Not to be confused with Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi”…….But damn close……I am talking about those elites with the large wallets that want to dictate what we consume……you know who they are…they are the ones yelling the loudest about calories and sugar and salt and fats on….on and on…..they are the ones that want the government to step in a control the consumption of certain items……
(Thinking……thinking…..)
Where I have heard this before?
After some careful thought…..I seem to recall back in the day in an American History class we were studying the beginning of the country…you know when Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and the boyz were trying desperately to find the right balance for the government of a new nation….I recall one of the lesser known Founders, George Mason IV, considered to be a radical as opposed to the moderate that most others were…..at the Federal convention of 1787, he moved to empower the new congress to enact sumptuary laws regulating what people could eat, drink, or wear……in order to promote frugality among the lower ranks of society…….think about it! Does that not sound a bit familiar?
We now have all these elites going on the tube telling us what we should eat and drink and in some cases what we should wear….we have governors telling us what foods are acceptable for consumption….we have mayors telling us what drinks are acceptable…all in the name of better health and most are aimed squarely at the “lower ranks of society”……
Once again the elites, those in the upper class of our society, are deciding what you should eat, drink and in some incidences wear…it was unacceptable in 1787 and it should be so in the 21st century….but you people buying the CRAP they keep selling…….at least they had enough brains to stifle that move in 1787….when less than 50% of the country could read or write…….what is your excuse?
As usual, those that are all for the government intervention are the very ones that bitch about too much government intervention……but on a side note……they will NEVER address the causes of the problem….just a solution that only effects a small group that will have to shoulder the entire situation….so damn typical of the American mentality!
I don’t think the gov’t has any business banning certain items, but if something like alcohol or tobacco causes public health problems, then I think it’s fair to tax those items to put a cost on the negative externalities. Like we should be doing with carbon emissions.
Also, our government shouldn’t be involved in subsidizing food lacking in nutritional value. US corn subsidies have made processed and HFCS/surgary foods cheaper than they otherwise would be.
Oh we could go on forever with this post…..they will use obesity and diabetes as a hook for this proposal but we need to look at the “real” cause…..poverty. Poor people buy the cheaper goods with lousy nutritional value only because the food buck goes further…..so make them more expensive and the problem will be solved is a pathetic track for this problem….and I agree that the government is as much to blame as anyone…..I have a real problem with the government determining anything that I can do….as long as I harm NO one but myself…they need to stay out of it…..
Here is a novel idea that I have posted on before……food stamps……make healthy food cheaper…..say two apples for the price of one if food stamps are used (example only)the subsidizes everything else wwhy not a subsidy for people to eat healthier…..just a thought…..
Sorry – I believe that’s not at all true – poorer families buy cheaper and less healthy foods because they lack education and have been brainwashed into doing so – just as they have been brainwashed into listening to some of the crap that politicians talk. Those who are uneducated or daft enough will listen to the endless advertising and they will end up addicted to junk/processed crap.
Wealthier people have more to look forward to and it’s true also have money which gives them firstly a reason and secondly the freedom to consider what may help them to live longer.
However, consider this, people who live a healthy and clean (boring???) life, may well live an extra five years – that’s five extra years at the END of their lives when they will quite probably be unhealthy, unable to walk, incontinent, in heed of twenty four hour care, contribute nothing useful to society and draw whatever pension they have paid for to either the government or some private enterprise…
The best and most cost effective thing any of us can do for the greater good is to smoke, drink, hang around with hot women/men and generally make as sure as we can that we go out in a blaze of glory whilst we’re still young enough to enjoy it and of some value in return to society.
Sorry…but I see it differently….if there is a family of 5 with a salary below poverty and NOT getting any assistance…then they will be unhealthy food to stretch the food dollar as far as possible……they have tried the education thing here in my state….where food stamp recipients have to go to food classes to improve the health but the health still is sucking….
I will agree about the living longer….that means the more catastrophic illness are more likely and will not improve the survival beyond a certain point and the preach otherwise is just plain….daft…..
If you gave the hypothetical family you quote a thousand dollars a week they’d still eat crap – just more of it because that’s what they’ve come to like (love?).
The education thing – forget it for the current generation and above – the NEXT generation, however, is a different matter. Another difference is that, where it was once the case that one parent or another (usually the female, but not necessarily) stayed home and cooked – PROPER (fresh) FOOD – and the family sat down together and ate. Nowadays the Big Mac is just right to be able to eat with one hand whilst still playing on the X-box (or whatever), or whilst Mom and Pop continue to watch reality TV (if they’re not actually the subject, of course).
Sorry, but to suggest that it’s JUST poverty is a WILD over-simplification. The poverty means they grow up uneducated and either lazy or unable, too busy, whatever, to get into such things as real cooking and nutrition. Survival certainly takes precedence when one is poor, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the actual COST of the food, but rather the time and effort it takes to prepare it properly and the low level of importance given to it.
The point about the living longer is not only that it is pointless for the individual, but also that it is actually MORE expensive for society than letting people live unhealthily and happily!
Yes, you are probably right…..it is an learned thing……but the problem is No one wants to teach, they just want to dictate…..
Yeah, I know – sad. Probably it’s not even so much “learned” as they kind of “fall into it” and the elite are quite happy to let them because they can sell ’em more crap that way!
Here the food stamp program was meant to be for aid only, not a permanent solution……I have offered up a couple of ideas that would lead to a better educated people……forced classes will do little, IMO……
Oh, I agree entirely – and that is the WHOLE fear of those who are genuinely opposed to welfare (as distinct from the selfish assholes, of which there are many) – it becomes a permanent solution – a quick and half-hearted fix – rather than trying to actually solve the underlying problem! In fact, the principal result of the way almost all welfare has been set up and enacted has been to virtually entrap people into become scroungers and cheats.
As I’ve said before – a decent and successful society would hardly need welfare at all…
There I go – fantasising again 😆
To me half-hearted attempts and fixes are just the political system reacting to a problem…….NO one looks past the next election……and reform is NOT a solution…..why? Easily overturned with the next batch of well paid servants of corporate Americas……..
That is very much the problem in a nutshell – almost ALL governments and politicians are at best REACTIVE – virtually never truly PROACTIVE and nothing will improve until they are.
Pathetic attempts to actually BE proactive are mostly from well-meaning, but utterly detestable do-gooders, interfering busibodies and plain old fashion bigoted lunatics and are usually wrong, misguided at best and totally counter-productive.
Cheap food with high caloric content is generally bad for you, think bags of potato chips, cookies, and soft drinks.
Lobotero’s idea of making more nutritional food cheaper for people with food stamps is a good idea.
Thanx Chris…..I have been preaching this in my state for a couple of years now…..of course, I get deaf ears….I will try again….but politicians in my state are notorious a/holes…..
In theory, I agree… the sad thing is that most people wouldn’t want it even if it was free – not after the first week at least.
Also, cheap food with high calorific value is NOT bad for you per se – it’s bad for you if you don’t have the right lifestyle to go with it (for instance: many athletes need around 10,000 calories a day). It’s the whole thing – fresh rather than processed, calories, lifestyle, balance and whole lot more… many ordinary people just can’t be bothered with all that sh*t and simply buy what the TV advertising tells them to. Understandable I guess.
I wish I could dispute anything you have said….I cannot…..