"Individuals are always stupid." --David Atchison, Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection with the FDA, propagator of a nanny state, because not only can you not think for yourself. You shouldn't.
Showing posts with label nanny state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nanny state. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Individuals are always stupid: Rawesome Raid
"We're not going to take this sitting down! We're going to take it standing, on top of a step ladder, throwing a lawn dart at a barrel of DDT and while eating only half of our recommended daily fiber." LULz
"Individuals are always stupid." --David Atchison, Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection with the FDA, propagator of a nanny state, because not only can you not think for yourself. You shouldn't.
"Individuals are always stupid." --David Atchison, Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection with the FDA, propagator of a nanny state, because not only can you not think for yourself. You shouldn't.
Labels:
colbert report,
david atchison,
fda,
individuals,
milk,
nanny state,
raid,
raw,
rawesome,
stupid,
whole milk
Friday, February 18, 2011
If it's bad for you, Tax it!
And so it begins...
A California lawmaker wants to tax soda, because it's unhealthy for us.
I don't even drink regular soda, so why should I care? We're all low carb and paleo here, right, so this doesn't affect us? Right? Hardly. Next they'll be wanting to tax saturated fat, because that's bad for us too. And anything with cholesterol as well. It's a slippery slope. And on top of that, what prevents them from outright banning of something they think is bad? I never thought there could be a black market for soda pop, but I suppose stranger things have happened.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We do NOT need a nanny state telling us what to eat. We do not need specific foods taxed because they're "unhealthy." What we need is information not filtered by big food and big pharma. We need a government not bought off. Again, another thing I ain't holding my breath over.
A California lawmaker wants to tax soda, because it's unhealthy for us.
"State Assemblyman Bill Monning (D-Carmel) wants to add a penny-per-ounce tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages sold in California. He would tax the manufacturers and distributors, but they'd likely pass that on to consumers, which is exactly what the assemblyman wants.
"Yes, our intent is to see that retail price go up, to dissuade some people from using it as a diet staple," said Monning."
I don't even drink regular soda, so why should I care? We're all low carb and paleo here, right, so this doesn't affect us? Right? Hardly. Next they'll be wanting to tax saturated fat, because that's bad for us too. And anything with cholesterol as well. It's a slippery slope. And on top of that, what prevents them from outright banning of something they think is bad? I never thought there could be a black market for soda pop, but I suppose stranger things have happened.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We do NOT need a nanny state telling us what to eat. We do not need specific foods taxed because they're "unhealthy." What we need is information not filtered by big food and big pharma. We need a government not bought off. Again, another thing I ain't holding my breath over.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --CS Lewis
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
When the dietary guidelines don't fit your agenda, get litigious
When I saw the headline 'PCRM sues federal agencies over dietary guidelines', I chuckled, since I consider the dietary guidelines a crock, and really, what place does the government have telling us what to eat? And then I read the story, and it just about made my blood boil.
Their problem isn't that the government is telling us what to eat, their problem is the government isn't promoting a vegan diet.
It's not that I have a problem with people eating a vegan diet. Quite the contrary, if you want to wreck your health, that's your prerogative. It's a free country, eat whatever you want. In fact, if you want to go to McDonald's every day and eat 5000 calories like Spurlock did and gain a ton of weight, then by god, that's your god given right. If you want to eat tofu and sit in a drum circle all night, that too is your god given right as an American. If I want to eat venison I killed myself every night, it's none of your damned business and if you don't like it, you need to STFU. We do not need a nanny state telling us we need to eat one way or the other. THAT is what is wrong with the food guidelines.
What we need, is someone telling us the TRUTH about what medical research finds out, and then we as THE PEOPLE get to decide whether we want to act on that knowledge or not. Anything else is not worthy of a free people.
My mum-in-law just this morning was saying that as soon as more people start eating low carb and paleo that these militant vegans will petition the government to add a tax to everything that has animal fat in it, on the premise that it's bad for us like cigarettes. And indeed, on many forums I have seen the consumption of animal fat compared to smoking cigarettes, as if the two have anything in common. Unfortunately, my mum-in-law may be right.
Their problem isn't that the government is telling us what to eat, their problem is the government isn't promoting a vegan diet.
"'Yet Defendants intentionally use inconsistent language, ambiguous phrases, and biochemical terminology to avoid providing clear dietary information and guidance for the general public regarding the health benefits of reducing consumption of meat and dairy products. This is due to Defendants’ conflicts of interest.'...Of course the USDA has a conflict of interest, and so does PCRM! In other words, yes, they are attempting to use the dietary guidelines to promote their vegan diet. The evidence is NOT overwhelming that a plant-based diet is more healthful, in fact, if you've read Good Calories, Bad Calories, you'll know that it's the freaking OPPOSITE. It's like Orwell's 1984, War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, and bloody hell if Ignorance isn't Strength.
Asked if the PCRM's lawsuit were less a device to correct any problems with the dietary guidelines and more a tool to promote the group's vegan diet, Barnard said the question itself was focused on the wrong issue. He said the evidence is overwhelming that plant-based diets are more healthful and not reporting such information, in clear and unambiguous terms, in the dietary guidelines is misguided."
It's not that I have a problem with people eating a vegan diet. Quite the contrary, if you want to wreck your health, that's your prerogative. It's a free country, eat whatever you want. In fact, if you want to go to McDonald's every day and eat 5000 calories like Spurlock did and gain a ton of weight, then by god, that's your god given right. If you want to eat tofu and sit in a drum circle all night, that too is your god given right as an American. If I want to eat venison I killed myself every night, it's none of your damned business and if you don't like it, you need to STFU. We do not need a nanny state telling us we need to eat one way or the other. THAT is what is wrong with the food guidelines.
What we need, is someone telling us the TRUTH about what medical research finds out, and then we as THE PEOPLE get to decide whether we want to act on that knowledge or not. Anything else is not worthy of a free people.
My mum-in-law just this morning was saying that as soon as more people start eating low carb and paleo that these militant vegans will petition the government to add a tax to everything that has animal fat in it, on the premise that it's bad for us like cigarettes. And indeed, on many forums I have seen the consumption of animal fat compared to smoking cigarettes, as if the two have anything in common. Unfortunately, my mum-in-law may be right.
Labels:
bad calories,
bad science,
big brother,
big food,
dairy,
democracy,
fascist,
freedom,
good calories,
lawsuit,
litigious,
militant,
milk,
nanny state,
pcrm,
saturated fat,
state,
vegan,
vegetarian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)