Remember the blog article about a week ago about that ridiculous claim that 25% of the children in this country are hungry? That claim was part of a long-time propaganda campaign to convince people (for selfish gain, I believe, on the part of people making a career out of this) that hunger is one of the main problems in America., even as a record number of Americans are on food stamps (making President Obama, as Newt Gingrich said, the "Food Stamp President"). You can talk about the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq not being great successes over a number of years, but the wort war FAILURE has been the LEFTIST "War on Poverty" announced by Lyndon Johnson when I was just getting out of high school (circa 1964-1965). To listen to these "hnger advocates", we are now WORSE off, after 45 years and trillions of government dollars, then when we started. But the amazing thing is that we have a simultaneous campaign on the left, and from the usual establishment suspects, against OBESITY in America--especailly childhood obesity.
The conclusioin is obvious. This supposed "crisis" of 25% of American children being hungry is really a BRILLIANT STRATEGY to SAVE OUR CHILDREN (especially poor children, who apear to be more affected by the obesity "epidemic") from the dred scurge of obestiy. This strategy is so brilliant that we must credit President Obama, and the First Lady, with saving our children's health (obviuoisly an unnoticed part of ObamaCare) by the use of hunger as a weapon.
This article was proompted by a report from the Fox News "F Team" on Saturday. Oops. Sorry,. I meant the Fox News "A Tema" (lol--boycott Fox). Yes, the usual propaganda was trotted out. There is that statistic that 20% of the people in EVERY STATE are "obese" (except Colorado, at 19.6%, or some such percentage close to 20%). And the report said that lthe problem is especailly acute among lower income people. This obseity was linked with the explosion of diebetes and other health problems (even thoug the "science" is very vague on the relatoinship between degrees of being overweight and specific, or even oveall, health problems). Define "obesity" for me? You can't? Neither can the government, or the Center for Diease Control (health care establishment). Oh, they surely have an ARBITRARY standard for that "poll" about the percentage of obese people in America. But it is totally arbitrary, with no attempt to differentiate 400 pound people from 200 pound people.
Now this blog has been--despite my ridiculue of this propaganda--AHEAD of the curve on the fight against obesity. Who can forgetr my expose, a YEAR ago, on FAT STEWARDESSES. Yes, I was almost a year ahed of that pilot exposing the crisis of 'grande" stewardesses not even wroth hitting on. While I am trying to SAVE people by suggesting that old time cute stewardesses were HEALTHIER, the government is responsible for ENCOURAGING OBESITY. Yes. You know and I now that it is the Federal Government that makes it impossible for a lprivate business to FIGHT OBESITY--especailly in women. Any private business who tries to fight obesity in women gets hit with a sex discrimination calim. Once again, leftist "feminists" (leftists first) are KILLING WOMEN by crippling the fight against obesity. (As to the "feminist" War Against Girls, see the blog article on Saturday.)
But, ahead of the curve though I am, I am not even appreciated by Kenda, my older daughter. When I informed her, on my visit to see her in Boston last year, of the looming health crisis of FAT STEWARDESSES (obvviously extending beyond one occupationi), Kenda was appalled, saying: "Daddy, you should talk. You are no Mr. America yourself." Kenda obviusly does not know abut my Mr. America title. And not many people would consider me "obese" (that definition problem again. When I went into the United States Army, I weighed about 160 pounds, at 6 ft., 1 inch. I weigh conssiderably more now, but less than 200. But this is not about ME. This is about this absurd, and contradictory propaganda about "crises" to justify more and more intrusion into our lives. Coke and ice cream, for example, are representative of two of the major food groups necessary for life, but the government refuses to recognize that obvius fact.
Do you have any doubt that being actually FAT is bad for your health? Only if you are in the mainstream media, or are some other leftist, have yu eveerf had any such doubt. Now it is unclear if being moderately overweight is really bad for your helath, and more than unclear just how bad it may be. However, everyone believes that being GROSSLY FAT is unhealthly for you, and that "healthy" eating is good for your health. I am not addicted to Cokes and ice cream becase they are GOOD for me (although in this case, I think they need to take another look). But I am with Patrik Henry on this: "Give me Cokes and ice cream, or give me death". Yes, I now that Patrick Henry is quoted as saing: "Give me liberty.....", but now you know the real truth (another blog scoop).
Am I erally "misquoting' Patrick Hentry? Is this merely part of my sarcasm disease (my other major health problem, besides eyesight and that Coke and ice cream addiction)? I don't think so. This truly is about LIBERTY. I think Patrick Hentry would be proud of me, and proud to have his name associated with again fiighting governent control of ouur lives.
Yes, this whole "obesity" propaganda--as really is true of the "hunger" propaganda--is deseigned to promote Big Government, and government contorl of your life. Now these people do not YET dare to directly say that I am not allowed to eat fatty foods, or dink Cokes. Instad, they propose to TAX and REGULATE such thngs out of existence. Leftists dislike McConald's anway, since they dislike capitalism, and so leftists have no qualms about telling McDonald's what it can SELL you. Yes, that does TELL YOU what you can eat. It just does so indirectly. There are attemts all ove the country to REGULATE the fat content of food. Yes, that Fox report (boycott Fox) noted that people pay no attentioin to that "calorie labeling" being mandated almost everywhere. Implict it he Fox report, and explicit in leftist havens all over this country, is the idea that people need to be FORCED to "eat healthy". I think Patrick Hentry and I would agree that this is a threat to LIBERTY. Even if I am wrong about what Patrick Hentry would think, I am right about the principle. Government has no business telling people what they can eat and drink.
Are there areas where leftists want see this issue of freedom? Of course there are. These are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four (leftists, includng the mainstream media). Leftists do not want yo to interfere with their MARIJUANA--even if it is against "the law" (which leftists obey only when they agree with it--e.g. illegal immigratiion). COCAINE? You say that leftists want to REGULATE marijuana and cocaine? Right. They want t REGULATE everything, as if government can effectively control every aspect of your life exactly as they envision it. Pay not attention what has happened with that LOST "War on Poverty".
Are there other, bigger, heallth problems out there than obesity (not tomention "hunger" in the USA)? Of course there are. One of those is HOMOSEXUAL SEX. AIDS, for example, is a condcut driven disease, but the government has deliberately refused to identify, and fight, the CONDUCT that spreads AIDS. That has resulted in the unnecessary death of millons of people worldwide, and tens of thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--in the Untied States. In terms of "man-years", homosexual sex has cost much more life than "obesity" OR cigarettes. Yu say homosexual sex can be "safe". I wonder. But--accepting that as true--where was the campaign to make it safe? Yu say homosexual sex is not the primary way AIDS is spread in the world, althogh it clearly is the primary way it has been spread in the United States? So what? Where is the campaign against ALL of the ways in which AIDS has been spread? You know why there has been no efffective campaign againt AIDS, except the gradual advance of treatment, and so do I. That has everything to do with political correctness and SEX ( sacrfed "right' in America, although eating ice cream and drinking Cokes obviusly is not).
Yuo want to know another bigger health risk in America than obeisty? HETEROSEXUAL SEX (of the non-marital, promiscuous--especially teenage--kind). Again, this particular epidemic has KILLED more people (in man-years), and definitely ruined more lives, than obesity. Sexually transmitted diseases. Obesity itslf. Psychological problems. Poverty. Cycle of disease and inadequately aed for children. SEX is one of the primary factors in them all. But you are regarded as hopelessly out of date if you even mention how UNHEALTHY promiscuous sex is. A CAMPAIGN against it? Forget it. That is only for the "abstinence" crowd. You culd not even cut the hypocrisy and dishonesty here with a knife.
"But Skip, you make some good points. However, are yoou not ingoring that hunger and obesity can both exist in the same society?"
No, I am not ingoring that THEORETICAL possibility. It is absolutely absurd--not to mention and indictment of the very policies advocated--to assert that 25% of American children are hungry. And there is a direct CONTRADICTION to assert that we face a "crisis" in this country in both hunger and obesity. The fact is that both "hunger" and "obesity" are so permeated with propaganda, and a bias toward government control an Big Government, that it is impossible to accurately evaluate them. Thsese are mere SCARE and GUILT campaigns. Propaganda pure and simple. Sure, "obeisty" (whatever it is) might be a problem. And there may be some hungry people falling through the cracks. But the propaganda is absurd and useless, and the assault onFREEDOM is worse than that. I still maintain that Patrick Henry would have understood the real "crisis" here--a "crisis' in the kind of country we are and wnat to be.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment