† Can The Nutrition Police Lay Off Coffee, Already?: A meta-analysis of a dozen studies on coffee intake and prostate cancer risk finds “no strong evidence linking the beverage to either an increased or decreased risk of the disease,” reports Reuters:

According to the researchers, the discrepancies among past studies on coffee and prostate cancer risk may be explained by the studies' designs.

Of the studies the researchers reviewed, eight were what are known as case-control studies, where people with a disease are compared with similar individuals - typically of the same age and sex - who are free of the disease. …

[B]ecause coffee drinking is often seen as a less-than- healthy habit, prostate cancer patients may recall their consumption as being greater than it actually was. Healthy study participants, on the other hand, may have an overly rosy view of their lifestyle habits. …

[In] the case-control studies, there was an association between greater coffee intake and higher prostate cancer risk. However, the same was not true of the remaining four studies, which were what are known as cohort studies.

In those studies, men initially free of prostate cancer were asked about their coffee-drinking habits, then followed over time to see which ones developed prostate cancer. That type of study produces stronger evidence of a link, or lack thereof, between an "exposure" - in this case, coffee intake - and a disease risk than a case-control study can.

Meanwhile, after reviewing research on moderate caffeine consumption - less than 200 milligrams (mg) a day - and risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued new guidelines allowing women to drink a cup of coffee or one soft drink a day during pregnancy, reports HealthDay News:

To put things in perspective, an 8-ounce cup of brewed, drip coffee averages 137 mg of caffeine, according to the group, while an 8-ounce cup of instant coffee has 76 mg. A 12-ounce soft drink has 37 mg of caffeine and an 8-ounce cup of chocolate milk has 5 mg to 8 mg.

So as not to undermine the beneficial health effects of coffee The Stiletto recommends using low-fat milk and the sugar-substitute of your choice – and avoid adding flavored syrups and whipped cream - to cut down on unnecessary fat and calories.

† Are You Man Enough For A Real Woman?: Not all women are lucky enough to have an ample bosom and a ghetto booty. As The Stiletto has pointed out previously, Victoria's Secret has built an empire selling bras that give modestly endowed women the illusion of having cleavage and cups that runneth over, but until now there was nothing similar to help out a gal fill out her jeans. The Wall Street Journal reports that Booty Pop, a panty with padding on the posterior, is all the rage coast-to-coast:

For centuries, women have wriggled into girdles and other slimmers to minimize their rear ends. Now, a fascination with the hind-quarters of celebrities like Beyoncé and Kim Kardashian is fueling a booming market for undergarments that amplify the derrière.

On Booty Pop's late-night infomercials, which began airing in December, viewers are entreated to "forget about doing endless squats - and cosmetic surgery, who can afford that?" as models prance around in tight jeans flaunting their backsides.

In May, Bed Bath & Beyond started carrying Booty Pop in most of its 967 stores and online. Drugstore Walgreens, which jumped on the Booty Pop bandwagon in April, is carrying the product at 1,000 of its 7,541 stores and mulling an expansion. Earlier this month, Target started carrying Booty Pop online.

Booty Pop projects it will sell close to 1 million pairs of padded underwear this year. …

Booty Pop isn't the only company seeking a boost from behind. Early next year, Maidenform Brands plans to introduce a "Jean Collection" - internally called "Project Injeanious" - containing bottom shapers.

"There are a lot of similarities between what you can do for the rear and breast - you can lift it, round it and shape it," says Maurice Reznik, Maidenform's chief executive. …

The first major retailer to bet on Booty Pop was Kitson, a Los Angeles boutique known for celebrity clients. "We saw the product and two words came into my head: Kim Kardashian," says Fraser Ross, the store's owner, referencing the voluptuous reality television star.

† Updates To Previous Posts (sixth item, Illegal Immigrants Swamping Small Town America): The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed separate federal lawsuits against Fremont, NE, seeking to overturn a new ordinance that bans hiring or renting homes to illegals, reports The Associated Press:

Both lawsuits charge that Fremont's law is at odds with the constitutional mandate imposing a uniform federal immigration enforcement system. The suits also contend the ordinance violates the federal Fair Housing Act and the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, among other things. …

Supporters of the Fremont ordinance argue the measure was necessary to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Opponents say it could fuel discrimination. …

MALDEF has fought similar ordinances, including a ban on renting to illegal immigrants in Farmers Branch, Texas. A federal judge in March found that the Farmers Branch ordinance was unconstitutional. …

Fremont officials have estimated that its costs of implementing the ordinance - including the legal fees, employee overtime and improved computer software - will average $1 million a year.

† Updates To Previous Posts (seventh item, A To Z Approach On Illegal Immigration In AZ): U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, who is weighing the Constitutionality of AZ's new anti-illegal immigration law, may steer a middle course between issuing an injunction that will prevent its enforcement beginning July 28^th and allowing it to take effect in its current form, reports The Associated Press:

Without prodding from attorneys, the judge noted that the federal government erected signs in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warn visitors about immigrant and drug smugglers passing through public lands. She said the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country's interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona.

"You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored," said Bolton, who didn't issue a ruling after the two hearings.

Bolton has been asked to block the law from taking effect as she hears seven lawsuits by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights groups and others that question the constitutionality of the measure, which has reignited the national immigration debate. …

Bolton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, repeatedly questioned Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler to explain how specific provisions of the law intruded on federal authority as he had argued.

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?" she asked.

Kneedler said the law's requirements that law enforcement check on people's immigration status set a mandatory policy that goes beyond what the federal government requires and would burden the federal agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

Attorney John Bouma, who is defending the law on behalf of Gov. Jan Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.

"You can't catch them if you don't know about them. They don't want to know about them," he said.

Editorial Note: Human Events reports that the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus – comprised of 76 Representatives and five Senators – have filed an Amicus Curiae, or Friend of the Court Brief, with the United States District Court in Arizona opposing the Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration enforcement law that asserts “Congress has plenary power over immigration and the Obama administration claims that SB 1070 - Arizona’s beleaguered immigration enforcement law - preempt federal laws are without merit.”

† Updates To Previous Posts (fifth item, Obama Administration’s Tactless Diplomatic Debut): Now that the uncultured, incompetent Desirée Rogers has been kicked to the curb and the Obama administration has a White House Social Secretary who knows what she is doing, the obligatory head-of-state gift from President Barack Hussein Obama to Prime Minister David Cameron “displayed a level of savvy that was lacking the last time he exchanged presents with a British leader,” reports The Washington Post:

Last year, then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen holder carved from a British warship [sic]. The president, on the other hand, was pilloried in the British press for his offering: 25 classic American movies - which turned out to be incompatible with DVD players in the United Kingdom. And the two toy helicopters for Brown's sons were dismissed by pundits as an afterthought. (Obama's iPod offering to the queen got a thumbs down, too.)

The pressure was on to get it right this time: Obama gave Cameron a signed color lithograph by American artist Ed Ruscha, one of leaders of the Pop art movement. The piece, "Column With Speed Lines," was selected for the red, white and blue colors matching both countries' flags.

Samantha Cameron, who is expecting a baby in September and didn't make the trip, got a basket of baby goodies. The prime minister's kids weren't neglected: Nancy, 6, received a silver necklace with eight White House charms; Elwen, 4, got a custom D.C. United jersey.
 

Editorial Note: The pen Obama received was carved out of wood from the sister ship of HMS Resolute, whose timbers were used to make the Resolute Desk, presented to President Rutherford Hayes in 1880 by Queen Victoria.

† Updates To Previous Posts (seventh item, Multiculturalism: Jihad By Other Means): The Senate unanimously passed a bill to protect the First Amendment rights of American writers from libel and defamation lawsuits filed against them in countries “where the burden is often on the [accused] author … to show that a statement is true,” reports The New York Times:  

In the United States, a plaintiff alleging libel must prove that a statement is false and defamatory, and public figures have to show that a writer acted with actual malice in making a false statement. …

To sidestep American protections, subjects of books have sued publishers and authors in British courts where they have a better chance of winning. The practice, known as libel tourism, counts on a system in which American courts will enforce British fines and penalties.

The bill passed by the Senate on Monday would prohibit American courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments if the judgments are inconsistent with First Amendment protections. In other words, if a British court finds that an American author has committed libel but has not conducted the trial with the same legal standards as an American court, the judgment against the author would be void in the United States. Americans who are found overseas to have committed libel can also sue in federal court to have that judgment found to be “repugnant to the Constitution” or American law.

The House will reconcile its version of legislation against libel tourism, and then it goes to the president’s desk for his signature. The Times calls upon British Prime Minister David Cameron to “take the hint and follow through on the promise … to review and overhaul its libel laws.”

† Updates To Previous Posts (sixth item, Multiculturalism Vs. Animal Rights): In response to the Supreme Court striking down a law banning "crush videos" - graphic and fetishistic depictions of animal cruelty and killing – on Constitutional grounds, the House passed a new bill (H.R. 5566) to re-establish the ban, but with an eye towards overcoming the high court’s First Amendment concerns. The bill now goes to the Senate.