Obesity is a serious problem in this country. But conservatives don't think the government should do anything about it, even though rampant obesity drives up Medicaid and Medicare costs, sends paupers in diabetic shock to hospital emergency rooms (which the rest of us pay for), costs employers billions of hours in lost productivity, clogs doctors' waiting rooms with people whose medical problems all boil down to being too fat, and fills the aisles of Walmart with slow, waddling oafs who are so wide you can't get by them.
Conservatives tend to blame kids and parents for childhood obesity. They don't hold fast-food, soda and snack manufacturers responsible -- even though these companies are pushers for the gateway drugs to morbid obesity. Conservatives in general don't think the government should address the problem at all. But the study found that there is a way to change conservatives' minds: point out that obesity in children will severely hamper our military readiness.
Our data [suggest] that a message linking a problem traditionally considered under the domain of public health to national defense has the potential to shift public opinion among conservatives. This message was likely effective because of its novelty, and also because it tapped into values beyond those — such as equality and social responsibility — that are typically associated with public health.What exactly are those values? Conservatives like to pretend they embrace patriotism and love of freedom. But it's now revealed that fear and selfishness drive them. They're afraid that if our kids are too fat to serve in the military, they won't be able to interpose themselves between us and all them A-rab terrorists. (It's also interesting to note that more blacks serve proportionately in the Army -- 21% of soldiers are African American, while blacks constitute only 12.4% of the general population. Why? It's one of the few ways out of endemic poverty.).
So, conservatives don't give a damn about American children or blacks unless they need them to save their bacon, or protect oil company interests in the Middle East.
I don't usually give a lot of credence to studies like this. But years of mouthing from conservative "thought leaders" convinces me it's true. Rush Limbaugh dismissively derides Michelle Obama's efforts to encourage children to exercise and eat better. Sarah Palin screams bloody murder when it's suggested that kids shouldn't be eating cookies in the classroom. All conservatives bitch endlessly about the "nanny state" when states pass laws that ban candy and soda machines in schools, and prevent companies like McDonalds and Pizza Hut from setting up shop on school campuses.
As I'm sure that "big fat idiot" Rush Limbaugh knows from personal experience, being fat has less to do with willpower and more to do with biology. Our bodies are specifically built to store fat in times of plenty in preparation for times of famine. This propensity to store fat saved our ancestors but is killing us.
Yes, we should be responsible for what we stick in our own mouths. But most people -- especially the poor, who are generally more obese than the wealthy -- are at the mercy of the giant companies that control our food supply. They produce what's most profitable for them, not what's best for the health of the American people, giving the poor no choice about what they eat.
4 comments:
Conservatives tend to blame kids and parents for childhood obesity.
Where as progtards believe that we are all just helpless victims of profit-seeking manipulation.
Perhaps I should have a chat with your father about what a shitty job he did raising you. Perhaps I should be put in charge of your kids because you must be doing a shitty job raising them.
Aren't stupid, wild generalizations FUN?
drives up Medicaid and Medicare costs, sends paupers in diabetic shock to hospital emergency rooms (which the rest of us pay for)
Pass a law, then need to pass another law to control the effects of the first law? Maybe the problem is the first law and not the need to give the government even more power.
Now of course, what you are saying here is that since we pay for the health care of these particular folks, then we 'should' have more power to control their personal choices. Is it any wonder why certain people do not like the idea of the government paying for all health care?
We have to take people's choices away from because they don't know what's best for themselves. Not directly, though, because that would be too crass, and just too much, too soon. But Marxy's just the kind of person to do it, too. He knows how helpless he is before the almighty Mickey D's ads, so obviously the solution is to force companies to sell what he wants them to sell, not what their customers want them to sell. Because with government health care, our bodies belong to the collective just as much as those who volunteered for the military. And so, by God-as-interpreted-by-Marxy's-ilk, we must all make sure that his property is well taken care of.
Re: the book referenced by the host, my wife read it and was not much impressed. For one thing, it's only got one section on Rush (IIRC), and Franken admitted he had never actually listened to Rush. He had an intern listen some and make notes, used that and what some other people said for that chapter. Using Limbaugh's name in the title probably resulted in a lot more sales than anything else in the book did. I guess leeching off someone else's fame and notoriety is one way to promote yourself, but it's kind of cheap and sleazy. But then it is Al Franken we're talking about.
Post a Comment