The White Peril 白禍

And that new food pyramid? The USDA has seriously outdone itself in purposeless bureaucratic condescension. Ann Althouse is justifiably irritated at the cutesy site title, but it's the graphic that does it for me:



I had to laugh out loud at the irony. The rainbow is so dear to the hearts of I'm-okay-you're-okay types as a way to say we're all equally adorable, so it's no surprise that it recommended itself to the tofu-worshippers at the USDA. But, of course, the whole point of this particular project is to push the value of whole grains while banishing trans-fats to outer darkness, so equal ROYGBIV bands would not have worked.

The site is pretty snazzy and easy to navigate, but it illustrates the problems with having federal programs for this sort of thing. Read the information and tips and you start to wonder very quickly just who the target audience is. Some samples:

• To eat more whole grains, substitute a whole-grain product for a refined product – such as eating whole-wheat bread instead of white bread or brown rice instead of white rice. It’s important to substitute the whole-grain product for the refined one, rather than adding the whole-grain product. (link)
  
  
• Freeze leftover cooked brown rice, bulgur, or barley. Heat and serve it later as a quick side dish. (link)
  
  
• Try different textures of fruits. For example, apples are crunchy, bananas are smooth and creamy, and oranges are juicy. (link)
  
  
• Cut-up fruit makes a great snack. Either cut them yourself, or buy pre-cut packages of fruit pieces like pineapples or melons. Or, try whole fresh berries or grapes. (link)

Most of the advice is like this, so I initially figured MyPyramid was the site geared toward children and that there was another, stuffier one elsewhere. But each page about the food groups (or food EMS bands or whatever they're to be called now) also has a section at the bottom that's explicitly directed at kids, and you can get calorie intake recommendations based on your age, so we grown-ups are clearly the main audience.

In other words, the USDA is looking at adults who don't know what instead of means, don't know that their freezer can be used to store leftover rice as well as Lean Cuisine dinners, don't know that apples and bananas have different textures, and don't know a whole lot of other perkily-explained things I'd drive myself into the madhouse by quoting. At least we're still trusted to handle sharp knives.

None of this stuff is untrue, of course, and those of us who were taught to cook when we were little can fall into thinking that much of it is intuitive when it really isn't. Why can't you freeze a lot of vegetables without blanching them? Why should you add the salt at the beginning some times and at the end others? The thing is, despite all the blaring about the latest scientific information and the effort our trusty USDA folks have expended on compiling it, most of what's on MyPyramid.gov isn't anything you couldn't learn from a collection of a half-dozen basic cookbooks and some Julia Child reruns. I do think the standardized nutrition label is a good idea; the Japanese have essentially adopted it, and it makes it easier to avoid foods that are half additives. But all of this huffing and puffing and throwing tax money around like confetti--just to tell us that fresh plant-based foods are healthy, in case we didn't already hear it from Mom and the home ec teacher--is asinine.

My first thought on reading the news that the pope had been selected this morning was, as you might imagine, "Hmm...I wonder whether Andrew Sullivan has torn himself clean in half with rage yet, like Rumpelstilskin, or I'm a little early." I was just in time, apparently, but QandO already has it covered.

Camille Paglia dealt with this amply in an essay when I was in college, but it's not an issue that's likely to go away soon. To add to what Dale writes at QandO: if you believe that your principles are moral and just, and you believe that external, obdurate reality bears them out without the gloss of wishful thinking, that's that. Religions don't have line-item vetos. There are gay-friendly churches around, and I'm at a loss to figure out why gay Christians don't join them instead of trying to shift thousands of years of tradition to fit their beliefs this very minute.

That doesn't mean they should just sit down and shut up if they seriously believe that scripture is being misinterpreted or interpreted too narrowly. It's just that lasting change happens slowly. If their chief concern is that the long-term trajectory of Christianity be in the direction of truth, they have to accept that their arguments may take hold slowly and not have any effects on doctrine within their lifetimes. And if what they're arguing really isn't clearly supported by the Bible, it may never take hold in the church in which they were reared. They must be content with serving God to the honest best of their understanding, and standing firm in the face of earthly disapproval. I still think Andrew Sullivan has contributed a great deal to the public discourse, but I can't get his position on religion to boil down to anything but "I'll fuck whoever I damn well please, and the church will love me for it." That seems to me just a bit off the mark.

Added on 21 April: Susanna is back to posting more frequently, which is a good thing. She had this to say about the ascension of the new pope and Andrew Sullivan's reaction to it.

Also, Michael thinks I'm engaging in pro forma Sullivan-bashing. Well, I'm not. When people attack or belittle Andrew Sullivan as if he were useless, I am more than happy to defend him. But you can defend his overall contribution to the public debate and still conclude that his recent positions are either not well supported or mutually inconsistent, and that the flibbertigibbety way he's taken to expressing them doesn't do him any favors, either.

Since I would prefer to keep my blood pressure in the healthy range, it's probably just as well that the new federal reports on the efficacy of airport screening are not available in all their depressing detail.

The Florida Republican said he would ask the Bush administration and Congress to hand the function back to the private sector, which would be overseen by homeland security officials.

"This annual multibillion-dollar system has received its second poor performance report card," Mica said.

Details of the two reports are classified but Mica described a system — which he helped create even though he opposed it — as inefficient and struggling despite a $20 billion investment at 429 commercial airports.

The Transportation Security Administration oversees nearly 50,000 screeners.

The homeland security report, parts of which were publicly released, noted screeners performed no better in covert tests after a stinging assessment last year on failures to detect prohibited items at airport security checkpoints.

And now they're supposed to be making sure luggage is purged of every last lighter, among other things. Those who fear that the system may actually be re-privatized can probably rest easy, though:

Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the former ranking member of the aviation subcommittee, sharply criticized TSA. But he said it would be a mistake to return to private screening and doubted Congress would agree to do so.

"It's time we give screeners 21st century tools to combat 21st century threats," DeFazio said.

Uh-huh. I predict a bipartisan vote to give the screening agency lots of money for new procedures and equipment. Perhaps they'll revamp training to enable screeners to identify big, scary knives without assistance.

The US government plans to survey Okinawans about how they view US bases:

The committee is attempting to determine which bases on U.S. soil should be closed to improve the efficiency of defense operations under an inquiry ordered by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

It plans to complete a draft proposal in May and seek approval from Congress in autumn.

The plan is expected to meet with strong opposition since many regional economies in the United States depend on military bases.

Okinawa's relationship with the US military is more complicated. It's Japan's least wealthy prefecture, and our bases add to the economy. At the same time, crime and high-handedness have accompanied our presence there, and Okinawans are more outspoken than your average Japanese; the survey report should be an interesting read, whatever effect it does or does not ultimately have on troop realignments.

ROK President Roh Moo-hyun addressed South Korean residents in Germany this week and made some statements that are...well, here's what he said:

"North Korea is willing to give up its nuclear programs," Roh told the meeting in Germany.

He said Pyongyang and Washington distrusted each other but were in agreement on how to resolve the problem -- security guarantees and economic aid for the North in return for dismantling its nuclear programs.

"They don't seem to trust each other," Roh said. "But distrust is not a problem of substance, so it will be resolved if you talk long enough," he said.

Is that a fact? I understand that he was probably trying to soothe the homefolks--and the part about not encouraging the collapse of the DPRK certainly makes sense, since it would do all kinds of nasty things to the ROK economy--but whenever a politician says something wacky, there's always a scary chance that he actually believes it. I mean, maybe the connotation is different in Korean, but "distrust is not a problem of substance" strikes me as quixotic in this situation. So does "North Korea is willing to give up its nuclear programs."

BTW, did you hear what Condi said about the current state of the Axis of Evil? I liked this part: "I do think the North Koreans have been, frankly, a little bit disappointed that people are not jumping up and down and running around with their hair on fire because (they) have been making these pronouncements." Yes. Laboring under the assumption that we'll actually convince North Korea to dump its nuclear arms program would be pretty dimwitted, but there's a line to be trod: we can't freak out at its antics, but working to keep negotiations going makes the DPRK feel respected and decreases the chances that it's going to do anything psycho on an international level.

This AP story about a gay soldier who would like to continue serving after recovering from his wounds is making the rounds; it was Gay News where I first saw it.

Out of all the sticking points over gays, I have to say, this is one of those I understand the least. The Center for Military Readiness, whose president is quoted in the AP article, has a full page of links on gays in the military, including one to the exclusion law. But the actual nuts-and-bolts reasoning given for the exclusion is very thin. It's self-evident that the armed forces should only train those elibigle for service, but eligible is one of those words like efficient or positive; it only means something if we all agree on the criteria by which it's being applied to a given case.

The CMR releases and the text of Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10 refer to the fact that the armed forces are a special environment requiring unusual discipline, close quartering, little privacy, and unit cohesion. That having gays around would compromise these things is an assumption--it's not even really asserted, much less justified. I understand the value of tradition, and I know it's been found that military service is not a constitutional right.

But you'd think that the reasons for declaring people unfit (that "ineligible" bit is a PC euphemism worthy of the English department at Duke, and it conveniently avoids the question of whether people such as the discharged linguists were more qualified for their jobs than others who might have been trained for them) would be less vague. Given that "Don't ask, don't tell" has been in effect for a decade, if homosexuals were going to throw a wrench into the works, wouldn't we know it by now? Not having two gay guys serving in the same unit makes sense--family members are separated, too, unless they've done away with that rule.

But a lot of opposition, when you press people to be clear about what it is they're so afraid of, comes down, in my experience, to the old shower-room argument. And try as I might, I can't find it in me to take the whole "Well, see, I'm such a tough guy that I'm obliged to get spazzy if I think some gay guy just looked at me cross-eyed" routine seriously.

In any case, Sgt. Stout was wounded while operating a gun, so whether or not he has any influence on policy, he did his job defending his unit and at least serves as an example that all gay guys don't compulsively flee physical conflict. I'm grateful for his service, and here's hoping he's recovered fully. (I'm assuming so, but the article doesn't say.)

Added during a particularly overdone episode of Homicide: Apparently, Michael's trackbacks are not, in fact, getting through. Here is where his response, in addition to his comments here, is.

The Pope has died. Reuters, which is attracted to cutesy-poo constructions like iron filings to a magnet, goes for the gravitas-free opener:

Pope John Paul II, whose globetrotting papacy inspired millions but left a divided Church, died Saturday, ending years of painful physical decline for the Polish prelate once known as God's Athlete.

Like Reagan's funeral and memorials last year, the Pope's death watch has been very moving. There's plenty of hot-headed, off-the-cuff hysteria going around these days, but it's rare that you get a chance to see deep-rooted devotional ecstasy. It's not my place to determine what Catholic dogma is, but his native Poland (from which my mother's grandparents came to the US) and the rest of Europe are the better for his political influence. He stood for hope and the belief in larger things we can't entirely understand. May he rest in peace.

Added at 11:21: The BBC has a compilation of statements from heads of state around the world. I was hoping to see something from Margaret Thatcher. She's the only one left now.