“The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet has no effect.
The $415 million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women ages 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years. In the end, those assigned to a low-fat diet had the same rates of breast cancer, colon cancer, heart attacks and strokes as those who ate whatever they pleased, researchers are reporting today.”
Weston Price could have told you that a hundred years ago…
Check out his site.
Confused about fats?
I use the principles outlined in Price’s book Nutrition and Physical degeneration as well as Sally Fallon’s cookbook Nourishing Traditions
I wonder how many women have developed cancer and heart disease over the past decades because of the no fat fads???
I feed my family high quality fats all day long; Whole milk, butter, olive oil, and flax oil being the mainstay of our diet, with bone broth soups and stews, and fresh organic cream rounding out our sources for quality fats.
Jenny Hatch

Victor Davis Hanson
“The lesson from all this is that in order to free the United States from such blackmail and dependency, we must at least try to achieve energy independence and drive down oil prices — and see that no Middle East autocracy gains nuclear weapons. Those principles, along with support for democratic reform, should be the three pillars of American foreign policy.”
Jenny Hatch

My personal favorite of the Danish cartoons:

Blogburst organized by Michelle Malkin
Jeff at Protein Wisdom had the best analysis of all the bloggers I read. I wish I could write like this….
“But of course, freedom of speech—reduced (for purposes of this debate) to its core, animating mandate and protection—is PRECISELY the ability to look religion in its pious face and flip it the bird. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize religion, just as freedom of religion is supposed to protect the rights of the religious not to have their religion established for them by a government—a counterbalancing right that is lacking in theocratic states and in religions where pluralism is denied legitimacy.
But this lack of balance between the freedoms—rather than being exploited by the west to make its case for free speech and its necessity as the guiding principle of liberalism—is instead being exploited by neophyte identity politicians in the Muslim world, who have learned to play the victim card so quickly that our own State Department has bought into their affected outrage at victimization and religious “intolerance.”¹
Somehow, it seems to escape those raised on westernized Orientalism that by calling the intolerance of intolerance “intolerant,” they have reduced the concept of tolerance itself to a cruel semantic joke—the idea being that groups formed around cultural similarities, once they have honed their group message and excommunicated the dissenters—own the narrative. Outside criticism is therefore inauthentic—always tainted by the gaze of the Other, and so only to be considered secondarily (if at all) as a valid critique.
From there, it is a short journey to asserting the absolutism of a cultural paradigm—and this happens necessarily where universality (or, for postmodernists, social contracts that rely on the trappings of what is metaphysically untenable) is surrendered to competition between identity groups over primacy of “rights” in the global sense.
This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations—which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain—could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.
One regret I have is that this battle should have been fought and won in favor of intentionalism and individualism inside our own western universities years ago; instead, the victory went to our progressive academic collectivists, whose fidelity to PC culture, identity politics, free-speech zones, tolerance training courses, et al manifested themselves in a “tolerance” culture that now has the goverment looking inside individuals’ heads (hate speech, hate crime) and effectively chilling all speech by defining tolerance in an Orwellian sense of tolerating only that speech which is so bland and banal that it is unlikely to offend anyone. And now we might be forced to battle with guns and chemical weapons and fissile material rather than with confidence in our own intellectual rigor and rectitude.
The idea of liberal democracy was NEVER about such nonsense—nor was it ever about balkanizing into identity groups who, by asserting a self-defined narrative, could claim an authenticity that put them beyond criticism.
So yes, the clash of civilizations has begun. But, to fall back on a useful cliche’, we have seen the enemy, and he is us (too).”
Read the whole thing, it is simply excellent analysis…

I found this cartoon at Free Republic on this thread
What my faith teaches about religious tolerance:
The Articles of Faith – #11:
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
D&C 134: 1-4, 7,
“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.”
“We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.”
Jenny Hatch
UPDATE:
Victor does it again….Europe Awakes….
And Mark….

Click on the image to get to Human Events where you can view each cartoon at full size.
Claudia Rosett today at National Review
Quote:
“If statehood, citizenship, and civilization itself are to mean anything, we are all in the end accountable for our own actions. When people riot and brutalize and burn, there are individuals in the crowds who are responsible.
And in the places where this is happening, if the governments will not call these individuals to account, we need to hold those governments themselves responsible. Cartoons alone, to quote another line from Hamlet, are in a class with nothing more than “words, words, words,” and those are grounds on which newspapers, nations, and religions may have their disagreements and their dialogues.
But when violence enters the picture, that is a matter for governments to settle, and in the free world the job of government and politicians is not to opine upon cartoons, but to lay down the law that no one may with impunity threaten our liberty and lives.”
UPDATE: Feb 7th
And of course, Ann Coulter chimed in on this topic!

Jennifer Roback Morse
“Mark Steyn’s analysis of “The Real Reason the West is in Danger of Extinction” is completely correct in his important recent article, “It’s the Demography, Stupid.” But behind the problem of the West’s below replacement fertility levels, lies the problem of sex. Babies come from sex.”
Read Jennifer and Mark’s analysis, it is all really interesting.
I have no problem being the mother of a family of five children. I have been verbally assaulted several times by mostly women who have questioned my choice to have a large family. I usually answer these inquiries; “are all these children yours?” with something upbeat and slightly sarcastic like, “yeah, they are all mine, but I left the other six at home because they were misbehavin” or “no, they are not mine, they belong to the global village, I just gave birth to them”.
I figure these gals who get in my face, which generally has happened on an RTD bus in Boulder, are liberal greenies who have bought the lie that children are the most evil thing to happen to the world, and have probably aborted away their own. I swear one lady almost was going to smack me in the face, she was so angry.
I am someone who believes Children are an Heritage from the Lord, and I thank Heavenly Father every day for the blessing of being a mother and having these souls as part of my life.
Jenny Hatch

Henry Lamb
“At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, the United Nations Development Program promoted its plan to rule the world through a global socialist economic system. The plan is detailed in a book entitled “The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges“, published by Oxford University Press.
The U.N. plan identifies seven trillion dollars – that’s $7,000,000,000,000 – to be taken from developed nations for use by the U.N. to solve all the world’s problems.”
You know? I sleep so much better at night knowing all of the criminals and thugs at the UN are getting ready to solve all of the worlds problems. Whew….what a relief.
Jenny Hatch