News article:

During last night’s surprise appearance by Barack Obama at the third night of the Democratic National Convention, we totally did a double-take when we saw the dashing Senator from Illinois plant a big one on Jill Biden, the wife of his running mate, Joe Biden. Was it on purpose and platonic mouth kisses are suddenly the new show of affection in Washington, or was it an accident? Who knows, but certainly the accidental mouth kiss is something we’ve all endured…

 You’re at a party greeting a million people and instead of grazing someone’s cheek with your lips, you accidentally go mouth-to-mouth. This can make for a very awkward situation, unless you luck out with a totally close friend who would immediately laugh it off. There’s a few ways this can go.

 1. Your Crush: This is a pretty perfect opening to say, “Oops, I’ve always wanted to do this” or “This is what it feels like to be this close to me.” Thus this may help advance things to another level or get him or her thinking of you as more than just a friend. Come to think of it, I once had an “accidental” goodnight peck with a crush before things heated up between us. And one of my friends recalls an accidental kiss with a crush that confused her so much, she thought maybe he really was trying to kiss her but drunkenly messed it up.

 2. The Family Friend: Laugh this incident off. “I kissed my best friend’s mom on the mouth by accident once. I initially felt very awkward , but when I said, ‘Oops’, we immediately both started laughing.” If you both acknowledge that it was a complete accident, crack a joke about being hot for them for years, you can have a giggle and move on.

 3. Your Boss, Your Boyfriend’s Father, A Family Member: If you accidentally smooch someone really inappropriate, you can either apologize firmly once or deny, deny, deny. But having had my fair share of accidental mouth kisses with truly mortifying people, you will most likely be too shocked and embarrassed to handle this with grace. Bite the bullet, smile politely, and move on. ||||| Mediate has made a shocking discovery: Obama smooched Diane Sawyer during an ABC News Interview tonight! It was like a current events-themed Harlequin novel over there. What's more, Obama has a history of stealing kisses from powerful ladies.

 First, take a look at Sweet Lips Obama as he makes the kiss-y face at Diane Sawyer before their interview on ABC World News because he LOOOOOVES HER SOOOO MUCH:

 Here is our impression of Diane Sawyer: "Hello Mr. Pres—" *SMOOCHY* *SMOOCHY*. "Well, heavens me!" *BLUSH* "Of course I will ask you softball questions. Whatever you want, just keep me tapped into that sweet lip action... oh, Lordy, I haven't felt a man's touch since 20/20." *FAINT*

 Mediaite hints that the smooch worked: Obama and Diane Sawyer sitting in a tree, conducting an unremarkable interview that will air between car insurance ads to overmedicated seniors—I-N-G.

 But were you aware that our president has frequently deployed his lips to win over potential adversaries and reward friends alike? (Lady friends only, please.) Here is Obama snogging with Hilary Clinton at his health care address to congress last year:

 SEXXXY

 And then Fox & Friends had some fun over the time Hil apparently snubbed Bill Clinton's leathery smackers in favor of Obama's velveteen speechmakers:

 Grass is always greener... we feel you, Hil.

 And, of course, there was the time Obama "accidentally" sucked face with Dr. Jill Biden:

 "Hey, Jill, I know this great podium where we can stand and watch the sun set."

 But even Obama was stymied by French first lady Carla Bruni, who apparently backed away from the dual heat-seeking missiles that are Obama's all-curing lips:

 The Gaul! (NY Post: You've got my number. -ED)

 As our national love affair with Obama continues to sours, seems he's about one bad Gallup poll from resorting to "7 Minutes In Heaven" with every single American.

 [Lukas Ketner drew the picture for Willamette Week.] ||||| Did President Obama dodge a friendly kiss from French First Lady Carla Bruni?

 Segrette/AP France's first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy shakes President Obama's hand instead of a customary kiss, like the one exchanged between Michelle Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

 Forget NATO, world peace or the global recession - it was The Kiss, or the lack of one, that was the talk of Europe Friday.

 The international kiss-ident unfolded as President Obama and his wife, Michelle, met French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his supermodel wife, Carla Bruni, in Strasbourg, France, as part of this weekend's NATO summit.

 Everything seemed to be going swimmingly, in a French kind of way, outside the regal Palais Rohan.

 Michelle and Carla shared a warm embrace and a Continental-style peck on each cheek, captured by hundreds of whirring paparazzi.

 President Obama and the prime minister shook hands heartily and even two-stepped through an awkward French man-hug.

 The much smaller Sarkozy even managed to land a double-kiss on Michelle - pausing only to glide his hand across his wife's celebrated derriere with a giddy, look-what-I-got grin plastered on his face, dutifully caught on camera.

 But when Bruni leaned in to kiss President Obama, something happened.

 Maybe he balked, perhaps imagining all the late-night fodder a picture of him smooching a fashion model might inspire. Maybe she pulled back. Whatever.

 There was no kiss, just a prim handshake, sending the British press in particular into a spasm of forensic investigation that included a frame-by-frame analysis of the Kiss That Wasn't.

 It would be hours before the situation was rectified - at a dinner last night, when Bruni and Obama finally managed to seal their relationship with a polite double kiss.

 Perhaps by then Bruni had gotten the green light from Michelle during a lunch of marinated scallops with caviar they enjoyed inside the palace, after which the ladies resolved to work together to battle AIDS (Bruni lost a brother to the disease).

 The day included plenty for fashion mavens to chew on as well.

 Michelle Obama, having stuck for most of the week to price-conscious ensembles from J. Crew, broke out the big guns for her first tete-a-tete with Bruni, a.k.a. "The Chanel Gazelle."

 Obama wore a brilliant magenta dress with a metallic sheen by Thakoon, a Thai-born designer who grew up in the U.S. The double-hemmed, Italian-silk dress cost about $1,500 - a major price upgrade for the first lady.

 Bruni, on the other hand, opted for a cropped-sleeve Dior coat in a soft, plain grey - stylish but very simple.

 "Carla actually looks a bit washed out and (we can't believe we're about to say this) prim and proper," said The Guardian of London. "A flash of color or a fashionable statement accessory could have taken this outfit to another level - but that's just not Carla's style." |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– When you're the president of the United States, a kiss, apparently, is never just a kiss. Yesterday, the president pecked Diane Sawyer on the cheek before an interview. "It was like a current events-themed Harlequin novel," writes Gawker's Adrian Chen. And it wasn't the first time! A brief history of the president's "public smooching rampage:" The "Accidental" Kiss: During the presidential campaign an enthusiastic Obama "accidentally" kissed Jill Biden on the lips. "This can make for a very awkward situation," the Frisky notes. The "Diss" Kiss: When Barack and Michelle met Carla and Sarko, the president skimped on smooching France's first lady. It caused a major diplomatic kiss-ident, reports the Daily News. The Reward Kiss: The president puckered up to Hillary Clinton at his health care address this fall. It showed, as Gawker put it, that he can "deploy his lips" to "reward friends." Find a complete kiss and tell here.


Write an article based on this summary:

– Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has been haggling with Robert Mueller about the idea of the president sitting down for an interview, and Giuliani had hoped to have the issue resolved by Sept. 1. That's looking increasingly unlikely now because Giuliani tells CNN he hasn't heard from Mueller's team in about three weeks. The last communication between the two sides is when Trump's lawyers sent their latest counter-offer about the interview on Aug. 8. Since then, radio silence. "I figured we wouldn't hear until after the Manafort trial, but we (still) haven't," says Giuliani. "I have to figure they're planning something." Giuliani professes to have no idea what that might be, suggesting that Mueller might be preparing to issue a subpoena or publish his report, or that the special counsel is simply content to wait until after the midterms to resume negotiations. As Giuliani waits for a response, another member of Trump's inner circle—Roger Stone—predicts that Mueller "is coming for me," reports the Hill. Stone is so sure of it that he sent an email to supporters requesting donations for his legal defense fund. "I’m next on the crooked special prosecutor’s hit list because I've advised Donald Trump for the past 39 years," he wrote. Stone further tells the Guardian that Mueller "may frame me for some bogus charge in order to silence me or induce me to testify against the president." The newspaper notes one potential area of interest: Stone has acknowledged exchanging messages during the campaign with "Guccifer 2.0," and Mueller thinks Guccifer was actually a front for Russian operatives who stole emails from top Democrats then leaked them.

Washington (CNN) Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's attorney, said the President's lawyers have not heard back from special counsel Robert Mueller's office in nearly three weeks.

 "I figured we wouldn't hear until after the Manafort trial, but we (still) haven't," Giuliani said.

 He said Mueller's office has told them it is "still studying" the latest letter from Trump's team, which Giuliani said was only five to six pages.

 "I have to figure they're planning something," Giuliani said.

 He suggested Mueller's team could be considering issuing a report without talking to the President, or issuing a subpoena, which would mean the battle over a subpoena would occur during the run-up to the midterm elections. He said Muller's team may also be considering negotiating with what Trump's team offered or waiting until after the midterm elections to make its next move.

 Read More ||||| Roger Stone Roger Jason StonePress: Mueller closes in on Trump Mueller's findings don't matter Corsi sues Mueller for alleged leaks and illegal surveillance MORE is predicting that special counsel Robert Mueller Robert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE will soon indict him as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

 "Robert Mueller is coming for me," Stone, a longtime associate of President Trump Donald John TrumpThe Memo: Ayers decision casts harsh light on Trump NASA offers to show Stephen Curry evidence from moon landings Freedom Caucus calls on leadership to include wall funding, end to 'catch and release' in funding bill MORE, said on Sunday in an email asking supporters to donate to his legal defense fund, according to an image posted by CNN.

 "I’m next on the crooked special prosecutor’s hit list because I’ve advised Donald Trump for the past 39 years. I am being targeted not because I committed a crime, but because the 'deep state' liberals want to silence me and pressure me to testify against my good friend President Donald J. Trump."

 Roger Stone's latest pitch to his email list of supporters boils down to this: Donate right now because, literally, I am the next guy to get indicted. pic.twitter.com/sWAx2BQtSJ — Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) August 26, 2018

 Stone's message to his supporters came about a week after Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort Paul John ManafortPress: Mueller closes in on Trump Mueller polarizes GOP, Dems the more they hear his name, says polling editor Judge sets Tuesday hearing in Manafort case MORE, was convicted of and his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pled guilty to federal crimes stemming from Mueller's investigation.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 Stone told The Guardian in a text message on Monday that he thinks Mueller “may frame me for some bogus charge in order to silence me or induce me to testify against the president."

 Stone has voiced similar predictions before. In June, he told Hill.TV that it's possible Mueller would indict him as part of the investigation.

 It was later noted in July that Mueller's indictment of Russian military officers in the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee appeared to make reference to Stone.

 Stone acknowledged that messages included in the indictment matched ones that he exchanged with hacker Guccifer 2.0. Mueller has alleged that Guccifer was a front for Russian operatives, according to The Guardian.

 Mueller has investigated multiple people linked to Stone as part of its probe.

 His team met with Kristin Davis, who once ran a high-end prostitution ring, earlier this month regarding her relationship with Stone. |||||


Summarize this article:

During his remarks before the Concord City Republican Committee last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that robust military spending is absolutely necessary to defeat ISIS forces abroad, and that, as president, he would use the military itself to force Congress to reverse budgetary cuts to defense and intel.

 In brief audio obtained by BenSwann.com, Sen. Graham purportedly suggests he would use the military to restrict the movement of Congress until they complied:

 …[A]nd here is the first thing I would do if I were President of the United States: I wouldn’t let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We’re not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We’re not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.

 Seeing the high possibility that this could be Graham’s special brand of humor, we’ve reached out to his office and will update if and when we hear back.

 Asked for comment or clarification, Graham responded to the right-leaning website with this boilerplate: “Due to the large volume of mail I receive, I regret that I am only able to respond personally to inquiries from South Carolinians. “

 [UPDATE — 3:42 p.m. ET: As his office clarifies, Graham was employing over-the-top humor to win over his audience.]

 — —

 Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com ||||| Republican senator and presidential maybe-hopeful Lindsey Graham stopped by the "politics and pies" forum in Concord, New Hampshire, today, where he announced that if he is elected president in 2016, his first act will be to deploy the military in Washington to force Congress to reverse cuts to the defense and intelligence budgets.

 Yes, you heard that right. Here are Graham's exact words:

 And here's the first thing I would do if I were president of the United States. I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.

 Graham would use the military to force members of Congress to not just vote on the bill — but to pass it. Graham didn't say "until I get an up-or-down vote on restoring defense cuts." He said "until we restore these defense cuts."

 In other words, Graham is proposing that his first act as president would be to use the military to force the legislative branch to pass his agenda.

 Is Senator Graham announcing his plans for a self-coup?

 If taken literally, Graham is basically announcing his plan to stage a coup: he is saying that if he gains control of the executive branch, he will use his authority as commander in chief to overcome the separation of powers and force the legislative branch to do his bidding, instead of allowing it to act as an independent branch of the government.

 Political scientists often refer to that type of action as a "self-coup," a situation in which a legitimate leader uses the military or other armed force to unlawfully seize more power than is permitted under the constitution of the country in question. Usually that's a permanent seizure of power and a total shutdown of the legislature, so what Graham is proposing is a relatively mild version. But as silver linings go, "it's a coup, but only a small one" isn't very comforting.

 Although I suppose that's one way to deal with congressional deadlock.

 There is no universe in which this is remotely legal behavior

 Maybe Graham was just joking (he sounded serious) or just speaking figuratively to make a point about his determination to restore cut military funding (okay, but weird way to do it).

 If he was being remotely serious, though, this proposal is dramatically different from anything that is actually legal — such as, say, the Senate leadership using the Capitol police or sergeant-at-arms to ensure that the Senate has a quorum.

 That happened in 1988, when Democratic leadership had the Capitol police carry Republican Senator Bob Packwood feet-first into the Senate chamber to ensure a quorum. Harry Reid threatened to use similar methods more recently when he was Senate majority leader.

 But what the Senate did in 1988 was compel senators' presence, not compel them to vote a certain way. It was permitted by the Senate rules, which say that "a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators" to reach a quorum. And it was the Senate policing itself, and thus did not violate the separation of powers.

 What Lindsey Graham is proposing is to physically force members of Congress to vote how he commands. His plan violates constitutional separation of powers in just about the most extreme way imaginable, by forcing the executive branch's will on the legislature. And it is a pretty safe bet that Senate rules do not grant the president authority to have the 101st Airborne Division occupy the Capitol until Congress votes the way he wants.

 Graham's proposal is so astonishing that it's pretty much impossible to believe that's what he really meant. He is a mainstream politician and an attorney who served as an Air Force JAG. Surely — surely — he is not actually proposing such an unconstitutional action.

 .... Right?

 Update: Graham's spokesperson has clarified to Bloomberg that when Graham said "I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to," that statement was "not to be taken literally." Glad that's been cleared up.

 Watch: President Obama explain the polarizing nature of modern politics |||||

– Lindsey Graham is still talking. His latest headline-worthy quote: If he becomes our next president, the very first thing he will do is deploy the military. Against ... Congress. "I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this," he said yesterday at New Hampshire's "politics and pies" forum, referring to the budget. "I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts." As Vox notes, the quote implies Graham would use the military to force Congress to actually pass a bill, not simply to vote on one, since his stated goal is to "restore" the cuts. Sounds like a "coup" if taken literally, writes Amanda Taub. And though Graham did, indeed, use the word "literally," his office later clarified to Mediaite that the senator "was employing over-the-top humor to win over his audience."


Article:
An apparently simple email about a holiday potluck at a state office went off the rails Friday when it was accidentally sent to approximately 25,000 state employees. (Photo: KUTV FILE)

 An apparently simple email about a holiday potluck at a state office in Utah went off the rails Friday when it was accidentally sent to approximately 25,000 state employees.

 One early respondent seemed to anticipate the coming storm of emails by replying to all, “braces self for receiving thousands of emails from people hitting ‘reply all’ to say they got added by mistake.”

 Then the ‘reply-all’ responses began.

 “STOP REPLYING TO ALL”, one ‘reply-all’ respondent wrote.

 “Please remove me from this email,” another employee replied to all.

 “EVERYONE STOP RESPONDING!!” responded one angry email.

 A photo posted by state spokesperson Joe Dougherty showed dozens of emails sent over the course of just a few minutes around 9:30 a.m.

 Dougherty posted around 11:15 a.m. to say the email chain seemed to have run its course.

 Neither the offending sender, nor the department they work for were identified.

 “I fear this will never end,” Lt. Governor Spencer Cox posted to twitter around 3:30 p.m.

 Reply-all catastrophes pop up occasionally. A few years ago Reuters was caught up in a reply-all chain that went between the company’s 33,000 employees. That ordeal prompted at least 600 response emails.

  ||||| A seemingly innocuous email exchange about a holiday gift potluck went awry after it was mistakenly sent to more than 25,000 Utah state employees.

 A cascade of curt, angry and confused responses poured in to a "reply all" email chain Friday that initially sought to discuss a holiday potluck. Utah Department of Technology Services employees took to social media to urge the tens of thousands of respondents to stop replying to the email chain that deluged state employees, contractors and businesses across Utah.

 And as commonly occurs amid corporate and government "reply all" chaos, the thousands of "Sent from my iPhone" messages demanding to be removed from the email thread only deepened the communication quicksand.

 Getty Images Justin Sullivan/Staff

 "So this is happening right now. It’s Replyall-gate 2018. Adventures in state government. #ReplyAll Actually don’t reply all," wrote Joe Dougherty, a Public Information Officer for -- perhaps ironically -- the Utah Division of Emergency Management.

 Dozens of responses posted to social media by Utah state government employees and affiliates ranged from inquisitive, "Is it a white elephant type of swap?" to comical, "I'm sorry you have to uninvite the entire State Government," to the downright angry, "Remove me from this email thread now!"

 The thousands of polite responses asking to be removed from the "reply all" emails clogged up phones and state employee computers for several hours Friday morning. But those seemingly helpful replies along with dozens of "EVERYONE STOP RESPONDING" responses only amplified the crescendo of emails.

 Screenshot: Twitter/Joe Dougherty

 Utah Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox added a little humor and weighed in on the "cc" calamity Friday afternoon, "This is real and it’s an emergency. Started out as a potluck and $5 white elephant gift exchange in one department and someone accidentally cc’d every state employee. I fear this will never end."

 "This was a genuine crisis, but it happens every day on a smaller level. Some people simply can't not #replyall, so prevention is key: send large group emails to yourself w/ bcc to other recipients, and hope somebody doesn't 'loop' others in," tweeted Josh Loftin, Director of Communications and Public Information Officer at the Utah Department of Heritage and Arts.

 Salt Lake City's local CBS affiliate KUTV reported that neither the offending sender nor the department they worked in was publicly divulged as of the end of the workday Friday. ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Someone mistakenly sent a potluck invite to 25,000 Utah state employees — nearly the entire state workforce — Friday, reported KUTV. Then the reply-all emails began.

 “So this is happening right now. It’s Replyall-gate 2018. Adventures in state government,” wrote Utah public information office Joe Dougherty on Twitter about 9:30 a.m. Friday.

 His post included a long chain of reply-all emails to the 25,000 recipients of the errant invite. Many begged fellow respondents to stop hitting reply-all, while others resorted to all-caps demands to “STOP THE MADNESS.”

 Premium content for only $0.99 For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today. SUBSCRIBE NOW

 So this is happening right now. It’s Replyall-gate 2018. Adventures in state government. #ReplyAll Actually don’t reply all. pic.twitter.com/8loT09CM4s — Joe Dougherty (@PIO_Joe) December 7, 2018

 “I … want to die,” reported one state worker on Twitter, while another reported receiving 51 reply-all emails to the invite in mere minutes.

 someone over at the department of corrections accidentally invited every single state of utah employee to their holiday potluck....and now there's an email chain....and i .....want to die — too depressed to put up Christmas decorations (@the1kim) December 7, 2018 At 9:27 am I got this email which was apparently sent by the Dept of Corrections to every employee of the State of Utah. Ten minutes later I’m up to 51 responses of people saying “please don’t reply to all.” I’m wondering how many hundreds more I’ll get before DTS pulls the plug. pic.twitter.com/4y8LhY85xu — Peter Gessel (@PeterGessel) December 7, 2018 dear lord. someone sent an email to the entire State of Utah and now everyone is replying to all. — Amanda Rock (@amanda__reads) December 7, 2018

 Even Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox commented on the fiasco on Twitter, calling it “an emergency.”

 “This is real and it’s an emergency,” Cox wrote. “Started out as a potluck and $5 white elephant gift exchange in one department and someone accidentally cc’d every state employee. I fear this will never end.”

 This is real and it’s an emergency. Started out as a potluck and $5 white elephant gift exchange in one department and someone accidentally cc’d every state employee. I fear this will never end. https://t.co/fL1NBOlsZW — Spencer Cox (@SpencerJCox) December 7, 2018

 But by 11:10 a.m. Friday, the flood of reply-all emails seemed to be abating, Dougherty reported on Twitter.

 “Ok. It’s 11:10 am and I think it’s safe to say the great #ReplyAll disaster of 2018 is finally over. Thank you for playing!” he wrote.

 Ok. It’s 11:10 am and I think it’s safe to say the great #ReplyAll disaster of 2018 is finally over. Thank you for playing! pic.twitter.com/WXtK1G01Fs — Joe Dougherty (@PIO_Joe) December 7, 2018

 “A reply all broadcast storm is the closest we’ll get to perpetual energy,” commented one observer on Twitter.

 A reply all broadcast storm is the closest we’ll get to perpetual energy. — Dave Holzer and the turtle he rode in on. (@daholzer) December 7, 2018 |||||Summary:

– "STOP THE MADNESS!!!!," "dear lord," and "I want to die" were just a few of the responses to what was meant to be a routine email Friday about a seasonal potluck party in a Utah state office, per the Miami Herald. What caused the holiday hubbub: The email meant for one department was accidentally sent to more than 25,000 employees throughout the state, leading to what Newsweek calls "a cascade of curt, angry, and confused responses" when recipients started hitting "reply all" in their return correspondence, KUTV reports. Unable to simply ignore the mass email, hordes of workers, both irritated and amused, tried to get off the "reply all" chain by … replying to all with that request, which Newsweek notes "only deepened the communication quicksand." "It's Replyall-gate 2018. Adventures in state government," one worker tweeted as it was happening, while another worried the messages wouldn't taper off: "I fear this will never end." In addition to the snark and outrage, some replies were genuine queries about what to bring to the potluck, as well as to the white-elephant gift exchange also set to take place. A Utah communications professional offers some advice to those who want to avoid the same "reply all" fiasco happening when they have their own email to send out. "Prevention is key: send large group emails to yourself w/ bcc to other recipients, and hope somebody doesn't 'loop' others in," he tweeted. Neither the person who sent the email, nor the department, had been IDed by EOD Friday.


Summarize this article:

Pete Evans' co-authored paleo diet cookbook for babies under investigation

 Updated

 A cookbook that recommends feeding infants bone broth as a baby formula is being investigated by the Federal Health Department and leading health groups say some of the book's recipes are potentially risky for babies.

 The controversial paleo cookbook, Bubba Yum Yum: The Paleo Way For New Mums, Babies and Toddlers, was due to be released this week, but the publishers have had to put it on hold.

 It was co-authored by Australian chef Pete Evans, nutritionist Helen Padarin and blogger Charlotte Carr.

 Publisher Pan Macmillan Australia said the book had not been recalled, simply delayed for release. It would not comment further, and neither would the authors.

 What is the Paleo or Stone Age diet? The Paleo diet is based on the idea that we should eat what we did when humans were hunter gatherers.

 Foods included are lean meat, vegetables, fruit, eggs, and seafood. Those on a Paleo diet are encouraged to exclude grains, legumes, dairy products, refined sugar, salt and processed foods.

 Although the Paleolithic or Stone Age diet first appeared in the 1970s, it has received renewed interest over the past few years.

 It is claimed the diet reduces body weight and helps prevent conditions such as diabetes, high blood cholesterol, stroke, osteoporosis and inflammatory disease.

 Most dietitians don't recommend the diet because it encourages high meat consumption, which has been linked to an increased risk of bowel cancer, and because it encourages people to cut out whole food groups (grains and dairy). Source: ABC Health and Wellbeing

 Evans is a longtime advocate of the paleo diet, as is Carr. Her website said paleo healed what she wrote was her young son's "compromised immune system, reverse toxicity and illness".

 One of her recipes for a "homemade formula" for infants up to six months of age is called the "Baby Building Broth". It is made using chicken bones, chicken feet and apple cider vinegar.

 Professor Heather Yeatman from the Public Health Association said some of the recipes were potentially dangerous for infants.

 "There appears to be recommendations not to use either breast milk or an approved infant formula, but to provide other foods to infants under six months of age and that really is a big health risk," Professor Yeatman said.

 "There's been discussion about a beef broth with mashed up liver as part of a recipe. Now something like that might be appropriate for an older child, but under six months of age, really the best option [is] breast milk."

 Rebecca Naylor from the Australian Breastfeeding Association said parents should follow tested feeding guidelines for their children.

 "All of the experts that you will speak to would say that feeding your baby anything other than infant formula or breast milk under six months as their primary source of nutrition is extremely dangerous," Ms Naylor said.

 The Federal Health Department said it is "aware of this publication and has concerns about the inadequate nutritional value of some of the recipes, in particular the infant formula".

 It said it would "continue to investigate".

 For personal trainer Drew Slater and his brother Ben, becoming paleo has transformed their lives for the better.

 "It's a reasonably low carbohydrate diet and moderate fats and high protein for those who understand macros, but it's really just a real food diet," Mr Slater said.

 They are standing by the paleo lifestyle.

 "I don't believe in knocking something until you've tried it and my brother and I have tried a lot of different diets and fads and we really believe that this is the best solution for us," he said.

 Mr Slater does not have children, but he said if he did, he would put them on a paleo diet.

 "Kids these days are eating such high processed sugars and heavily refined carbohydrates," he said.

 "It's really bad for their intestinal health and I think it's forming bad habits. My kids will definitely be eating a bone broth. I like to start my mornings with a bone broth."

 Topics: diet-and-nutrition, health, babies, community-and-society, australia

 First posted ||||| Off the table: Publisher dumps Pete Evans' baby and toddler cookbook. Photo: Supplied

 The publication of a paleo baby cookbook, co-authored by celebrity chef Pete Evans, has been delayed, amid calls by leading health officials that its recipes could be potentially fatal to children.

 Friday's release of Bubba Yum Yum: The Paleo Way has been postponed by publishers Pan Macmillan after concerns about the book's "bone broth" baby formula were raised with the federal Department of Health, The Australian Women's Weekly reported online.

 Pete Evans will self-publish his paleo book for children after Pan Macmillan pulled out of its publication. Photo: Supplied

 The recipe, called the "DIY baby milk formula", is a chicken liver based concoction containing no milk products, which the book claims "mimics the nutrient profile of breast milk". The recipe is marketed as a "wonderful alternative" to breast milk and the "next best thing" when breast milk is not an option.

 Advertisement

 The claim has been slammed as "false and misleading" by Julie Smith, a health and economics expert at the Australian National University.

 "I think the ACCC should be looking very hard at this particular claim. The commercial publisher aims to make money out of this book and I suspect they would have to consider very carefully the investigation that would ensue if they published it."

 Dr Smith said evidence backed by the World Health Organisation clearly showed that expressed breast milk was the "next best thing" for the baby when breast-feeding was not an option. Failing that, commercial baby formula should be used, she said.

 The DIY formula recipe potentially exposed babies to dangerous levels of vitamin A and inadequate levels of other nutrients, The Australian Women's Weekly reported.

 Michael Moore, chief executive of the Public Health Association of Australia, said his organisation was among a consortium of health groups that had approached the book's publishers with their concerns.

 "We hope they will look at the evidence instead of putting babies at risk," he said.

 Mr Moore echoed the concerns raised by the Public Health Association's president, Professor Heather Yeatman, who said in an interview with The Australian Women's Weekly "there's a very real possibility that a baby may die if this book goes ahead".

 "Especially if [the DIY formula] was the only food a parent was feeding their infant, it's a very real risk. And [I consider that] the baby's growth and development could be impaired."

 Adherents of the paleo diet restrict their food intake to the types of unprocessed foods presumed to have been eaten by early humans, such as meat, fish, vegetables and fruit.

 Milk products, along with all grains and pulses, are banned.

 A spokeswoman for federal Health Minister Sussan Ley confirmed the department "has been closely scrutinising this diet and book".

 "The department is concerned about the inadequate nutritional values of some of the foods, in particular for infants, and is investigating further," a spokeswoman said.

 Co-authored by My Kitchen Rules judge and paleo advocate Evans, actress and baby food blogger Charlotte Carr and naturopath Helen Padarin, the book features a range of other recipes based on the paleo diet that health officials have deemed unsafe or inappropriate for children. Among them are recipes that include runny eggs and added salt, which health experts claim contravene national health guidelines for babies.

 Professor Yeatman said children "may be seriously affected" as a result of parents limiting their diets to the ascribed paleo doctrine.

 "That's the really troubling thing: the infant is totally at the whim of their parents when it comes to feeding."

 The book includes a disclaimer that states: "Although we in good faith believe that the information provided will help you live a healthier life, relying on the information contained in this publication may not give you the results you desire or may cause negative health consequences."

 When contacted by Fairfax Media, Pan Macmillian would not confirm whether a revised publication date had been set or whether bookstores offering pre-ordered copies of the book had been advised to cease doing so.

 On Thursday, Evans' The Paleo Way official website had crashed or had been taken down.

 Evans, who has acquired the moniker "Paleo Pete", has encountered numerous controversies in his religious promotion and defence of the diet.

 Last year, he launched a broadside attack on his Facebook page against the Heart Foundation and the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) over the merits of the paleo diet and urged his half a million Facebook followers to sign a petition to "boycott" the Heart Foundation's tick.

 In December, he was photographed wearing a "Fluoride Free" T-shirt, after reportedly attending a meeting with the controversial Perth-based anti-fluoride group. ||||| A Paleo diet baby cookbook co-authored by celebrity chef Pete Evans has been put on hold after public health officials warned its recipes could potentially result in infants dying.

 The Weekly online has learned publishers Pan Macmillan have held back release of Bubba Yum Yum: The Paleo Way – following intervention by a consortium of health organisations that expressed grave concerns over the book's DIY baby milk formula, based on liver and bone broth.

 "In my view, there's a very real possibility that a baby may die if this book goes ahead," Professor Heather Yeatman, president of the Public Health Association of Australia, has told The Weekly online.

 "Especially if [the DIY formula] was the only food a parent was feeding their infant, it's a very real risk. And [I consider that] the baby’s growth and development could be impaired."

 So grave are health officials' fears over the potential health ramifications of the DIY formula that the Federal Government's Department of Health has been alerted to it.

 Experts warn it contains more than ten times the safe maximum daily intake of vitamin A for babies and inadequate levels of other nutrients.

 "The Department of Health has been closely scrutinizing this diet and book," a spokeswoman said.

 The department is "concerned about the inadequate nutritional values of some of the foods, in particular for infants, and is investigating further."

 The cookbook is co-authored by influential Channel 7 My Kitchen Rules judge and Paleo advocate Pete Evans, baby recipe blogger Charlotte Carr and naturopath Helen Padarin. None have medical qualifications.

 The book was due to be published by Pan MacMillan this Friday (March 13).

 But health officials claim that it would be negligent of the publishers to release the book, which they say also flouts national health guidelines by including runny eggs and added salt in recipes for young babies.

 They are concerned that celebrity endorsement may give the DIY baby formula extra credibility in the eyes of new mums.

 Pan MacMillan stands to take a big financial hit if the book is pulped. Pete Evans is currently one of its best-selling authors, with previous titles Family Food and Healthy Every Day reaching number one in the Australian book charts.

 Under the Paleo diet, all grains, dairy and pulses are banned. While adults can choose to follow such a diet, Prof Yeatman says it isn't fair to subject a baby to what she characterises as an unproven set of beliefs.

 "That's the really troubling thing: the infant is totally at the whim of their parents when it comes to feeding," she says. "If the wrong decision is made, they may be seriously affected."

 Paleo advocate Pete Evans has more than 780,000 Likes on his Facebook page, which includes many personal testimonials from fans. He describes his current national speaking tour as "spreading the medicine".

 In his foreword to the book, he implies that the Paleo diet may help prevent autism, birth defects, behavioural disorders, digestive disorders, rashes and asthma.

 According to the World Health Organisation, the only safe alternative to breast milk for young babies is commercial formula.

 Health officials warn the recipe for baby bone broth formula, which also includes oils and a probiotic supplement, could potentiallycause a vitamin A overdose in infants, the symptoms of which include loss of appetite, dry skin, hair loss, bone pain, fissures in the corners of the mouth and failure to thrive.

 A disclaimer in the back of Bubba Yum Yum: The Paleo Way states, "Although we in good faith believe that the information provided will help you live a healthier life, relying on the information contained in this publication may not give you the results you desire or may cause negative health consequences."

 Co-author Charlotte Carr used the DIY baby milk formula recipe on recommendation of a naturopath with her own son in response to his health problems, including sensory processing issues and a compromised gut and immune system. She didn't want to use commercial formula because of worries about ingredients.

 Comment is being sought from Pan Macmillan and the book's authors.

 *To read our full investigation into Pete Evans’s transformation from celebrity pizza chef to Paleo warrior, see the current March issue of The Weekly on stands now.

 Related:

 Health bodies warn Paleo is not a cure

 The questions Pete Evans refused to answer |||||

– You're never too young, it seems, for a trendy diet. The release of an Australian paleo diet cookbook has been delayed amid concerns over its recipes for babies, Australia's ABC News reports. Officials are investigating Bubba Yum Yum: The Paleo Way For New Mums, Babies and Toddlers, which includes a recipe for a "homemade formula" for infants younger than six months. To make the bone broth, parents will need chicken bones, chicken feet, and vinegar. Australia's health department says it "has concerns about the inadequate nutritional value of some of the recipes, in particular the infant formula"—which, the Sydney Morning Herald reports, is touted in the book as the "next best thing" after breast milk. "All of the experts that you will speak to would say that feeding your baby anything other than infant formula or breast milk under six months as their primary source of nutrition is extremely dangerous," says a breastfeeding expert. In the Australian Women's Weekly, a public health advocate puts it even more starkly: "In my view, there's a very real possibility that a baby may die if this book goes ahead." The book is the work of chef and bestselling author Pete Evans along with a nutritionist and a blogger, Charlotte Carr, who says the paleo diet fixed her son's health issues. (The founder of PayPal, who embraces a paleo-style diet, is aiming to live to be 120.)


I sometimes feel a bit sorry for Amy Schumer. Her phenomenally successful career, which includes sellout arena tours, a bestselling book, a Hollywood career and, for many young women, rising feminist-icon status, makes it difficult, admittedly – but I do.

 Why? Because simply by being a woman in the public eye, existing, and having the audacity to do so without the perfect size-zero proportions demanded of the women on our screens, she has been forced to become a spokeswoman on society’s body-image fixation.

 The latest “controversy” is being cast as the lead in the upcoming Barbie movie (she is also, incidentally, working on the script, not that anyone seems interested in this). Apparently she doesn’t have the right figure to play Barbie. (Actually no actor does; a real woman with the conventional Barbie proportions would be unable to lift her head or stand). Having kept shtum during the casting process, Schumer obviously felt she needed to respond to the people criticising her body. “Is it fat-shaming if you know you’re not fat and have zero shame in your game? I don’t think so … When I look in the mirror I know who I am,” she said, continuing: “It’s that kind of response that lets you know something’s wrong with our culture and we all need to work together to change it.”

 You might argue that Schumer would be better off ignoring the trolls and the misogynists. And were such proclamations about which female bodies are fit to enter our lines of vision limited to social media, I would probably say that she should do so. But this body fascism is our culture – it surrounds us, seeping into our minds from the pages of women’s magazines and the garishly coloured humiliation boxes that make up the sidebar of shame, criticism spieling like hateful streamers from the mouths of celebrated people, and our own peers, too.

 Women will be aware how often we direct this at ourselves too; we have our own internal trolls. We learned the script from a very young age.

 Which is why it’s important to think of the girls who see this happening every day, and – no matter how strong they are – absorb it. To have just one woman stand up and say, “I’m not having this” is a much-needed, powerful statement.

 The girls are also the reason why Schumer is perfect for this role. I’ll admit that when I heard she was considering it, I was initially disappointed. That disappointment was nothing to do with her body, and everything to do with my feminist reservations about the Barbie brand (I had forgotten that, a year ago, Mattel diversified its range of dolls to include different body types and ethnicities, with great success).

 The Barbie I grew up knowing was beautiful, saccharine – and dumb: “Math is hard”, declared her automated voice. But then I realised that Schumer was unlikely to kowtow to this vision of femininity, especially not if she is involved in the writing process. Instead, she will be cheeky, and sharp, and funny, and silly.

 Think of any little girl you know. They love nothing more than a bit of silliness, and they don’t get it nearly enough. I am sure that they will love her when the film comes out. Maybe some boys will too.

 The criticism of Schumer’s body is not coming from little girls, though. It is symptomatic of the predictable backlash that certain women in the public eye inevitably face. Now that the media machine has tired of Lena Dunham, the Schumer backlash has kicked into gear.

 It’s not just about these women being successful and refusing to pipe down. Otherwise Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Sarah Silverman, Ilana Glazer and Abbi Jacobson, and Jennifer Lawrence would all be facing similar tidal waves of hate (though it’s worth noting that men found another way to “humiliate” Lawrence; by revealing her naked body to the world). It is about their bodies not looking how women’s bodies are “supposed” to look, and – even worse – the fact that these women are unapologetic about that fact.

 The only way to combat this body-shaming is to continue being unapologetic, which is tiring, sometimes soul-destroying work, and to champion better media diversity until it gets to the point where a woman’s words and talent count for more than the size of her backside. Schumer is doing her level best to help change the culture of body-shaming. It is, sadly, a task of Barbie dreamhouse-sized proportions. ||||| Attention, feminists. Before you write off 2016 as a net loss for contemporary feminism, know this: Amy Schumer is in talks to play Barbie in a live-action comedy.

 According to Variety, Schumer is close to a deal with Mattel and Sony Pictures to star as Barbie in a film in which she gets “kicked out of Barbieland for not being perfect enough and lands in a real-world adventure.” It’s a departure from the more reverential animated Barbie movies of the past, but still meant to be a family flick, with a planned PG rating. And who better to recalibrate the image and message of Barbie than Schumer, who is expected to tweak the screenplay with her sister Kim Caramele, a writer and producer on “Inside Amy Schumer”?

 Actress, comedian and author Amy Schumer. (Mark Seliger)

 Here’s why we love the casting:

 1. Schumer walks on two feet and proudly holds her own head up. Unlike the original Barbie, who was so stretched and disfigured that, had she’d been a real woman, she would have had to walk on all fours, Schumer is openly adoring of her fabulous curves. This is huge. A horrifying yet obvious report published earlier this year showed that girls who played with traditional Barbies have higher rates of dissatisfaction with their bodies. Even Mattel has wised up, introducing a new line of Barbies with more realistic bodies earlier this year. Here’s Schumer’s response to the pervasive pressure to be thin: “No, I’m not going to apologize for who I am, and I’m going to actually love the skin that I’m in. I’m not going to be striving for some other version of myself.” Amen.

 2. She’s hysterical. Remember that thing that happens every couple of years, when some jerk says women can’t be funny? Riight. With Schumer as a role model, our daughters will have other things to laugh at, besides that ludicrous assertion. Case in point:

 3. She’s smart and self-made. According to Mattel, Barbie has had more than 150 careers. (Granted, that’s a pretty impressive résumé). But she might still want to look to Schumer for lessons on charting her own destiny. After perfecting her singular comedic style at comedy clubs, Schumer inked deals to write her own TV show, and then a hit movie, followed by a best-selling book. Unclear if she drives a pink convertible, but the point is: She could if she wanted to.

 4. She doesn’t take any crap. We have a feeling that nobody is going to push this Barbie around. Here’s Schumer’s master class in dealing with hecklers.

 5. Her self-esteem is infectious. Schumer is said to be rewriting the Barbie movie’s original screenplay with her sister Caramele, so she’ll have control over the 2018 film’s theme and content. And if the kids who see it come away with an extra ounce of the confidence that Schumer exudes, we’ll all be the better for it. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– Amy Schumer has been hit with backlash since the announcement that she'll be playing Barbie in an upcoming movie about the iconic toy, and on Tuesday, she hit back at the haters on Instagram. Next to a picture of herself in a bathing suit, she wrote that it shouldn't really be called "fat shaming" because she knows she's not fat and has "zero shame." "When I look in the mirror I know who I am," she continues. "[I'm] a great friend, sister, daughter and girlfriend. I'm a badass comic headlining arenas all over the world and making tv and movies and writing books." She ends by thanking the trolls, because they actually made it "so evident that I am a great choice" for the role of Barbie: "It's that kind of response that [lets] you know something's wrong with our culture and we all need to work together to change it." There's quite a bit of support for her out there: As the Guardian points out, were the producers to attempt to cast someone with the Barbie toy's actual dimensions, that person "would be unable to lift her head or stand." And, as the Washington Post pointed out before Schumer's Instagram post, the comedian is self-confident, hilarious, smart, successful, and self-made—"who better to recalibrate the image and message of Barbie?"