QandO

You say this in jest, and I do agree with you, but watch out. They're trying to paint obesity as causing more health problems than smoking or alcohol intake. That's the first step to more governmental nannyism, in the form of regulating fatty foods. Trust me, the Center for Science in the Public Interest couldn't have written this piece any better.

Posted by: Steverino at March 9, 2004 06:58 PM

"Life is a terminal, sexually-transmitted disease."

I don't know who first said that, but it seems to fit here.

Posted by: Billy Beck at March 9, 2004 07:46 PM

Just to show you what the CSPI has in mind, here's an entry from my blog on the subject:

What not to eat.

Posted by: Steverino at March 10, 2004 08:44 AM

Politicians of all wings of the bird agree: citizens left to themselves will do terminally stupid things with their money. They'll buy "Saturday Night Specials" which will blow up in their face, shoot family and neighbors, and be stolen by criminals to shoot the original owners -- if the original owners don't commit suicide with such weapons first. They will buy "assault weapons" ditto. They will buy cocaine, crack, heroin, marijuana, PCPs, LSDs, XTCs, and other poisons and ruin their lives. They will purchase overdoses of nicotine, caffeine, and chocolate's cocktail of theobromine, phenylethylaianine, and hydrogenated tropical oils and fats. They will download music without paying for it; will download all the porn they can find for $9.95 a month; and will borrow DVD to make illegal VHS tapes that omit all the required commericals. They will spend their money on cars and SUVs with oversized engines and cushy seating and ignore more fuel-efficient and safety-engineered vehicles. They will drink thin and nutritionally-empty American "beer" instead of healthful French wine, British ales, or German bier. They will fail to negotiate decent wages, health care plans, vacation and retirement packages with their employers; all in favor of cash in hand -- though many of them would foolishly take jobs paying less-than-living/minimum wage. They will all spend their wages on short-term gratification rather than investing for the long-term. The general public consists of idiots who would prefer to pick the schools for their own kids than let the city send them off willy-nilly -- except for the expense. The public is so dumb that 30-second advertising spots can influence their buying decisions, and even their votes. So, in order to protect these fools, we must LIE in our policy statements and political ads in order to fool these idiots into voting for us so that we may erect the safety net, the moral boundaries, and educational, indoctrinational, and isolational institutions necessary to keep them -- moderately -- productive, placid, cooperative and complacent.

If two sets of authorities disagree there is always appeal to higher authority. In no case should the idiots in the public at large be encouraged to vote on such matters. Should a policy by mistake come to a vote, all sets of authorities must advertise lies about the issue to confuse the voters and render the results a matter of chance rather than thought. If a vote doesn't go the "correct" way, for instance if idiots pass a constitutional amendment setting state marriage policy or bi-lingual education policy, then the mayor or schools superintendent should ignore the voters and do what he personally thinks best. Oh, and put the policy BACK onto the ballot so the idiots have another chance to get it right. If a vote, by chance, comes out well, then the item is taken OFF the table and out of the idiot's authority for as long as possible, while the authority does... what he thinks best.

Posted by: Pouncer at March 10, 2004 11:30 AM