Guest post from the Center for Consumer Freedom

Food Inc. failed to win the best “documentary” Oscar on Sunday, but that likely won’t diminish its influence. If you’ve seen this one-sided hit piece on modern agriculture, you know that it’s a thinly veiled advocacy film for organic and local foods in true Michael Pollan style. That such a film draws so much attention is evidence of Hollywood’s fad fascination with organic foodie-ism.

As author and professor James McWilliams noted yesterday, though, foodie obsessions with a romantic, 19^th century-style agriculture are nothing new or novel—people have had such yearnings for decades. And today we write in the pages of The Detroit News to take Tinseltown celebrities to task for their misguided activism that lacks much flavor:

For average Americans, bringing home the bacon gets a lot harder when you have to buy $29-per-pound artisanal cured pork belly. But that hasn't stopped Hollywood's out-of-touch food purists from trying to guilt-trip all of us into changing the way we eat.

Promoting a vegetarian lifestyle by focusing on health benefits may seem intuitive, but it shouldn't be. A 2006 Oxford University study found that vegetarians are just as likely as omnivores to die from strokes, and from colon, breast, and prostate cancer. And research has repeatedly shown that organic fruits and vegetables are no healthier than their conventionally grown counterparts….

When Food Rules writer Michael Pollan sat in the cushy guest seat on Oprah in January, the darling of the "slow food" scene smugly exhorted viewers: "We all can vote with our forks." I couldn't agree more – but I don't think Pollan will like the results.

Click here to read the full version. (A shorter version also ran Monday in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. )

... and it turns out he just doesn't have enough resources to help everyone. From TalkPac comes a funny video about how we must stop Obamacare.

TalkPac is trying to stop Obamacare and they are soliciting donations.

The Obama administration is setting new standards for determining who is "poor" in America, announcing a new formula to supplement the one established during the 1960s.  Why the change?  Because Obama's definition of poverty seeks to include "modern" expenses like child care and health care.

The administration announced yesterday its new formula that will take into account a wider range of factors in determining those who are "poor."  It's expected this new measure will show Americans are more impoverished than we thought.  Vanessa Wight, a demographer at the National Center for Children in Poverty told the Christian Science Monitor, "We're going to see a more accurate measure, based on what it really takes to get by in America."

Ha.  I doubt that.  Instead of calculating a family's income and cost of food--like the current formula does--the new Obama poverty standard take into consideration things like health care, childcare, housing, utilities and "a new category for other expenses that provides a little extra padding," Wight says. 

As we've previously seen, Americans "living in poverty" aren't exactly impoverished.  The "poor" living in America are still wealthier than people all around the world.  Real hardship does exist, but according to Robert Rector, "it is limited in scope and severity."

• Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actu?ally own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are over?crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.
• Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer. 

Still, the Obama administration feels our current measures of poverty aren't enough.  The old poverty threshold is based on what an emergency food diet looked like--it was about basic survival.  

Predictably, Obama's proposed new standard measure of poverty is going increase the percentage of people classified as "poor."  The AP reports that the poverty rates will increase from about 13% to 15.8%--the equivalent of 47.4 million Americans.  

The new rate will not completely replace the old measure, but will be used to calculate an "alternative poverty rate" and will not be used to determine eligibility for government programs. 

My guess is that it's only a matter of time before this "alternative" calculation becomes the norm for calculating government handouts.  As Wight says, “This is just a first step... The new poverty measure will not affect how eligibility for funds are determined. That’s the next step, the direction we need to be moving.”

A new Associated Press poll found that Congressional approval ratings are at historic lows. Half of all people say they want to fire their congressman.

Congress' approval has fallen ten points since January alone and now sits at 22%. This has happened over the course of Obama and the Democrats doubling down on Obamacare and attempting to perform unprecedented procedural maneuvers to force it through Congress despite an overwhelming majority of the American people being against it.

The AP story attempts to put a favorable spin on this, saying that Obama's approval ratings have held steady (53%) and that this means that every member of Congress is vulnerable, but their numbers tell a different narrative. More independents disapprove of congressional Democrats than Republicans and, by the mere fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans, a general anti-incumbent fervor would favor the GOP.

56% of Americans also say the country is now heading in the wrong direction.

A blond, suburban Pennsylvania housewife nicknamed "Jihad Jane" flew to Europe to try and romance Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, the aritst who depicted Mohammad as a dog in 2007. After marrying him, she was planning to murder him, for his atrocities against Mohammad.

Jihad Jane, aka Colleen LaRose, was arrested in Ireland and the charges against her were unsealed here in the U.S. yesterday, along with charges against seven other terror suspects. A $100,000 bounty had been placed on Vilks's head by Al Quaeda.

Daniel Pipes is quite an authority on all things Middle East, which is why his assessment of the recent Iraqi elections are so alarming.

...the Iraqi regime (along with those of Afghanistan, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority) is a kept institution that cannot survive without constant American support. As long as Washington pumps money and sacrifices lives to maintain the Baghdad government, the latter can hobble along. Remove those props and Iranian-backed Islamists soon take over.

Most other observers are crowing about the whoppping 60 percent turnout, even in Sunni-dominated provinces, which boycotted national elections last year. There has been some violence, and as always, corruption. But those things have declined since last year, and most think Iraq has made significant political gains.

Pipes' "so what," resonates with me, though. If those gains are only legitimate as long as Americans are shoveling money into the country, how real are they?

There are some moments in politics that you just can't make up. Here's Massa, during his Glenn Beck interview:

Now they are saying I groped a male staffer...Yeah I did. Not only did I grope him. I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday. It was kill the old guy. You can take anything out of context.

For the record, that tickling occurred in a house that they shared. And for the record, Massa is still denying anything sexual was going on. Here's Beck:

America, I’ve got to shoot straight with you. I think I’ve wasted your time.

Now, there are text messages waiting to come out. I really can't wait for them.

The Democrats’ determination to use “reconciliation” push through Obamacare with the slimmest of majorities threatens core principles, not just Senate technicalities. The president’s supporters cite earlier Congresses that showed the “courage” to push through major change, like Social Security and Civil Rights Bills, but those reforms won backing from big majorities on Capitol Hill and the public at large. Overcoming fierce opposition, advocates built a broad public consensus—and Social Security, Civil Rights Acts and Medicare all won heavy bi-partisan support and nationwide popularity.

Never before has our government insisted on a sweeping change that alters life for every American when only a minority supports that reform. When you ask all citizens to pay for and submit to a program that most of them oppose, that’s not a matter of arcane Senate rules—it’s a violation of democratic principle.