This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gun-Control Today; Fat-Control Tomorrow?
Leaving the highly sensitive topic of "gun-control" aside for the time being, one can't help but wonder if it isn't time that the US government, seemingly hell-bent on regulating virtually everything in its quest to prove (to itself?) that America's population can no longer be trusted with making any responsible decisions on it own (and in the process becoming even bigger), shouldn't be more focused on "fat-control" instead. Why? Because while guns may or may not kill people, the bottom line is that of the 32K or so death attributed to firearms, roughly 20K, or two thirds were suicides, meaning firearm-based homicides were 11,015 in 2010. Putting this number in perspective, every year some 935,000 Americans suffer a heart attack, and 600,000 people die from some form heart disease: 1 in every 4 deaths. Net result to society: the cost of coronary heart disease borne by everyone is $108.9 billion each year. And of all proximal factors contributing to heart disease, obesity and overweight is the main one. But of course one can't make a media spectacle out of 600,000 hospital wards where people quietly pass away, in many cases due to a lifetime of ill decisions relating primarily to food consumption. In fact, some estimate that obesity now accounts for one fifth of the total US health-care bill (the part of the budget which no amount of tax increase can offset). Which is why if the topic of gun-control has managed to promptly tear the country into two (or three, or more), just wait until fat-control (far more than the recent tepid overtures into this field such as Bloomberg's NYC sugary soda ban) rears its ugly head and sends the already polarized (and weaponized) US society into a state of agitated hyperflux.
Some useful observations on this topic from The Economist:
IN 1937 George Orwell suggested that “changes of diet” might be more important than “changes of dynasty or even of religion”. Now he is being proved right in a way he might not have expected. Having spent millennia worrying about not having enough food, mankind’s main concern is now eating too much (see our special report on obesity).
The story of human health in the past few decades is a broadly encouraging one. Life expectancy has increased—globally, by 12 years for women and 11 years for men from 1970 to 2010. But greater longevity means that people spend more years chronically ill (see article). Obesity makes things worse by raising the risk of diabetes, heart disease, strokes and some cancers. In much of the world, being too fat is now the single largest driver of sickness.
In 2008 obesity rates were nearly double those of 1980. One in three adults was overweight, with a body-mass index (BMI) of 25 or more (at least 77kg for a man 175cm tall); 12% were obese, with a BMI of at least 30. In America, ever the world leader, about two-thirds of adults were overweight in 2008. But Britain lumbered close behind, with six in ten too fat. The problem is not confined to rich countries. Thanks to economic growth, people around the world are eating more food. Workers burn fewer calories at their desks than in the fields. Even in China, one in four adults was too fat in 2008. In Brazil more than half were. Obesity rates in Mexico, Venezuela and South Africa matched those of America. The Pacific islands and Gulf states are home to some of the world’s fattest people.
For those (like this newspaper) who believe that the state should generally keep its nose out of people’s private affairs, obesity presents a quandary. “A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits,” Orwell pointed out; “an unemployed man doesn’t…You want to eat something a little bit tasty.” If people get great pleasure from eating more than is good for them, should they not be allowed to indulge themselves? After all, individuals bear the bulk of the costs of obesity, quite literally. They suffer at work, too: their wages are often lower and, in America, some employers also make fat workers pay more for health insurance.
Yet in most countries the state covers some or most of the costs of health care, so fat people raise costs for everyone. In America, for instance, a recent paper estimated that obesity was responsible for a fifth of the total health-care bill, of which nearly half is paid by the federal government. And there are broader social costs. The Pentagon says that obesity is shrinking its pool of soldiers. Obesity lowers labour productivity. And state intervention is justified where it saves people from great harm at little cost to themselves. Only zealots see seat-belt laws as an affront to personal liberty. Anti-smoking policies, controversial at first, are generally viewed as a success.
So which is it: state intervention? Or, as the Economist correctly asserts for once: individual liberties where people have no choice but to experience the consequences of one or more of their own wrong decisions? But what happens when the entire state is already broke from pre-funding generations of precisely these bad decisions, and there is nothing left in the state's piggy bank for those who wish to behave prudently and sensibly? The Economist has some further thoughts:
In the absence of a single big solution to obesity, the state must try many small measures. Governments, some of which already intervene a lot in the first few months of people’s lives, should ensure that parents are warned of the dangers of overfeeding their babies. Schools should serve nutritious lunches, teach children how to eat healthily and give them time to run around. Urban planners should make streets and pavements friendlier to cyclists and pedestrians. Taxing sugary fizzy drinks—which unlike fatty foods have no nutritional value—and limiting the size of the containers in which they can be sold may work. Philadelphia and New York, for example, have implemented a range of such policies, and have seen child-obesity rates dip ever so slightly.
There is a limit, however, to what the state can or should do. In the end, the responsibility and power to change lie primarily with individuals. Whether people go on eating till they pop, or whether they opt for the healthier, slimmer life, will have a bigger effect on the future of the species than most of the weighty decisions that governments make.
Just like in the sensitive issue of gun-control, there is no easy, or definitive answer when it comes to the world's most overweight nation. Perhaps, however, the best clue to what should happen comes from the WSJ's interview with the 107 year old Irving Khan, one of Wall Street's oldest investors and Ben Graham's research assistant, who made the following remark on unwholesome lifestyles: "Millions of people die every year of something they could cure themselves: lack of wisdom and lack of ability to control their impulses."
And that's really it. Sadly, the government, in its encroaching desire to become the world's nanny state par excellence, already believes it can offset everything else, including human stupidity and impulse control. That it can't will become very apparent in time, but only when everyone finally wakes up from the 150 year old dream that started with Bismarck's 'Welfare State' utopia, and sadly ends in bloodshed. With or without gun control.
»
- 34560 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Individual rights, apparently to the left, only applies to those with "progessive" thoughts.
Here's something for the Food Nazis to chew on...
"French health officials said the results of tests on two of the eight showed an infection of the same strain of E.coli which killed 44 people – all but one in Germany – and affected another 3,700 including Britons who had been in Germany."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/8598724/British-seed-firm-linked-to-French-E.-coli-outbreak.html
I say we confiscate all bean sprouts & restrict arugula to one a month and you can't buy it in high capacity/volume...and no private sales at those dangerous vegetable shows...they are ALL UNLICENSED YOU KNOW!!! ;-)
Even here, nmewn, for the life of me, what with all these folks on The Hedge like to hold themselves out as freedom loving peoples, sure get pretty nasty about other people's rights when it comes to food, global warming, religion....
Must be one hell of a lotta hypocrites or paid shills/trolls hangin' here abouts...
I'm sayin fucking hypocrites...and I'm not afraid to say it.
The left does this shit ALL the time.
You are increasing MY health care costs by your lifestyle choices (after imposing NATIONAL SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE) while smoking a doobie and engaging in anal sex with prostitutes.
You are allowing MY children to be slaughtered in public schools (after imposing UNARMED KILLING FIELDS ON THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS) as they trundle their children off to private schools.
They are hypocrites and idiots.
You are increasing MY health care costs by your lifestyle choices (after imposing NATIONAL SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE) while smoking a doobie and engaging in anal sex with prostitutes.
Hey...how 'bout...can we agree Medicare has to just GO?
How about we agree to quit addicting people to federal government socialism through taxation and go back to charity?
Can't answer the question, huh? It was simple enough.
I'm all for ending Fedgov handouts, but let's not pretend "charity" is suddenly going to spring into existence to help everyone who needs it. That's just crazy thinking. It's more like we end the handouts and live in a shittier society, but if that's what you prefer, more power to you.
When was the last time you ministered to a homeless guy?
I know you're NOT saying ObamaCare fixed Medicare...are you?
I'll tell you how to make a shittier society...placing people of dubious character, integrity and motivations in positions of power to steal from the young & productive under the pretense that it's for the "greater good".
As far as the last time I "ministered" to a homeless guy...it was at an I-75 offramp. He was standing there with a cardboard sign that said "Homeless-Hungry. Please Help. God Bless"
You see, I carry a can of peas around with me. I offered them to him...he rejected it and became angry. In all my years of offering a can of peas to "starving homeless men" I find on the side of the road begging...not one has accepted them.
So it occurs to me...they are not hungry, probably not homeless and don't like my brand of ministrations ;-)
Is there a reason you won't answer such simple questions?
"Obamacare" didn't fix anything. You can't "fix" healthcare problems by passing laws subsidizing the health-insurance industry.
So a few years ago, some homeless guy offended you and you've been so pissed off about ever since you haven't done shit for anyone else. I'd expect nothing better from you.
The government has to stop pretending shuffling our own money around is USEFUL, and we have to make that clear and move beyond it. But you really demonstrate you're not capable of thinking about such things SERIOUSLY if you subscribe to the notion that "charity" is suddenly going to solve all the problems we haven't managed to solve after 230 years.
I can *tolerate* a country in which many of my neighbors live under bridges and empty chamber-pots in the woods, but I don't think it's an improvement. If you'd prefer to see folks scrounging through garbage bins every day for their dinner, there are currently plenty of places to live for that. I think the recognition that that's the "natural order" of things is an important insight to achieve before you start jabbering about your great "solution."
Let's chat again when you're ready to be honest, eh?
You've got enough bromides & non sequiturs in these few comments to make a senator blush.
"Obamacare" didn't fix anything."
Of course it didn't.
"You can't "fix" healthcare problems by passing laws subsidizing the health-insurance industry."
We didn't have "healthcare problems" before it. We had costs for health insurance going up 2-5% per year. Since it was brought up and crammed down everyones throat mine has doubled. They're complete idiots, in order to cover 30-40 million who didn't want it or have it (for whatever reason) they fucked over the 90% who did have it.
Now this one was a jewel...
"So a few years ago, some homeless guy offended you..."
No, can't you read? I offended HIM by offering him food instead of money. His sign said he was hungry, I suspected him of lying to get money and he proved it by becoming offended...at ME.
"...and you've been so pissed off about ever since you haven't done shit for anyone else. I'd expect nothing better from you."
I had no idea you had me under surveillance. You trying to graduate from Food Cop to a gumshoe? If so, you just flunked the test.
"But you really demonstrate you're not capable of thinking about such things SERIOUSLY if you subscribe to the notion that "charity" is suddenly going to solve all the problems we haven't managed to solve after 230 years."
Your're a fucking idiot. I would submit there was LESS homelessness and hunger here 230yrs ago. I would also submit that because of government interference in society we have more of both.
Human nature takes the path of least resistance (generally). If nothing but breathing is required to draw a governmet check or subsidy, that is precisely what many will do.This is why a hate socialists with a purple passion.
"I can *tolerate* a country in which many of my neighbors live under bridges and empty chamber-pots in the woods, but I don't think it's an improvement."
No.
What you propose is using the force of the state to take MORE from somone else instead of YOU putting YOUR "neighbors" into YOUR house to use YOUR toilet and rifle through YOUR refrigerator looking for a meal. You consider this an improvement to YOU being charitable as YOU don't have to deal with them.
So, you're a hypocrtical leftwing statist afterall. You say you don't want government "shuffling our money around" yet promote exactly that regarding the homeless and hungry...while denigrating freely given charity.
Nothing but bromides & non sequiturs...someone who was really hungry & homeless would starve or freeze to death trying to get sustenance from your bilge.
This place is filled with smug skinny young men who know for a fact that THEY will never get fat as they age because they're special.
I'm 49, five foot ten and 170 pounds. People have always told me I'm too skinny. It's just as hurtful as calling someone fat but for some reason people think it's OK to say it right to my face.
5-10 and 170 is only skinny to the fat cows.
i'm 38, 5-8 and 150 and i've been called skinny by the fat cows all the time
it's better to be you than them. i bet they can't even wipe their asses
Another theory concerning this would be the Brits and Germans get severe indigestion when they eat French shit. The French, not so much since they're used to it.
I don't get it, what's your point? Articles like this are so uninteresting. So if I feed your kid a Twinkie you would be as mad as if I shot your little brat with an AR?
Free food vs. free ammo. Hmm, tough choice.
What I want to know is, what the FUCK are they doing, and eating, down in Mississippi? Deep-fried lard sandwiches?
Pretty much. I've seen plates of food that they call "fried, fried, and fried". Everything on the plate is brown and is dripping with grease. No green things at all unless it's left out for a week. Then again, there is some of this stuff that a self-respecting microbe won't touch. There are entire dinners that are prepared using a propane-fired deep fat fryer, including corn on the cob, biscuits (yes, biscuits), and anything else that doesn't have too much moisture that would make the contraption boil over from the steam created. You can batter and fry just about any vegetable known, but that doesn't make 'em healthy.
http://www.delish.com/recipes/cooking-recipes/unusual-state-fair-food
Yum!
Little NookiesThe name says it all — this tasty fried treat is a little bit of a naughty indulgence for the restaurant's dessert-craving customers. Torchy's Tacos wanted a dessert that had a street-food personality. The result: a deep-fried mix of chocolate chip cookie dough, funnel cake batter, and cornflakes.
Krispy Kreme Chicken SandwichWho said Californians eat only healthy food? This artery-clogger features a fried chicken patty topped with Swiss cheese all tucked inside a sliced Krispy Kreme Original Glazed doughnut. To enhance the sweet-and-savory effect, the sandwich is served with a side of Smucker's honey sauce.
Deep-Fried TwinkiesTwinkies are not exactly diet fare to begin with. But what's fun about diets? These retro snack cakes take a trip to the deep fryer by way of the freezer to ensure the golden beauties don't melt away in the hot oil.
Deep-Fried PB&J & Banana SandwichThe Texas fair's self-professed "Fry King," Abel Gonzales, says another "king" was the inspiration for this tasty fried sandwich: Elvis. Abel has sold more than 15,000 of his golden-fried peanut butter, jelly, and banana sandwiches since debuting the creation five years ago.
Deep-Fried ButterThis simple fried snack is a Texas fair favorite. Creator Abel Gonzales — who dropped his gig as a computer analyst and programmer to become a state-fair frying king — first dipped butter-and-dough balls into the deep fryer to pay homage to one of his breakfast obsessions: toast with butter. Since then he's sold more than 25,000 orders of the tasty deep-fried butter balls!
lol...what goes unremarked on, is why we eat this way.
Its now cultural, going back to the WBTS...we needed calories & fat. Blame the NE bankers who started the war...most people in the South were starving toward its end.
Before that, we hunted, grew crops and fished...so I've been told.
Evolutionary biology...food wasn't always in abundance and behaviors, which are largely genetic, have not updated to match.
note that asians anywhere tend to be thin...they evolved these behaviors largely out. The further down the civilization totem pole you go, the higher the obesity rates.
an african for most of its history had to gorge itself any chance it got, because food simply isn't abundant, especially for children there given the reproductive strategy.
Famines do switch genes on and off- this is epigenetics.
The only green stuff permitted on my plate surrounds the meat and is politely referred to as Garnish
So...yeah, it's disgusting and all. But it's just the lowbrow version of the Roman orgy.
We WANT to eat disgusting and abusive portions and foods when we indulge ourselves by going out to dinner.
To rip off Louis CK: haven't you been at some chain restaurant and seen lots of folks around you IN DISCOMFORT because they've eaten too much, and they say YES when the wait offers dessert?
If you can only afford to go out to dinner once a month (or once a YEAR), it's all OK.
From the looks of the map, I'd say if you don't live in the South, you're ok. Jesus, what the hell are they eating down there? I thought crawdads and shrimp were healthy.
If you are fat, just push away from the table please, at least once in awhile, so the rest of don't have to pay for your lack of discipline. Thanks. Appreciate it.
Sorry, but this is not how socialism goes.
In the spirit of solidarity you will be forced by the barrel of armed thugs guns in uniform to pay for lack of discipline of other. When problem grows so much that it cannot be contained another band of armed thugs will in the spirit of charitable care of other people's health force fatasses into a new diet.
Paying for your own misteakes and taking responsibility of your own decisions? Man, you've gotta get back on track! XIX century is long over.
It's the fried chicken, fried catfish, fried hushpuppies, fried potatoes and fried pork chops washed down with colored sugar water and high fat sugary food for dessert that gin the Southern girth.
If there's ever another North/South confrontation, bomb the chicken houses first.
If I was the north, I'd bomb the gyms and leave the chicken houses.
It's that Southerner's quit eating their traditional foods -fried meats (usually raised in their yard) or fried fish (just caught from the nearby pond) accompanied by 2 or 3 fresh from their garden vegetables- and started living in squashed together Yankee housing with no real yard while eating processed Yankee food that is the problem.
you people should really start studying demographics.
There is no single statement that holds for all groups in the USA. break the obesity rates down by demographics such as ethnicity or race and see what jumps out.
Your biases show through pretty clearly on what you think a "fat southerner" looks like.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5827a2.htm this is nationally...in some of these high obesity areas, a large majority of black women are at least overweight, even having redefined that term to be more flattering than the same metric 50 years ago.
Let them shoot soy guns............
Heart attacks do not kill many persons ( baby persons or adult persons) in one room or group all at one time.
The gun owners are not on the high ground here and the traditional arguments do not work.
Non sense like this is a waste of the ZH reader’s time. The arguments for the anti gunners is not to over play Sandy but to weave it into the fabric. The arguments for the pro gunners should not be the tired and true responses.
There is going to be a change in gun laws and laws concerning ownership, and laws concerning the types of firearms that the government will restrict/ban/ or confiscate via registration of a license or a non-transferable ownership like presently in California.
There is an ebb and flow like Clinton to Bush to Obama. Join both sides to attempt to change for good but stop or modify change that will destroy your current Right as a free American Citizen.
There must be and will be change. You must be involved to channel (if indeed that is possible in today’s politics of America).
"The gun owners are not on the high ground" It is you that has to take the offensive and prove how force of armed government thugs used to suppress access to guns will be net positive for the society as you are adovacting this wave of violence. Claiming to be compasionate does not grant "high ground" by definition.
"The arguments for the pro gunners should not be the tired and true responses." To need better responses they would first need to be attacked successfuly. Right now, evidence does not support mass confiscation. It will not lower crime, nor stop massacres.
"There is going to be..." Sentiment of policy makers is not an argument to whether it's right or wrong.
"You must be involved to channel" Actually removing your consent is an act in itself. Silence is type of response etc.
Go, prove that banning guns will lower crime. Than we can talk. Quick tip - if you're american - it is your medicated and indoctrinated culture that is to blame for this insane amount of violence. Almost everyone in Switzerland is armed, yet they have much more safety in their enviroments.
The unfortunate truth is if you eliminate minority citizens from crime statistics we (US) do very well against any country in Europe and our violent crime rate is below the UK which has poor reporting standards to begin with. No it is culture once again, not a tool but the wielder is at fault. But this can never be understood by the left as their entire paradigm would need to shift. This is I fear going to be a societal upheaval, hope not but it sure smells that way.
Careful "Calm" that's RAAAAYCIST!
Piers Morgan (Whom I would like to nominate for the "Most Pompous, Expat-UK Cunt, State worshipping, MSM Troll, O-Love Quivering Leg SyndromeTM, Lib-tard Wank, of the year award) will be after you TO EXPLAIN and RETRACT your THOUGHTS.... or else.
Ironically, these cunts are supportive of laws that incarcerate half the US Black male population for drug related crimes and allow them to shoot the fuck out of each other. Then rob, rape and kill in their neighbours, including the kids, in the process - some collateral damage. When will they, the US Black population that vote 98% for the status quo, wake the fuck up. They have been played!
/phew, feel better..... :)
horseshit it is fucking CULTURE.
Just man the FUCK UP already and admit what it really is, instead of being a fuckin PUSSY afraid to get called a RAYCISS.
Culture comes from genetics. PERIOD. There is no other goddamned source of how populations behave. Genetics DEFINES attributes and attributes DEFINE culture.
You keep calling it culture and people will say oh well we will spend ANOTHER few trillion on "education" and "outreach" attempts to change culture...here we are motherfuckers, after what, 50 years of this shit? The gaps are STILL THERE. They haven't budged a goddamned INCH. At what point are you geniuses going to admit what should have been obvious the first time you encountered any real diversity?
If your genetics made you into that guy, I'm hoping our DNA overlap is minimal, dude. You're smart and all, but you totally suck.
"The unfortunate truth is if you eliminate minority citizens from crime statistics we (US) do very well against any country in Europe"
Why would you eliminate minority citizens from crime statistics?
You missed the point, forest - trees..
Trav, before ranting try engaging, I'm not akak. I do not support another unaccounted for dime to change "culture" this has gone on too long and very tough actions are called for to change direction. Not on the scale you call for above but no more "free" welfare only workfare. No more rewarding of poor behaviour. The titanic of American minority culture can be turned but its going to hurt.
Please post a picture of the "Gun Free Zone" sign which you've posted in front of your home.
Crockett... I vote this has comment of the week!
"Please post a picture of the "Gun Free Zone" sign which you've posted in front of your home."
I hope Piers Morgan, that english CNN cunt, puts this on his Facebook page along with his residential address.... let's see how it plays out.
Thanks, RT. I figured it was worth a shot.
That's funny. Who wrote it?
Mark Twain. He said everything first.
"Please post a picture of the "Gun Free Zone" sign which you've posted in front of your home."
Open Season On Me!!!...Come On In!!!...ROTFL!!!
It seems that being American in itself is what is killing the nation. Between record consumption of food, record involvement in wars, record ownership of guns probably record consumption of both legal and illegal pharmaceutics, and record consumption of fiat based debt, Americans are deluded if they think that the nation can continue to lead the world for much longer.
some idiots still can't connect the entitlement cost issue to the stuffed face fat-ass issue.
Some idiots still can't connect the profit center issue for Big Ag, Big Pharma, and all the lobbyists, congressmen, bureaucrats, and other fat cats sucking off this teat. The Waltons are allegedly the richest family in America.
Stuffed face fat-asses are livestock. They're stupid. They only do what they've been conditioned to do by the Power Elites' TV and other ad business.
nfns - "some idiots still can't connect the entitlement cost issue to the stuffed face fat-ass issue"
No. Entitlement issues are 100% due to a poorly designed .gov entitlement program and demographics. In 1968, the start of Medicare, health care spending was 28 billion total. They are now 2 Trillion+. Medicare accounts for 1.2 Trillion. During that time, smoking has been cut in half yet health care costs have accelerated
How you arrived at 1.2 trillion/year from fat people is beyond me. Even the author cites fat costing 100 billion per year. The last "Guest Post" liberal propaganda article I read from Tyler cited 75 billion. Though, neither were well referenced.
Under our system, in which medicare pays after you turn 65, it costs the system less to die young. If you want to say, "I hate fat people because they are lazy and ugly", that's fine. But there is next to no economic issue under our current system. Both you and this Tyler are wrong on this issue. Period.
Amerikans can stand to lose a few hundred pounds. I saw a woman this morning as I was walking my Dogs, must a crumb away from 650#'s and had a big Gulp in her hands. I am sure it was a Diet something but WTF. How does she find her pussy.
So you live in America but hate America. Makes sense.
Those who point out problems are not haters. If you said to your wife, "Honey, the roof is leaking, maybe we should get it fixed," that doesn't mean you hate your home. Quite the opposite.
How does she wipe her ass?
I had a carpenter who worked contract jobs for me some years back who clocked in about 300 lbs. He would, like clockwork, take a dump every morning about 10AM. He'd use the customer's bathrooms and I had enough. Finally had to make him leave the premises and go use the nearest gas station restroom. He'd stink up the whole house and he'd have to unstop more than a few of those low-volume shitters that plague the plumbing landscape. The turds were horrendous. Huge things that just wouldn't go down. No telling what ole Dusty had eaten the night before. Surely something had crawled up in there and died. ...which he probably is by now.
Do we really want to know?
Apparently, the answer is: They don't.
I have not confirmed this nor would I ever attempt to.
Weak troll is weak.
Cut em' outta healthcare then or let them get private plans for being obese. Costs are cut and our growing population problem gets a little help. Oh yeah, we wouldn't want personal choice tho. State has to intervene. Lets just make Nanny Bloomberg Dictator and be done with all of this.
An obese person is almost as malnourished as a starving person. If a person eats food that doesn't provide enough proper nutrition for the body, then they will crave more food. Obesity is a result of starving the body of the nutritious food it needs. It is ironic that in the world's biggest food producing country, so many are malnourished.
Exactly. You aren't giving your body what it needs to say "wait, had enough".
But isnt that exactly what any producers want? People who literally can't get enough of what you're selling?
They're drugged, addicted to an opiate. Modern, genetically modified wheat contains an opiate call gliadin.
utterly, motherfuckingly WRONG.
ANY animal will get fat if it has the chance.
You simply fail to comprehend how evolutionary biology works. Animals that DID NOT GORGE died and so did their offspring. This is selective pressure AGAINST that trait.
Animals eat until they can barely walk, for fuck's sake. Vultures gorge so much they cannot take off. That's because meals in nature might take awhile to get the next one. So you eat as much as possible EVERY TIME, planning for scarcity.
Fuck man, some animals don't eat for MONTHS; they evolved hibernation to lower caloric expenditure just to be able to SURVIVE the winter.
WTF kinda nonsense is it with you people? MOST behaviors are biological in origin, genetic.
Obesity is a result of people acting the way millions of years of evolution have PROGRAMMED MAMMALS to.
"Obesity is a result of people acting the way millions of years of evolution have PROGRAMMED MAMMALS to."
Then why are many people not obese?
because the gov has redefined obesity. And it's quite expensive.
Most people are fat. Very FEW are in shape or thin. In humans, I would concede, especially among asians, that obesity has been mitigated by considerable periods of relative abundance, owing to our intelligence and to those populations that have good future time orientation.
This is not entirely true Trav. I've had German shepards for 30 years and free fed all of them. They never ate to excess and were never fat. Then I got a corgi and was shocked she almost killed itself eating all the food ,she is never satisfied. They are both dogs but wildly different. My husband ate an average of 7000 cal/ day working on the farm including one gallon of raw Jersy milk daily. He was never fat, in fact he was quite ripped for someone who never set a foot in a gym. I would have been 400 lbs if I ate as he did. We all know people who seem to eat whatever they wish with no weight gain and those who eat quite austerely and are heavy. Anecdotal? Of course. But what I mean to say there are many more factors involved that haven't been fully researched to explain the entire reasons for the obesity rates today. Oh yes about the Asians. Yes they have the lowest rates of obesity however American Asians are one of the fast growing groups for diabetes in USA . Given enough time they will catch up to the rest of the USA population. You sited epigenetics. This is a great example how environment can modulate gene expression. The outcome, however , is quite unfortunate.
Miffed:-)
Do you deny that fat prey have a greater chance of being caught (and eaten) by their predators? Please explain how those "animals eat until they can barely walk" weren't dinner instead of a reproducer.
The chart is useless. Heart disease death rates mean nothing by themselves. Everyone dies of something. If you're 114 years old and die of heart disease is that anyone's fault? It certainly isn't due to poor lifestyle choices.
What you want to see for disease statistics is: "Years of life lost due to xxx." A death due to a knifing or auto accident at 23 years of age results in a lot of years of life lost.
Mississippi is ground-zero. Looks like the Feds need to ban BBQ and pulled pork - or at least have the FDA regulate it as the addictive substance it is!
The food being eaten isn't triggering the body's "satisfied" response. Try olives & olive oil; a more mediterranean diet. But olive oil is great. love the stuff too. It's why Europeans are thin.
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Olive-oil-compound-may-boost-sa...
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/nutrition/healthy-satiety.aspx
Dairy'll kill you. That means just about everything baked as well btw.
My observation as to why Europeans are thin is that they smoke. I would bet there is a correlation between the war on tobacco and the increase in obesity in the U.S. Just say'n.
I recall reading years ago that Dr. Barnard told his chunky daughter at one time to take up smoking as an aid to losing weight. I don't believe he mean't for her to do it for an extended period though, and this was before all the ill effects of smoking were known, but may be something to that.
it works...personally can vouch for that
But apparently it does jack shit for the personality.
Cancer is an excellent weight loss system. Unsurpassed by any other.
My observation is Europeans are not able to find a parking place right next to the door of the gym and must walk a good distance to get there and anywhere else they want to go. Gasoline is also over twice as expensive in Europe.
Most Europeans don't smoke any more than Americans and when the do smoke, they don't smoke as many per day. Have you checked out the price of a pack of ciggies in most countries in Europe?
Css I agree. Dairy is the devil. There is essentially no nutrition in dairy (for humans) and it carries a multitude of evils.
It varies per individual. However if one drinks milk from a cow standing in a foot of feces, injected with antibiotics to keep it alive in such conditions and injected with bGH to artificially increase milk production, then you have a point. Allowable bacterial counts in milk have been raised because of pasteurization. So you have high numbers of bacteria being lysed ( broken open ) releasing numerous proteins into the milk that would normally not occur in milk. This is often the reason for milk allergy yet everyone assumes its lactose intolerance. We drink only raw milk from a friend of mine and we have no problems with it. It pays to know where your food is coming from.
Miffed:-)
Dairy FAT is OK, and delicious. The whole lactose/milk thing just needs a bit of fermentation and it's good nutrition.
Blue Cheese: Secret to French Longevity?
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stories/French_paradox_old_cheese/20...
Mortality rates are about to soar. The best is behind us. Wait until 2013 or 2014 when the super bugs that are just getting started in India become pandemic. Obesity will be the least of their {medical community} concerns. Look, something in this life is going to take you out eventually. A sudden massive heart attack is FAR better than most other ways of demise, no lingering in pain and suffering, no bankrupting medical bills for your estate, just a millisecond of sharp chest pain, followed by a bright light {unless your Hank Paulson, then I want you to get ALS}.
but..but...we have Obamacare to save our fat asses.
maybe there'll be some kind of massive flood or plague
If 80% of people wanted to own a firearm, propaganda media and polls would tell us the opposite is true, persuading congress to outlaw guns.
agreed; media represents the fear of an uneducated population that allows gun ownership.
add to that the way guns are cast in society by hollywood. what else would you except- fear of the unknown and the ultimate blame of the gun rather than all the fucking loser misfits that act out their behaviors both being histrionic and antisocial.
but a better explanation is as follows by Dr. Paul Craif Roberts
this guy has it all straight in his head-one of the few(including some zhers-ya fucking right)
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
guns are no use without brains.
as a cartoon showed, guns are for murder, not for disuading tyranny.
what do you call the US government now if not a tyranny.
your jobs are shipping overseas. Rich Romney-types can offshore
their money, and everybody else slips into foodstamp land.
I hope they try to take your guns, because most folks will
only see that as a tyranny.
It takes a whole village of gun nuts to raise .....
Still bleating about Romney? Don't worry, Obama is going to keep in President for the time being.
ok , sonny. not taking sides. now put the gun down
Good morning, Ms. Feinstein.
Of course, government is of a kind with criminality. It is a spectrum. It follows that a government which wants to lie, cheat, steal, and kill its citizens that it should disarm them at some point. The bullshitters all know they are bullshitting, and if a bullshitter gets caught bullshitting it could get ugly. Most people want to make sense out of the world they live in, the bullshitters just want their bullshit to prevail.
I call bullshit.
More and more.
Every day, in things large and small.
And you're right: Bullshitter's don't like being called out.
And it doesn't take masses in the streets: It just takes people
calling out bullshitters directly---the more simple the logic, the easier
for all to understand.
Early and often, friends.
Merry Christmas!
Gummit's just the most POPULAR criminals.
Between the ongoing drought and peak oil, this problem will be self solving...
Straight from the Doom Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
•Heart disease: 599,413
•Cancer: 567,628
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
•Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
•Diabetes: 68,705
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
Just keep scrolling down, you’re bound to read..LOL
Let me guess...its just below death from falling?
Well, seems like if you wanted to use cause of death as an excuse for a law, you'd want the gummit legislating diet pretty hardcore.
Isn't there a major statistic left out here, tho?
I notice the list doesn't mention death by medical malpractice. That's 80,000 to 250,000 a year, depending on whose figures you use. That would put it somewhere between third and sixth.
Of course, a lot of those medical errors probably result in the death of gunshot victims too.
I also don't see a listing for the number of deaths caused by "Hey, watch this!"
is it really funny anymore?
R U Kidding? Fat Control? You'd Wreck the Economy! The Food Industry, the Sick Care Industry, and Government Departments of Nannyism would all be up a crick.
I'm surprised the Financial Times posted this story last week:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0b7af978-493a-11e2-9225-00144feab49a.html#axzz2ForXr6nt
A little pH change in part of your small intestine, et voila!
My wife is a VERY skeptical Microbiologist... she says this finding could indeed be the real deal.
They need to bring solutions instead of bitching about problems and pretend they are more like the "Private Sector". Obviously every Walmart needs a liposuction department. They have a bank and an otometrist, they need a lipologist. The government can procure 200,000 liposuction machines at barely over double the cost of what they should be and staff it with high paid government workers and cut down on medicare and medicaid expenses at the same time. People will pay a fair price, or maybe even twice that, for liposuction so they can gorge some more. No hand grenades or flame-throwers or surface to air missles or gatlin guns, though. At least not at walmart.
You cannot expect consistency and coherence from a government, especially when it is a government elected by people who are themselves incoherent. Most of the same people who root for the freedom to own guns feel however that abortion rights, pornography and drugs should be strictly regulated, or even better made illegal. On the other side, those who favor gun controls are ok with not regulating bad eating behavior which is a cause of a major epidemics peculiar to the USA (although both guns and obesity are now a major US export). Still, everyone from all sides still expects the government to be there to pay benefits (to them, not to single mothers out of wedlock) and disaster relief when needed. In the end, a government is like a dentist: nobody wants one, even less pay for one, until they realize they need one. Remember, people get the government they deserve.
The less important government is to your own life, the happier you will be. The cure is the disease.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYbgGV7Yk1I
We will need the guns to kill the Zombies when they attack. My son practices this daily on his computer.
Just hope they're not Return of the Living Dead zombies. Those kind of ones are a royal pain.
Romero zombies are slow and shambling. If you can outrun them, you can survive.
Now the 24 Hours zombies are a little too nimble. They're the real problem.
We need to be cracking down on the fast zombies. I don't see any government money being spent in area of protection.
Ark!
Ark!
Does not compute!
Soon, there won't be any food, except for the illuminated ones and their slaves.
So, there will be no problem with over-weight-ness!
The root cause of all this violence is not too many guns, it's too many heterosexuals behaving badly. They're all hetero loco.
https://heteroloco.wordpress.com/
"when everyone finally wakes up from the 150 year old dream that started with Bismarck's 'Welfare State' utopia"
Bismarck's plans were certainly not utopian. Bismark was a realist, unlike the ideogues today who believe laissez-faire capitalism and free markets will solve every human problem. Let us not forget, that under Bismarck's leadership, conservatism (and not the direction of the more liberal / libertarian Prussian Diet, the English Parliament, and the United States congress), Germany became the world's premier industrial, intellectual, and military power. The advance of progress, of education, and the standard of living in Bismark's Germany far exceeded that in the post Civil War United States (a Very liberal government) or in England. Let us not forget that Americans had to travel to Germany to learn how to set up a research university to even begin conducting modern science (the University of Chicago, for example, was a wholesale export of German education to the United States).
So before we blow the horn of liberal / libertarianism too much, let us take a long and accurate look at how libertarianism in the U.S. faired against a proper conservative government. I think that the historical record is more than clear on this point.
Are you referring to that wonderful gift from Germany, The Frankfurt School? {http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/} American educators didn't travel to Germany to learn how to set up lab research, they traveled there to learn Marxism. Until Hitler squashed them 1933, they were the competing political force in Germany, very powerful in spreading revolution across Europe. Don't ever forget who funded Lenin's return to Russia in 1917. Germany had a high standard of living, but it NEVER matched the US or Britain either for that matter. I had the privilege of being tutored as child by an old Prussian Baroness expatriate. We used to talk at length about the Germany she knew as a child and young woman, from about 1880 to 1947 when she came to the US. She had no love for Bismarck. She kept an old picture of Kaiser Wilhelm 2 in her apartment until the day she died. From what she told me about pre WW1 Germany, there was not the middle class that you claim. There was not much freedom either, as one would expect from a monarchy.
They were a church going people though. Per capita, they had the highest percentage of church goers than anywhere else in Europe. By the end of WW2 she was virtually penniless, living on assistance. Her estate and other possessions were in Russian hands. Her view of the Wiemar inflation was especially interesting. She said that the wealthy {like her} were able to put much of their wealth into foreign investments, converting their Marks into pounds, francs and dollars, thus were spared the evaporation of their wealth. According to her, the bankers who did the transactions charged a hefty percentage for doing this, as it was done under the table so to speak. The poor were not hurt as bad as one would think. It was the middle class that was wiped clean. She never talked much about WW2 Germany, only to say the entire system ran on graft and pay-offs. Sounds like a criminal enterprise to me. Beginning to sound an awful lot like our country today!
when i run 5k, i only burn off about 320 calories. less than a slice of chocolate cake. depressing. but what is really depressing is watching people at grocery stores 20 years younger than me riding around in electric carts with 2 ft of ass hanging off each side.
how could you live with yourself?
Sloth. You slowly get used to it as you slowly descend into it.
Wow.
After looking at that map, I think I'll move to Tucson; they seem to have a much lower heart disease rate than my home county.
Also, I've heard that most fatal accidents happen within 5 miles of home. I think it's a good time to move...
Spend a weekend there first.
I'm thankful we don't have comment control yet
I thought we were going to discuss obesity. I don't see why the gov't couldn't offer public aerobic classes....I'd even pay. They could use the latest closed work place and I'd bring the CDs and player. I love to dance...but there's no where to dance anymore. Only on TV do people dance....and they dance with stars.
Guns? Just get rid of assault ones.....just look at what Australia did. Copy that. Hell that country has worse genetics than ours...it started out as a penal colony.
If they can stop these massive kill-offs, certainly we can.
And if the gov't wants you, they have drones to find you. And there is no way you'll be able to fight off the dudes that surround your home. All you need for suicide vs. jail is a simple hand gun. Just look at the NDAA. We're toast.
Only Mother Nature can save us now...she has to hit The Reset Button.
Here is the point you are missing: Solzhenitsyn said in his book "The Gulag Archipelago", that the soviet people went peacefully into captivity. The trucks that used to go around at night and make the round-ups were called "Black Marias". "What if, he said, we had fought back with whatever means we had on hand? Sure, they would have got us anyway, but in the NKVD agents minds would have been the dread of the thought that maybe they would be killed too. Everybody wants to go home at night." Resistance is NEVER futile, they just want you to think it is. It is what they fear most. That is the reason for gun control.
I don't go much for the gubmit telling me what I can and can't do, especially when it comes to my self defense. Ignoring the fact that assault weapons (fully automatic weapons) have been outlawed since 1934, if I want to own a semi-automatic rifle and do not use it in the commission of a crime who are they to tell me I can't?
How about this as a partial solution to the gun problem. For anyone convicted of a crime where any type of firearm was used - whether fired or not, they get a mandatory life sentence. No parole, no mercy. Seems that would a) get a lot of violent criminals off the street, b) act as a deterrent so long as it was enforced, and c) wouldn't wholesale take away the rights of responsible law-abiding citizens to execise their 2nd amendment rights because of the actions of idiots and crazy people.
Would it prevent every fatality? Of course not, but we do not live in a perfect world or we wouldn't be talking about weapons in the first place. I believe that it would reduce fatalities though and make the streets safer for all of us.
"...if I want to own a semi-automatic rifle and do not use it in the commission of a crime who are they to tell me I can't?"
Well, if I want to own a fighter jet armed with heat-seeking missiles, who are they to tell me I can't?
In a truly free society, you would have that right. For that matter, you can do so even in today's semi-totalitarian Amerika (not sure about the missiles, though).
You would likely also have one hell of a time, as a lone individual, buying insurance for it, or finding an airport that would gladly allow you to hanger it and base it there.``
Why would you pay money for these people to live out their lives in a cell?
If as you believe they are beyond redemption and cannot be reintegrated into society why bother.
killing them would be cheaper as you believe they could never repay their debt to society.
Your logic appears to be flawed.
I pay for the government, and I do not want it giving a single penny to obese people or foreign war expansion.
There are children in the USA who are lonely, cold and hungry through no fault of their own.
You silly ninny.
PFK,
I pay for the government, and I do not want it giving a single penny to obese people or foreign war expansion.
There are children in the USA who are lonely, cold and hungry through no fault of their own.
You silly ninny.
"And if the gov't wants you, they have drones to find you."
So why can't WE THE PEOPLE have drones? Isn't that the point of the entire second amendment--to allow the people to defend themselves against a despotic government? How can we defend ourselves from the U.S. military with simple assault weapons (let alone with muskets)? The American people should have access to all available weaponry, including drones, missiles, fighter aircraft and nuclear weapons. Otherwise, the second amendment is crap...
Perhaps you think you're being clever, but the fact is "The People" already have access to virtually everything the Feds do. Sure, individuals don't usually put together a quarter billion to buy a modern fighter/bomber squadron, but the fact is, IF THEY DID, there's no government which could realistically hope to prevent it.
Just like the Feds can't *prevent* some asshole in the USA from buying a rifle. Not without completely overhauling what Americans have to "put up with" as "citizens."
The reason the gun debate is such a pain in everyone's ass is that no one wants to talk about ENFORCEMENT. If you really want to enforce certain things, you have to come clean with the "subjects" and let them know their proper place in society.
If you're not prepared to deal with that kind of controversy, you can't just drop it on folks and expect it go over.
Bullshit!
It is not a fair fight. Average Joe against every consumer products company (including so called food) most of whom make use of tons of pyschological research to know exactly which consumer buttons to push to get them to buy. Average Joe has absolutley no defense.
One solution - teach consumer self defense starting in kindergarten.
Another soltuion - ban advertising or marketing to children. How can it be a fair fight - a 5 year old versus Ronald (and his band of psychologists).
Another solution - tax the shit out of crap (like sodas, HFCS, high salt foods)
Place warning labels on empty calorie foods - like the above --- in big fucking letters like on cig packs
....
Fund a consumer education department (to run counter adds) with a 25% advertising tax on other advertising. Eg: Ads that show how bad soda is and how profitable it is to sell sugar and water to ignorant consumers.
You sound like a politician. I have an idea; end socialized medicine and let people eat what, and as much of it {or as little of it} as they like. Then, if they get sick, it is on their dime, not mine. And won't even cost anything, much less create a new government agency.
Plus, the gravediggers will stay busy, so even the Keynesians will be happy.
Pay some guys to dig a hole, then pay them to fill it back up. Basic Keynsian economics.
It's too simple. Parents need to do #1. There's no legitimate excuse any parent can ever give for not raising their kids right.
Notice that after Government "regulates" things like:
Education, healthcare, drugs, food, cars etc.
Nothing gets better, AND rather than improving its performance on what it already "regulates"
it ignores their own failure and instead, moves onto a different topic.
Once you've got gun control, you move onto soda bans. Once you have soda bans,
you move on to Carbon Caps....
Carbon Caps that the Europeans have dumped billions into over the last generation.
Has it changed their "climate?"
Exactly. That's why, if you have to have a huge government, it only tries to enforce the stuff that 99% of the folks agree on.
I'm pretty sure that carbon caps have changed the climate for at least a few Europeans. Those who have trafficked in bogus carbon caps are now living in a more pleasant tropical climate, thanks to their newfound wealth.
Elimination of damage to the environment is a good thing. Making a new tax out of it is the same old thing.
Liberty. Responsibility. Accountability. Freedom. What foreign concepts these have become in the land of the free. If you weren't on the hook for my lifestyle choices, nor me for yours, we likely wouldn't give a .....darn what you put in your body so long as it didn't impact me. Nor would the gubmit have the power to regulate every aspect of our lives.
AAA rated: another ace article.
We can ignore reality, but reality will not ignore us. Individuals must make wise choices for themselves, otherwise opportunists and exploiters will use and abuse them - whether that is a big company or a big government, herding sheeple for votes.
For example, obesity kills more than guns. Ignorant people eat more, and more of the wrong stuff.
Every day gun crime kills more than headline grabbing killing sprees. Ignorant people love easy solutions to problems they barely comprehend.
IF overfed career politicians were seriously interested in the genuine welfare of the nation instead of serving powerful lobby groups, then they would recognise that legal and illegal drugs are most linked to extreme violence.
Obesity is a personal choice - so is gun crime; both fuelled by ignorant people that vote for career politicians wed to lobby groups that care nothing for the genuine welfare of the community and Republic at large.
Interesting that The Economist owners show some small sign of contrition. Perhaps there is hope that enlightened self interest will prevail.
The natural law of consequences is the swiftest way to teach self preservation. Fat people should be told that they will pay personally for any help from any health service, and they will pay an extra premium. Obesity is a personal choice, and a burden too great to bear for any responsible society which wants to give help first to the most vulnerable whose condition is through no fault of their own.
Tough love is needed now more than ever.
"Obesity is a personal choice - so is gun crime"
Gun crime's not a personal choice by the victim of that gun crime...
Vooter, stating the bleeding obvious.
The gun crime is a choice of the shooter, and most gun crime in the USA is committed by people committing suicide or drugged up zombies. Legal and illegal drugs are promoted or tolerated by CONgress, but it is too difficult for profiteers to admit their complicity, 'Vooter'.
PS
Maybe the world as it was Post WWII did end on 12/21/12, and the gnomes of Zurich owners of the Economist and central banks are ready to mend their ways, and demonstrate contrition, defined as:-
sincere penitence or remorse and most understood by theology:
Theology . sorrow for and detestation of sin with a true purposeof amendment, arising from alove of God for His ownperfections (perfect contrition) or from some inferior motive,as fear of divine punishment (imperfect contrition).
Or maybe not. We'll see, won't we: 2013.
Apology for some punctuation errors; the system can't handle accuracy.
I find it ironic that Amerika with over a 200 year history of gun loving brainwashing built into their culture now live in a fear based mentality.
I would ask members of the NRA (national retard assc.) - if you thought for a moment that giving up your personal arsenal might - just might save another persons life (for a multitude of reasons) - would you do?
Yeah - I thought not - thats why this will only get worse - you love the idea too much - the idea that these pieces of metal are part of your very fiber of being - that they possess some mystical power that will save you from the ultimate worse case scenario that DOESN'T exist.
Reload
If it's your life I'm saving? Nope. I'll shoot you myself.
there you have it folks - exactly what I'm talking about - thanks Nimby - perfect
Zero.... Good efforts today against those ZH barbarians. As your reward Piers Morgan will give YOU a reach a round as you let him fuck your liberal arse.... PS: Don't forget to bring the ELMO costume again 'cause last time that was a real hit with the team.
BTW Have you posted on facebook that cool pic of you, wifee and the kids with the sign "Gun Free Zone" on your front lawn?
lame very lame - I would expect more - this is everything that is wrong with AMERIKA - OUT.
Come on "Zero" don't go and sulk. You provide valuable material for us "Barbarians"....
Are you implying I'm from Amerika ?
FYI.. An update on the Piers Morgan "Petition": Only 941 to go until 25,000
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-m...
Text:
Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.
I find it ironic that humanity with over a 6000 year history of state-loving "Protect me!" brainwashing built into its culture nevertheless lives in a neurotic, permanent fear-based mentality.
I would ask members of any major mainstream, statist political doctrine (retards all) - if you thought for a moment that defending your personal rights against ever-more-intrusive government might - just might save another persons life (or your own) - would you do so?
Yeah - I thought not - thats why this will only get worse - you love the idea of the all-powerful nanny state too much - the idea that these fictions called "laws" are part of your very fiber of being - that they possess some mystical power that will save you from the ultimate worse case scenario that DOESN'T exist.
Bow low
akak, you confront the happy wage slaves, bowing down to their master, begging for some crumbs off the rich man's table. Actions speak louder than words.
Some people swore an oath to defend the country against all enemies at home and abroad. There's no time limit on that.
This is why statists love permits and regulations rather than rights. With permits and regulations they can micromanage you; with rights they can't. This is why they must destroy all rights. Think of permits and regulations as the Lilliputian ropes tying down Gulliver...and you are Gulliver.
AKAK,
Either the state is broken and can be repaired or it is beyond repair.
Your words above seem to indicte a desire for chaos over order.
Explain to me how a state defends its borders without centralisation of resources.
Your anarchy/hippy lifestyle sounds great until someone more powerful steals your shit.
ZH argues domestic/local issues with scant regard or understanding of international ones.
America is no longer seen as a 'rational player' in international affairs by most of europe.
I'm all for an american revival/revolution, your country is fracturing and will become more unstable the longer this divide continues, only problem is that us peeps who live in the rest of the world will have to clear the mess up, i'd rather my kids werent drafted into some UN peacekeeping force sent to bring 'peace' to the midwest.
Not a single ZH'er will talk about cutting defence spending, its taboo.
Why is that? cos you all think the taliban is around every corner, its getting as bad as the reds under the bed meme.
"Explain to me how a state defends its borders without centralisation of resources."
How does France defend its border with its traditional enemy Germany now? It seems to me that the U.S. defends it border with Canada to the extreme in comparison to the border defences in Western Europe.
"Not a single ZH'er will talk about cutting defence spending, its taboo."
That's absolute fucking nonsense. There are many on ZH, myself included, that believe America's defense spending is a major cause of its current economic malaise, not to mention many other societal problems.
TO: Colonial Intent.......In a word BULLSHIT.
You will be hard to find ANY ZH Poster, whose been around a while, that in anyway supports the Trillions spent on the various Wars promoted by both sides of the isle - Red or Blue.
For someone whose been on this site for more than a year. You have either read nothing or you are nothing more than a paid TROLL.
Fuck off... "Colonial Intent" Take your revisionist preaching somewhere else.
Narcissist who names himself 'zero to hero'.
Who's hero? The despot and monarchy regimes who slaughter their own with impunity because the people are too defenseless to protect themselves? The career politicians who grift off taxpayers, the unemployed, the taxpayers - and anyone who will pay for their obesity?
Gun violence is most linked to drugs, legal and illegal. Most gun deaths in the USA are due to suicides, not the sort of headline grabbing mass assault that fascinates your sort.
The right to bear arms is in the Constitution because the founding fathers knew the venality of man; that money grubbing types would seize power while lulling ignorant people into a false sense of security...then abuse them.
Drones, the NDAA, dear boy. See your enslavement, and stop mithering honest people with your paranoia which mirrors the career politicians' paranoia: that they might be killed by their failed policies.
They don't care if ordinary people die. They only care if they are at risk, silly boy.
Why doe everybody put so much power in the "founding fathers" - these people were not from Mount Olympus - you don't have to live by 200 year old verbage that is/may not be practical in todays society - out with the old in with the new. CHANGE PEOPLE - throw off the chains that keep you down - truly live FREE - or is that what REALLY scares you???
you're name is backwards - herotozero, TFIFY
dexter_
Sites are slammed by government slaves, like faker narcissist 'herotozero'.