Smoke doesn't always mean fire

I finished the book How Not to Die by Dr. Michael Greger. My doctor recommended it. The basic point of the book is that a meat (including dairy, fish, and eggs) is the cause of most of the health problems and deaths in America and a plant-based diet will reverse the harms of a meat diet. In the first part of the book, about 240 pages, Greger works through the top 15 causes of death in America – heart disease, lung disease, brain disease, digestive cancers, infection, diabetes, high blood pressure, liver diseases, blood cancers, kidney disease, breast cancer, suicidal depression, prostate, cancer, Parkinson’s, and death by doctor. In each one he shows studies that demonstrate meat causes these problems or make them worse, then he shows a plant-based diet does not make them worse and in many, perhaps most, cases a plant-based diet can reverse the damage. This part was necessary, but got to be tedious. Greger carefully explains each study that makes his point. He is aware that correlation is not causation, so frequently includes a second or third study that shows there really is causation going on. This is important to have such a repository of all these studies (the notes section is another 100 pages). But by the end I was thinking gosh, meat is the villain again! Well, look at that! Along the way he deals with food cleanliness. We are taught how to handle and cook meat, especially chicken, in case there is salmonella. Yes, the heat of cooking kills off salmonella, but it is easy to get cooked meat in contact with contaminated pre-cooked juices. Gregor takes this one more step – it isn’t that chicken might contain salmonella, it is that it does, close to 100% of the time. And it is quite difficult to not reinfect cooked chicken. And meatpackers convince federal inspectors that salmonella in chicken is just how it is. He also deals with pollution. Yes, all food is polluted, having absorbed the pollution we’ve dumped on our planet. However, because plants are at the bottom of the food hierarchy they contain much less pollution than meat. He lists the most frequent contaminants in the various animal products. Yes, the last of the 15 most common ways of dying is death by doctor. Part of that is they don’t always (and in come cases don’t at all) follow cleanliness protocols. Another part is they are incentivised to treat maladies with pills. They order tests that may not be needed and we the patient are dosed with too much radiation. My friend and debate partner will be glad to hear that colonoscopies are big money makers for health systems but are actually dangerous and there are better ways to test the health of the colon. There are even healthier alternatives to the daily dose of aspirin. Greger is also critical of federal diet guidelines. On the one hand they are way too influenced by agriculture interest groups. On the other they soften their guidelines because they think most Americans won’t go all the way to meatless. He replies they should give us the best diet advice (with supporting reasons) and let us make up our own minds. In the second part of the book, about 160 pages, Greger explains how to eat a plant-based diet. He does it in terms of his Daily Dozen – beans, berries, other fruits, cruciferous veggies (broccoli and cabbage), greens, other veggies, flaxseed, nuts, spices (especially turmeric), whole grains, beverages (coffee is good, tea even better, water is good too), and exercise. In this section he again works through studies that show why this food is important to our health. Then he discusses how many servings we need and how to include them in meals – and how we might get used to the taste of some that don’t taste so good. Through the book Greger noted there are substances in this food that lessen or prevent this malady and substances in that food help with that malady. He went as far as saying one substance works against cancer of the lower colon and a different one works against cancer in the upper colon. Because of that we should eat a wide variety of plant-based foods over a week or month. I appreciate what Greger said in at the start of his eating guide. When asked if a potato is healthy, he replied, “Compared to what?” A potato is much healthier than sausage links. But a sweet potato is much healthier than a potato. If eating a potato gets one off eating a sausage, go for it. If the only way to eat your leafy greens is with a not very healthy topping, go for it. Each step towards a healthier diet is worthwhile. Don’t start making those steps because you can’t make the entire leap at once. Brother saw me reading the book and raised the important question. With all the diet advice out there, all of it in conflict with other advice, why should I trust this guy? I have done other diet programs. I spent several years on a high protein (high meat) low carb diet. That much is opposite of what Greger is saying. The guy who owned the clinic I went to had research saying his diet is better. I knew of the research, but read little of it, the same way I’m not going to be looking at the thousands of studies in Greger’s 100 pages of notes. So who is right? Does one have better quality of research? As I said I’m not going to check the research to find out. Is one or the other or both citing only the research that reinforces their claim? I started the low carb diet because it was close to the diet I was following for medical issues at the time. I stopped because it wasn’t working. I probably should have stopped a few years before I did. There are a few things that both diet guides have in common, so I should be able to trust them. Sugar is bad. Much of the nutrient is in the color of the food, so eat a variety of strong colors. Whole fruit is better than fruit juice (more fiber). Supplements, such as for vitamins, are not good and whole food is good because there are substances that occur naturally with the vitamin that help the body use it. A fair question is why do I trust this guy? It isn’t that Greger wrote a separate book debunking the whole low carb craze (could be fascinating reading, but I won’t bother). And I won’t say trust is the right word. It is more that other medical issues are now prominent and I need to rework my diet. What Greger is offering is a way I might do that. Sure, why not give it a try? Though after a while choking down flaxseed and kale I might change my mind. So I’ll scan through the eating guide another time and make notes of what he suggests. And I’m glad I’m done with this book and can open a light gay romantic comedy novel – I’ll tell you about it when I’ve finished it. Well after the FBI searched the nasty guy’s for profit estate and found lots of classified documents he filed suit to ask for a special master to review the documents so those that belong to him can be returned. I’ve heard lots of discussion about what a special master does. Basically, it is an independent legal person brought in to sort through the issues of a case so that a judge doesn’t have to spend time doing it. On Sunday, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled on the request. And Mark Sumner of Daily Kos reported on how egregious the ruling is. In addition to granting a special master she placed an injunction on investigations related to the seized papers. That’s something he did not ask for but is what he really wanted – a slowdown in a case speeding towards indictment. Here’s some of the problems of the ruling (and Sumner lists more). * The injunction is sufficiently vague that the Department of Justice doesn’t know what is involved. Can they investigate who has seen the classified documents? Can they take action on the consequences of documents being exposed? * The ruling implies the nasty guy owns the documents. He does not. It implies he can declare executive privilege after leaving office. * Even though a tiny portion of the documents might belong to the nasty guy or be a part of attorney-client privilege, the whole investigation was shut down. * The ruling does not explain how the special master is to do the work. * There is no one qualified to be the special master, no one with the proper security clearance across the entire spectrum of classified materials. * The ruling implies any defendant can ask for a special master and injunction for any crime even when there are valid search warrants. The DOJ will surely swiftly take the case to the 11th Circuit Court or to the DC Circuit Court. It must be overturned. And quickly. Leah McElrath tweeted:

If the documents Trump turned over were so sensitive that their descriptions had to be fully redacted in the affidavit, imagine what might have been found during the Mar-a-Lago search—and what might be elsewhere. We could be a fully-comprised vassal state and just not know it. Look at this: “Boxes of documents even came with Trump on foreign travel, following him to hotel rooms around the world — including countries considered foreign adversaries of the United States.”

That quote is from an article in the Washington Post that discussed the nasty guy’s war with the National Archives and the threats the NA has been getting. Neal Katyal, a Supreme Court lawyer, tweeted a thread about how bad the ruling is. I’ll let him explain. David Roberts tweeted:

I'm not a legal analyst, but I hope everyone is taking note of a particular maneuver that this Trumpy judge pulled -- a very, very familiar maneuver from reactionaries.

I’ll summarize: Far right people start commenting about the “appearance” of something and call it shady. The propagandists repeat and raise questions. On the assumption that where there is smoke there must be fire judges make rulings and politicians pass laws in answer to those questions. It is an ouroboros of BS. An ouroboros is a snake eating its tail. An example of this tactic is those who raise questions about the security of elections which prompt politicians to pass voter restriction laws which don’t actually do anything about election security. The right has exploited this tactic repeatedly.

I don't even think it's some grand, conscious scheme. It's just a natural outgrowth of reactionary psychology -- always claiming victimhood ; always demanding special treatment. I'm sure this judge sincerely believes the "raised questions" justify special treatment for Trump.

Looking at the issue from a different perspective, Sarah Kendzior quoted a tweet from the New York Times about the DOJ weighing whether to scale back investigations of the nasty guy because they could improperly influence the midterm elections. Kendzior replied:

There is hardly a greater form of improper election influence than refusing to prosecute a career criminal who attempted to overturn an election through a violent coup. DOJ’s refusal to act carries as much moral and legal consequence as an indictment would. It is as political. I don’t believe the DOJ is refusing to indict Trump because of the election. They are refusing because he is part of a layered criminal network that implicates powerful US officials — either as participants or enablers. That said, even pretending this is the reason is dangerous. By refusing to indict (for a multitude of crimes) and using the midterms as a pretext, the DOJ: 1) says political violence is acceptable 2) makes running for office a get out of jail free card 3) tells enemies of the US exactly what season to strike in with American collaborators ... The Trump crime cult and elements within the DOJ work together and protect each other, and this has been true for decades.

In response to the announcement that Biden is forgiving up to $20K in student debt, Blake Zeff tweeted a thread. He tackles the weird and incorrect assumption that folks with graduate degrees are rich or will soon be. His list of examples include teachers, nurses, veterinarians, and doctors and lawyers serving low income people. The average student debt of veterinarians is about $200,000. An example:

A woman we spoke with grew up poor & lost her mom to cancer. So she devoted her life to working hard to become a doctor & treat patients in low-resource settings. She’s now 250k in debt, can’t afford to work on a lower salary & has to give up on her dream to serve those in need. So no, MANY people with grad degrees aren’t rich. They’re folks who want to contribute to society. Others got undergrad degrees but found the job market impossible to penetrate so they worked harder to bolster their chances. Much of the antipathy towards them is truly misguided.

In related articles hiding in my browser tabs is this one by Laura Clawson of Kos from last May. She discussed an op-end in the NYT by sociologists Charlie Eaton, Amber Villalobos, and Frederick Wherry. They showed the current student loan crisis was created one policy at a time over a few decades. Back in the 1970s Pell Grands were rare and covered most of the costs of attending public universities. In the 1980s Pell Grants were reduced in size. In the 1990s President Bill Clinton pushed student loans, saying students could pay off the debt with higher wages. An accounting gimmick allowed for a shortcut to balance the federal budget. Between 1993 and 2010 total student borrowing quintupled. State legislatures reduced per-student funding because they knew students could still attend with loans. The loans enabled the rise of predatory for-profit colleges. The result of loans was to devour borrower’s incomes, preventing home ownership and other aspects of a contributing adult. It has raised anxiety. Clawson concluded:

The government created this crisis, and made young people who could not afford college without loans the victims, making promise after promise that didn’t materialize and turning individual debt into a substitute for government investment in education.

Since then Biden has taken a step towards fixing the problem. Also back in May Satchel Sankar, a Kos Emerging Fellow, wrote about what having student debt means and proposed solutions. That debt has now topped $1.9 trillion. As I’ve mentioned before a lot of people harangue debtors about “personal responsibility” – you agreed to the loan, so pay it. But many borrowers can’t. The payment is too much of their income. They are trapped in a system with a tight margin of error and harsh penalties. This leads to acute mental health issues with many considering suicide. Because of the availability of loans families are less sensitive to the cost of college. Though states reduce their investment in education colleges haven’t been innovative with financial aid packages. Options to deal with the problem include an extended grace period after graduation to allow the borrower to get a job in their field rather than just any job. The first few years could be low or no interest to keep balances from spiraling out of control. Or delay payment until income reaches a certain threshold, as is done in Australia. Or abolish interest altogether – why does the government have to make money on loans? Bankruptcy laws should be reformed to include student debt in the way other debt is discharged. Make sure students know what is involved with student loans – don’t assume an 18 year old understands. University presidents and football coaches should not be making millions off the backs of their students. I’ll add another solution. Increase grants provided by state and federal governments as an investment in the education of their citizens.