-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 105 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
A Further Perspective
The Grinches of Gastronomy
Big Mommy is watching you… swallow.
(Page 2 of 2)
The degree to which Mayor Bloomberg envisions himself and his city government as a surrogate parent or nanny is made depressingly clear in the language they use: The bans on smoking, trans-fats, salts, and the proposed ban on large sugary drinks are called “interventions,” as if we, the hapless, helpless, mindless citizenry will eat or drink ourselves into an early grave without the oh-so-caring ruining of our daily dining delights by the bureaucrats of bland and boring.
Lest you think I overstate the nannyist mentality of Bloomberg’s NYC Health Department, I refer you to the department’s “diabetes surveillance program”, implemented in 2005. Wendy Mariner, Professor of Health Law at Boston University School of Law, framed the issue and question well:
The new health code regulations require medical laboratories to submit to the Health Department the results of every patient’s blood sugar tests, together with the patient’s name, date of birth, address, physician, and other information. The report does not require the patient’s consent. The Health Department will review the reports to see which patients are not controlling their blood sugar levels and will contact the physician, or sometimes the patient, to encourage the patient to change his or her behavior by losing weight, eating better, taking medication, and seeing a physician more often. Is this an innovative way to improve the health of several hundred thousand New Yorkers, a presumptuous invasion of privacy, or usurpation of the physician’s role?
If the answer isn’t obvious to you, you should probably move to Manhattan or Cambridge.
Meanwhile, as New Yorkers and Cantabrigians decide whether to allow government to turn them into obedient sheep eating their obedient boring meals and drinking their obedient sugar-free drinks, I echo the sentiments of one Susan Crowell: Give Me a Big Gulp or Give Me Death.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (110) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/22/the-grinches-of-gastronomy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 6.22.12 @ 6:41AM
The Mommies are on the March! Legions of apron-clad June Cleavers are taking to the streets with large wooden spoons, screaming "NO NO!" and slapping legal products out of the hands of consenting, paying adults, thrusting tiny sacks of rice chips into their hands and glasses of tap water to wash their cardboard dryness down. "We won't stop Marching," they shriek, "Until everybody in America that we don't like is eating nothing but rice chips in 100 gram bags, drinking large jars of tap water, and weighs no more than 100 lb." They themselves, of course, go home to their McMansions and Penthouses to stuff their faces with whatever they want, and work on their campaign to promote Anorexia and Bullemia as the "new teen sensation" that is creeping down into the 5-8 year old classes as children absorb the fact that if they eat anything at all, they will balloon to Morbidly Obese and drop dead on the sidwalk today.
Bill84728| 6.25.12 @ 12:36PM
Hit me with a wooden spoon for eating some greasy, salty, potato chips, and take a punch in the nose. As hard as I can hit.
ggoblue| 6.22.12 @ 7:40AM
SOYLENT GREEN!!!!!
let mayor edward g robinson eat it first....
Alan| 6.22.12 @ 8:10AM
Remember, Soylent Green is people! Another good reason to leave left wing bastions like NYC. Like most left wing socialist lunatics, its "my choice and its gonna be your choice whether you like it or not" control freaks abound. Thank God for those who know better than us huh?
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 5:37PM
Bloomberg salts his popcorn so much that it burns the tongue....what an asshole.
Life-lover| 6.22.12 @ 8:11AM
No joke. I think you could make the case that the average Joe was better off, in very many ways, under George III than in any Blue Zone in the U.S.
c. j. acworth| 6.22.12 @ 8:24AM
You ain't seen nothin' yet. If people just treat this as a joke and let the nannies get away with it I guarantee you will see a lot more of the same. No restaraunt will be allowed to serve more than 500 calories at any given meal, that sort of thing. If Bloomy et. al. are allowed to get away with this their ambition to control will become boundless, with no obvious stopping point.
Appleby| 6.22.12 @ 8:40AM
You mean, no restaurant that CATERS TO THE PROLETARIAT, don't you? Members Only dining venues will be installing vomitoriums for the piggy class, since somebody has to eat up all that surplus food lest the protected class of industrial farmers should go out of business....
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 8:30AM
"Thus, even though many Americans are overweight, the issue is a series of private health concerns, not a matter of public health calling for government intervention..."
Really? One of the biggest public health concerns we face isn't a public health concern? No impact on healthcare costs and productivity?
As usual Ross, you're writing nonsense - no matter how much you yearn for the perfect, anti-society free market, you can't wish the harms to the rest of us away.
2Anglico| 6.22.12 @ 8:51AM
If YOU don't want to be "harmed" by eating sugar, don't. Leave the rest of us alone to decide for OURSELVES.
BTW, the productivity arguments are pure baloney.
I guess the notion that nanny Bloomberg does not have the authority, in a free society, to do what he is trying to do is lost on you.
"anti-society free market", what page of Mao's little Red book is that on?
Bill84728| 6.22.12 @ 9:11AM
I guess in the current incarnation of the Nanny State, the song "A Little Bit of Sugar Helps the Medicine Go Down" is not OK.
JP| 6.22.12 @ 9:05AM
Then why doesn't the government go after sexual hedonists? Sexually transmitted diseases costs this nation tens of billions each year (the cost to treat HIV/AIDS runs in the hundreds of thousands per patient); the cost of single motherhood (in terms of social ills associated with high juevinille crime) runs over $100 billion each year. If you combine the total costs of promiscuity (homosexual as well as hetrosexual), those costs far outweigh the costs of fatties.
Yet, the same Nanny State that guns for fat-a$$es encourages children and teens to go on a sexual bender. The hook-up culture amongst the 18-30 year olds has produced an epidemic of STDs, unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Using Bloomberg's and the HHS logic, we need to identify, brand, and isolate all who engage in "non-reproductive" sex. Only then can cut the costs of these social pathologies; and of course, we are doing it for the children. Adultery and fornication and sodomy will be on the top of the lists for "treatment". If the patient refuses treatment, well there are always special camps and hospitals.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 9:54AM
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the shocking ignorance and hypocrisy of people you but still...
It was Obama who restarted national AIDS strategy (see http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/aaa/ ) after a decade of neglect under Bush (who to give him his due did do much abroad on AIDS), and of course we all know the shameful non-action by your man, the 'great' Reagan.
As for young people who "encourages children and teens to go on a sexual bender"? The evidence is that where kids are taught properly about sex and sexual health, incidence of pregnancies and disease goes down.
And of course - it's your side that wants to ban any public involvement with contraception. How you can square that with helping cut unwanted pregnancies, only you know.
JP| 6.22.12 @ 1:51PM
Teen STDs have been at epidemic levels for years. Wisconsin alone reported over 253,000 new cases for people ages 11-22 in 2010 alone. Clmydia alone accounts for 45% of STDs amongst 15 year olds.
And the cost of AIDS/HIV per patient per year is $25,000 (on average), or $65 billion a year.
Again, the annual cost of promiscuity amongst both hetro and homosexuals (including the costs of illegitimacy) towers above the costs of the obese by a factor of 3.5-1. AIDs treatment alone on an annual basis costs as much as diabetes and heart disease combined.
If you are so concerned about the health costs of the obese, why not include the health costs sexual promiscuity. A fatty cannot spread obesity; can't say the same for swingers, gays, and hook-up artists.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 2:52PM
This is just bait and switch - we were talking about obesity. There are plenty of other problems of course. And you are completely wrong - the medical costs of obesity are way higher than STDS - STDs are about $20 billion, HIV/AIDS $40 billion but obesity is nearer $200 billion, and that's before you factor in other economic costs.
And it's your hypocrisy about sex education, contraception and protection that's the biggest obstacle to progress in the sex health area - your real concern is no doubt to apply puritanical abstinence and crazy religion, like most of your friends here.
Stop obsessing about other people's sex lives – it will only make you more bitter.
Albertus Magnus| 6.25.12 @ 3:37PM
Stop obsessing about other people's "food-lives" - it already has made you bitter.
Anthony| 6.22.12 @ 10:31AM
JP, Because AIDS is a disease that is granted special dispensation, because the gay community has always been granted special exemptions, because gays are overwhelming leftists and give gobs of money to Ds.
This disease was totally controlable until it finally broke out into the hetrosexual community due to contaminated needles and bi-sexual sexual contact.
It's o.k. for Bloomberg to tell rubes you can't smoke, but he doesn't DARE think of denying gay men their sexual pleasures.
"The Boys in the Band" was written in the '80s by a gay man and reporter for the S.F. Examiner. It remains a remarkably candid history of the disease, its spread, and finds faults with all involved, albeit, he still focused blame on Reagan for its spread.
This will be the problem with Obozocare as well. If it remains the law of the land, and people are denied treatment because they are too fat, too old, and don't live the "proper life style", wait and see who shows up at some bureaucrats door with a pitchfork, when gay men still get their AIDS treatment.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 11:09AM
"This disease was totally controlable until it finally broke out into the hetrosexual community due to contaminated needles and bi-sexual sexual contact."
You are wrong, as HIV originated in Africa, and has spread in a number of high risk groups, including heterosexuals.
Anthony| 6.22.12 @ 11:41AM
Isn't that what I just said!!! Read the book fool and learn something.
And according to the author of "Boys in the Band", the suspected first contact carrier of the disease to North America was a sexually prolific Air Canada flight attendant.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 12:05PM
No, you've tried to blame gay people for the spread. That's not true. In Africa, the vast majority of people with HIV are heterosexual.
John Navratil| 6.22.12 @ 1:01PM
...and hedonists.
It's a disease you have to work at to get.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 2:20PM
They deserve to die, don't they John.
John Navratil| 6.22.12 @ 2:52PM
No on deserves to die. Put that's not quite the same as saving them from themselves, is it?
Stephanie| 6.22.12 @ 11:47AM
But then JP, it would mean you have to "pass judgement" on someone's behavior, which then brings in the gay lifestyle etc.
No, no, no. You cannot judge sexual behavior.
Dagny Taggert| 6.22.12 @ 9:07AM
Jack, the lefties have peen pushing self-esteem for about 3 decades, failing to recognize it comes from within, not handed out in the form of participation trophies. This important rung in the ladder of self-responsibility is now gone. With it, the shame of being a fatso. Now, obesity has turned into any other rationalization (big-boned, economic status, "access" to good food) other that what it always has been: self-control.
It is no surprise you feel it's the "public's" concern. This hole you and the left have dug, taking responsibility off the hands of the individual, has had disasterous consequences. But you're too blind to see it, and thus you continue to make more rules to run cover from the fact that the government has no place in aiding and abetting the people's lack of self-responsibility.
IF you were TRULY concerned with this "public health concern," you would make laws that reward good behavior and penalize bad behavior. You know like tax rates based on BMI. My BMI's 23.4--I'll take the lower rate.
Oh, wait--that would be discrimination!!!
Jack of Spades| 6.22.12 @ 9:12AM
Unlike real public health concerns like deadly communicable diseases, e.g. AIDS, the nanny-statists use the obesity "epidemic" to justify imposing petty tyrannies for which there is NO public demand outside the circle of activists they come from. Recreational drugs like marijuana have caused more damage to society than junk food, which is why they're illegal. And it's worth noting that most of the same people pushing for the legalization of drugs are also in favor of stuff like soft-drink bans.
And the problem with petty tyrannies is that they morph into real tyrannies.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 9:59AM
If you honestly believe that obesity is not a public health concern I can only suggest you see a shrink - you're not thinking right. As for marijuana causing more harm - well marijuana doesn't cause diabetes, cancer, heart attacks and premature death.
Jack of Spades| 6.22.12 @ 11:25AM
Obesity isn't healthy; we all get that. But it isn't a communicable disease. And unlike a real disease like flu, it's both preventable and treatable by simple, common-sense steps like diet and exercise, which in this case most people don't employ.
The larger point is that there is NO public demand that the government do anything about this. Bloomberg didn't run on a platform of banning soft drinks and no sane politician would. It's just folks like you who think people should be made to do things "for their own good."
AsAnd ford marijuana and other intoxicants being relatively harmless, I can point to traffic fatalities caused by driving "under the influence" for starters.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 12:01PM
I think you're wrong – I think many people are desperate for help with obesity, particularly parents, as kids are the worst problem for obesity right now. Also, we spend about $50 billion a year on diet aids.
I honestly can't see what the objection is to public health measures - which have worked in smoking and other things - being used here, to complement people's own efforts. Just what those measures could be is the question - we need evidence of what's effective and acceptable.
I don't see doing nothing as an option here.
Dagny Taggert| 6.22.12 @ 1:49PM
Jack you wuss. Reply to everyone's ripping of your first post but mine? "You" may spend $50bn on diet aids, but "you" wouldn't have to if "you" had enough self-control to watch what "you" eat and be active enough to burn it off.
"Diet aids" are for short-cutters. You know the people who want results without having to try hard to get them? Kinda like unions getting higher wages than their productivity is worth...
Jack the problem with you and your leftist ilk is that "doing nothing" is exactly what you should have done in the first place. Instead, guided by the false prophet of political correctness, you created the crutches the short-cutters lean on (or safety nets to catch them), and never bothered to teach them they need to ditch the crutches if they ever want to walk again on their own.
The external pressure society used to use to stay thin was shame. P-C got rid of that, and now the slaves to P-C (you leftists) have to make rules to "help" the fatties. Rules have unintended consequences, and now you need more rules to fix the messes caused by the first rules.
BY ALL MEANS DOING NOTHING WAS THE FIRST OPTION, AND ONE WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN.
Damn you lefties--running around with a solution, looking for a problem...
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 2:22PM
Obesity is endemic in our society - 20% of kids are now obese, which is frightening. If you don't think this is a problem you're deluded.
Drunken Sailor| 6.22.12 @ 4:42PM
Then educate their mothers that just because little Johnny kicks and screams for McDonalds every damn day doesn't mean you should give it to him!
Just another consequence of the liberal lifestyle where it is more important to by your childs friend than it is to be their parent.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 4:52PM
'Then educate their mothers'
But that's a public health intervention. I thought you hated those.
Drunken Sailor| 6.22.12 @ 5:08PM
Not all. Just when they want to tell me I HAVE to do something or I Can't do something. Tell me the benifits or pitfalls. I can make my own damn decisions thank you. And don't even try to compare it to Sex ed. Totally different.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 5:33PM
Well, a lot of health promotion does just that - it's about information, education and providing choices. But it's multifacted - we often need other tools to get people to change behavior. eg fines for speeding and not wearing a belt; higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol; environmental regulation to stop companies poisoning us.
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 6:01PM
Marijuana causes increased appetite, jack, that's why Marinol is used for AIDS wasting. It also causes schizophrenia to be expressed in vulnerable adolescents.
The Maori and the Ojibwe have problems with marijuana abuse like you wouldn't believe. Funnily enough, they also top the planet in terms of heart disease, diabetes, and premature death. The richest Maori in New Zealand have a shorter life expectancy than the poorest whites, and are RICHER than the poorest whites.
So, Jack, you are wrong. Obesity is a public health concern, to be sure. But the banning of large soda sizes is a moronic concept, since it will only lead to more waste and garbage in the canning. And aren't you the guy who believes in AGW? How does more waste help with that?
ata777| 6.22.12 @ 9:45AM
How far are you willing to go, Jack? Should government bureaucrats be able to come to my house each morning and make sure I've done 20 push-ups, eaten my oatmeal, and brushed my teeth? All of that's part of the "public's heath concerns" as well, isn't it?
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 10:01AM
I'm not suggesting anything other than it is a major public health issue that needs action of some sort. Do you think we should ignore it?
George S| 6.22.12 @ 1:12PM
Maybe it's the government's fault. Not too long ago the number one concern was hunger (remember the War on Poverty?). Did government do TOO much; overfeeding the poor? So the solution is to cut back on government food programs which will be a twofer: a healthier population plus a tax cut for the rest of us. Government assistance has fueled the problem. Time to throttle back. For the Children.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 2:27PM
I don't think we should regulate what food stamps are used for as that just creates more stigma for poor people. I'm not in favor of letting people starve either - are you?.
George S| 6.22.12 @ 2:57PM
Stigma overrules obesity? Since when are feelings a health problem? Why not regulate what food stamps can buy? Since obesity is prevalent in low income neighborhoods the problem can be traced to entitlements. That is quite far removed from starvation. Pardon the pun, but there is a lot of fat that can be cut before starvation sets in.
So are you for fighting obesity or are you for government being able to ban what the free market can offer?
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 3:36PM
There are arguments from the right and left to regulate what can be bought with food stamps. But most people on stamps are not feckless and it would not be right to tell them what they should buy.
George S| 6.22.12 @ 3:52PM
Except for medical insurance, apparently.
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 5:39PM
Most people on food stamps ARE quite feckless, Jack. I treat 'em every day. The majority smoke.
Food stamps should be VERY limited in what they buy.
lost| 6.25.12 @ 11:46AM
Lets see it would not be right to tell people on food stamp what they can use food stamps for but it is ok to tell everyone else what they can buy? I pity you for not being able to see how messed up that is.
Butch| 6.22.12 @ 5:05PM
"Studies say" that licking food stamps causes obesity.
Drunken Sailor| 6.22.12 @ 4:48PM
So then why no ban on sugary milk based drinks? Or cookies, candy, or heaven forbid energy drinks (which have way more sugar than soda)?
Why stop there. Limit the number of soda's they can have with rationing cards. Give them a food allowance based upon their weight, monitor that with weekly weigh ins at the public health clinic. Hell why stop there, lets limit little johnny's video game/tv time punishable by fines he they exceed their limit.
Afterall its all in the name of fighting the public menace of obesity.
News flash. Obesity is a personal health problem, not a public health problem. If you want the goverment to make a difference concentrate on nutrional education, put physical fitness class back in school. You want the goverment out of your bedroom? Then keep him out of my dietary decisions.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 5:01PM
There are obesity health programs - eg http://www.uhhospitals.org/rai.....thy-weight
Would you ban them?
You are completely wrong - obesity is one of our most important public health problems. That any health problem also affects an individual is 'reductio ad absurdum'.
Drunken Sailor| 6.22.12 @ 5:11PM
Sadly your wrong. A public health problem is one that is communicable. Go check out your public health laws. Hell look up the definition.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary.....ORM=DTPDIA
Notice it says health education, not restriction
Obesity is not contagious.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 5:29PM
Nope - public health is a broad church and it includes 'newer' concerns such as obesity and smoking as well as infectious diseases. The methods to address them are often termed 'health promotion'.
From Wiki on obesity:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) predicts that overweight and obesity may soon replace more traditional public health concerns such as undernutrition and infectious diseases as the most significant cause of poor health."
Nutrition generally is a public health concern. Public health is anything that affects a populations's health - air pollution is another good example. So are accidents. Also guns.
And here's the full definition:
Public health is "the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals."
Drunken Sailor| 6.22.12 @ 5:32PM
Even by your definition the food police are overstepping. The key words in your "Full Definition" are: "informed choices". Notice the word choice? Not restriction.
Drunken Sailor| 6.22.12 @ 5:30PM
And no I would not ban them. But your missing the difference. Those are based on EDUCATION, not restrictions like nanny bloomberg wants. Are you also going to restrict how much desert people can have? Or how about their liqour purchases? Alcoholism is a big problem. Or how much tobacco they can buy? Cancer is a big killer. See the difference?
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 5:39PM
I do see the difference. No one is banning soda but if it's part - and a small part admittedly - of getting people to think about what they are doing then it coudld have a place. And as i said above, we have tools such as tax and price, drink-driving law, age limits, protection in enclosed areas from smoke etc to help reduce harms from alcohol and tobacco - but we are not banning them. Would you take away all these restrictions? How about seatbelt law? Speed limits? Gun bans for mental patients?
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 5:46PM
It is gun bans for Involuntarily Committed Mental patients, Jack.
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 5:44PM
Funny, you then suggest NOT restricting what food stamps should buy. The Brits had their best health under WWII Britain precisely due to rationing. If you are on the public dole, rationing the type of food you can buy is quite important. Bread loaves instead of Cheetos.
What work with the poor do you do, Jack? I'm a psychiatrist for a Native American Suboxone Clinic and an inpatient unit that treats more indigent Native Americans that any psychiatric hospital in MN. Natives have the highest Diabetes rate in the USA.
Might I suggest that, as usual, you are talking out your ass. Restricting size of sodas for people NOT on food stamps is going to do Jack for obesity. On the other hand, restricting choices for those on food stamps will do MUCH for health improvement, and may induce people to get off the dole to get more choice.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 5:53PM
Well, I do agree sort of - my head says use the food stamp tool to get people to eat more healthily. But my heart says it's hard enough for these folk to have to use stamps that we shouldn't be taking away even more dignity.
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 6:03PM
Jack---the problem there is that it is OK to limit the sizes of freely bought drinks, but not OK to limit what people on the dole can do with their food money? Your heart has disease, young man.
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 6:06PM
That, of course, was over the line, Jack---the comment about sewing up your mouth.
But the point is made fairly clearly---you think Bloomberg has good points with a moronic intervention that will not do any good but humiliates peole. But an intervention that would do some good for a very vulnerable population you won't do because of concerns about "stigma?" Jack, they have to use a SPECIAL card to use food stamps anyway? EVERYBODY KNOWS!
Again, my point about not spending much time being where the "rubber meets the road" is again validated.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 6:13PM
As I said there are arguments on both sides about food stamps.
About soda - I don't think any public health advocate would suggest we 'd see any direct association with obesity as it's only one 'food' item. But the symbolic effects - and the fact we're all talking about it - may be significant. As you know, public health approaches often involve multiple things.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 6:17PM
For example some restaurants may voluntarily downsize drinks with no ban but to show willing.
lost| 6.25.12 @ 12:06PM
Obesity is caused by lack of physical activity and over eating. Laws banning portion sizes does nothing for the obese. Banning air conditioning would help for obesity more than anything. Most people would get out and do something if they did not have air conditioning.
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 5:38PM
Jack, I'd be happy to arrange for someone to sew up your mouth and insert a G-tube to help you lose weight....
ggoblue| 6.24.12 @ 8:41AM
here is the 800 lb gorilla in the room...
there is NO...i repeat NO...habit more destructive of ones health than sodomy...the ave lifespan of a gay male was 30 yrs less even before AIDS...
so we arent really going to stop destructive behaviors based on their level of destructiveness, are we? of course not. we will pick and chose what to ban politically...and THAT IS WHAT IS UNAMERICAN ABOUT THIS.
give me liberty or give me death [an old and uniquely american saying]
Pecos Pete| 6.22.12 @ 8:40AM
Jack, the biggest health concern we face is lack of jobs caused by your comical king and his band of merry czars.
wombat1| 6.22.12 @ 8:46AM
Liberalism is an ersatz religion.
And remember the Irish saying about religion:
we embrace it not for the comfort it gives us,
but because it makes life so damnably inconvenient for the neighbors.
If Those Above weren't hectoring us
about fat or salt or soft drinks, it would be
about something else. The object of the
exercise is to play God on somebody else's dime.
Petronius| 6.22.12 @ 8:47AM
If Romney loses, Bloomberg and the rest of the granola head prigs won't have to pass any laws. The only people eating after next January will be government officials and employees. All the rest of us will wind up destitute from all the new taxes.
Louis Jenkins| 6.22.12 @ 8:48AM
My employer has just went with the HSA plan. I had my blood drawn on Monday and the results were in my hand on Wednesday. All on the orders from my personal physician. I am a non-medicated diabetic with an average walking around blood glucose level of 116. Then I went, on Thursday, to meet with a health coach from the HSA carrier. She presented me with paperwork from a previous blood draw and it showed an average walking around blood glucose level of 150. "Which is it," I asked?
"We will be going with the our figures," I was told. I have been slowly decreasing my blood glucose for the last year, but if this their attitude I cannot win. The deck is stacked in their favor. The nanny state rules regardless.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 10:13AM
How tall are you and what do you weigh, Louis?
The risk of type 2 diabetes is much higher in the obese, and diabetes is loading about $200 billion on our health costs right now.
John Navratil| 6.22.12 @ 1:13PM
Jack London,
I am 6'1" and weight 240#. According to the BMI, I would have to shed five pounds not to be obsese and forty-five to be merely not overweight. I'm also not diabetic.
I have an 18-3/4" neck, a 42" waist, and wear a 46-Long suit. My wrist circumference is 9" and my feet are a size 13. I'm a big guy and my belly doesn't hang over my belt.
The reason is simple. I have a 31" inseam - short legs which each weigh more than many of my high-school girl friends. When I line up belt-buckles I'm taller than my 6'4" and 6'5" friends.
All this one-size-fits-all and regulations based upon them are asinine. Fix your own problems, then come worry about mine.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 2:31PM
John - who said anything about one size fits all? But obesity is the major risk factor in type 2 diabetes - no getting round that – sorry.
By the way, I think I can guess your real problem - your head's too big.
John Navratil| 6.22.12 @ 2:51PM
Jack London,
You are right there too! I can't find a hat to fit. My brains had to push all my hair our just so they had room.
lost| 6.25.12 @ 12:27PM
BMI system is f'd up. No getting around that. According to how BMI works a normal weight range for me is 148 to 199. I am 6'3". Sorry that is bunk. When I get below 190 I feel like crap, I look like crap, I have no energy and I am sick often. At my current weight fell better, do more and most people are shocked when they find out I weigh 204. Most think I am very thin, some think too thin
JP| 6.22.12 @ 8:54AM
"One standard bit of rhetorical cover for nannyism is that it's "for the children," something which the Cambridge mayor has explicitly claimed regarding banning large sugary drinks."
It is ironic that the cities or regions that are governed by the Nanny State have very few children. New England in particular has some of the lowest birthrates and highest abortion rates in North America. The Mantra "for the children" is chocked full of irony.
Von Mises Jr| 6.22.12 @ 9:04AM
I think we should start by testing Nanny Bloomberg and Gay Sex Czar Kevin Jennings for bug juice. We should also demand that all go-go bars test their pole dancers for HPV and other STDs.
Then we should give Obama a CAT scan to see if cocaine gave him drain bamage.
After all the reports are in, we can move on to sugary drinks, salt and tobacco.
MK48| 6.22.12 @ 10:57AM
Von...........it's "DAME BAMAGE" according the the comic Nelson.
Von Mises Jr| 6.22.12 @ 12:48PM
MK48, You have to like girls to have "Dame Bamage."
I don't think any of the people mentioned care for ladies.
Bill84728| 6.22.12 @ 9:08AM
If restrictions on what we can drink (or eat) are grounded in concerns about obesity and fat children, why don't mayors occupy the front rank of those who advocate physical fitness for kids, and foster a society where kids can go out and play with their peers the way they used to without having to go on "play dates" so as to be safe from the molesters?
Derek Leaberry| 6.22.12 @ 9:09AM
The anti-alcohol Nannies should get the back of the hand, too. Let us be sensible and civilized and drop the age of beer and wine consumption back to 18.
Stephanie| 6.22.12 @ 11:55AM
No, you can die for your country but you can't have a glass of wine.
getalyf| 6.22.12 @ 9:49AM
I think Mr. Kaminsky's article is good, but not quite complete. Freedom to choose what we eat and drink should be a given, but the problem is that choices have consequences, some good and some bad. And we, our society, has insulated people from the consequences of of their choices. There are people who are so lacking in self discipline that they consume enough calories to cause bodily harm to themselves. When, inevitably, some obese person collapses due to kidney failure or heart attack or stroke, or whatever, 911 is immediately called. Paramedics rush to provide aid and an emergency room swings into operation to save the poor soul. Now, if the "victim" has insurance or other means to pay, I don't have a problem with that scenario. But all too often, a lack of self discipline in food matters seems to correspond to a lack of self discipline in prudent monetary matters. End result: we the taxpayer wind up paying the bills. In a fair world, first responders to obese heart attack patients should withhold care until proof of payment can be ascertained. But as a Christian society, we don't do that. Our impulse is to act first and worry about costs later. I, for one, am tired of paying for the poor choices of other people. Everyone has the right to eat and drink as they want, but they shouldn't expect public support when their "chickens come home to roost".
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 10:05AM
"Now, if the "victim" has insurance"
Do you think our premiums are higher because of obesity?
"they shouldn't expect public support when their "chickens come home to roost"."
All the more reason to put support in to prevent it as it would cost us a lot less as I don't expect you'll leave people to die, despite what you say. .
Dagny Taggert| 6.22.12 @ 1:51PM
Base healthcare costs on BMI. The ultimate pre-existing condition.
John Navratil| 6.23.12 @ 2:14PM
Dagny Taggert,
If that isn't the ultimate one-size-fits-all solution, I don't know what is.
Anthony| 6.22.12 @ 10:04AM
It's way past time that we peasants revolt against these intrusive nanny state hack pols, who can't seem to fight street crime and fix pot holes, yet seek to tell us how to live our lives instead.
Perhaps if a few, like the midget mayor of NY, were publicly tarred and feathered and sent across the Hudson to Jersey on a flaming barge, these pols might get the message and retreat back into their holes where they belong.
These pols are out of control. Time to bitch slap them back into their places. Politicians should neither be seen nor heard from, except during parades.
fmm| 6.22.12 @ 11:46AM
I believe that the liberal bent of telling others what they have to do comes from several characteristics of their own mindset. Liberals tend to be very self centered and over indulgent, lacking the self control needed to make good decisions in their own lives. They also attribute their own faults to anyone other than themselves. These, together with their outsized opinion of themselves, convince liberals that they must provide guidance and laws for the common folk to follow. Liberals do not understand that other types of people can indeed make rational, justifiable, correct, and better decisions for themselves.
Petronius| 6.22.12 @ 12:57PM
Try the "social cost" argument with the dopeheads and fudge packers. They are protected constituencies. Limits on behavior depend on who you are, who you know, or whether you have enough money to obviate or insulate yourself from the power of others. I'm waiting for the anti-fat prigs to start trolling for depressed slovenly blimps who are willing to be parties to lawsuits against MickyD's, Frito Lay, and all you can eat slop chute buffets. Then the real fun starts. After all, personal responsibility has no standing in any court anymore. Get ready for waiting periods for your next pizza.
Who Knows?| 6.22.12 @ 1:01PM
“If there were ever a time for food-based civil disobedience, it is now.” That’s funny, Ross.
When 90% of Americans are fat or obese, and there are too few people to take care of them---those who knew how the food world works, and controlled their body weight by consciously eating only enough to do so---we’ll look back at the nanny government movement in despair.
Back around ten years ago, when “only” 50% were fat or obese, and it was predicted that 75% would be so in 2012, the American situation was ALREADY dire.
Conservatives and Libertarians rightly bemoan the extreme progressiveness of the tax system. What about the progressiveness of the “food system”?
Will the wide and gross and morbidly obese VAST majority of Americans try to come after the 10% who aren’t with the program? Will they be PHYSICALLY able to do so?
The Standard American Diet, or SAD, has long been built on taste, to the detriment of nutrition, and it keeps getting worse. And these days, fatsos and incipient fatsos alike, in their suicidal delusion, exhibit their profound ignorance by DEFENDING their behavior.
I predict there will soon be “fat” recovery clinics, similar to drug programs. Or else, Fatso Anonymous, like AA.
Oh, wait—how can you be anonymous, when you are bodily VISIBLE to all as a glutton?
Are better or bitter days a’comin’?
cicero| 6.22.12 @ 1:02PM
I am old enough to remember when obesity was not much og a problem. Those were the days when your mother fixed breakfast for you before you left for school; and she packed a lunch for you to eat at school; and she cooked dinner for you when your dad got home from work.
Now, we have breakfast waiting for the kids when they get to school; and they have lunch in the school cafeteria doled out by school workers; and some even get supper served by the government, just because we want to make sure they get nutricious meals (that presumabley their mother/parents are incapable of providing).
And wonder of wonders, all of this food is provided by the Dept. of Agriculture, paid for by the taxpayers, so that the farmers can sell all of the high fructose/calorie corn and other crops, such a sugar, that the government pays them to grow whether anyone wants to buy it or not.
The joys and pleasures of the most productive, rich, generous country there ever was, and we are allowing it and us to be destroyed by surrendering our responsibilities (rights) to the government, who only asks that we allow theem to control us.
Who Knows?| 6.22.12 @ 1:47PM
Anyone serious about controlling their own bodily health and future well-being should google Doctor Lustig, and watch his talk about how high fructose corn syrup is the major cause of obesity, NOT calories or fat consumption.
It has over a million hits—why not join the edified SMART crowd, before it’s too late?
This is my freely given offering.
Use it, if you choose.
Tom Kyba| 6.22.12 @ 1:06PM
Jack London, wow! Just wow! "The measures are just complementing people's own efforts." Talk about no common ground. No wonder you elicit the angry responses in these comments. The problem with your statist philisophical bent is that people like you start the discussion by patting yourself on the back for being more concerned about others than they are for themselves. Then you tell yourself that it's only a little bit of gov't coercion that's needed, followed by just a little more coercion etc. all the while sighing at the tingle you've created up your own leg. Absolute classic brain-dead liberalism. What will be next, Jack. I assume you're honest enough to admit to yourself that there will be more public health or environmental issues for you and the great washed to fix with just a smattering of gov't "complementary" force. Let's all applaud Jack as he and his army of love coerce us into becoming the master race we've been dreaming of. No more smokers, no more fatties and(you fill in the next blank Jack, I'm sure you have plans for us all). And as for the childish "anti-society free market" comment, the old liberal shibboleth about conservatives wanting literally no government at all is well past it's due date. Can't you "proper" thinkers come up with a new one? And sorry, the army of hateful Christians hiding under their beds and waiting for their chance to pounce meme doesn't work either.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 2:37PM
So you're in favor of no public health options? Want to bring back smoking in restaurants and not requiring seatbelts? No healthy meal choices in schools? Nothing? You'd ban this program I guess:
http://www.uhhospitals.org/rai.....thy-weight
George S| 6.22.12 @ 3:04PM
Remember when we tried to ban alcohol? It was to combat social ills. Yet it did not work. Those who fought to repeal prohibition were doing so to combat government encroachment on liberties -- not because they were in favor of broken families and liver disease.
By the way, Americans 100 years ago had enough sense and respect for the Constitution that they convened a constitutional convention for Congress to ban alcohol while today faceless the mayor and bureaucrats in NYC do it at the stroke of a pen.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 3:31PM
You're getting hyperbolic George - no one is banning smoking, driving or soda.
George S| 6.22.12 @ 4:03PM
Back in the late 1980's smoking was banned on domestic flights less than 2 hours so no one was talking about banning smoking on airplanes; by 2000 smoking was prohibited by federal law on all flights by US carriers. Today, you cannot smoke at an airport.
You see, it starts small and then it grows. If someone complained thirty years ago that smoking is being banned, you would have called it hyperbole. Today laws prohibit smoking in private vehicles with children and some localities are looking to ban it in private homes.
So what's this about banning 24 oz sodas I hear?
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 4:50PM
Starts small and grows into what? Stopping children inhaling smoke in cars? Wow – let's repeal that.
I think you're all huff but little puff, George.
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 6:16PM
Jack, I happen to be a fanatical non-smoker who believes that smoking smells like shit.
Take that aside for a moment. Let's look at smoking, for example. Taxes on packs of cigarettes in New Zealand are very high. The Maori get around this by growing their own tobacco and then using cheap papers to roll them in, thus getting more exposure to carcinogens. The Maori have the highest lung cancer rate on the planet, and the NHS in New Zealand, to save costs, was not covering Wellbutrin or Chantix for smoking cessation the year I was there (one reason I returned to the USA in disgust---you might want to check what smoking cessation products are covered on Medicaid in your state). The Maori, by the way, were more concerned about fishing rights to oceanshore properties than PHARMAC not covering smoking cessation items.
Jack, you fail to realize the ultimate imperfectability and perversity of the human condition. Public Health interventions that work do so by minimizing the human factor as much as possible. Obesity will be dealt with when a proper pill comes along that minimizes the need for human will and intervention, preferrably a shot, not before. In the meantime, for those on foodstamps, who tend to be the sickest in our society anyway, rationing the types of food to buy is an excellent idea. Dead people don't give a shit about stigma.
Razors tend to cut and hurt. They also get to the point. Hence my name.
Jack London| 6.22.12 @ 6:27PM
Ah New Zealand – I was wondering where it was.
As you work in health you must see that you're making my point really - it's that particular public health interventions are often not transferable between groups and populations, especially to other countries. So we look at variations or completely different things.
And you're too defeatist - there are hugely successful PH interventions - tobacco is one around the western world now - I was reading the other day that Scotland has seen a major drop in CHD episodes recently. Obesity won't be solved medically - maybe partly – but PH will be a factor too.
Butch| 6.23.12 @ 1:50PM
The reduction in smoking is a "PH intervention" only to the extent that severe punishment is a "PH intervention." The taxes on cigarettes are ruinous, and smokers everywhere in the "west" are fined, banned, led off of planes in handcuffs, and even jailed. That's what statism always results in. Only a very foresightful person could have even imagined this in 1978. Read "Separate but Equal" in the April, 1978 issue of NationalReview to see the humorous forecast. It's the way statist policies always end.
You imagine that when we get there, you will be the one doing the punishing, but your type never is. You will be just as subjected to the "punishment state" as everyone else.
Occam's Tool| 6.25.12 @ 2:26AM
Actually, and I am an expert on same: the problems of the Maori and the problems of the Ojibwe are exactly similar, point for point. You may "read," but I read and DO.
You don't observe much outside the USA, do you? You haven't been outside much, have you?
In addition, you still fail to note that what can be done should be done, regardless of stigma. I bet you don't know anyone on food stamps personally.
DRed| 6.22.12 @ 1:13PM
This is what happens when people elect Republicans.
John Navratil| 6.22.12 @ 1:16PM
It IS getting better, isn't it. Just wait for November. Then the tingle will run up my leg, too!
Who Knows?| 6.22.12 @ 1:30PM
It is well known that there is a direct correlation between education and obesity. The poorer and dumber you are, the more likely you are to become all mouth, and no brains.
Well, here’s the truth---
Fat people are like those cartoon characters wearing sandwich boards saying the world is ending. Except, they don’t need any boards---
Their very physical presence is a statement, “I am stupid.”
What’s even more morbidly “humorous” is to see people in your acquaintance, over time, go from fat to fatter.
They are “saying”, I am getting dumber and dumber. Perhaps we will be blessed by more 400 pounders sitting naked at bus stops---the dumbest, on their way to death.
In compassion, though, one who sees and understands this whole dietary devolution can only marvel at the ways people go, to get the attention of others. Perhaps they are subconsciously sending the message---HELP ME! Stop me, before I kill myself!
Actually, we all believe we are “special”, as indeed we are.
Maybe, though, by living as a mouth that devours gross stuff, to the exclusion of a mind that is used to control it, they are choosing to go back to Junior Hi and cover themselves with “kick me” signs. Or, a scarlet letter on the forehead--- an F for “I’m a fool”.
The only way out of this suicidal choice is for individuals to educate themselves. There IS a healthy diet! Figure out what works, for you, but most vitally---literally---stop doing what does NOT work!
Petronius| 6.22.12 @ 2:38PM
When I was in 4th grade a series of satirical trading cards were published. One featured the caricature of a doctor with these words in the little overhead balloon: "Want to lose 10 lbs. of ugly fat? Cut off your head." Jack and co. Can you take a hint?
Who Knows?| 6.22.12 @ 7:58PM
The truth hurts, eh?
Occam's Tool| 6.22.12 @ 6:20PM
Try having thyroid cancer and severe back pain that limits exercise at the same time, while having a breathing condition that requires steroids and see what happens to your weight, WK.
The person I am describing is my wife, who on her gastric bypass is now a size 14-16, and doing much better.
Not everything is straightforward, and one day you will become ill, and I will laugh and laugh as you suffer.
Who Knows?| 6.22.12 @ 7:57PM
I'm truly sorry for the severe bodily condition of your wife, OT.
Do you think it just happened to her, or is she responsible?
Going on 35 years ago, I tried to get my sister to join me by educating her about the benefits of a whole food diet, and she thought I was nuts. Actually, I WAS “nuts”, partly, since I ate quite a few of them.
After two chemotherapy “life lessons”, she has suffered her choices.
You’re going to be a very sad man, if you rely on my getting ill to bring a laugh, pal. I CHOOSE to be healthy, and am “doomed” to live a long and vital life. Who knows, though?
Maybe I’ll be murdered or have an accident.
NOT.
Occam's Tool| 6.25.12 @ 2:31AM
Non smoker, non drug user, family history of cancer. Maybe 10 drinks a year. Prior to problems, weighed 140 pounds. I've known the woman for almost 20 years. It just happened to her. Review the effects of hypothyroidism some time, WK.
Pride goeth before the fall, by the way, WK. You are a very arrogant and obnoxious human being. The things we can control are very small in the cosmic view of things, moron.
Who Knows?| 6.22.12 @ 1:38PM
Anyone serious about controlling their own bodily health and future well-being should google Doctor Lustig, and watch his talk about how high fructose corn syrup is the major cause of obesity, NOT calories or fat consumption.
It has over a million hits—why not join the edified SMART crowd, before it’s too late?
This is my freely given offering.
Use it, if you choose.
Bob S| 6.23.12 @ 3:34AM
I just don't understand why they would limit food donations to the homeless. In the college town where I live, the very liberal city government supported by the very liberal college voter population also banned food donations to the homeless. I often hear the term "bleeding-heart liberal" used, and liberals often appeal to emotions when they disagree with conservatives, claiming conservatives have no "compassion" for the poor. So, why the hell would they stop food donations to the HOMELESS? I'd say that is very compassionate. The rub is that it's often only Christian organizations and churches that operate the soup kitchens and organize food donation drives. The liberal bums are too busy protesting on campus or getting high or getting indoctrinated, but when it's Christians doing real work for humanity they forbid it. It's just enraging.
Petronius| 6.23.12 @ 10:52AM
Bob
The libs can't have their enemies getting credit for charitable work. The benighted are not allowed anything that is not taken from the producers and redistributed by them.