From Fashionable to Health Scourge

Just passing this along.

About these ads

8 thoughts on “From Fashionable to Health Scourge

  1. Aunt B.,

    “The IOTF is lobbying group whose mission is to make obesity a public health priority. Its funding sources include pharmaceutical companies who have an interest in convincing the public that obesity is a major problem.”

    At the same time, the strongest advocates for treating obesity as a public health crisis are not corporations but advocates for ever greater government regulation of the health care and food industries. The advocates of ever more intrusive regulations for food are far more likely to be opponents of corporate America.

    Similarly, the advocates of policies that punish personal behaviors by their employers {fines for failing to meet specific health targets being the most notable example} whether these are private or public jobs.

    Welcome to the fight against the nanny state.

  2. You just let me know when the guys on your side are ready to get out of my vagina, Mark, and then we can talk. Until then, I’ll just be over here laughing at this idea that I could somehow find something more intrusive than that.

  3. I am of the view that people who agree on specific issues ought to work together on those when possible.

  4. I know, but “Is our government too intrusive?” is a question we’re going to answer differently depending on what’s being intruded upon. Plus, the government and medical professionals can vilify my fat ass all they want, but there’s the fundamental problem that they do not know how to make fat people thin. They don’t know why 5% of fat people can do almost anything–any screwy ass diet or exercise regime–and lose weight and keep it off and the other 95%, doing the exact same things, can’t.

    So, they’re having a war with an immovable object. Good luck with that, I say.

  5. People who rant about the “nanny” state reveal their fundamental fear of a woman with power, don’t they? Real adults know that none of us live in a self-contained bubble, that taking care of each other is what makes us human, and that leaving a livable, non-poisonous world behind for our descendants is the only mature and ethical course of action. As opposed to pouting and stomping and behaving like an adolescent who doesn’t want to grow up, never mind how many people get hurt.

    Per the obesity article, I really want to read that author’s book. I have always maintained that for our ancestors, the ability to hold on to whatever calories you could scavenge was probably the only reason they survived at all. Add that to some possible environmental factors (endocrine disruptors? hormone-mimicking plastics?), and a lifestyle full of enforced sedentary work, and it’s probably a miracle we aren’t fatter.

  6. emjb,

    “Real adults know that none of us live in a self-contained bubble, that taking care of each other is what makes us human, and that leaving a livable, non-poisonous world behind for our descendants is the only mature and ethical course of action.”

    The question is how far into our lives government can intrude to achieve the society that you outline. The author of the article sited in the Atlantic goes so far as to argue that government does not even need conclusive scientific evidence to restrict or mandate certain behaviors. I would also add that there needs to be discussion of just what constitutes ‘hurting people.’ That is a very imprecise standard which is open to all sorts of abuses.

    As for the ‘nanny state,’ it is a widely recognized phrase in political circles and its usage in this context is far less of an issue for women than a set of policies that will impact more harshly on women than men, a point B has eloquently made frequently.

  7. Mark, you don’t get to decide for women when the usage of a sexist term is a problem for women. Come on!

    I know you know that. I know you’d find it hilarious if the shoe was on the other foot.

    “Widely recognized phrase in political circles”?! Bwah ha ha. And who gets to make those up?

    Here is my challenge to you, Mark. Next week, whenever you are in a “political circle,” look around and see who makes it up. Then, ask yourself if you think you’re getting a full picture of politics and the implications on everyone from the people in that circle.

    Because, honestly, at this point, you’re either not seeing what’s right in front of your face or you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing because you’re uncomfortable entertaining the idea that everyone here sees your point and is well-familiar with the positions you’re arguing. We just, based on our own lived experiences, have a difference perspective and disagree.

Comments are closed.