Charity is undoubtedly the greatest Christian virtue. The Apostle Paul said so in I Corinthians 13 when he said, “the Greatest of these is love.” In the original English translation of the bible, the King James Version, the word “charity” is used instead of “love.” And there you have it – charity is declared the greatest Christian virtue in the bible. But view people find charity and love to be synonyms anymore, and there in lies a tale.
Arthur Brooks had an excellent piece in the NYTimes Friday on the prudence. Please read it. But I just want to borrow one small notion from it:
Then I had an epiphany. When I finally read the German philosopher Josef Pieper’s “The Four Cardinal Virtues,” which had sat unread on my shelf for years, I was shocked to learn that I didn’t hate prudence; what I hated was its current — and incorrect — definition.
We keep changing words around in this modern world and generally not for the better. Which brings me back to charity. I have been accused on numerous occasions of being “uncharitable” because I am opposed to Obamacare. I do not know how you define “charity” to arrive at that conclusion, but from the way I understand charity, Obamacare is anything but.
HH: My first today is, gasp, an elected Democrat, and not just any Democrat, but House of Representatives veteran Tim Ryan, who represents Ohio’s 13th Congressional District, the Mahoning Valley, the heart of the country’s historic Western Reserve, the Steel Valley, we call it, those of us from #TheLand. In fact, Ryan, a member of the power House Appropriations Committee, is a graduate of this famed institution, John F. Kennedy High Shool, which is also my high school. Tim Ryan played quarterback a few years after graduating from Kennedy. I did not. Ryan, you may recall, challenged Nancy Pelosi to be the House minority leader earlier this year, came close. Thank goodness, he lost, and House Democrats returned the San Francisco liberal to her job. I think it’s good, because Ryan might otherwise be well along in the project of reconnecting Democrats to their blue collar union roots, and might be sitting on some special election wins right now, not an unbroken record of losses since President Trump took office. President Trump, by the way, knows that this area of the country, and that this demographic, was crucial to his victory in 2016, and his base of support even today, which is why come Tuesday, President Trump will be back again in Northeast Ohio at the Covelli Center in Youngstown, to be specific, at 4pm on Tuesday. Welcome, Congressman Tim Ryan, and go Eagles. Good to see you.
TR: Blue pride, Hugh, thanks.
HH: Blue pride. Congressman, do you think that there is a single Democrat not named Joe Biden who could fill the Covelli Center like President Trump will fill it on Tuesday?
TR: I’m sure Barack Obama probably could. But that probably would be it at this point.
HH: Well, what does that say about, and by the way, do you think those people who will turn out to see President Trump on Tuesday also voted for Tim Ryan? Do you think there are a lot of Trump-Ryan voters out there?
TR: Well, Hillary got about 51% in my district, and I did in the 60s, and I think the mid-60s this time, so there was, I think, a 15, 16, 17 point delta between the Hillary voter and the Tim Ryan voter, and those were Trump and Tim Ryan voters. So there’s no question about it, a lot of working class people who just feel the Democrats aren’t quite connecting to them.
During this past week, Instapundit linked to an article about dietary fat, weight loss and health, not to mention this one on big breakfast. In a nutshell the first article points out that a low-fat diet is no key to losing weight. The article makes a lot of sense, at least for the most part, pointing out that carbs and sugar contain a lot of calories too and that people generally just substitute those things for fat and no weight loss results. To which I respond – no freakin’ duh. The second article looks at a select group of people, their eating habits and link it to BMI – a measure that is also under criticism.
Before I go any farther, let me establish some bona fides. I am no nutritionist. I am a chemist, but biochemistry is my least enjoyed branch of that science. But I have had more than one doctor tell me I have done something very, very few people do – lost boat loads of weight the hard way. About 10-12 years ago my weight approached somewhere near 500 pounds. No clue the exact weight as I was not about to head to the truck scales to get it. It got to the point where movement was more than simply difficult, it was painful. I then took off something over 200 pounds – diet and exercise, no gastric surgery of any sort and no programs, just did it. I then underwent a series of “body contouring” plastic surgeries to get rid of the crap that hung off of me like drapes on a window. Then like the self-satisfied moron I was, I put 70-80 back on over the course of 5-7 years. I have spent the last year losing about 100 pounds and am aiming to take off another 20-50 depending. Again, no surgery and no programs.
Here’s the thing, and this is just basic biochemistry, body weight is a matter of calories in/calories out. All the rest of it, high fat/low fat, carbs, sugar, whatever is playing on the margins – what matters, and all that matters when it comes to weight, is calories in/calories out. Now there are other factors one must consider – nutrition is necessary for life – you cannot simply fast your way to weight loss, you have to eat and you have to get certain things in that food to have the healthiest possible life. But that fact notwithstanding if you do not cut calories you will not lose weight. That is what the article on fat is all about, at least until the very end, cutting fat calories in exchange for carb calories will do you no good.