I had pasta for lunch today because I hadn't had Spangler pasta in ages. It wasn't all that fulfilling and I suspect I may be living on burritos a lot, but that's okay.
I went back to the gym today for the first time since I came back from Europe. (Memberships expire on August 31, so I also renewed my membership. Is $200 for a full year -- which averages to <$17/month.)
I seem to be a masochist because I decided to do the treadmill. I started at 5.5mph and after a few minutes (literally) I was so ready to be done. Weirdly, my hips were hurting (though it got better by about halfway through). A couple times I brought it down to walking pace (4mph) briefly, and after the first ten minutes I only brought it back up to 5mph, but I still did 2.55miles in 30minutes. I looked in the mirror when I went back to the locker room, and I was so red.
Via: InstaPundit: "Research published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2004 found that adolescents whose parents permitted them to attend unchaperoned parties where drinking occurred had twice the average binge-drinking rate. But the study also had another, more arresting conclusion: Children whose parents introduced drinking to the children at home were one-third as likely to binge."
[Megan McArdle also has commentary, though I don't understand why she's using the phrase "genetic determinist" for her philosophy.]
I know that Democrats are the big government party, but isn't the idea of government requiring people to do stuff somewhat frightening, especially these days? I know, it's better/safer when one's own people are in power, but what's that old adage about not your own party power you wouldn't want your enemies to have?
InstaPundit linked to the unwieldy OldController blog which I'm excerpting from.
TIPTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.Commentary:
"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."
You have no choice. You have to go. The article doesn't say what the penalites are for not going, but as they will be keeping track of whether you show up to appointments, the government can penalize you. By, let's imagine, cancelling your life insurance, or automobile insurance, or rescinding your driver's license, or any number of ways to make it uncomfortable for you to exercise your right to not see a damn doctor if you don't want to. You think they can't? If the government can require you to go to the doctor, they can penalize you. Count on it.I absolutely see the logic that if you have socialized medicine it is in everyone's best interests for people to stay maximally healthy (to minimize drain on resources), but in the current political climate, isn't the idea of the government forcing people to do something (for their own good) something that inspires instant revulsion in liberals?
The front page of the WSJ today had a teaser for "Issues to Make Women Vote Republican," so of course I had to check that out. The article was called "What Women Want" (by Kimberley A. Strassel). I really don't know economics, but I found it really interesting.
Most women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband's, and thus taxed at the highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the single woman who does the exact same job. [...] In some cases, the tax burden and child-care expenses are so burdensome they can't afford a career. But when was the last time a Republican pointed out that Mrs. Clinton was helping to keep ladies in the kitchen?
Ask almost any working woman what the toughest part of her life is, and she'll say the complications of scheduling both work and family life. What makes that task so tough is a dusty piece of legislation called the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that hourly workers who put in more than 40 hours a week get overtime. Some women like overtime. But in a 1995 poll, an extraordinary 81% said they'd prefer compensatory time off. [...] Organized labor likes the 40-hour-week law, and union leaders prefer to be the ones to arrange any flex-time agreements on behalf of their members. So in 1997, when Republican Sen. John Ashcroft put forward legislation to allow flexible scheduling in the private workforce, it was Democrats, at the beck of unions, who killed it.
In the complaint department:
I bought an external hard drive, plugged in the USB cord and everything, my computer recognized it . . . but it's not showing up in My Computer or anything. Sigh. Will stop by Staples (where I bought it) after work tomorrow.