Welcome to your Friday open thread. It’s New Years’ Eve! What are your plans? Are you going to a party? Are you going to go to a public gathering? Stay at home?
The new House Republican majority is trying to sneak through an unusual budget rule. They want to make Ayn Rand acolyte Paul Ryan the House budget dictator.
That’s not all, however. As National Journal reported today, “a little-noticed detail in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee.” Indeed, under the proposed rules, if the House and Senate do not agree on a budget resolution (a distinct possibility with a divided Congress), Ryan will be able to unilaterally set spending levels that are binding on the House, and any attempt to lessen the impact of these cuts can be ruled out of order.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the proposed change “stunning and unprecedented“:
This rule change has immediate, far-reaching implications. It means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend. (There is no requirement for Representative Ryan to make his proposed spending and revenue limits available to Members or the public before the vote on the new rules.)…Once Rep. Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits set at the [2008] level, they will become binding on the House, and any attempt to provide funding levels that allow for less severe cuts will be out of
order.
So much for transparency, huh? Paul Ryan, BTW, is the Rep. who actually released a budget plan. It cut taxes for the rich, gutted Social Security and Medicare and didn’t do a damn thing for the budget deficit until 50 years from now.
What’s new in the 2010 review?
This year, we have seen the biggest rise in dubious theories about how the body works, such as singer and actress Olivia Newton-John, saying that she takes digestive enzymes and plant tonics to boost her immune system. Other unusual ideas about boosting our bodily functions have prompted strange diets, from Naomi Campbell’s maple syrup, lemon and pepper regime to Girls Aloud’s Sarah Harding sprinkling charcoal over her meals.
In sport and fitness, cage fighter Alex Reid shared his tips for preparing for a fight (he ‘reabsorbs’ his sperm). David Beckham and Kate Middleton have been spotted wearing a hologram-embedded silicone bracelet which claims to improve energy and fitness. And Cheryl Cole reputedly extolled a weight loss regime based on her blood group.
In health and disease, celebrity views about the causes of cancer retained the improvement seen in 2009, but actress Joanna Lumley and former Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed both get a mention this year.And although we have noted far fewer claims about the benefits of ‘chemical free’ food this year, model Gisele Bundchen raised some old misconceptions as she joined the ‘breast is best’ baby feeding debate.
As always, the review notes people in the public eye who do make scientific sense. Reports of Jennifer Aniston’s ‘baby food diet’ caused some raised eyebrows, so dietitians were glad to see her deny rumours that she follows the puréed food regime. Jennifer said: “Sorry, but the last time I had baby food, I believe I was one. I’ve been on solids for about forty years now.”
Groups like Sense About Science are really valuable in the war on pseudoscience but they never get a big microphone like some dubious celebrity claims do. I’d really like to see someone like Oprah Winfrey give a big microphone to these science groups. I guess that doesn’t sell ads like Suzanne Sommers, though.