Fat is the New Smoking
by James Hudnall
Do you have a spare tire? Some bulges? Do your thighs rub together? Do you have a big gut?
Well, be prepared to be ostracized.
They already did a number on smokers. It used to be you could smoke almost anywhere, from the supermarket to your workplace. And then they started passing laws until you now have to go to smoke areas which are usually outside and away from everywhere else. Even though OSHA had to admit that second-hand smoke in the workplace cannot affect people except under extreme conditions.
“Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.”
-Letter from Greg Watchman, Acting Ass’t Sec’y, OSHA, to Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
But relentless anti-smoking ads and a successful attempt to ban smoking in most movies and TV has resulted in smokers being made social pariahs.
So now they are going after fat people. The arsenal of mendacity and fraud they’re using comes in many forms. The latest broadside is to link obesity to global warming.
HIGH rates of obesity in richer countries cause up to a billion extra tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, compared with countries with leaner populations, according to a study that assesses the additional food and fuel needs of the overweight.
The finding is particularly worrying, scientists say, because obesity is on the rise in many rich nations.
“Population fatness has an environmental impact,” said Phil Edwards, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “We’re all being told to stay fit and keep our weight down because it’s good for our health. The important thing is that staying slim is good for your health and for the health of the planet.”
So do China and India have less greenhouse gas emissions than Canada and Germany? After all, China and India have “thinner” people. The answer is of course, no. This is a false claim like many of those the AGW crowd makes.
But making false statements didn’t stop the anti-smoking crusaders who made it seem like smoking a cigarette automatically gives you get lung cancer. And it’s gotten so bad many places are using their anti-smoker bias to deny smokers their civil rights. Using the same logic, they can start doing that to the “obese.”
Mind you, the obesity epidemic burst onto the scene when the government changed their obesity ratings by using a bogus Body Mass Index (BMI) chart so off base that muscular people like The Rock or Arnold Schwarzenegger would suddenly be rated obese. Many athletes are rated as obese under these standards.
But the media naturally just ran with the press releases that claimed there was a sudden obesity epidemic sweeping the nation. And then came the articles stating it was causing health costs to soar and something must be done about it.
They are using the obese as a scapegoat for health costs. And now airlines are making fat people pay double for air fare. The reason fat people spill over into the next seat is because they keep making the seats narrower. They have been doing that for years. And suddenly, with the obesity epidemic, it “became a problem.” If you read the comments on some of the articles talking about it there are lots of rabble saying things like “Good! Make those fatties pay triple!”
Be careful what you wish for. If they get away with doing this to people out of shape, they will find some other group to target next and soon you may be in the crosshairs.
Everywhere you look they are trying to ban something and make a group out to be the fault of it all. If you’re a conservative, the Obama DHS is calling you a domestic terrorist. Some in the MSM are calling you greedy racists.
As long as we let others define us as something we’re not, they will get away with it. It’s time we stop letting them do that.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
158 Comments
One big difference between smokers and the overweight: many in congress are overweight themselves! That will mean not nearly as many laws legislating weight as we saw with smoking.
http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com
Well, since congress has taxed alcohol and tobacco to the limit, they have to find something else to tax and what's left? Sugar and fat.
Ok so if it is for the good of the planet will the taxpayers fund my liposuction? Or my Gastric bypass? what about the resulting excess skin? would you pay for my plastic surgery? Wouldn't it be descriminatory not to?
Are fat people the new racists? The list of people whom it is ok to mock or abuse is growing: Christians, With Mormons as a sub-group, Smokers, Fatties, pagent contestants, capitalists, Ethnic Republicans, Female Republicans, motor sports fans, shooting sports fans, non-prius drivers…
Next is the Taco Bell Tax.
Eating Taco Bell gives you gas (methane) which causes global warming. So logic would tell you that the less Taco Bell you eat, the less man made Global warming would occur. Easy as that – we save the planet bing bang boom – done.
As far as charging extra for a person that physically needs two seats – I'm OK with that. I was on a short flight between two very large people and could barely move my arms enough to drink my free 7-UP. I was the meat in a fat sandwich.
This is a tax I wouldn't mind seeing, as long as they start with Barney Franks and Chris Dodd. There's no way those two can fit in those airplane chairs. For starters, their heads are too big.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
Damn! I quit smoking cigars so I would not be osterized , then I gain weight because of it and now I am osterized again? Good thing they are not coming after conservatives also.
Was that you? Sorry.
It used to be that fat people were rich. But now fat people are the poor. We just cant afford the healthy stuff so we eat a lot of processed food. Damn the $0.99 menu!!!!
Yesterday there was an article where Congress blamed it on job stress. I'm surprised they didn't blame President Bush for their extra pounds.
What is the basis for their conclusion that fat people contribute more to greenhouse gas? Flatulence? A national Beano entitlement would take care of that.
Plain and simple – the GOP lives in the PAST….it is clear your point of view clings to the 1950's — you love your big fat steaks, your love to suck down a pack of Marlboro reds, you still put butter on a burn, you think Thanksgiving is a religious holiday, you cannot fathom any sort of change whatsoever.
Since this article blog seems to have a problem with being healthy… it remains obvious you guys in the Grand OLD party love Gitmo and Abu Gharib, waterboarding and torture SO MUCH that even you even approve of killing yourselves with fat!
More so – since recent findings prove barbequed, grilled or fried foods raises the chances of pancreatic cancer by, oh…60 percent – you will now deliberately burn all your fatty beef just prove it is an AGW conspiracy — right?
Health is something the "liberals" made up ,right? HAHAHA – all you couch potatoes get ready for the TV show of your life when the War Crimes trials begin with your beloved Bush, Rove, Cheyney and Rumsfeld.
You're gonna see how dead meat really gets grilled !
Plain and simple – the GOP lives in the PAST….it is clear your point of view clings to the 1950's — you love your big fat steaks, your love to suck down a pack of Marlboro reds, you still put butter on a burn, you think Thanksgiving is a religious holiday, you cannot fathom any sort of change whatsoever.
Since this article blog seems to have a problem with being healthy… it remains obvious you guys in the Grand OLD party love Gitmo and Abu Gharib, waterboarding and torture SO MUCH that even you even approve of killing yourselves with fat!
More so – since recent findings prove barbequed, grilled or fried foods raises the chances of pancreatic cancer by, oh…60 percent – you will now deliberately burn all your fatty beef just prove it is an AGW conspiracy — right?
Health is something the "liberals" made up ,right? HAHAHA – all you couch potatoes get ready for the TV show of your life when the War Crimes trials begin with your beloved Bush, Rove, Cheyney and Rumsfeld.
You're gonna see how dead meat really gets grilled !
There was a similar report release last week that also included trees. Trees can cause a rise in CO2.
Is it just me, or is Western "Liberalism" beginning to look more and more like a very legalistic religion? Being "socially irresponsible" is beginning to sound like the "Seven Deadly Sins" (sans lust):
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride
So now we can excoriate and shame people for the same behavior as our ancestors did just for "rational" reasons instead of "religious" ones?
If the cost/benefit analysis for the airlines breaks on the side of hiking their fares, go for it. Let the consumer decide whether they're making the wrong choice. If they alienate so many fat people it becomes a losing proposition, they might even reconsider. In the same way, I'm not comfortable with the government telling people to get in shape, but I'd be perfectly amenable to private insurance companies doing so.
Yes, the "epidemic" is grossly exaggerated. Yes, there's scapegoating. Yes, the numbers are fudged to define "obesity" downward to ridiculous extremes. But on the other hand, there's a lot to be said for the evidence of one's own eyes. There's a LOT of fat people in this country. Not chubby, not "pleasantly plump," but grossly, sloppy, spilling-out-over-the-stretch pants obese.
Should they be FORCED to be thin? No, of course not. But neither should a private concern like an airline be forced to make concessions to their *choice* of lifestyle. And yes, it's a choice…there aren't THAT many thyroid conditions out there. It's not a function of social or economic status…exercise costs nothing, and eating food in reasonable quantities costs even less. It's a function of self control and discipline, and it's not everyone else's fault if they happen to lack it.
I don't think the government has any place telling people to get in shape, particularly when they're allowed to define what the "proper shape" is; but to suggest that free market concerns should make concessions – against their own interests – to further simplify the lives of overweight people? I don't see it.
Disclaimer: I'm a 30-ish smoker carrying around 15 unnecessary pounds of winter weight myself, and working to get rid of it. I know it's not easy.
I read this and then I started to think about my favorite foods and drinks…beer, corndogs, margaritas, cheeseburgers, pizza, diet coke, wine, m&m's (yes, I am very aware of how refined my palate is)…and I realized exactly how Congress is going to tax this: sporting events.
There is going to be a "fat tax" added to our tickets to watch hockey, football, basketball and baseball…or anything else thats a typical american pasttime.
Boy, I wish I was as perfect as you.
By the way, I think you missed a few cliches in your diatribe.
When the revolution comes, and the agriculture infrastructure breaks down, the only healthy, readily-available meat products will be wholesome, grain-fed liberals.
Of course you have to season the hell out of 'em, they're pretty bitter.
How many times have we heard "keep your laws off our bodies"? The left's hypocrisy will never cease.
I'm waiting for someone to blame the overweight for "second-hand obesity."
Also, what will the liberal fat-police do about folks like Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, & Perez Hilton . . . oh, and everybody's favorite fraud, Algore?
I find it strange, rather difficult, to look a females who are so anorexic that their knee caps are bigger than their heads and their thighs are skinnier than arms; now this new age look may appear good on TV Land however when you see it live walking down a Lower Eastside Manhattan street it's creepy in a starving-Ethiopian sort of way.
I often wonder how it is for a guy to have sex with skeletons,. aren't they worried about breaking bones and what not?
yeah i thought the left was the creative side!!
LOL!! Boning!!
Good point. Liberalism is an Utopian religon.
http://www.alistz.net
Agreed, "too thin" is every bit as repellent as "too fat."
"…Mind you, the obesity epidemic burst onto the scene when the government changed their obesity ratings by using a bogus Body Mass Index (BMI) chart…"
I remember hearing that on the news one day while Clinton was in office. Basically, with a stroke of the pen people who weren't "obese" the day before, suddenly were.
Another way this kind of thing starts is by using it as a workplace insurance incentive. Allowing a person to choose to use use a legal product or not– i.e. "If you don't smoke you can pay a lower insurance premium" — gets transformed "this is a tobacco free facility" taking all choice out of the equation. Seat belt laws, helmet laws are two more examples. Obviously it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt or a helmet or lay off the ciggs, but we do we need "nanny" laws to make us more "responsible" by making our choices for us? So, yeah I can see this happening with people who weren't obese yesterday but are today.
Let's not leave the airlines out of this either. Several years ago many airlines refitted, or ordered new, aircraft with smaller seats in order to get more passengers on a flight. A guy whose over 6 feet tall around 200 lbs isn't obese but still has a tough time in those seats. Instead of making one person buy two seats because all they have are only (small) one-size-fits-all seats, they could offer "big and tall" seating for a little extra money. There's probably plenty of people who'd pay a little extra for a larger seat even if they don't need it.
The magic word is "externalities". It's the justification the left will be using to politicize all of your personal choices by claiming that what you do affects everyone.
Why is it ok to ban smoking? Because of the externalities that burdens public health.
Why should we tax fat people? Because of the externalities that affect the environment.
Why pay higher taxes for an SUV? Because of the externalities it places on roads and energy.
That last one I made up, but it's plausible. They can do this with anything, and they will.
Now that the snake oil scientists and liberal zealots have opened this door, it will only get wider until the next change in congressional or executive power.
Y'know, since the changeover to digital cable is coming, reliable sources[1] claim "they" can monitor your watching habits.
Let's start taxing reality television.
[1] crackpots
My body, my choice ….
Kill babies if you want to, but DON'T YOU DARE get fat!
It seems most articles I read these days leave me searching the page for an Onion logo.
The fact is this: If someone is overweight it is their choice most of the time. Sometimes its not. There are certain people who really cannot help it. However, the people filing through the grocery store aisles, wearing 23 XXX usually can help it. But, if they like themselves that way, we as Americans should be FINE with it. After all having a choice to be who you are and to follow your bliss be it making a Billion before the age of 30, or buying an entire box of Hostess Ho Ho'sand eating them. Good for you! These rights are God given and every American has been blessed just so. So if you like Ho Ho's, those Swiss Cakes, or Southern Fried Chicken be my guest. Layne Bryant will thank you. Do it for Capitalism.
The BMI comment in the post is actually fairly inaccurate. Yes, it's true, BMI measurements do incorrectly miss outliers like Michael Jordan, Shaq, etc. But those people are outliers. Studies have repeatedly shown that the correlation between BMI measurements and between perfectly accurate (but more difficult to obtain) measurements of obesity, like skin-fold caliper tests, is nearly perfect. For 99% of the population, a high BMI does accurately indicate obesity and a low BMI accurately indicates being underweight.
Also, it's pretty clear that obesity does result in higher health care costs, which we all have to bear in our insurance premiums. Just think of all the costs associated with Type II diabetes, which has become a serious epidemic in certain communities (especially among blacks, Hispanics, and southerners). I don't particularly want to bear those costs, either via my insurance payments or my Medicare taxes. If spending $100 today on obesity-fighting programs (either public or private) saves me $1000 later, then I consider that a good investment. I consider that a *conservative* investment!
I generally agree with apotheosis above. Look, you guys can get as far as you want, as far as I'm concerned. Just don't try to move the arm rest on the airplane, so that you can spill into my seat. You didn't pay for my seat. You don't get to use it.
Just wait until they nationalize the healthcare system and then begin denying healthcare to the obese and smokers on the basis that they've chosen an unhealthy lifestyle.
I'll disagree with a ferw things here. Regardless of the true nature of physical harm that comes from second hand smoke, as a non-smoker I don't like people smoking around me. It bothers me. It's ruined many a meal in restaurants, the taste of my food impacted by the smoke of someone at the next table. It's impacted my hangover, waking up from a night of drinking, compounded by the smoke-filled air forced on me. So, I don't have a real problem with telling smokers to consdier that other people are impacted by their lifestyle choice.
Ditto with obese people. I used to travel extensively and I've had the experience of being on an airline coach aisle when the 350lbs guy sits next to me and by sheer volume intrudes into the space I've paid for. Already uncomfortable in the tight confines, now this massive blob presses against me for three hours. Not Cool. I'm actually surprised that someone who has suffered this experience hasn't sued the airline for failing to provide what was paid for..not just a seat..but the accompying space required to occupy it.
http://www.alistz.net
What Hudnall was saying was that since they weren't using the caliper method, it demonstrates the non-objectivity of the study. Essentially, it was dividing weight by height, which groups all bodybuilders, football players, and other non-obese people as overweight.
I can understand the smoking thing but I can't understand the fat thing. With smoking you had smoke that drifted and affected other people but I don't think fat drifts. Or is that just me being logical again?
If this is all true then the environment must really suck in the Samoa.
Actually, BMI is *always* calculated as weight divided by height. Calipers are definitely more accurate, but when you're doing studies of huge populations, it's simply not feasible to perform such measurements. And as I mentioned above, BMI measurements correlate almost exactly with more accurate measurements. You're correct that BMI will incorrectly diagnose bodybuilders, etc., as obese, but the overwhelming majority of the population aren't bodybuilders. BMI is a strikingly accurate measurement; it's just not perfect.
Studies that use BMI are perfectly objective, and all researchers who conduct this kind of analysis recognize that BMI will miss the statistical outliers.
Here's the thing
You can avoid smokers by choice. If there is a restaurant that allows smoking JUST DON'T GO IN. Why is that so complicated. It is kind of like saying i want to go to the strip club but don't want to be bothered by the nudity. Most places where there is only one Cowboys Stadium, Yankee Stadium, Lakers Arena etc you cant smoe there.
Now, fat people. I am a fat people and trust me I know it. I'm aware of it every day. It is something i struggle with. You know what if i could spare you from showing my hideous self from your sight I would. Problem is ther are no faties only areas of a plane, or restaurant, or movie theatre. Now that said, the fat ticket in a plane comes in if you cant fit in the seat with 2 extenders. I think that is reasonable. The overflow problem? I would argue that they have changed the seat sizes to a certain extent.
Remember, with the discovery of each new epidemic, there lies a goldmine in the deep pockets of BIG (fill in the blank).
Gawd, I hate trial lawyers.
Good point.
I wonder how they felt about the Girl Scouts naming a cookie after them?
As a frequent flyer, I am all for charging very large folks extra and MAKING them buy an additional seat. If you have ever done a flight next to these giants, you know what I mean.
Either way, charge or no charge, no one should be forced to sit next to them.
Once we have "universal health insurance" (in whatever form) the process starts in earnest. Weight, age, habits, genetics, all are fair game when "they" are paying for your medical care.
It is also OK to mock homosexuals, as long as they are conservative. Example Larry Craig.
Don't worry. Very few guys are attracted to excessively thin women. I should know. I'm 5'4" under 100 pds. I'm always suspicious whenever a guy shows interest. I mean there has got to be something wrong with him, right?
I can totally sympathize with overweight people because I KNOW that no one would be fat if they could avoid it. No one wants to be faced with constant derision from society on a daily basis. It's not something they planned. I can't think of one person who woke up one day and said "Hey I think I'll get fat".
"Also, it's pretty clear that obesity does result in higher health care costs…"
True.
"… which we all have to bear in our insurance premiums."
False. Or at least should be.
That's how our tax system is set up now. People in one part of the country have to pay for pet projects they'll never benefit from in another part. People who work have to pay taxes supporting people who can but won't. Rather than make those people go door to door and demand their neighbors pay for their health care, the government does it for them.
"If spending $100 today on obesity-fighting programs (either public or private) saves me $1000 later, then I consider that a good investment. "
Agreed. But that needs to be limited to the individual. If people want engage in risky behavior (mountain climbing or eating a Big Mac), they should have that freedom. Engage in risky behavior, pay a higher premium. The process doesn't need to force fairness on everyone.
Hmm…what does being 5'4" under 100 pds have to do with excessively thin?
If you factor in bone structure with height you might be at the correct weight for your build, however if you said you were 5'4" and under 75 pds I would venture to say you're not quite eating enough to sustain your build.
There is no perfect body-size and when discussing fat or shinny people things like height and bone structure must be factored in the equation. It is just as unhealthy for a person who is 5'9" with large bone structure to have a weight under 100 lbs as it is for a person who 5'4" with small bone structure to have a weight of 200 lbs.
The distortion of body image is predominantly a female phenomenon, we tend to do all sorts of strange things to ourselves in order to accommodate a specific type of body to the point where stuff like anorexia and bulimia are a fashion accessory.
Don't worry, I'm 5'11" 150 lbs of Amazonian…I scare the heck out of men and sometimes I even scare myself.
Hmm…what does being 5'4" under 100 pds have to do with excessively thin?
If you factor in bone structure with height you might be at the correct weight for your build, however if you said you were 5'4" and under 75 pds I would venture to say you're not quite eating enough to sustain your build.
There is no perfect body-size and when discussing fat or shinny people things like height and bone structure must be factored in the equation. It is just as unhealthy for a person who is 5'9" with large bone structure to have a weight under 100 lbs as it is for a person who 5'4" with small bone structure to have a weight of 200 lbs.
The distortion of body image is predominantly a female phenomenon, we tend to do all sorts of strange things to ourselves in order to accommodate a specific type of body to the point where stuff like anorexia and bulimia are a fashion accessory.
Don't worry, I'm 5'11" 150 lbs of Amazonian…I scare the heck out of men and sometimes I even scare myself.
Wow. Too much coffee while using the cell phone, huh?
Hey Fatty McButterpants,
This came from overseas not here so it has next to nothing to do with domestic politics or policies. I think this is more about your own personal waistline than anything else. I say pig out! Less time on this earth I have to hear your whining and paranoid stupidity.
That would be a good start. Let's tax trial lawyers and pork rinds. I'm sure there's a corollary there, but damned if I can figure it out.
Yeah, it's called First Class, only problem is that it's just a tad more than a 'little extra'.
I'm not sure I follow here. Are the same people who said bars should be allowed to have smoking if the owners want it (because they're the owners of a business) the same people saying airlines can't charge extra to overweight people (even though they're the owners of a business)?
typical leftist nonsense. Nothing wrong with a good steak (particularly Allan Bros.!) because we WORK for it; an occasional cigar, with a tawny port or better, fine Napoleanic brandy. Fine dining is a watermark of a civilzed society- one suspects this troll enjoys whatever it is that they eat. Char grilling can be overdone, but like anything else in moderation it's fine.
No, the point this humuan detritus is dying to make is the Abu Grahib and Bush-Cheney nexus. The unhinged left has been frothing for some time, being 'cheated' out of their impeachment they have to have their war crimes (what a joke!) trial…
News for you- be careful what you wish for. Remember the law of unintended consequences…
Reminds me of the French and Bolshevik revolutions. They demonized organized religions as "enemies of rationality" and "opiates of the masses". Yet these revolutions led to the "Terror" of the early 1790's which in turn led to the rise of a protofascist dictator (Napoleon) and the famines and purges of the 1930's. These secularist regimes morph into pietistic forms of religions that inspire more guilt than any known religion has done. You can NEVER do enough to please the high priests and priestesses of environment Gaia-worship and political correctness. One must continually purge oneself of incorrect thought and behavior or risk being cast into the outer darkness.
That's hilarious — "second hand obesity."
Soon you'll see overweight people standing around outside government buildings eating twinkies, because they've been banned from eating inside the building. That's going to be really sad.
There is not a day that goes by where someone doesn't make a comment about my lack of weight. Perfect strangers will tell me to eat a cheeseburger. It just gets old. But don't mind me. I'm just too sensitive
Logic can get you in trouble these days. Soon you'll hear: "Put down the brain and step away from the computer with your hands up."
I can't wait to see a huge new obscene tax on obesity, and overweight folks ostracized.
Maybe then people will wake up, and realize the government is after all of us — not just some of us !
Higher cigarette taxes. Great, I don't smoke!
Higher alcohol taxes. Great, I rarely drink!
Taxes on strip clubs. Great, I never go to one!
Taxes on (insertt vice, habit or hobby here). Great, I don't do any of those!
Until it becomes personal, there will never be a revolt.
I can't wait to see a huge new obscene tax on obesity, and overweight folks ostracized.
Maybe then people will wake up, and realize the government is after all of us — not just some of us !
Higher cigarette taxes. Great, I don't smoke!
Higher alcohol taxes. Great, I rarely drink!
Taxes on strip clubs. Great, I never go to one!
Taxes on (insertt vice, habit or hobby here). Great, I don't do any of those!
Until it becomes personal, there will never be a revolt.
LOL!! I'm still looking for a job, but I'd probably be the one with the loaded chili-dog. But I'd only eat it outside so as not to torment my fellow workers with the heavenly aroma. They can keep their tabouli wraps and kelp smoothies.
When the government is big enough to give you all you want, it'll then be big enough to take all that you have, including your personal freedoms. Like the parent who dictates what the child can or cannot do with his/her allowance, so government will do to benefit recipients – all in the name of "controlling costs" and "for the good of society". Liberals have replaced Catholics and conservative evangelicals as the "bluenoses" of society: "You're eating too much", "Your showers are too long", "You're not recycling everything you can", "You have too many children"…
Mmmmm. . . chili-dogs. I'd stand out side to eat a chili-dog.
My older sister experienced the same, she got tired of everyone constantly telling her to eat (though she never reached the point I described in my initial comment) then menopause came along and changed all that.
FTA: —–Mind you, the obesity epidemic burst onto the scene when the government changed their obesity ratings by using a bogus Body Mass Index (BMI) chart so off base that muscular people like The Rock or Arnold Schwarzenegger would suddenly be rated obese. Many athletes are rated as obese under these standards.—-
It's ridiculous. In the Corps, we ran the Physical Fitness Test 4x per year. One morning, I was doing pull-ups next to an S/SGT who was built like an offensive linemen. He was on the Marine Corps Powerlifting Team. It was physically impossible for him to get his chin to clear the bar. His pectoral development wouldn't allow it. Common sense reigned of course and he had a waiver. PT 1.
I love this!! I am with you on this one.
Another effeminate male loses his masculanity and all sense of reason.
He also didn't even come close to making height and weight requirements. He had a waiver. Holding everyone to a certain BMI standard is discriminitory. When I was into my bodybuilding phase, there was no way to make weigh-in when you're bulking up. I would get temporary waivers from the flight surgeon. That's just common sense. All of this is about control. PT. 2
That's funny, but I didn't mention liberals in my piece. The obesity epidemic is apparently between your ears.
I was talking about statists which can be found in both parties.
As far as being healthy, as I pointed out, the government is using the fake BMI which gives a completly fals impression of whether a person is "obese" or not.
That's funny, but I didn't mention liberals in my piece. The obesity epidemic is apparently between your ears.
I was talking about statists which can be found in both parties.
As far as being healthy, as I pointed out, the government is using the fake BMI which gives a completly fals impression of whether a person is "obese" or not.
if they had a fat section for a few dollars more i'd take it. But bumping to first class is not the same. You see restaurants have "seperate but equal" facilities for smokers. the same cant happen for big and tall
Buckwheat, I am not in disagreement with you. I am old enough that I'm referring to days when there was no restriction on smoking in restaurants, and every restaurant allowed smoking. I'm completely for the owner of an establishment deciding whether or not he wishes to have a smoke-free environment, and every patron making his own decisions as to whether or not he wishes to frequent that establishment.
I never called anyone hideous, just pointing out that I've been in that position where in the confines of a coach airline seat, the obesity of the person sitting next to me negatively impacted me. I'm 6'4 and I would have certainly enjoyed more seating room myself. and certain airlines were better than others (Delta was the worst in my opinion) in having leg room. It would make sense to me for the airlines to have two rows on the larger airplanes that could accomodate kingsized passengers. But again..how the airlines handle this situation should be a business decision on their part.
No offense intended.
Very True. Christopher Hitchens made this point in his anti-God book. He lumped alll the "big movement' political revolutions of the 20th century into de facto religions.
Gee, this is just more of the same for us San Franciscans. The City Mothers and Fathers couldn't outright ban cigarettes, so they did the next best thing. They banned them from being sold in any place that has a pharmacy or prescription drugs. That got rid of two of the biggest retailers of cigarettes–Walgreen's and Rite-Aid. There is an appeal pending on that little jewel. The City is just looking out for my health. I hope it also means that they will replace the cigarettes on the shelves with diet aids. Then eventually, when I get on the cable car to go downtown, I won't have to tell Gigantor sitting there that unless he paid two fares, he can move his fat ass over so I can sit down.
Hahahaha!!! The irony in this is delicious! Self-righteous big mouth Al Gore is a contributor
to "global warming"!
Actually, we are practicing freedom of expression you lib moron.
You get a 30 minute timeout for NOT being tolerant. Go sit in the corner B!tch
I hear you. My pet peeve was helmet laws. All you need is one jagoff to say, "well, I don't want to pay for you being on life support" to set me off. Considering just rarely that scenario occurs, they can justify anything.
Why not ban male homosexual intercourse due to the significant societal burden of paying for AIDs research and care?
(and no, I'm not advocating cutting off AIDS funding, just want the nannies to see that their ox can be gored too)
Heh. Clever way to avoid the horror of Atheist states, call them religions.
Okay, for the record, the crusaders were fighting for the right…uh…where pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.
Ok i guess i overdid it. Wow sorry for unleashing my digital wrath.
but I think we can all agree that if you need 2 seat extenders, a traditional seating arrangement will not accomodate your needs.
don't forget we fatties smell like pork and are ugly.
i fly alot too and i am purposefully going to overflow on to you next time.
I'm waiting for them to tax breathing. After all, we exhale CO2 a "dangerous pollutant" according to Obama's EPA
I'm waiting for them to tax breathing. After all, we exhale CO2 a "dangerous pollutant" according to Obama's EPA
I see you continue to live up to your name.
Here's the thing: the opportunity cost of allowing one person to use two seats but only pay for one just doesn't add up. Regardless of the reason for the use of the second seat, for carry-on baggage or because of their size, it's still another seat that the airline needs to sell. To say that a person using two seats should only have to pay for one because they are still just one person using the two seats is like saying that a restaurant should only charge you for an entree even if you order an appetizer and dessert, because it's still just one person. It's theft for a person – overweight or otherwise – to use two seats on an airplane when they've only paid the airline for one.
Lots of people in the military find the time to work out and stay in shape so fat people can be lazy and eat more than they should (not addressing people with serious medical problems which is about 10% of fat people I suspect). Don't understand why being tough and working out is supposed to be a "liberal" issue. If anything, it should be conservatives who believe in personal responsibility and making an effort to better one's own body.
Back when Americans did hard physical labor they mostly weren't fat. Obesity is really a sign of how easy people have it these days. Even in "the worst economy since the 1930s" ever bother to walk through a grocery store and notice how much food is in there and how little it costs?
AGW
A rrogant
G rotesque
W hacko
If you hate life so much why do you persists in continuing?
Is there anything which you and your pristine buddies allow the rest of us to do?
I suspect you want to eliminate ALL CO2 from the atmosphere. Have you considered the ultimate consequences of that achievement?.
I don't agree with these "Big Hollywood" pieces of web trash very often, but this one I can give some support.
As much as overweight people should be encouraged to get in shape, they have rights, too. Instead of trying to regulate big people (who incidentally have never been proven to be collectively unhealthy), they should regulate the crap they put in people's food which causes gross weight gain.
People have the right to eat as much as they want as long as they're not taking food out of my mouth or my kid's. It's their responsibility to lose the weight and no amount of intervention is gonna make them do it. I think it's terribly insensitive to make a single person pay double just because they are overweight. How about creating more room on airplanes instead of forcing people into those uncomfortable seats?
As far as smokers, I hate being next to one in a bar or restaurant. The cigarettes stink and the smoke gets in my hair and clothes, and the smokers have little regard for that. Here in New York, they banned smoking from buildings and that made bars much easier to hang out in because smokers just go outside.
But I don't think that should have been forced. Banning smoking from establishments should have been up to individual businesses. Yes, I can see how that would be a workplace hazard for barkeeps and wait staff, but an owner and his workers should determine what's best for the business and not City Hall.
Let's just go ahead and ban fast food. It's their fault anyways, right? Don't they FORCE people to eat their toxic sodium-ladden grease bombs?
I love seeing people getting healthy, I think it's great. However, taking the 5:00 express to nanny-stateistan is really pissing me off. No one will be successful at maintaining a healthy lifestyle if forced. THEY have to make the decision for themselves. You've got to want it. Period.
Ah, good food and good company. I love BH! You guys make the day better.
Hey you inspired me, thank you! I'm being serious, your post moved me in ways that no other has today, I'm going to get up right now and go outside for a walk…
…right down to the butcher shop, to pick up some steak, pop into the bar next to it and get a six pack, and I'm low right now so I'll head into the convenience store too and get some more Marlboros, come back and throw the steak on the grill while savoring the sweet nicotine high and drinking a Red Stripe. I get shot at on a regular basis as part of my day job, so I'm not concerned that pansy, weakass trans-fats will be the cause of my demise either.
Oh and Hitler was a vegetarian, non-smoking, teetotaler too. Just sayin'…
It's more repellent, and can be downright dangerous for everyone involved too.
In the future all restaurants are Taco Bell.
Which actually makes sense now if your theory holds out, think of the massive tax revenues for the government! "Demolition Man" wasn't just in Gordon Brown's gift basket, it's being turned into government policy.
Yep. This is why you do not want government health care. Once they control the health business, they start deciding that people have to conform to what is healthy to reduce medical insurance costs. In other words, they feel they own you and can tell you how to live your life. Yes, we should all be healthy, but they are very arbitrary about their definitions. In the UK and Japan for example, they started turning away people over 70 for medical procedures because they didn't want to "waste the money" even though the people paid into the system their whole lives.
Those bureaucrats who run these systems decide who they feel "deserve" the money, whether they paid into it or not. So in the UK they are starting to deny care to smokers, drinkers, the obese and people over 70. A head of the NHS recently stated that Alzheimer patients should be euthanized to cut costs.
That's how "humane" universal health care is.
What's really going to be great is to be able to just walk up to anybody and say, "You shouldn't be eating that"! — or — "You know, fatty, that's 'not good' for you"! — or — "You know, you could 'just quit' eating" — or —- You know, you should just take your fat azz outside, cause I could get 'second-hand' fat from you! Or, pass a law that forbids fatties from eating while driving in the cars with kids, it's 'unhealthy'! Or maybe there will be breathelizers for people who eat anything fatty while driving! It was only a matter of time before they started taxing sugar, sweets, drinks, and anything else those dopes want to tax!
All of these Leftist crusades are designed to divide us and pit us against one another… poor vs. rich, thin v.fat, non-smokers vs. smokers, environmentalists vs. SUV drivers, etc.. It's the oldest power-grab strategy in the world: Divide and Conquer. REJECT IT! Choose freedom and unity instead.
Well, fat people shouldn't be seen in parks, like smokers – it might offend someone!
Is it my imagination, I'm starting to feel like a laboratory rat!
hmmm I'm going to start purchasing stock in Chiuaua breeding.
The airlines have been narrowing the seats slowly for years now. This way they can fit in more people and make more money. Not only is that not safe, but in their greedy quest for profit they exclude a large number of the population who are overweight because of health issues not just because they can't control their eating.
Boo meat hating liberals
Hooray Beer!!
Excellent point. They've gone so far round the bend they're coming out the other side. On a personal note, I'm glad Lust hasn't been in included in the new 'religion' … always been my favorite deadly sin.
Hell, yes. I thought the mantra was "My body, My choice".
Not when it comes to "the greater good" though, which of course is anything they feel like at the moment.
Not me. I smell like Doritos.
What we doing tonight Brain?
Same thing we do every night Pinky, try to take over the World!
I usually smell like bananas, which is actually gun oil, when people ask if they smell bananas I say no it's gun oil. Hilarity ensues.
mmmm now that's what we need! Gun Oil flavored Doritos!
mmmm now that's what we need! Gun Oil flavored Doritos!
I'm sure there are Top Men working on that as we speak.
Around the same time Clinton tried to impose universal health care on Americans they (ironically considering how fat Clinton was at the time) started this Obesity Epidemic meme. Statists like t create crisis that they can "solve" by new taxes and regulations. In the last 40 years or so have been plenty of fat people in the US because this country is prosperous and food is plentiful. We also lead the world in processed food development which is part of the problem. Our industrial prepackaged food is high in sodum and carbs. Our fast food is usually high in carbs and fats.
But as for the BMI, it has been used in a fallacious manner and has been widely debunked. Yet they still use it. Regardless, the government wants to control costs in advance of moving us willfully or not tinto universal health care. Once they have us there they can start dictating the terms whether or not you get it. You will still have to pay or it in any event.
Once they control the health business, they feel they own you and can tell you how to live your life. Yes, we should all be healthy, but the bureaucrats are very arbitrary about their definitions. In the UK and Japan for example, they started turning away people over 70 for medical procedures because they didn't want to "waste the money" even though the people paid into the system their whole lives. In the UK one of the heads of the NHS said it would be a good idea to euthanize Alzheimer patients. You have to look at the long term destruction of these trends. And stop them before they get out if hand,
The solution to weight gain in the US is better education about eating and that is happening now. It will take time. We do not want segregation for classes of people. We're seeing a return to that now and it must be stopped.
They already do that in England and Japan. They also do it to drinkers and people over 70.
Perhaps obesity is a mental illness. Just assuming that it is caused by sloth is wrong. But then again, maybe schizophrenics are just too lazy to ignore the voices. Obviously, we should target them next.
of course china has more gh gas than canada idiot – is 50x bigger…the point is that on a per capital basis western world dietary demands produce more gh gas. Why should a fat person impose on my personal space on a plane, increase my insurance premiums due to the diabetes and other obesity related complications. if you choose that lifestyle you should pay for the privilege.
how is going to sizzler 5x a week a mental illness, this is a lifestyle choice
In trying to shoot down my argument you made my point for me. It has nothing to do with "obesity"
Airplanes are an issue because they made the seats too small. It wasn't a problem before. That was corporate greed.
As for the insurance costs, they pay for insurance too. And since insurance companies are largely a scam, you're just using that excuse to betray your intolerance and lack of empathy for other human beings.
"Well, be prepared to be ostracized."
"Prepared?"
Where, exactly, are you living that being overweight doesn't ALREADY get you ostracized?
"Well, be prepared to be ostracized."
"Prepared?"
Where, exactly, are you living that being overweight doesn't ALREADY get you ostracized?
I know, but now it's official.
Frank, they CHANGED the BMI. One day I was overweight, the next…without gaining a pound…I was obese, and now subject to various punishments.
Lots of things result in health care costs. Let me have five minutes with you discussing your life and you better believe I'll find a bunch of things you do that I don't want to pay for. But, being a reasonable guy, I realize the entire point of mass insurance is to spread costs. You let me be 6'4 and 250lbs, and I'll let you go skiing. Or keep drinking. Or talking on your cell while driving. Or crossing on the "Don't Walk" light. Or eating BBQ food. Or…..
Beside, BMI is such a crude metric for health it's all but worthless. My cholesterol, resting heart rate, and blood pressure are all better than average (as my doctor said, "I'd like you to lose weight but I can't really justify asking.").
I can't wait to find out what YOU do I can attack. Your use of crack seems to be a likely place to start.
I think I need to go to the hospital now. After reading about how fat people cause global warming blood started dripping from my ears and it has some wierd gritty bits in it.
Sound has color now.
As usual on these sorts of posts, the "exercise and eat less you lazy bastards" trolls come out.
Look, here's reality: according to a large study conducted by Standford University, 98% of all diets fail. This is compared to only 50% of anti-smoking programs. Now, remember, we are all told nicotine is more addictive than heroin. So how hard is it to quit overeating? Apparently pretty freakin' hard. But this should be no surprise. The hunger craving is not an artificial one, like the need for nicotine or caffeine. It is a hardwired body response, a survival instinct. If that instinct goes haywire, the "willpower" required to resist it is extreme. Think about it this way–suppose you decided to quit smoking, or drinking, but as part of that, you were required to take a drink or a smoke three times a day..but only three times a day. How successful do you think such a program would be?
And that's the problem. The first time I went on a diet I followed the Scarsdale. It was effective, but I was hungry all the time. As in every waking minute, and sometimes it would even wake me up at night. They said to wait a few months and it would abate. They lied. After nine months I said screw it and quit. Nothing was worth the misery.
And exercise? It's always good to exercise, and I spend more time exercising than any of my naturally skinny friends. But you can't lose weight that way. It takes 45 minutes of running (not jogging) to work off the calories of a single donut. And if you think about that, you'll realize why a person's individual ability to metabolize food is so important. For some people, a single extra donut a day can render them obese in 6 months. The myth of how exercise ramps up your metabolism to burn fat is just that, a myth–unless you are exercising to the level of a triathete.
Saying anyone can lose weight by dieting and exercising is technically true, just like saying anyone can join pro baseball by hard work and practicing. It's just not a useful observation, that's all.
You won't be so smug once the shooting starts you smarmey little Marxist. Unlike you libs, when push come to shove, the conservatives take their guns and push back.
You can go to hell. I'm going to Texas you twit.
I can't wait to examine your lifestyle to see all the things I want YOU to quit doing so you don't raise MY insurance premiums. It would be a lot of fun.
You're a genius! The way to lose weight is to be 19 years old and exercise 8 hours a day seven days a week! It's so simple! Why didn't I think of that?
You need your own "Lose Weight on the Military Plan" TV show.
While I agree with most of the points in Hudnall's post, I can see the flip side of this one. I'm 6'4.5 and 255lbs, and let me tell you, three hours in the seat of a 757 is like life in living hell. Those seats are just too damn small. (An Airbus 320, on the other hand, is fine, so it's not like they don't have choices.) So when my arms are bumping into you on your next flight, blame Boeing, not the width of my shoulders.
That said, if you are 400lbs, you should have to buy another seat. That's just common sense. If it is because of some provable medical condition, then your insurance should pay, not the airlines.
Another thing the airlines can try is not putting large people next to each other. I got on a flight several years ago and in one row of three seats there were three of us, each my size–the other two guys were college football players. We kind of laughed about it at first, but one of the guys finally asked the flight attendant if she could spread us out a but, and she was kind enough to move us all to aisle seats.
In Japan they've started mandatory BMI tests, with fines for your employer (!!) if you don't meet the official target.
I understand your perspective, How hard would it be for the airlines to have a few rows dedicated to larger seats for you guys. Seems like that would solve the problem, no?
I've never been a smoker, and I don't like being around smoke either, but I defend people's rights. I think thinks were fine when we had smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. I find whiners more annoying than smoke. Things have gotten too extreme. You have people trying to ban perfume, cologne and scented soap because they claim it causes them problems. Next they'll want to ban sweaty people.
And again, the problem with fat people in the next seat is the seats and spaces are way too small. They need to change the seating, or at least offer a section with wider seats for some people that they can request.
or at least offer a section with wider seats for some people that they can request.
They do on a lot of flights, it's called first class.
I was also ok with Smoking and non-smoking sections. I am old enough to remember though when restaurants were unlimited smoking, and it was very unpleasant to get your breakfast just as the guy at the next table was finished eating and lighting up.
No. First class costs way too much money. I am talking about offering the same price to overweight people in coach, in a section with wider seats. They would get first choice for that area, like some people can get the emergency exit seats which have more leg room.
It's discrimination to make people pay double because they are fat. Point blank.
So, you don't want First Class, you want a free Fat Class?
Actually, you can't avoid smokers by choice unless you choose not to go to work or college. A couple years ago when I was in school, I couldn't get into a several buildings without having to pass through a cloud of fresh smoke. I did adapt – I learned to hold my breath for a longish period of time without looking too much like I was (wouldn't want to appear rude and get beaten up by the hippies).
Just remember that they are jealous—-people forget that there are some people who have a hard time gaining and keeping on weight.
If I say anything, it is noting my envy, but also noting that they might have a challenge, like I have one losing weight.
Sorry that people are so insensitive. As we often note on this site, people often attack what they don't understand.
First Class includes a lot more amenities than just a larger seat.
Often things like a little more carry on luggage allowed; bags arrive in the baggage claim area before the luggage of coach travelers; first class or frequent flyer ticket holders usually spend less time waiting in line; the first class lounge, where travelers with a first class ticket can enjoy free food, free drinks and more comfortable seats, is not available to people flying coach; better in-flight food, real flatware instead of plastic throwaways; better entertainment options. Wider, more comfortable seats, where the rule of thumb is the first class seat is equal to the size of three seats in coach with extra padding for comfort, etc.
If someone wants all that they should pay for it. If all one person needs is a little bigger seat, there's no harm to an airline in offering a seating option at an adjusted price (like the clothing in Big and Tall costs a little more than "regular" size, but not double) .
I have a friend who is a big guy and just recently started a new job that requires some travel. His company insists he fly rather than drive, but they will not pay for First Class. He could lose weight but that will take time and he'll still be tall.
I think what rubs people the wrong way is airlines making one person buy two full price tickets or pay a far higher rate for First Class when all he or she needs is a little extra room. Tying this back to the article — things like this start out seemingly innocent enough but soon it becomes an opportunity for government to stick its nose in.
"…you even approve of killing yourselves with fat!"
Absolutely brother!
If a man wants to eat himself to death, what right do I have to stop him?
Using insurance rates to justify wieght restrictions only holds water if you also insist on extra charges or limitations for all other risk facotrs as well.
Your dad had cancer? That wil be extra. A Grandmother with heart disease? That's gonna cost you. Is that your motorcycle? Pay up! Do you sleep around? Mo Money Mo money…. You get the point. If goverment takes over the health care industry you can bet that it will only be a matter of time until they want regulate all lifestyle choices.
Next they will be going after skinny people. Being too skinny will cause the cost of health insurance to rise just as much as being too fat. The dem congress is just digging for excuses to force America to fall in line with their socialist plan. They lie about the numbers of guns going into Mexico from the us to make stricter gun laws which will then turn into a complete gun ban (the dems are very afraid of all the armed conservatives out there).
Actually, the problem is second hand cholesterol, and you get it by dancing with fat chicks.
This article was meant to stir you people up….it never explains who "they" are.! This place is more of an opinion poll.
Frank, unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this. The insurance companies are not covering a lot of the diabetic medications or supplies from the get-go. If they do, they are on the "higher tier" so the patient pays a bigger part of their perscription cost. Insurance companies are not covering people with past medical probelms like heart attack, breast cancer, etc. I know because I am one of them. I had breast cancer and I cannot get insurance from any carrier, no matter how high I am willing the deductable to go. So it is not necessarily true that diabetes is driving up health cost if you figure in that a lot of people don't even have insurance because the companies refuse to carry them.
thats ridiculous people should have the choice of what they eat smking what ever happened to personal liberties and i am healthy fit and in the military however if people chose to eat red meats sugar drink cokes that is a personal choice they dont eat?
We need to learn from History
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Whay stop with smokers? How about alchohol, drug abuse, SUGAR?????????
Discriminate against me for being fat? I am a fat guy with a gun(concealed pistol license) who smokes an ocasional cigar. I must be the cause of the world coming to an end.
AGW,
IN THE 1950'S EVERYONE SLEPT AT NIGHT WITH THEIR WINDOWS AND DOORS OPEN.
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS WERE NON EXISTENT. DRUG PROBLEMS WERE VERY RARE.
MOST NEIGHBORHOODS WERE FILLED WITH FRIENDLY PEOPLE WHO KNEW ONE ANOTHER AND
LOOKED OUT FOR EACH OTHERS CHILDREN.
YES AWG, WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY BABY. YOU MORON.
PROVE ME WRONG.
DON'T FORGET UNCLE TEDDY THE WTERMELON HEAD
Muscle burns more calories than fat, so healthy athletes contribute more greenhouse gases. That factor supports a tax on athletes and the healthy. Fat sequesters carbon–now isn't the goal of pumping carbon dioxide into the ground?
Politician: Bravo, Madge. Well done. Taxation is indeed the very hub of my gist. Gentlemen, we have to find something new to tax.
Second Official: I understood that.
Third Official: If I might put my head on the chopping block so you can kick it around a bit, sir…
Politician: Yes?
Third Official: Well most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed, except one.
Politician: What do you mean?
Third Official: Well, er, smoking's been taxed, drinking's been taxed but not … thingy.
Politician: Good Lord, you're not suggesting we should tax… thingy?
First Official: Poo poo's?
Third Official: No.
First Official: Thank God for that. Excuse me for a moment. (leaves)
Third Official: No, no, no – thingy.
Second Official: Number ones?
Third Official: No, thingy.
Politician: Thingy!
Second Official: Ah, thingy. Well it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.
Cut to vox pops.
Gumby: (standing in water) I would put a tax on all people who stand in water … (looks round him)… Oh!
Man In Bowler Hat: To boost the British economy I'd tax all foreigners living abroad.
Man In Suit: I would tax the nude in my bed. No – not tax. What is the word.~ Oh – welcome.
It's Man: I would tax Raquel Welch. I've a feeling she'd tax me.
The simple solution to AmeriDUH's overweight, is to end corn subsidies. Ergo, no more HFCS in EVERYTHING, and watch obesity/DiabeeetuS! disappear.
i ain't a damn bit scared of you
As the writer of this piece I will explain it to you: politicians, bureaucrats and the media who enables them.
they should deny it – these people have purposely and willfully chosen an unhealthy lifestyle, so why should we (the public) be stuck with the bill? You reap what you sow.
I was going to go point by point with your many silly statements, but it's just not worth my time. Suffice it to say, your an idiot.
I was going to go point by point with your many silly statements, but it's just not worth my time. Suffice it to say, your an idiot.
"They" already have blamed the overweight for the "second-hand" affect. If you recall, several months ago, "they" said that fat people were contagious…that fat people had the "fat virus" which their skinny counterparts would catch. A skinny could even catch this virus if they talked to their fat family and fat friends on the phone!. This "new" insult to fat people is just another way to ridicule a group of people other than one's self. So, society has determined that fat people and smokers are not human, and are not entitled to certain unalienable rights that skinny people and non-smokers are entitled to. Meanwhile…Who'll be next? Blonde blue-eyed people? Maybe the Chinese because there are so many of them they are depleting the oxygen levels. Beware condemning others…eventually "they" will run out of fat people, smokers, christians, etc to pick on and the condemning and ridiculing will turn to you, the unexpecting guilty parties who are agreeing with this insanity…"they"!
Wait till the feminists get around to Lust. . .They partially have though.
*MissQuinn*
Do not be silly! Of course the new taxes will not apply to anyone in Congress or who has ever worked for Congress. Only us serfs will pay.
What is lacking in this blog entry is a recognition that self-responsibility is necessarily required for a self-regulating society. If the majority of individuals in a society that is ruled (democratically or not) want the equivalent of parents who make decisions for chronologically adult children, this situation with "fat-taxes" is just one resulting example – another is forced government single-payer health care.
Government practices of "protecting" citizens is very much like that of parents who discourage their chronologically adult children from making full socially mature decisions (standing on their own 2 feet and taking the consequences). So if adults make poor health choices, they should properly experience the effects of reality and not be cushioned with the forcibly removed assets/wealth of others – all government programs are paid for via taxes, immediate or when principle and interest is paid on loans taken by the government.
One would best wonder what the government (those running and promoting it) gets from a citizenry that is largely low (?very low?) on the self-responsibility scale….
On the other hand, an airlines charging customers according to the weight being transported, their bodies plus baggage, is a good option for those willing to fly these days. And of course with a company, one can choose to use another or some totally different means if the service is not to one's liking. However, governments do everything they can – including physical force – to prevent those in their self-proclaimed jurisdiction from opting out.
P.S. We fat guys can conceal WAYYY bigger guns!
You must be logged in to post a comment.