How 'Brilliant' Can President Obama Be? By Jeffrey S. Howard

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545302/201008271806/How-Brilliant-Can-President-Obama-Be-.aspx

08/27/2010

Every person, newscaster and commentator always prefaces any, even the mildest criticism, of President Obama's policies with some statement about how dazzlingly brilliant the man is. Liberals, conservatives, independents — it never changes. Why is this? And most important of all, is it true?

What and where is the proof that Obama is such a sharp fellow? The recorded evidence is unavailable since his academic records, and test scores from three universities are sealed at his demand. Sure, he graduated from Harvard, but so did George Bush, who earned an MBA but is still pilloried by some as dumber than dirt.

We shall have to examine Obama's performance and make our own assumptions based on observations.

Obama selected advisers and Cabinet heads who have basically no experience in the private sector. He relies heavily on them to tell him what to do about the sick economy. Their knee-jerk responses are Keynesian (borrow and spend), based on a dubious theory popular 70 years ago, and proved unworkable in the past.

They sold us the stimulus ("porkulus") package of spending.The result? Rising unemployment and falling home sales prove that "recovery summer" is going down the tube without touching the sides. The president retains his economic Rasputins. Is loyalty to failure a sign of a great mind?

Obama farmed out the stimulus, omnibus budget, financial reform, cap-and-tax and health care bills to Congress — allowing it free rein. He did not exercise leadership and instead abdicated to the whims of Nancy Pelosi, David Obey, Harry Reid and Chris Dodd.

Trillions are borrowed and spent on the public sector while real jobs evaporate. Banks invest in bonds instead of businesses. Impending and threatened mandates, regulation and tax increases choke off entrepreneurial ambitions. Does this activity indicate a high level of intelligence, or just managerial ineptitude?

The president is unable to string a cogent sentence together without a pair of Teleprompters working perfectly. He can deliver a mesmerizing speech but can't even remember who is standing beside him when the tape runs off the tracks. His most often used extemporaneous word is "um."

This may be a clue as to why he has granted fewer press conferences than any president in memory. Can such performances be equated to "brilliance"? Not in my book.

Stepping in the political equivalent of a doggie dumpling seems to bring out the worst in Obama. Why and how could he pop off with everything from "The Cambridge Police acted stupidly" to flip-flops on the New York mosque issue, and everything in between? His inane mumblings about the skivvy shorts bomber, the public trial of the 9/11 plotters, the fanatic major who gunned down 13 soldiers, the Arizona immigration law and "saving or creating" jobs belies any vast reservoir of intelligence.

Sharp presidents do not dive into lose/lose situations with such gusto.

How is Obama's foreign policy working out? The U.S. needs strong allies to defeat monstrous enemies. Dissing the British, scolding Israel, canceling the missile shield in Eastern Europe and groveling to foreign royalty do not bode well. Our enemies, from Iran to Venezuela, smell weakness and timidity. Ignoring cold reality and dreaming that personal charisma is the solution to international tensions is probably on the daft side of the intelligence continuum.

The "4 million green jobs" mantra espoused by the president is a canard when examined closely. Renewable energy technology exists only due to huge government subsidies. Ethanol is inefficient, raising the prices of gasoline and corn. Wind farms produce intermittent power that flummoxes the grid and requires conventional power plants to run continuously as backup. The net carbon reduction is miniscule.

Both schemes are massive misallocations of resources better used elsewhere. An astute president would inform himself on both sides of the issue rather than blatantly parrot a load of poppycock from the Van Jones crowd.

A Republican president who parties far more than he works would be trashed by every media outlet in the land. But Obama is a Democrat who enjoys the media's deep support. He escapes any serious questions about his busy golf schedule, multiple vacations, endless fundraising and campaigning, constant banquets and concerts in the White House, and his obvious detachment from the people he supposedly leads.

He appears more of a dilettante than a leader. A smart fellow would move to de-emphasize his privileged lifestyle instead of flaunting it in front of a nation mired in a recession.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe Obama is smart. Then again, Jimmy Carter was intelligent but proved to be the worst president of our lifetimes — up to now.

• Howard, a Redmond, Wash.-based real estate developer, appeared on this page Aug. 20 with an "Open Letter To President Obama."

Enforcement On ICE

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545372/201008271903/Enforcement-On-ICE.aspx

08/27/2010

Politics: If there's one agency that's been made useless by its leaders, it's Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If, under a new policy, being here illegally is no longer reason enough for deportation, why does it still exist?

The Obama administration has effectively declared open borders to millions of would-be illegal immigrants — not through legislation, but with a sneaky policy move.

On Aug. 20, its man at ICE, John Morton, wrote a memo stating that being in the U.S. illegally is no longer sufficient reason to send someone home. An illegal immigrant now has to be a security threat or else commit a crime — and a violent one at that. To everyone else, ICE turns the blind eye.

Director Morton says it's a matter of priorities. But make no mistake: This is amnesty by another name.

Adding insult to injury, ICE will empty its costly, just-built detention centers of 17,000 existing deportation cases as long as an illegal can show that he or she has applied to become legal.

This, says the New York Times, will "pare huge case backlogs." And to ICE bureaucrats, it's proof they're doing their jobs.

In fact, it's an astonishing abrogation of duty. The policy turns ICE into a $6 billion border-jitney service for the subset of illegals who were picked up by other law enforcement agencies, convicted of violent crime and have served their time, and whose jailers didn't forget to put them on an "immigration hold" list.

Any others can make themselves at home.

That goes for the Mexican Zeta cartel members who are busy recruiting assassins in barrooms around Phoenix, as Fox News reported Friday.

Nothing violent about recruiting, you know — and that goes for illegal immigrants who've illegally voted in U.S. elections.

In the latter case, Fox reported that ICE itself helpfully sent a form letter to an illegal who admitted doing that, coaching him to take his name off the voter rolls first so his application could go through smoothly. ICE didn't mind that the man had admitted to committing a felony. The bureaucrats just wanted to issue him his U.S. citizenship so they could clear the backlog.

It also goes for the Mexican cartel members who may be buying off city governments like that of Cudahy, Calif., which is under FBI investigation. It also goes for illegal immigrants who invade rural properties at night in Arizona, terrifying ranchers.

Not surprisingly, there's no one angrier about this mission-nullification than ICE agents themselves. Last June their union issued a letter expressing a membership consensus of "no confidence" in Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven.

They have "abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty," the agents declared.

By extension, no one's happier than the Mexican cartels that have muscled into the immigrant-smuggling business, making about a third of their income from fees charged for such assistance.

Morgan's no-deport policy is just the enticement they need to bring in new business that will fatten up the fee income they use to make war on the Mexican state.

Last Monday's discovery of a massacre of 72 would-be illegals in Tamaulipas, Mexico, on their way to Los Angeles makes clear what lies ahead. Human smuggling is an evil ICE should not encourage.

The cartels are monopolies that make $500,000 or so per human "load" into the U.S., but they also press many illegals into becoming foot soldiers. Some are forced into sex slavery, and others — as the sole survivor of the Tamaulipas massacre claimed — are ordered to become cartel assassins in the U.S. — or else.

The fact that the U.S. no longer enforces immigration laws for anyone except those with violent criminal or terrorist convictions will draw would-be immigrants into this racket like a magnet.

At a time when U.S. diplomats' families have been ordered to evacuate the consulate in Mexico's second-biggest city, Monterrey — as happened Friday — any encouragement of illegal immigration works at cross purposes to the real national security mission of defeating cartels.

ICE leaders talk smugly about "priorities," but they've effectively abandoned their agency's core law-enforcement mission and become servants of the immigration lobby. ICE should be allowed to do the job it's tasked with. Failing that, it should be disbanded.

For A Return To American Exceptionalism By Rep. Lamar Smith

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545177/201008261900/For-A-Return-To-American-Exceptionalism.aspx

08/26/2010

During an interview last year, when asked if he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

It is remarkable that the first black president would not recognize American exceptionalism simply by looking in the mirror. President Obama's election is itself a prime example of American exceptionalism.

To understand what makes America unique, we must look to history. Our nation was largely settled by the English, who came to the new world with a unique legal culture based on the Magna Carta, which was the foundation for the rights of all Englishmen.

The settlers also brought a commitment to making money, as the colonies were commercial propositions. By making money for investors in England, the colonists created wealth for themselves. Separated from England by thousands of miles, the self-reliance needed to live in America's frontier communities and to begin new lives had major political implications that ultimately led to a revolt against English authority.

The outcome of the American Revolution boosted the elements of American exceptionalism and led to its most fundamental element: the first national constitution in history. Our Constitution reflects key elements of American exceptionalism, which led to the development of the wealthiest and strongest nation in the world.

The Constitution creates a federal union, allowing for local experimentation. It ensures "a republican form of government," which means, as President Lincoln said, "a government by the people, of the people, and for the people."

It establishes checks and balances between different branches of government and between the national government and the states. Most dramatically, it establishes a representative democracy. True, it was limited to white men, but the seeds were laid for a national right to vote.

The Constitution provides not only a political framework, but also a blueprint for economic and social success. For example, it protects the sanctity of contracts and, through the Bill of Rights, ensures the protection of individual property from government seizure.

Such constitutional rights established in law what the Declaration of Independence reflected: that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, rights that no government can take away. From the founding documents, we see the essence of American exceptionalism, a combination of individual liberty and equality of opportunity.

Trust in individuals and distrust of institutions that could threaten individual freedom is at the core of our government.

Both Congress and the president were subject to the laws, and the Supreme Court established that the courts would ensure that the other branches acted only in accordance with the Constitution. This diffusion of power kept any one branch from overwhelming the others.

In addition, unlike the later constitutions adopted by many foreign governments, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are limiting documents. They limit the power of the federal government to intrude into the lives of average Americans. Instead of Americans needing the permission of their government to do things or go places, the government in the United States needed the permission of its people to do things.

These elements, a commitment to individual liberty, equality and the rule of law, form the essence of American exceptionalism. The nation eventually overcame its failure to live up to its basic principles with the abolition of slavery. As the nation grew, it became a draw for immigrants.

A central aspect of American exceptionalism is that being an American depends not on race, color, religion or ethnicity. It depends on fidelity to the core principles of liberty and equality and the rule of law. America is an idea as much as a place. And it is that idea and the bedrock principles that underlie it that make America unique.

We are now facing crises on several fronts — a deep recession with high unemployment, a staggering debt load that will only get substantially worse on our present course, an implacable enemy in radical Islamic terrorists and rogue regimes developing nuclear weapons. In other words, the world continues to be a dangerous place, often hostile to America's principles.

By returning to the ideas that underlie American exceptionalism, we can again lead the world. Ultimately, it is the American people who must live up to the principles of the Founders and demand that their representatives return the government to those core principles. It is in the people's hands to renew our national compact of liberty and equality and exceptionalism.

President Obama must reject the big-government solutions his administration has offered and instead return to our founding principles. If he does not, the American people need to seek a president who recognizes that America is truly different, with a unique heritage, serving as a beacon to all nations. A president who will rally us toward this view will enable the American people to preserve our preeminence in the world.

• Smith, who represents Texas' 21st congressional district, including San Antonio and Austin, is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

Abridging Too Far

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/544735/201008231910/Abridging-Too-Far.aspx

08/23/2010

The Cost Of Speech: Philadelphia is charging bloggers $300 for a "privilege" license. In the city where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Constitution signed, a right has become a privilege.

The scheme went virtually unreported until the Philadelphia City Paper ran a story last week noting that the city requires privilege licenses for any business engaged in what local tax attorney Michael Mandale terms "activity for profit." The tax is levied "whether or not they earned a profit during the preceding year," a policy likely to shut down many bloggers.

Bloggers write about an endless number of topics, from politics to sports to music to hobbies (and obsessions), both common and obscure. Few are in it for the money, which is probably for the best, since the blogosphere is not typically a place that yields fortunes.

For many, blogs are a simple way to communicate ideas and express opinions. Some are just personal journals posted in cyberspace rather than a notebook. Blogging is not a privilege to be trifled with by grasping city officials, but a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Speech is free — and not to be priced by government.

But greed knows no bounds, not even those laid down in Philadelphia more than 200 years ago. Governments at all levels are scouring the land in search of revenues from any source they can bleed. This impulse was never clearer than when states began their campaign to tax interstate Internet sales. They couldn't let the dollars fly by without trying to get their hands on some of them.

History is repeating itself in Philadelphia. This time it's not an effort to promote freedom, but to cover poor policies. The City of Brotherly Love is showing its affection by raising taxes to keep up with its spending.

We would concede that Philadelphia might have a case if it spent money in some way to protect or facilitate blogging and bloggers. But it does neither. Bloggers aren't driving on city streets. They don't need fire or police service. Nor do they require, as some say a for-profit business does, a bureaucracy of regulators, inspectors or paper pushers who need compensating. They don't even create trash that has to be collected. They can get by on their own.

Philly bloggers, as well as tax watchdogs and speech guardians outside the city, are understandably upset. If city hall can tax speech, it can tax anything. What — and who — is next? Should Philadelphia get away with this, other cities will surely follow. Constitutional rights are small hurdles for covetous lawmakers.

Stem Cell Research: Adults Only?

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/544855/201008241827/Stem-Cell-Research-Adults-Only-.aspx

08/24/2010

Bioethics: A federal judge rules that the administration violated congressional intent when it lifted restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. No, this will not usher in a new dark age.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth was striking enough. Lamberth said that when President Obama lifted Bush administration restrictions on ESCR, he violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. First passed in 1996, and passed every year as part of the federal budget, Dickey-Wicker blocks federal funds for stem cell research in which human embryos are destroyed.

Perhaps more striking is the press coverage of Lamberth's ruling. The Associated Press reported that it "blocked rules expanding stem cell research," a move "that could stall potentially lifesaving research." But all Lamberth did was enforce the law. Lifesaving research using stem cells is still free to proceed.

In lifting the Bush executive order, the Obama administration thought it had found a clever way around Dickey-Wicker. Under new National Institutes of Health guidelines, if private money were used to destroy the embryos, federal money could still be used to fund later research on the derived cell lines, as long as those donating the embryos were told of other options, including donating the embryo to an infertile couple.

Judge Lamberth said, uh, no. The circumstances of the embryo's destruction did not matter. The federal prohibition was clear and absolute: Federal funds could not be used for embryonic stem cell research, period. The new guidelines were a clear violation of federal intent.

The problem for opponents of the new guidelines was finding someone with standing in the courts. The embryos themselves could not sue, nor could anyone else sue on their behalf since the clients weren't accepted as human beings.

That problem was solved when a federal appeals court ruled that several plaintiffs, doctors who did research with adult stem cells, could sue over the new guidelines on the grounds that the guidelines could cause funding for their research, including federal money from NIH, to dry up.

Congress could amend Dewey-Wicker to allow the hair-splitting in the new guidelines, but in this politically volatile year, and after the controversy over abortion funding hidden in the fine print of ObamaCare, it is not likely to do so, at least not before a lame-duck session.

So does this stop stem cell research in its tracks? The answer is no. Private money can still be used to conduct ESCR that involves the destruction of human embryos. And the simple fact is that research involving adult stem cells has proved the more promising, producing actual treatments and therapies for actual people.

In 2004, vice presidential candidate John Edwards promised that if running mate John Kerry won, people would rise out of their wheelchairs and walk. In the 2006 election, actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's, made a commercial for Democratic Senate candidates in which he urged voters to support those candidates who opposed restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

As we noted then and note again now, ESCR was not the "most promising" avenue of stem cell research, and that was due not to lack of federal funds but to the difficulties of controlling the embryonic stem cells and what they develop into.

In 2006, researchers led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Japan's Kyoto University were first able to "reprogram" human skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. Ironically, the National Institutes of Health says this type of stem cell offers the prospect of having an endless and renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, to name a few.

The media and many politicians have ignored adult stem cell successes and embryonic stem cell failures. We hope that stem cell research of all types will be driven by sound science leading to real results, not by ideology or tricky guidelines that ignore the intent of Congress.

U.S. to Freeze New Grants After Stem-Cell Decision By Gautam Naik

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704125604575449830252930698.html

AUGUST 24, 2010

Blindsided by a court ruling blocking federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells, the U.S. government plans to freeze all new grants for scientists and impose other restrictions on this burgeoning area of science.

The National Institutes of Health said it has abandoned its planned review of 50 new grant applications, and will not proceed with a second-level review of about a dozen applications valued at $15 million to $20 million. Also frozen is a planned review in September of another 22 grant applications totaling $54 million.

The preliminary injunction against federal funding for the research was issued on Monday by Judge Royce Lamberth of U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The judge said that federal funding violated a 1996 law prohibiting federal money for research in which an embryo was destroyed.

Embryonic stem cells, the size of a pencil dot, have long been both controversial and promising. Cells taken from embryos are special because they can turn into all the cells of the body. Researchers hope one day to convert these master cells into specific tissue types and treat an array of ailments, from spinal injuries and diabetes to Parkinson's disease, as well as to screen for new drugs.

Erik Jacobs for The Wall Street Journal

A lab technician working Tuesday at Zon Lab at Children's Hospital Boston, where stem-cell research is conducted.

Opponents maintain that such research, which leads to the destruction of the embryo, is tantamount to taking a life, and have opposed such experiments on ethical grounds.

The ruling represents a dramatic setback for stem-cell science in the U.S. In March 2009, President Barack Obama expanded federal funding of human embryo research, launching dozens of new stem-cell projects across the country. Since then, the U.S. National Institutes of Health has approved 75 new stem cell lines. The ruling could even make research on lines approved under President George W. Bush ineligible for federal funding.

The judge's ruling "potentially places all this in jeopardy," said Francis Collins, director of the NIH, in a conference call Tuesday with reporters. "It has the potential to do serious damage just at a time we were gaining momentum" in stem cell research.

However, scientists have already received some $131 million in grants to pursue the research in the current fiscal year and can continue to use the money until it runs out, the NIH said.

Stem-Cell Research: A Growing Debate

View Interactive

Track changes in approval and funding for stem-cell research in the past decade.

• More photos and interactive graphics

Dr. Collins and other scientists said the judicial ruling, provided it stands, could hurt the country's interests in the long run. "It will put us at a huge competitive disadvantage to other countries" with fast-growing stem cell programs, including Japan, the U.K., Australia and China, said Tim Kamp, director of the University of Wisconsin Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Center.

But David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical Association, said: "People forget that each one of us was an embryo, and if someone destroyed us for biological parts, we wouldn't be around today." The CMA, with about 17,000 members, was one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Until the NIH publicly disclosed its reaction late Tuesday, stem cell scientists were in limbo about the implications of the ruling.

The University of Wisconsin has 34 approved projects involving human embryonic cells, of which 21 are paid for by the federal government, supporting the work of 18 scientists from cardiologists to chemists. Total federal funding for human-embryo research at the university is about $5 million annually.

Dr. Kamp, for example, is a cardiologist trying to understand heart function by studying the electrical properties in heart cells. Since it can be hard to obtain human cardiac cells, he is deriving heart cells from embryos, a project funded by the NIH.

"Most people are hesitating to go into their incubators and dump out their cell cultures, which may be the result of years of work," said Dr. Kamp.

The judge's ruling could have a knock-on effect on another promising approach to stem cell science. Researchers have discovered that it is possible to turn mature cells—from skin, say—into an embryo-like state. Because these reprogrammed cells aren't created by embryo destruction, they are considered an uncontroversial source of fresh tissue. Dozens of U.S. labs in recent years have begun work on reprogrammed cells.

But in many cases, human embryonic cells are used as a "control," a way to judge whether reprogrammed cells have the same biological properties as naturally occurring ones.

Despite the promise of reprogrammed cells, embryo-derived cells are likely to remain the "gold standard" for experiments for quite some time.

More

• Justice Department to Appeal Stem-Cell Ruling
• Timeline: Stem-Cell Debate

George Daley, a stem-cell scientist at Children's Hospital Boston, recently co-authored a paper comparing the behavior of cells taken from embryos afflicted with a condition called Fragile-X with embryo-like cells reprogrammed from the skin of patients with the disease. Fragile X is the most common form of inherited mental retardation. Dr. Daley found that the culprit gene for the condition, FMR1, is active in true embryonic cells but shut off in embryo-like cells, which are derived from patients via by reprogramming.

"So if you wanted to study Fragile X," Dr. Daley said, "you have to study the embryonic stem cells."

Write to Gautam Naik at gautam.naik@wsj.com

Angus Anguish: Is Angus Beef Worth the Money?

Source: http://cheaphealthygood.blogspot.com/2008/09/angus-anguish-is-angus-beef-worth-money.html

September 17, 2008

Within the last few years, Angus beef has leapt beyond a little known, well-respected meat to an omnipresent leviathan. From Food Lion to McDonald’s to that dinky Irish Pub half a block from the bank, it’s become the go-to beef for discerning (and not-so-discerning) dining establishments, as well as freezers across our fair nation. In fact, the way things are going, it’s just a matter of time before lunch ladies offer Angus Tacos instead of Mystery Meat Tacos on Taco Tuesdays.

But what exactly IS Angus beef? Why has it become so popular lately? Does it really taste better than regular beef? Is it healthier? Is it worth paying higher prices for? Let’s discuss.

Q: What is Angus beef?

A: It’s not, as some have suggested, bovine anus. Nor is it a cut of beef, or the region from which the cattle hails. Instead, Angus beef is the meat from Angus cattle, “the most popular beef breed of cattle in the U.S.” (Wiki). Known for their adaptability, they “mature at around two years of age, and have a high carcass yield with marbled meat” (Wiki).

Widely assumed to be better tasting and tenderer than regular beef, Angus doesn’t come cheap. Supermarkets and fast food joints sell it at higher prices because it’s cultivated a good reputation through careful marketing and good word of mouth.

Q: Okay. Got it. So what is Certified Angus Beef?

A: Certified Angus Beef is a company brand. Owned by the American Angus Association, CAB’s mission is to “increase demand for registered Angus cattle through a specification-based, branded beef program to identify consistent, high quality beef with superior taste.”

In other words, CAB monitors meat, and gives their special stamp of approval to that which exceeds 10 stringent, self-determined criteria. According to their own website, “only 8 percent of beef makes the grade.”

Q: Is there a difference?

A: Yep. CAB-stamped beef is harder to find, and generally considered to be of higher quality than mere Angus beef.

Q: Okay. So what’s the problem?

A: The problem is, CAB did their jobs so well that we Americans started to associate the word “Angus” (as opposed to “Certified Angus Beef”) with high-quality meat. Now, every crummy supermarket and two-bit fast food joint can market Angus Beef, and consumers assume it’s the good stuff. It’s been wonderful for cattlemen, who’ve taken some PR hits in recent years.

CAB itself claims: “Since its origin in 1978, our company has established an extremely positive reputation for the brand. Subsequently, this has led to imitators in other Angus programs. Many have specifications below our ‘modest or higher’ marbling level, and most do not monitor product use and promotion in restaurants and grocery stores as we do. Unfortunately, the growing number of Angus brands creates confusion among consumers and producers alike.”

Q: So, we’re charged more for Angus beef, even though it isn’t necessarily a better meat.

A: Yes.

Q: But, whether or not it has a CAB stamp, I heard Angus beef just tastes better. Is this true?

A: Not exactly. While Angus beef does seem to be tenderer, many feel the flavor isn’t that much different from regular beef. One NPR expert says, “Trained experts can taste the difference … But if you go to a USDA Choice piece of meat that has the right kind of marbling, they’re all going to be just about the same.”

Still, taste is relative. If somebody truly finds Angus beef more delicious than Brand X, who’s to argue?

Q: Okay. So here’s the next question: why wasn’t Angus beef popular before now? Why has it only hit the big time in the last few years?

A: Marketing and consumer demand, man.

Despite recent health trends, it turns out that a LOT of Americans want big, rich food. Not only that, but they want it done well, and they’re willing to shell out more money for it. Restaurants have responded to with fancier breads (ciabatta), better produce (portobello mushrooms), and supposedly higher-quality meats (Angus beef). Supermarkets have done the same, with a wider range of upscale offerings.

It’s a trend marketing folk call “premiumization,” and it’s proven enormously profitable for the food industry. Angus beef is a great (if not the best) example.

Q: And now, even places like McDonald’s and Burger King are catching on.

A: Yes. Let’s take McDonald’s as our example. Historically, it’s “‘long suffered’ from poor ratings when it comes to overall food quality” (Luna). To remedy that situation, Ray Kroc’s megacorp is offering premium foods. Among other items, it includes a range of Angus burgers, replete with “crisp green iceberg lettuce, sliced red tomatoes, [and a] bakery-style sesame seed roll.” They go for around $4 or so (Hamburger).

Of course, while the nicer fixins are great, this can’t be overstated: Mickey D’s isn’t serving the high-quality Certified Angus Beef. It’s just regular ol’ Angus beef, which hasn’t been proven to taste any better.

Q: And they’re making mad dough from it?

A: Yep again. According to CNN, McDonald’s shares went up 18 percent by mid—2007, just months after the burgers were introduced. The story is similar in other companies.

Q: How could this be bad?

A: McDonald’s is a major player in the beef industry. There haven’t been shortages reported yet, but if Angus burgers become the norm, they’re bound to happen. Plus, the bigger an operation gets, the more difficult it becomes to maintain quality control. Those halfway decent Deluxe burgers you get today? Could be chemical-riddled approximations of beef tomorrow.

On a more personal note, as a former employee (along with 10% of the rest of the U.S. according to Fast Food Nation), I can tell you firsthand that McDonald’s isn’t particularly concerned with the product it presents to the public. I’m guessing it’s a matter of time before the fixins morph into half-rotted iceberg lettuce, floppy tomato wannabes, and something kind of resembling bread. But, uh … that’s just me.

Q: You look like you want to say something else on this.

A: I do. There’s also the cost/quality issue. As we mentioned, no one’s proved that (non-CAB) Angus beef necessarily tastes better. Yet, consumers are still shelling out $4 a pop for Angus burgers, or corresponding amounts for Angus beef at their local Pathmark.

Q: I thought this was a healthy eating blog. What about the nutrition?

A: Beef is beef. It’s not the healthiest thing in the world, nor will it ever be. If there’s any added danger, it’s that Angus beef burgers are often marketed as indulgences, meaning they’re made larger and include additional perks (more toppings, bigger buns, etc.). To wit: a Big Mac has 540 calories and 29 grams of fat. An Angus Burger Deluxe has 740 calories and 41 grams of fat. If given the choice between the two, which would you opt for?

Q: Um. The Big Mac?

A: Uh … I guess. Actually, I’m not sure what I was going for with that question. Next!

Q: Second-to-last question: if I want a really good piece of Angus beef, what should I look for?

A: Look for the USDA grade (Premium, Choice, Select, etc.). A CAB-certified Prime cut of Angus beef will cost a small fortune, but could make you forget about other meats permanently.

Q: Final question: how do you, Kris, feel about all this?

A: To be honest, I’m not sure. But all of a sudden, I want a burger.

Readers? What do you think? Chime in on the comment thread.

~~~

If you like this post, you might also dig:

• The Problem With Diet Foods
• Food Labels That Ate My Sanity
• Food, Frugality, and Fighting Brand Loyalty

~~~

SOURCES

• “Angus Cattle.” Wikipedia.org.
• CertifiedAngusBeef.com.
• Cuozzo, Steve. “How to Tell if it’s Prime Time.” The New York Post. 9/6/07.
• Enis, Matthew. “Consumers Eat Up Meat Marketers' Gourmet Branding.” Supermarket News. 6/4/07.
• Gentile, Gary. “CKE Sues Rival Over Angus Burger TV Ads.” Associated Press. 5/26/07.
• Hamburger, Zoe. “The Big Apple Welcomes the Big Angus!” PR Newswire. 8/21/07.
• Kavilanz, Parija B. “Bigger is always better for this burger chain.” CNNMoney.com. 5/22/07.
• Luna, Nancy. “McDonald's set to roll out premium patties Monday.” The Orange County Register (California). 3/1/07.
• Macarthur, Kate. “They may not know what Angus is, exactly, but diners and shoppers shell out for higher quality.” Advertising Age. 5/7/07.
• Mahon, Paul. “From the Editor's Desk.” Ontario Farmer (Canada). 5/20/08.
• McDonalds.com.
• Walkup, Carolyn. “Fast feeders fill up menus with premium beef offerings: Angus, sirloin items join upgraded fare at major QSR players.” Nation’s Restaurant News. 3/26/07.
• Ydstie, John. “Cattle Branding: The Rise of Black Angus Beef” All Things Considered. NPR. 10/3/04.
• Yavorcik, Carin. “Angus label doesn't necessarily ensure high quality.”
  The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio). 8/29/07.

(Photos courtesy of dlb Angus, StarCinema Grill, and Telegraph.co.uk.)

Chelsea Clinton Weds at Exclusive New York Estate

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/31/chelsea-clinton-weds-exclusive-new-york-estate/

RHINEBECK, New York -- Chelsea Clinton married her longtime boyfriend Saturday night at an exclusive estate along New York's Hudson River.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton announced in a statement that their daughter wed investment banker Marc Mezvinsky after weeks of secrecy and buildup that had celebrity watchers flocking to the small village of Rhinebeck for the evening nuptials.

"Today, we watched with great pride and overwhelming emotion as Chelsea and Marc wed in a beautiful ceremony at Astor Courts, surrounded by family and their close friends," the Clintons said. "We could not have asked for a more perfect day to celebrate the beginning of their life together, and we are so happy to welcome Marc into our family. On behalf of the newlyweds, we want to give special thanks to the people of Rhinebeck for welcoming us and to everyone for their well-wishes on this special day."

More than 400 guests were expected at the historic estate. Details of the wedding were kept fanatically close to the vest, with shopkeepers, innkeepers, vendors and restaurateurs sworn to secrecy.

Officials restricted airspace over the estate, and the area will remain a no-fly zone until 3:30 a.m. local time Sunday. Roads were also blocked off, and inconvenienced neighbors were soothed with a complimentary bottle of wine.

Some of the celebrities spotted in Rhinebeck for the event included actors Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen, fashion designer Vera Wang and Madeleine Albright, who was secretary of state during Bill Clinton's second term as president.

The wedding took place at Astor Courts, a secluded estate along the Hudson River built as a Beaux Arts style playground for John Jacob Astor IV more than a century ago. The estate features the sort of commanding view that once inspired Hudson River School painters, as well as 50 acres (20 hectares) of buffer space to shield the party from prying eyes.

Chelsea Clinton and Mezvinsky were friends as teenagers in Washington, and both attended Stanford University. They now live in New York, where Mezvinsky works at G3 Capital, a Manhattan hedge fund. Mezvinsky worked previously at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker.

Clinton completed her master's degree in public health earlier this year at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

Mezvinsky is a son of former U.S. Reps. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky of Pennsylvania and Ed Mezvinsky of Iowa, longtime friends of the Clintons. His parents are divorced.

Mel Gibson Could Serve Four Years if Found Guilty of Felony Assault By Hollie McKay

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/07/09/mel-gibson-serve-years-guilty-felony-domestic-abuse/

July 09, 2010

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department released a statement Thursday confirming they had launched an investigation into domestic violence claims involving actor Mel Gibson and his ex girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, emanating from an alleged incident that occurred on January 6, 2010.

Grigorieva claims that on that date, the “Edge of Darkness” actor punched her in the face "more than once", knocking out a veneer, and causing a concussion and a broken tooth.

Sources close to Gibson denied the allegations to People magazine, and said he was solely attempting to stop her from shaking their 8-month-old daughter, Lucia.

Steve Whitmore, a spokesperson for the Sheriff’s Department stated that the current investigation is preliminary in nature and no further information is available at this time. However an inside source told Pop Tarts that authorities are taking the alleged victim’s assertions extremely seriously.

“It is hard to think she would just break her own teeth – somebody did it to her, and if it was Gibson, he won’t get away with it,” the source said. “Investigators are treating this case very carefully; they’ll be determined to nail him. It’s highly likely he’ll do time (in jail) for this if found guilty.”

The case will be submitted to the District Attorney’s office once the investigation is complete, which could take up to a month.

A rep for Gibson declined to comment on the allegations, but said he was hoping to release a statement on his client’s behalf this week.

The estranged couple is currently embroiled in a custody battle over daughter Lucia, and filed duel restraining orders against one another in June. Last week Gibson also hit the headlines after multiple reports cited audio tapes in which the actor allegedly embarks on profanity-laced, racist and derogatory tirades aimed toward Grigorieva.

So what consequences could the actor face if charged with domestic violence?

California trail lawyer, Mark Geragos, who said he has listened first-hand to the tapes that are currently under seal in the L.A Superior Court during the custody battle, said that prosecutors could potentially present a very solid case against Gibson if he is found to have acted unlawfully toward his former flame.

“It may be considered a domestic violence charge, which is battery or unlawful touching. This is generally classified as a misdemeanor which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail. But if he hurt her severely, the courts could upgrade the charge to assault with enhancement of great bodily injury,” Geragos explained. “The maximum penalty for that is four years behind bars in a state prison, and the DA’s office almost always seeks state prison under those charges.”

California attorney Stephen Scherzer told Pop Tarts that Gibson, given his high public profile and reputation, was likely to be a “great target” for the DA’s office should they chose to make an example of him. But he said it is doubtful Gibson would serve out a maximum sentence, even if charged with a felony.

“Mel doesn’t appear to be a habitual batterer, and if even he’s found guilty his lawyers could broker a deal – perhaps spend 90 days in jail and then a probation period,” Scherzer said.

According to Harold Copus, former FBI agent and owner of the Atlanta-based Copus Security Consultants, it may be difficult for investigators to even charge Gibson, due in large part to California’s enforcement of the two-party consent law. This law requires both parties to agree on being recorded in private situations, and Grigorieva reportedly recorded Gibson’s rant without his knowledge, which could be deemed inadmissable in court.

“It is mostly likely that Gibson’s lawyers will ask for the tapes to be court-suppressed and will do all they can to have thrown out as evidence,” Copus said. “Generally, domestic violence incidences like this to do happen behind closed doors and it’s a classic he said/she said situation. The judge isn’t stupid and I’m sure would have a good understanding of what is really going on – but the question is, how much evidence does Oksana have against him without those tapes?”

On the flipside, Geragos said that the two-party consent code carries exceptions when violence or extortion are involved, and that may provide strong enough grounds for the prosecution to freely use the tapes in the court of law if the situation arises.

Another determinant that could possibly work in Gibson’s favor is the fact that Grigorieva’s alleged domestic abuse claims are now six months old.

“Unfortunately when the evidence is not fresh, it is less likely that the case is taken to court,” Geragos said. “If Oksana had filed a complaint to police on the day in early January, they would have arrested Gibson straight away. Police have a zero tolerance policy in these circumstances.”