and don't consider the needs of other roadway users as being important.
See what I am getting at.
Simply put, good driving is a product of courtesy. If you respect the rights of others then you will be a good driver. If you are selfish, your driving suffers. Keep in mind that you may think you are so good at driving fast or multitasking that your friends recognize your skills and respect you. In actuality they probably make fun of you behind your back. (I know I do)
So what can we do to avoid being "that guy?" It may be as easy as realizing that you are not the only person on the road. Thinking of your car as a means of transport instead of proof of how important you are is an important first step to better driving.
We need to think of our driver's licenses as a social contract that says we will do our best to keep the roads safe. Once we realize driving is a responsibility to be taken seriously, then we will drive with the safety of our fellow citizens in mind.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The "S" is for Stupid
There is a methodology employed in Japan called "Kaizen". It means improvement. This methodology is tied to just in time delivery methods and the 5S method. Many of you know Just in Time. It means no storage, because your deliveries arrive; just in time. It means only scheduled downtime for production equipment. It works very well in Japan where the culture and laws support it. No surprise, since it was developed there.
It fails, often and spectacularly, here. The reason is that; in Japan a late delivery has financial consequences for the people who did not fulfill it. Here it is just another thing that happens. No one is punished for late deliveries. In fact, we don't even expect anything on time.
The 5S method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5S_(methodology) is the Japanese interpretation of your great-grandmother's advice. "A place for everything, and everything in its place." To see a work-space laid out in this method is quite impressive. Again though, it works only in the right conditions. Like in Japan.
See in the factories, repair shops, and other businesses there, there are consequences to workers who fail shop inspections. If there is something not in its marked place on a shelf, someone better have it in their hand. If no one does, all are penalized.
In America everyone's job is no one's job. Apply that same standard and it falls apart quickly, because there is no penalization, nor any expectation thereof. Instead of having one set of tools and equipment for all workers to share, we should focus on a uniquely American solution. Or more precisely, medieval European.
Modern union workers of all stripes can tell you the answer to this one without having to think about it, because they live it. Each worker has their own set of tools, that they are financially responsible for. Each worker will then take care of their equipment, and will keep track of it. The only one who suffers when Bob loses his wrench is Bob.
Now I wont say that this works in factories with multi-million dollar assembly robots, but that sort of thing is typically bolted down. If it isn't, or if it is sufficiently specialist in nature, it can be signed out, and assigned to each worker, who will then be responsible for its care until returned.
The short story is; that Japanese techniques work in Japan, because the laws, behaviors, beliefs, and social structure are what grew those very techniques. They do not work here because we are not Japanese. When we are forced to implement these techniques inappropriately, we do not suddenly become Japanese. Although;
I think I'm turning Japanese,
I think I'm turning Japanese,
I really think so.
It fails, often and spectacularly, here. The reason is that; in Japan a late delivery has financial consequences for the people who did not fulfill it. Here it is just another thing that happens. No one is punished for late deliveries. In fact, we don't even expect anything on time.
The 5S method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5S_(methodology) is the Japanese interpretation of your great-grandmother's advice. "A place for everything, and everything in its place." To see a work-space laid out in this method is quite impressive. Again though, it works only in the right conditions. Like in Japan.
See in the factories, repair shops, and other businesses there, there are consequences to workers who fail shop inspections. If there is something not in its marked place on a shelf, someone better have it in their hand. If no one does, all are penalized.
In America everyone's job is no one's job. Apply that same standard and it falls apart quickly, because there is no penalization, nor any expectation thereof. Instead of having one set of tools and equipment for all workers to share, we should focus on a uniquely American solution. Or more precisely, medieval European.
Modern union workers of all stripes can tell you the answer to this one without having to think about it, because they live it. Each worker has their own set of tools, that they are financially responsible for. Each worker will then take care of their equipment, and will keep track of it. The only one who suffers when Bob loses his wrench is Bob.
Now I wont say that this works in factories with multi-million dollar assembly robots, but that sort of thing is typically bolted down. If it isn't, or if it is sufficiently specialist in nature, it can be signed out, and assigned to each worker, who will then be responsible for its care until returned.
The short story is; that Japanese techniques work in Japan, because the laws, behaviors, beliefs, and social structure are what grew those very techniques. They do not work here because we are not Japanese. When we are forced to implement these techniques inappropriately, we do not suddenly become Japanese. Although;
I think I'm turning Japanese,
I think I'm turning Japanese,
I really think so.
Monday, February 13, 2012
500 views. Thanks.
Apparently, some time last month, I hit 500 page views. This means exactly nothing since many were false pings from sites that just try to draw in morons with blogs. (referral links) I would like to thank all of you who have so patiently played along. I will keep this short, since there is no actual message. (Like there ever is). I will leave you with a profound thought.
When we pray for our lives to be simpler, when we ask to make it all less complicated; ask yourself how that would get accomplished. I think when you pray for simplicity, you are given adversity. Adversity has a way of making our choices for us. Watch the Walking Dead sometime. (Sundays on AMC, like every show worth watching) Life has been reduced to survival for those people. That is pretty uncomplicated.
When we pray for our lives to be simpler, when we ask to make it all less complicated; ask yourself how that would get accomplished. I think when you pray for simplicity, you are given adversity. Adversity has a way of making our choices for us. Watch the Walking Dead sometime. (Sundays on AMC, like every show worth watching) Life has been reduced to survival for those people. That is pretty uncomplicated.
Friday, February 10, 2012
So insulting it causes physical pain.
I will question why this is being sent. If you need flood insurance, and have a mortgage, (Like your's truly) your lender tells you in no uncertain terms that you'd better have this type of insurance. So this is a sales come-on. From the government. Indirectly of course but... seriously? I think this particular truth is so "self-evident" that I need not even state it.
Someone mentioned something about debt, and some soldiers still deployed in some filthy sandbox. These concerns clearly pale when held to the light of marketing flood insurance to people who don't need it.
We more money put into space exploration. I want off.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
You don't say!
Keeping this one short and sweet, as its been a while.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0207_sodium_food.html
This recent press release by the CDC (Continuous "Derp" Commission) says we are all eating too much salt. That is still debatable. But for argument's sake, let's assume it is true. There is one culprit on the list that is not one of the usual suspects. Bread. Apparently we eat too much.
Remember this guy? 11 servings of bread is considered NORMAL by the FDA. (Federal "Derp" Agency.) Bear also in mind, that the higher the protein content in the bread (Higher fiber) the more sodium it needs to rise. So the "Healthy" bread is packed full of salt.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0207_sodium_food.html
This recent press release by the CDC (Continuous "Derp" Commission) says we are all eating too much salt. That is still debatable. But for argument's sake, let's assume it is true. There is one culprit on the list that is not one of the usual suspects. Bread. Apparently we eat too much.
Remember this guy? 11 servings of bread is considered NORMAL by the FDA. (Federal "Derp" Agency.) Bear also in mind, that the higher the protein content in the bread (Higher fiber) the more sodium it needs to rise. So the "Healthy" bread is packed full of salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)