New Government Food Pyramid
(latest posts at the bottom)
New Food Guide Unveiled (posted 4/23/05)
4/19/05 Washington Post Concerned about steadily expanding waistlines... Since when was it the responsibility of government to worry about how fat you or I are? One would think the citizens of this country would be more 'Concerned about the steadily expanding waistlines' of bloated and nonsensical government programs funded with their looted taxpayer dollars than the government would be 'Concerned about the steadily expanding waistlines' of its citizens.
I mean, who is the government? Who are these people that are so concerned about us? Are they omnipotent wise and benevolent elitists who, out of the goodness of their hearts, use our stolen tax dollars to ensure that we, a bunch of stupid, incompetent, idiot citizens, live our lives correctly? Or is it better characterized by Theodore Roosevelt who said, The government is us; we are the government, you and I.?
Of course we the people are the government! So, thus translated, this first sentence is really stating, 'Citizens concerned about steadily expanding waistlines of other citizens...' But, wait, how can this possibly be true? Common sense dictates that most people are far more worried more about their own waistlines then the waistlines of people around them. In fact, I'd wager most people don't give a hoot how fat their neighbors are and, even if they did, would hesitate to take any 'preventative' action. Could you imagine:
Nosy Neighbor: "Excuse me, Mr. Jones, there's something I've been meaning to talk with you about - regarding your waistline."
Mr. Jones: #%@ #%%#@% @#%%!!!!
So we are left with the unsettling conclusion that the truly accurate phrasing of the original sentence in this story is: 'Elitists Concerned about steadily expanding waistlines...'. Unfortunately, most people won't have the same reaction to this as Mr. Jones did to his nosy neighbor because they are either A) unaware they are being robbed and insulted, B) apathetic to robbery and insult, or C) apparently believe that these elitists, unlike the nosy neighbor, are desperately needed 'experts' who have a right to take money from their family without their consent in order to hire consulting companies with (possible) corrupt ties to food companies and create all these books, pamphlets, charts, websites, and programs, which have all been wrong in the past: The switch was recommended in a 70-page booklet, "Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005," that was developed by a panel of scientists and doctors and released in January. As the basis for revising the pyramid, the guidelines emphasize choosing good carbohydrates over bad ones; for example, choosing bread made from whole-grain flour instead of white flour.
The truth is that what these scientists and doctors say is 'good' and 'bad' for us changes all the time because... they are not much more 'expert' than you or me. In fact, you're probably better off trusting your nosy neighbor, who may have successfully lost some pounds using the Atkins or South Beach diet, rather than trusting the 'latest' government chart. Interestingly, the new pyramid has sluggishly moved in the same direction as the public craze with high protein diets and high fiber carbohydrates. Of course, a small difference is that these diet programs (generally) only become popular because they work and people aren't thrown in jail if they don't buy them.
In conclusion, what will these elitists do if their ridiculous food pyramid and other anti-obesity schemes (like these by the HHS ostensibly targeting African Americans) don't work and the idiot sheep, whoops I mean citizens, of this country keep getting fatter and fatter? They might decide that, for the public good, they need to ban junk food advertising on 'children's channels' as they now do in Britain. Or perhaps they will decide what your child will eat in the public school you are forced by law to spend your tax money on. Or, as the socialists are proposing in France, perhaps they will create the High Committee on the Fight against Obesity, which will provide a code of good conduct for food companies. And warn that: "the use of individual cars is a problem not only for environment", but also for obesity.
But, in the end, the pillaged taxpayers always get the last laugh. For example, another meddling government agency, the Center for Disease and Control, now says: Packing on the pounds is not nearly as deadly as the government thought, according to a new calculation from the CDC that found people who are modestly overweight actually have a lower risk of death than those of normal weight.
U.S. Ad Blitz Dismisses Obesity Threat as 'Hype' (posted 4/25/05)
4/25/05 Reuters It's about time! Private organizations are finally gearing up to battle the Elitists who are hurting their businesses with all this ridiculous aforementioned 'concern' about how fat we are. These private food organizations are at a disadvantage because the Elitists at these hurtful government agencies are taking money without consent from them (via taxes) and then spending it demagauging their businesses, forcing them to spend even more money defending themselves in these counter Ad campaigns. I've been writing about this issue because this sort of thing isn't just an isolated incident occurring in the food industry. Private businesses all across the country are constantly being punished and attacked with their own tax money. As Edward Abbey said: A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Comment (1) | Trackback (0)
Calif: The pot calls the kettle fat. Bloated state government wants to lecture about overindulgence (posted 4/27/05)
4/26/05 California Public Policy Foundation Recall in an earlier post I warned that if people didn't shape up and get as thin as the elitists want them to be that the elitists might soon take drastic measures and follow in the footsteps of the European socialists and try to limit or ban junk food advertising, restrict what your kids eat in public school, create 'obesity commissions', and raise taxes to fund all sorts of other bloated programs? Well, it's already starting out in California and the 'Republican' Governor out there, Gov. (R)nold Schwarzenegger, seems happy to go along with it.
Only 3 percent in US follow health advice - study (posted 4/27/05)
4/25/05 Reuters Just when you thought this government panic over how obscenely obese all of us are couldn't get any more ridiculous we get this story. Writing in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Reeves and colleagues said they looked at surveys filled out by 153,000 adults as part of the U.S. government's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 2000. <.> And only 3 percent met all four goals, Reeves found. What the heck is the 'Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System'? How much money did these people waste on this study? Reuters isn't curious. After insulting 97% of the US population, these elitists want to make sure that people really know how stupid they are: But critics complain the Web site, at http://www.mypyramid.gov, is difficult to navigate. "The people that need it most are probably the ones who are the least likely to use a computer." <.> "What we really don't know is how best to communicate information about diet and lifestyle to people. What we are doing doesn't seem to be working for the people who need it most." <.> "I think people feel overwhelmed that they have all these healthy choices that they must take, to where they are almost at the point of saying 'I can't do it,'" said CDC spokesman Tom Skinner. <.> "They all kind of roll their eyes and go, 'Nobody does that'," Reeves said. "This is the problem -- the social or cultural norm is not to do that, and it seems like an acceptable situation." Maybe they are rolling their eyes because they are sick of the government telling them how to live their lives.
Former President Clinton Announces Initiative to Combat Childhood obesity
(posted 5/8/05)
Clinton, still recovering from
quadruple bypass surgery for clogged arteries (due in part to poor diet), has announced a 10 year
initiative and, despite not saying anything specific about what he's going to do, made headlines
around the country. Clinton's statements continue
the steady drumbeat of condescension of government towards the American people.
The
former president said he believed children could make healthy eating choices with the help of
"parents and school officials guiding their eating habits." You
see, because many parents don't have a
choice over where their kids go to school, the government is free to do whatever they
consider 'best for the children'. Also implicit in Clinton's statement is his belief that parents
aren't feeding their children right. Now, this may be so, but who is he to tell parents what to do? "The
system is now rigged to aggravate obesity," Clinton said. "We have to change that. The
eating environment has changed for our children over the last 20 years (this
is after Clinton just said, "I was overweight as a kid so I
struggled with it, on and off, all my life." and said in a CBS interview,
"I was very overweight when I was a young child," he told
students. "When I was 15, I weighed 210 pounds.")....
and if you just reduced the calories that our children are taking in by 50 a day, it would make a
huge difference over the course of their childhood." I don't think
government interference in micromanaging the caloric intake of our kids will be either enforceable
or effective. So, Clinton then
turns to the more sinister method of demaguaging
private food companies that offer Americans what they want to eat: "How
in the world," Alfonsi asked Mr. Clinton, "do you stop that busy mother, who has a minivan
full of kids, from going through the drive-through at McDonald's?" "You don't," he
replied. "But even they could cook the French fries in a healthier way." Translation:
People would object to being forcibly stopped from making a choice they know exists, so we need to
take the choices away from them for their own good. This way they'd never even know their rights
were being trampled on.
Bush Exercises 6x a week, most fit president in History
7/31/05 Drudge Report However, at The Center for Consumer Freedom (great site), we find that the government believes Bush is 'overweight'! "Hey President Bush, why don't you abolish the government agency that called you 'Fatso'?" They have a celebrity list that is hilarious, all of them are 'obese' according to government recommendations:
OBESE:
Tom Cruise: 5'7": 201 lbs: 31
Mel Gibson 5'9": 214 pounds: 32
Matt LeBlanc: 5'11": 218 lbs: 30
Steve McNair: 6'2": 235 lbs: 30
The Rock (Dwayne Johnson): 6'5": 275 lbs: 33
Arnold Schwarzenegger: 6'2": 257 lbs: 33
Sylvester Stallone: 5'9": 228 lbs: 34
Mike Tyson: 5'11 ˝": fighting weight between 218-235: 30-32
Posted 8/17/05
A week or so ago I posted some of the characteristics of the fastest growing city in the United States from 1990-1998, Henderson, Nevada. Contrast this with Detroit, Michigan:
Detroit found to be most liberal U.S. city
8/11/05 Washington Times A group
called BACVR compiled the political leanings of 237 US cities and Detroit took the cake.
Shrinking Detroit has 12,000
abandoned homes
8/14/05 AFP There are more than 12,000 abandoned homes in the Detroit area, a byproduct of decades of layoffs at the city's auto plants and white flight to the suburbs. And despite scores of attempts by government and civic leaders to set the city straight, the automobile capitol of the world seems trapped in a vicious cycle of urban decay. Detroit has lost more than half its population since its heyday in the 1950's. The people who remain are mostly black -- 83 percent -- and mostly working class, with 30 percent of the population living below the poverty line according to the US Census Bureau. The schools are bad. The roads are full of potholes. Crime is high and so are taxes. The city is in a budget crisis so deep it could end up being run by the state.
Another example of 'voting with your feet'. Is it any coincidence the most liberal city is also impoverished and shrinking?
More happenings in the most Liberal US city:
How
the Unions Killed a Dream
10/26/03 Time magazine - Joe Klein details the sad story how inner city Detroit schools lost $200
million: In
1999, an unassuming Michigan road builder named Bob Thompson sold his construction company for $442
million, an amount he and his wife Ellen believed was far more than they needed for retirement.
<.> After doing some research, he offered $200 million to build 15
small, independent public high schools in the inner city. A few weeks ago, Thompson withdrew his
offer after the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT) led a furious, and scurrilous, campaign against
his generosity. The philanthropist is in seclusion now—friends say he is stunned and
distressed—but his is a story that deserves telling.
Mayor hungers for bigger tax bite out of fast food
5/9/05 Associated Press Would
you like fries with that? Either way, the Detroit city treasury would like a bite.
And just how is "fast food" defined? Besides the obvious chains such as Wendy's and White
Castle, officials have mentioned takeout pizza places and Detroit's ubiquitous chili-dog restaurants
known as Coney Islands. It's uncertain, however, where Starbucks or the corner deli would fall.
Kilpatrick
lives it up while city struggles
5/3/05 Free Press
In conclusion, we see Unions in charge and the corrupt anti-obesity policing tax hikers destroying a city with their liberalism.
2/23/05 The Sun Sobbing 31-stone (434 lb) Chris Leppard was dragged off to a mental hospital against his will by meddling social workers and police. They locked him up despite the fact neither he nor his family wanted him to go. Last night Chris’s furious mother Anne said he has no mental problems and was winning his fight against the rare illness that compels him to eat.
Stranded Pair Refused to be Saved
9/17/05 BBC The mystery couple had been cut off by the tide after a beach walk at St Anne's Head in Pembrokeshire. Despite a lifeboat and RAF helicopter crew arriving, the pair refused their rescue offers and even hurled abuse. <.> The elderly pair refused their offers of coffee and warm clothes, turning their backs and refusing even to talk. Finally, at 2020 BST - six hours after the "rescue" effort had been launched - the tide retreated and the pair walked to safety. <.> The coastguard said the whole "rescue operation" is thought to have cost thousands of pounds. <.> The coastguard said they could not be arrested for wasting police time because they had not asked for help.
Posted 11/24/05
No new hips or knees for fat patients
11/23/05 Time More news from Great Britain's socialized medical paradise:
The team agreed that patients with a body mass index of 30 or more — recognised by the World Health Organisation as obese — should not be referred to surgeons for hip and knee replacements. In Britain, a fifth of men and a quarter of women are estimated to be obese. Despite paying taxes to the system all their lives, these 'obese' citizens, as defined by government, cannot receive these transplants. So, if medicine was socialized here in the United States, these folks would apparently not receive new hips or knees from the government lol:
OBESE:
Tom Cruise: 5'7": 201 lbs: 31
Mel Gibson 5'9": 214 pounds: 32
Matt LeBlanc: 5'11": 218 lbs: 30
Steve McNair: 6'2": 235 lbs: 30
The Rock (Dwayne Johnson): 6'5": 275 lbs: 33
Arnold Schwarzenegger: 6'2": 257 lbs: 33
Sylvester Stallone: 5'9": 228 lbs: 34
Mike Tyson: 5'11 ˝": fighting weight between 218-235: 30-32
The take home message is that since government has a monopoly on their tax money, government, not the citizens, will decide what services British citizens receive. If individual liberty is respected, citizens, not the government control their own health care.
For those who think that US citizens in managed care or certain private health plans don't have a great deal of choice in their care, you might be right in some instances, but these citizens still voluntarily acquiesced to turning over their health care over to that second or third party entity. (Added to 'British Health Care' and 'Government Food Pyramid')
Posted 12/11/05
Bill Clinton as Junk Food Czar
12/6/05 Newsmax A rather displeasing article. Government is, again, telling us what we should do, instead of us telling it what it cannot do. I've added my own commentary interspersed below to add some 'balance' to excerpts of this article. :)
SpongeBob SquarePants, Shrek and other characters kids love should promote only healthy food, a panel of scientists recommended.
Countering this report, a panel of liberty loving activist citizens recommended that government should promote only property protection and liberty and stop meddling in the business of its citizens.
In a report released Tuesday, the Institute of Medicine said television advertising strongly influences what children under 12 eat. That means SpongeBob, the popular animated star of the Nickelodeon cable TV network, and other characters should endorse only good-for-you food, the panel concluded.
The report released by the liberty panel found that government domination of education, media, and commerce strongly promotes apathy and liberalism among the citizens of the United States.
The report said the food industry should spend its marketing dollars on nutritious food and drinks.
The liberty panel said citizens should not spend their money on the Institute of Medicine.
"The foods advertised are predominantly high in calories and low in nutrition - the sort of diet that puts children's long-term health at risk," said J. Michael McGinnis, a senior scholar at the institute and chairman of the report committee.
"Big government advocating, activist, liberal scientists have long been suspected of putting our long term life, liberty, and happiness at risk.", said a senior liberty scholar.
The findings were no surprise to Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, who requested the report. "We like to think that SpongeBob SquarePants and Shrek and the pretty little princesses are likable, kid-friendly characters, but they're being used to manipulate vulnerable children to make unhealthy choices," said Harkin, the senior Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. "The industry must stop pushing junkfood on our kids," Harkin said.
The findings were no surprise to the liberty loving citizens, "We like to think that liberals and regulators keep us safe and protected and promote the general welfare, but in reality they work to restrict the choices of citizens and increase their own power, which harm the poorest and most vulnerable. Government must stop pushing liberalism on its' citizens."
In adults, a person who is obese has a Body Mass Index, or BMI, of 30 or more. Children are defined as obese according to a formula placing their BMI at or above the 95th percentile on government charts specifying age and gender. BMI shows body weight adjusted for height.
In government programs, a program that is obese has a budget that is forcibly stolen, under threat of imprisonment, from its citizens. 95% of the population would not voluntarily fund almost all government programs.
An advertising industry spokesman called the findings frustrating, because many companies have been reformulating products to make them healthier or reporting calorie and fat content on menu boards or packaging.
Citizens find the government obesity frustrating because these government programs have been getting fatter and more intrusive even though so-called 'Republicans' are in control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
The panel assessed hundreds of studies, then reviewed evidence from 123 of them and completed the most comprehensive review to date on the scientific evidence of how food marketing affects kids' diets.
Fed up citizens evaluated hundreds of Government programs, then reviewed the evidence and completed the most comprehensive review to date on the scientific evidence and were unable to find a single positive effect that could be attributed to these programs and agencies.
Besides telling food and beverage companies to promote healthier food, the panel urged the industry to create standards that enforce healthy diets for kids. The panel also encouraged the media and entertainment industry, the government and school authorities to campaign for healthy diets for kids.
Besides abolishing almost the entire Federal Government, liberty loving citizens would discourage government ownership of media and education and regulation.
The panel said the government should use tax breaks and other incentives to encourage the shift away from junkfood and said if it doesn't happen, Congress should mandate it.
The panel of liberty loving citizens said that increases in donations to freedom propagating political groups and education and activism should prod the recalcitrant congress. If that doesn't happen, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
An arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine is congressionally chartered to advise the government on medical issues.
The people of the United States are chartered under the Constitution to advise the government on issues of governance, but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
(Added to 'New Government Food Pyramid')
Posted 1/4/07 (By Travis)
TV ban on Adverts for Cheese, the latest 'Junk Food'
1/2/07 Daily Mail
From the United Kingdom.
Posted 7/5/07 (By Travis)
Review finds nutrition education failing
6/4/07 Associated Press
The federal government will spend more than $1 billion this year on nutrition education — fresh carrot and celery snacks, videos of dancing fruit, hundreds of hours of lively lessons about how great you will feel if you eat well.
But an Associated Press review of scientific studies examining 57 such programs found mostly failure. Just four showed any real success in changing the way kids eat — or any promise as weapons against the growing epidemic of childhood obesity.
"Any person looking at the published literature about these programs would have to conclude that they are generally not working," said Dr. Tom Baranowski, a pediatrics professor at Houston's Baylor College of Medicine who studies behavioral nutrition.
The results have been disappointing, to say the least:
- Last year a major federal pilot program offering free fruits and vegetables to school children showed fifth graders became less willing to eat them than they had been at the start. Apparently they didn't like the taste.
Readers may remember...
Posted 8/7/08 ( by Travis)
All US adults could be overweight in 40 years
8/6/08 AP
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - If the trends of the past three decades continue, it's possible that every American adult could be overweight 40 years from now, a government-funded study projects.
Tax dollars at work.
8/11/10
Egg on Their Faces - Government dietary advice
often proves disastrous.
City Journal ^ | Summer 2010 | Steven Malanga
As increasingly sophisticated medicine focuses on tailoring therapies to individual needs, sweeping public pronouncements on health have become outdated at best and dangerous at worst. The best advice that government can give citizens is to develop their own diet and exercise regimes, adapted to their own physical circumstances after consultation with their doctors.
For those interested here is more commentary on Government Healthcare.