It is pretty bad when "public service" organizations and commercials are merely a tool for "1984" style leftists propaganda. However, that is a long-term trend of the leftist liars and hypocrites in this country who are experts at having the pubic fund their partisan efforts (even while attacking viciously--hypocrites that they are--any alleged "fudning" of conservative groups, such abstinence education"). Planned Parenthood (one of the most evil organizations to ever exist in this country, and I have cited chapter and verse to prove this in the past) is one of the pioneers at this leftist tactic of pursuing a partisan agenda with public money. For decades, ACORN (that leftist coalition of some 200 leftist ogranizations which committed voter fraud on behalf of Obama) has received Federal funding for decades now.
How can one object to a group using the website name "CancerProject.org. Well, I can, whe such group is merely a front for a radically leftist message using words that lie. "People's Republic of China", anyone? This use of words as a misleading weapon is a long-term tactic of the left.
Yep. I heard a commercial for "CancerProject.org.". The commercial had nothing to do with "cancer"--or at least very little. The commercial basically said that parents were killing their children with cancer and obsity if they failed to raise their children as VEGETARIANS. I could not make this stuff up!!!! It is a very short step from this outrageous commercial to the government FORCING people to be vegetarians. Is there real evidence that being a vegetarian prevents you from having cancer? Not really. But that is not the main point. The main point is that these people LIE. Their reason for wantiong OTHER people to be vegetarians has nothing to do with cancer, and everything to do witht he PETA style, leftist insanity that it is evil for human beings to eat animal flesh. I assure you I am right on this.
Perhaps Don Imus said it best (talking about his prostate cancer): "I was told I would not get cancer if I only stopped eathing hot dogs. They lied to me. I could have eaten all of the hot dogs I want and ended up exactly the same way." Yes, for decades (since his relationship with his present wife, and because of her influence, Imus has basically been a vegetarian (of sorts).
Is there evidence that too mcuh "red meat" contributes to cancer? Sure there is. Not as much as genetics. But there is some scientific evidence to that effect. So what?
If you want to be a vegetarian because you believe it is healthier, be my guest. Just don't tell ME that I contributed to killing my children because I did not raise them to be vegetarians, and don't LIE about what you are really doing. This is actually another example of "poltically correct" science, since there is little funding out there for scientists trying to show the ILL effects of a vegetarian diet.
Does meat cause obesity, which this commercial almost directly asserted? Clearly not. If America is becoming more obese, it is because of MORE FOOD, and less exercise. Or do you really think that there were many vegetarians in the 19th Century? Now there is something to be said for the theory that a vegetarian diet is so unappetizing that it makes starvation more attractive to people. But meat is clearly not the main culprit in obesity.
Don't doubt me on this. I live in El Paso. The Mexican culture is known for obesity (although there are, of course, MANY thin Hispanics). Is that because of meat in the diet? Don't be silly. There may be meat in the diet, but in Mexico (and, to a lesser degree, in El Paso) many of these people cannot AFFORD much meat. It is STARCH and cabohydrates in the diet that most causes the obesity in this culture.
That brings me to ALCOHOL. Does alcohol contribute more to obesity thatn meat? Of course it does. That is not to mentioin the massive other number of ways alcohol kills people in this country (including contributing to many of the 43,000 traffic deaths every year, and many of the 16,000 plus murders). Do you see CancerProject.org taking on alcohol, or durg use? Don't be silly. For God's sake, if they were really interested in people's health, they would take on SEX (another killer, and destoyer of the lives of our children). These people are interested in a leftist agenda, and that is their true focus. "Cancer" and "children" are merely "button pushing" words to advance this agenda--basically with LIES.
Is there anything wrong with telling people to eat responsibly, and that obesity is bad for you? Of course not. But there is something wrong with USING this kindof message to advance a radically leftist agenda based on the concept that people should not eat the flesh of animals.
PTETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), by the way, is a vetran at this type of LIES and DECEIT. As I have often said: "Leftists lie. They lie routinely, and as a matter of course. They lie without guilt, in a "higher" cause than truth. They lie for perceived political advantage."
Don't beliefve the names of these organizations, any more than you believe China is a "people's Republic". Read, or re-read, "1984", and take it to heart.
P.S.: We know why these people do not take on sex. In the Age of Obama, sex is one of the ultimate gooods, with which we must not interfere (other than with condoms dropped from airplanes or distributed to 11 year olds in school). However, why don't these people take on alcohol? Surely many of these "vegetarians"--the ones reeally interested in "health"--don't approve of alcohol? Yep. I think this is true. But these people, whose main motive is POLITICAL, know that people who use alcohol are reluctant to give it up. No vegetarian freaks are going to convince them otherwise. Prohibition proved our attachment to alcohol. I have asserted--correctly--that the case against alcohol, as a NEW drug, is overwhleming. In terms of saving people's lives, the people who advocated Prohibition were on dead solid ground. More lives would have been saved by making Prohibition stick than by ANY leftist, "gegerain nonsense (or by any "anti-fat" Nazi limitations of choice). Prohibition was defeated NOT by noble argument, but by the greatest Civil Disobedience in history. That cvil disobedience wsa NOT for a "noble" cause, but solely because people were unwilling to give up their dangerous pleasure. I say that as someone who does drink alcohol. And I would not go so far as to advocate making alcohol illegal. However, I see clearly, unlike most of you out there, and the case for Prohibition being a Good Thing (if it had stuck) is BETTER than the case for vegetarianism, or anti-fat restrictions, being good things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment