Black Market

Can you even use “black market” these days without being a racist? 🙂

Kids Create Salt Black Markets in Cafeterias Due to Michelle Obama’s Lunch Rules

AP

School kids around the country are tweeting rather unfortunate pictures of the meals they’re being served at lunchtime, and thanking first lady and healthy school food advocate Michelle Obama for their bowls of mush and mystery proteins. The tweets, which have carried the not-so-subtle #ThanksMichelleObama hashtag, were being sent out at a rate of 40 per minute (WP  11/2014)

School administrators testify to Congress on ‘unintended consequences’ of the law

BY:  Elizabeth Harrington (current)

Then the Democrats want to run every other aspect of your life, including what you can think.

Thank you Mr and Mrs. Big Brother.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Give Peas a Chance

Who should decide what you can eat: you? Or the state?…

It is no coincidence that the push for more food regulation came at a time when Congress obsessed about the rising cost of medical care.

When government pays for your health care, it will inevitably be drawn into regulating your personal life. First, politicians promise to pay. Then, they propose to control you.

Where does it stop? If we must control diet to balance the government’s budget, will the health squad next ban skydiving and extramarital sex? How about another try at Prohibition?

But was about reasonable-sounding policies like forcing businesses to post calorie counts?

Often the Food Police strike an innocent pose, claiming that they just want to give people information. Information is good. But it’s not free. Mandated calorie signs in restaurants cost money. Those costs are passed on to consumers, and the endless parade of calorie counts and warning labels make us numb to more important warnings – like, “This Coffee Is Scalding Hot.”

It’s not as if dietary information isn’t already available. Health and diet websites abound. Talk shows routinely discuss the latest books on diet and nutrition. TV diet gurus are celebrities. That’s enough. We have information. We don’t need government force. (John Stossel)

****

Body Mass Index Cards anyone?

“I’m sorry sir but your Body Mass Index card shows you over your limit so we can’t sell you <fill in the blank>”

🙂

***********

CHARLOTTE — The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition is threatening to send a blogger to jail for recounting publicly his battle against diabetes and encouraging others to follow his lifestyle.

Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition” without a license. According to the law, “practicing” nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups” and “providing nutrition counseling.”

Steve Cooksey has learned that the definition, at least in the eyes of the state board, is expansive.

When he was hospitalized with diabetes in February 2009, he decided to avoid the fate of his grandmother, who eventually died of the disease. He embraced the low-carb, high-protein Paleo diet, also known as the “caveman” or “hunter-gatherer” diet. The diet, he said, made him drug- and insulin-free within 30 days. By May of that year, he had lost 45 pounds and decided to start a blog about his success.

But this past January the state diatetics and nutrition board decided Cooksey’s blog — Diabetes-Warrior.net — violated state law. The nutritional advice Cooksey provides on the site amounts to “practicing nutrition,” the board’s director says, and in North Carolina that’s something you need a license to do.

Unless Cooksey completely rewrites his 3-year-old blog, he could be sued by the licensing board. If he loses the lawsuit and refuses to take down the blog, he could face up to 120 days in jail.

Regulatory overreach? I’d say so. (NRO)

****

Michael Marder, an Ikerbasque Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of the Basque Country in Northern Spain, made the suggestion in an editorial entitled, “If peas can talk, should we eat them?”

“Imagine a being capable of processing, remembering and sharing information — a being with potentialities proper to it and inhabiting a world of its own. Given this brief description, most of us will think of a human person, some will associate it with an animal, and virtually no one’s imagination will conjure up a plant,” he wrote.

“When it comes to a plant, it turns out to be not only a what but also a who — an agent in its milieu, with its own intrinsic value or version of the good. Inquiring into justifications for consuming vegetable beings thus re-conceived, we reach one of the final frontiers of dietary ethics.”

So when does the Pea Mass Murder/Genocide trail and lawsuit begin?

“The ‘renewable’ aspects of perennial plants may be accepted by humans as a gift of vegetal being and integrated into their diets. But it would be harder to justify the cultivation of peas and other annual plants, the entire being of which humans devote to externally imposed ends.”

In 2009, for example, an article in the New York Times written by science columnist Natalie Angier went so far as to claim that plants are the most ethical life forms on the planet, Smith said.

“But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to ‘committed vegetarians’ and ‘strong ethical vegans,’” she wrote, “we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way.”

She continued: “It’s a small daily tragedy that we animals must kill to stay alive. Plants are the ethical autotrophs here, the ones that wrest their meals from the sun. Don’t expect them to boast: they’re too busy fighting to survive.”

Anyone who follows thses kinds of discussions know where this eventually leads. 

Radical groups like PETA, for example, don’t want humans consuming any meat whatsoever, and now, it seems, there are those who don’t want humans consuming some vegetables.

Sounds silly, but think again.

Smith notes that Switzerland has already “added a new clause to the Federal Constitution requiring that ‘account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms.'”

A report presented by the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology explained that “living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive.”

“Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim ‘absolute ownership’ over plants and, moreover, that ‘individual plants have an inherent worth.’ This means that ‘we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily.’”(examiner)

Plants have rights you know! 🙂

So if the government does come after you for being fat, or for eating wrong food, now some whackos want to come after you for the simple act of eating itself you evil selfish bastard. 🙂

2004: In a decision which could have a major impact on the war against obesity, the federal government has reversed a 1987 decision, and has just ruled that health insurance companies can now discriminate against the obese as a means of encouraging them to lose weight. 

More specifically, it ruled that all health insurance plans subject to federal jurisdiction may provide discounts or rebates to those who are not obese, and/or “modify copayments and deductibles” based on obesity, and that some companies could simply charge the obese more for the same insurance.

“This decision provides an important, immediate, and direct financial incentive for the obese to lose weight, and finally permits insurance companies to do what they have been hoping to do.”

“The decision could also impose true personal responsibility on those who balloon health care costs for everyone,” says <Lawyer>Banzhaf. Since each obese person averages about $1500 a year in additional health care costs, and almost one in three adults is obese, most non-obese patients are forced to pay about $500 a year more in insurance premiums each year, or to receive $500 less in benefits under our current system, he says.

This new ruling would permit any health insurance company which applied to HHS to offer premium discounts and rebates – or different copayments and deductibles – for the non-obese, provided that four simple conditions were met.

“This ruling could have more of an educational effect than all of the government’s obesity public service announcements. Every time a patient is told that his copayment or deductible is higher because he is obese, he receives a very forceful and direct reminder that his obesity has immediate consequences, and he is reminded in a health context that obesity is an important enough risk to warrant a higher rate just like smoking,” says Banzhaf. Moreover, if he still doesn’t get the message, his spouse is likely to because of the impact on the family budget, and encourage the obese individual to lose enough weight to qualify for the discount.

So I guess not everything in Liberal Land is “fair” and “equal” except the need to control people 24/7. 🙂

So when the liberals get around to it, especially if ObamaCare survives, and they manage to drive Private Health care into the ground (as was the objective of ObamaCare) leaving only the government then they can control you completely and utterly and there won’t be a thing you can do about it.

They will have the power of Life and Death, and if they tell you that you can only eat Tofu & bean spouts (though those are plants so even that may not be “morally” correct) then that’s all you’ll get because otherwise you’ll have to pay a tax for wanting something outside of the “government regulations” and then you’ll pay higher health insurance for it too.

Not that they won’t want to shut down all those choices in the first place and ban Ronald McDonald as  a capitalist harbinger of doom for kids.

Think I’m going over the top?

Remember, this ruling came about under the Bush Administration.

Now you have Herrn Fuhrer Sebelius and Big Brother Obama.

How about Salt in a New York Restaurant? Cupcakes in school? Hmmm…

What do you think will happen. 😦

BMI. Folks, BMI.

Jan 2012: The American Sociological Association reports on a new study of middle school students finding that “weight gain has nothing to do with the candy, soda, chips, and other junk food they can purchase at school.” The research, which appears in Sociology of Education this month, examined almost 20,000 kids in the fifth and eighth grades. Even when snack food availability increased, the percentage of overweight or obese students decreased from fifth grade to eight grade.

“We were really surprised by that result and, in fact, we held back from publishing our study for roughly two years because we kept looking for a connection that just wasn’t there,” said the lead author of the study.

The authors found that 59.2 percent of fifth graders and 86.3 percent of eighth graders in their study attended schools that sold junk food. But, while there was a significant increase in the percentage of students who attended schools that sold junk food between fifth and eighth grades, there was no rise in the percentage of students who were overweight or obese. In fact, despite the increased availability of junk food, the percentage of students who were overweight or obese actually decreased from fifth grade to eighth grade, from 39.1 percent to 35.4 percent.

“There has been a great deal of focus in the media on how schools make a lot of money from the sale of junk food to students, and on how schools have the ability to help reduce childhood obesity,” Van Hook said. “In that light, we expected to find a definitive connection between the sale of junk food in middle schools and weight gain among children between fifth and eighth grades. But, our study suggests that—when it comes to weight issues—we need to be looking far beyond schools and, more specifically, junk food sales in schools, to make a difference.”

Maybe it’s time for the “food police” to educate themselves. All the attempts to limit choices apparently won’t do the students any good. (CCFR)

So The Food Police have to get you at Home too and what better way than through  Health Insurance & ObamaCare. 🙂

Because, after all, you’re an idiot and you need the government’s “gentle hand” of “persuasion” to “do the right thing” and hand over your life and health to them.

They are, after all, better, smarter, and more “fair” than you are.

But The Examiner has a great line at the end of their article for all the Feel-Good Greenies out there: If it’s immoral to eat certain plants, how moral can it be to use them as fuel? 🙂

And Finally From the Wall Street Journal:

Large wind farms slightly increase temperatures near the ground as the turbines’ rotor blades pull down warm air, according to researchers who analyzed nine years of satellite readings around four of the world’s biggest wind farms.

The study showed for the first time that wind farms of a certain scale, while producing clean, renewable energy, do have some long-term effect on the immediate environment.

On average, the nighttime air around the wind farms became about 0.72 degree Celsius  (1.3 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer over that time, compared with the surrounding area, the scientists reported Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.

“We don’t know whether there is a change in weather due to the temperature change,” said atmospheric scientist Liming Zhou at the University at Albany, who led the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation. “The temperature change is small.”

But a global change like in temperature less than that has the Global Warming Alarmist going Chicken Little beserk and wanting to control everyone and everything!

Fascinating how that happens. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Put Down that Potato Chip, Fatso!

food-police

Prepare for the FDA to slap on graphic photos of man boobs on the side of every bag from this point forward.

Blame the potato chip. It’s the biggest demon behind that pound-a-year weight creep that plagues many of us, a major diet study found. Bigger than soda, candy and ice cream.

And the reason is partly that old advertising cliche: You can’t eat just one.

“They’re very tasty and they have a very good texture. People generally don’t take one or two chips. They have a whole bag,” said obesity expert Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer of the St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York.

What we eat and how much of it we consume has far more impact than exercise and most other habits do on long-term weight gain, according to the study by Harvard University scientists. It’s the most comprehensive look yet at the effect of individual foods and lifestyle choices like sleep time and quitting smoking.

The new study finds food choices are key. The message: Eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts. Cut back on potatoes, red meat, sweets and soda.

That’s right folks, blame the potato chip rather than personal actions. Also, blame the cigarrettes for cancer instead of the people who smoke them.

The Government must save you from yourself and from evil marketing campaigns.

Then it’s time for for pro-Obama lies about the economy. 🙂

But we are from the Government and we are here to save you! 🙂

For starchy potatoes other than chips, the gain was 1.28 pounds. Within the spud group, french fries were worse for the waist than boiled, baked or mashed potatoes. That’s because a serving of large fries contains between 500 to 600 calories compared with a serving of a large baked potato at 280 calories.

POTATOES ARE EVIL!!!
BAN THE SPUD!
THE POTATO POLICE WILL BE COMING FOR YOU!
FAST FOOD FRIES MUST BE OUTLAWED FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!
🙂
People who slept more or less than six to eight hours a night gained more weight.
Huh? Was that as much nonsense as I thought it was?
Well, as all of us Foodies know, “fat is flavor” so the Government has to do away with that.
Meat is Evil
Salt is Evil
Carbs are evil!
Potatoes are evil!
Can enforced Veganism (especially with ObamaCare’s cost curve) be far behind?
It’s for your own good, Fatso! 🙂
Now were was the Multi-Grain Pringles Can I was just wolfing down… 🙂

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! 🙂

Put Down that Burger, Fatso!

FOOD POLICE UPDATE

The federal government has a growing interest in the eating habits of Americans for the same reason it has an interest in tobacco consumption, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The reason is money, because three-quarters of medical-spending is driven by chronic diseases, such as obesity and tobacco-related diseases, she said.

Sebelius’ comments came at the tail-end of Tuesday’s White House press conference where officials showcased nine new photos that must be carried on cigarette packs. Officials used a survey of 18,000 people to find the images that would have the most distressing impact on groups of smokers, including young smokers and mothers of young kids.

“We want teenagers to understand smoking is gross, not cool,” said the HHS chief. If the public becomes desensitized to the distressing pictures, they’ll be replaced by new pictures, she said.

The regulations are justified, she said, because tobacco causes 443,000 premature deaths, and creates “$200 billion a year in health costs that we clearly could spend better elsewhere,” she said.

But the press questions shifted to food labels when a reporter pressed officials about new food-labeling standards being promoted by the government.

The standards are part of a much larger push by medical professionals to regulate the food sector. The medical professionals, led by the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have allied with professional advocacy groups, such as Center for Science in the Public Interest, and with leading Democratic politicians, to blame the food-sector for increasing obesity rates in the American population, and especially among African-Americans.

People like to eat the increasing amount of cheap food produced by the food industry, and the rate of obesity has climbed steadily. In turn, obesity has spiked government and private health-care costs, because fat people are more prone to expensive diseases such as heart-failure and diabetes.

Federal health-care bills have risen in step, partly because of obesity’s costs, but also because many medical-professionals and Democrats want the federal government to fund a growing portion of the nation’s health-care spending.

These political interests reinforce each other. Health-care professionals say their expertise can reduce the federal government’s health-care costs, and politicians say they need professional expertise to curb the growing cost of expanding federal health-care programs.

First Lady Michelle Obama, for example, has accelerated the process by simultaneously supporting the Obamacare expansion of government spending, while also establishing her ‘Let’s Move’ anti-obesity campaign. The professional campaign is aimed chiefly at African-Americans, and urges parents and children to exercise more and to eat carefully.

In April, the FDA published a new set of rules requiring restaurants to show the calories in each menu item, and the Federal Trade Commission released a set of guidelines for food that is marketed to children. These steps were mandated by the 2009 Obamacare health-sector law.

When asked if the government would extend tobacco-style regulations to food deemed fattening, Sebelius told the reporters that the federal guidelines are only voluntary.

In the same press conference, Margaret Hamburg, the FDA’s chief, added that “we need to work with industry to provide consumers … with the best possible information about nutrition and health so that we can all make good choices in terms of promoting and protecting health.”

“The food industry recognizes there are ways they can improve,” said Hamburg. “We certainly have a vested interest in that as a public health agency, and we want to work with them on that.”

“When the combined voice of the four most important regulatory agencies for [your industry] speak, it is hard for companies to ignore those guidelines, even if you feel they are unwarranted or unfounded,” said McBride. “Industry shares Ms. Obama’s goal of solving childhood obesity within a generation, and we will continue to work with government stakeholders towards that goal,” he said.

Sebelius deflected questions about whether food officials would mandate distressing pictures on food they consider unhealthy.  (For Now)

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: Well, again, I think tobacco is unique. It is a product that is the number one cause of preventable death. We know that there are strategies that can be very effective, because they’ve been in place. We also know that we’ve been stalled in this country. So I think this effort about tobacco regulation, efforts around tobacco cessation, has been decades-old and is something that is a unique situation.

Having said that, I do think that there are going to be ongoing discussions — as you look at the underlying health care costs, where we spend 75 cents of every health care dollar treating chronic disease — what are the areas, if you want to lower health costs and have a healthier country, that you can focus on? Certainly, tobacco and obesity become two of the major underlying causes. So the work around obesity and healthier, more nutritious eating, more exercise will continue to be I think an ongoing focus.

I think this is some space that is going to continue to have a robust conversation, because, again, it has a lot to do with underlying health costs and overall health of our nation. (Aka ObamaCare) 🙂

But as she stepped off the podium, Sebelius finally threw an answer back to the reporter who had asked if distressing images would be mandated for fattening foods. “Just lots of celery stalks and broccoli,” she said. (Townhall.com)

So put down that cookie Fatso!!

And that Microwave Dinner, EVIL!

The Food Police are Coming For you Tubby!

Mama Government does not approve.

The government knows better.

Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.

Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.

The same goes for restaurants.

It’s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.

Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.

Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.

The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear:  Do it, or else.

“When regulators strongly suggest a course of action, it’s treated as a rule, not a suggestion,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.  “Industry tends to heed these suggestions from our regulators, and this administration has made it clear they are willing to regulate if we don’t implement their proposal.”

It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted.  Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including “American Idol” will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.

If the food is not reformulated, no more ads or promotions on TV, radio, in print, on websites, as well as other digital advertising such as e-mail and text messaging, packaging, and point-of-purchase displays and other in-store marketing tools; product placement in movies, videos, video games, contests, sweepstakes, character licensing and toy branding; sponsorship of events including sport teams and individual athletes; and, philanthropic activity tied to branding opportunities.

That includes softball teams that are sponsored by food companies and school reading programs sponsored by restaurants.

“The Interagency working group recommends that the food industry, through voluntary self-regulatory efforts, make significant improvements in the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children and adolescents ages 2 to 17 years,” the proposal says.

“By the year 2016, all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles.  Such foods should be formulated to … make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet and minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight.”

The foods most heavily marketed directly to children and adolescents fall into 10 categories: “breakfast cereals, snack foods, candy, dairy products, baked goods, carbonated beverages, fruit juice and non-carbonated beverages, prepared foods and meals, frozen and chilled desserts, and restaurant foods.”

Beth Johnson, a dietician for Food Directions in Maryland, said many of the foods targeted in this proposal are the same foods approved by the federal government for the WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.

“This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” Johnson said.  “It’s not going to do anything to help with obesity.  These are decisions I want to make for my kids.  These should not be government decisions.” (Human Events)

But it will make a bunch of Liberals “feel good” that they have “done something” to save kids from evil capitalists trying to make them fat! 🙂

Rejoice!  The Government is here to save you and your Kids from YOU!

They’rrre Grrrreattt! 🙂

Cartoon

Cartoon

Personal Responsibility Government Style

You’re a wreck.

You can’t do things right.

Common sense has been leeched out of you.

You’re too stupid for your own good.

Or at least the government thinks so. So in your best interest they want to act for you.

You’re too Fat, so we have the Food Police wanting to ban Salt, fat, and in San Francisco- Happy Meals. And it doesn’t stop there. Oh no, it does not.

Consider this press release:

As a dietitian, I suggest that parents make Halloween candy rules to avoid sugar highs and stomach aches. But even more important, I encourage all Americans to support comprehensive child nutrition reform to improve the National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition programs. Congress will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the school lunch program, and this vote comes not a moment too soon.

Nearly 40 percent of calories consumed by children are from junk food, according to a new study analyzing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Half of these calories come from just six foods: pizza, ice cream, whole milk, cookies and cake, soda, and sugary fruit drinks.

Wait—milk? Milk is a “junk food”?

Oh, and the group behind this release, the “Physicians Committee” for “Responsible Medicine” (PCRM) is neither a physicians group, nor responsible, nor interested in medicine. (They do seem to be a committee.) So while PCRM claims to be a group of good-hearted doctors concerned about nutrition, it’s actually an animal rights front group whose M.O. is to scare everyone toward vegetarianism.

Love the Orwellian name, by the way.

It’s head is the former head of PeTA. And you should know by now how insane those people are.

PCRM founder Neal Barnard has called cheese “dairy crack…the purest form of the [milk] drug.” PCRM has also tried to sue milk companies in Washington, DC, demanding (are you sitting down?) “monetary awards for the pain and suffering” that lactose intolerant Americans have experienced from consuming milk.

Of course, the truth is that milk—whole or otherwise—is a great source of Vitamin A, Vitamin D, and calcium. No serious medical group would suggest otherwise, unless they were more concerned with “saving” cows than promoting human health. Come to think of it, that’s probably PCRM’s real beef in the first place.

New York City Passes the Salt with Another Ad Campaign

And of course, these people just have your Personal Responsibility at heart. 🙂

New York City is also spearheading the National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI), a partnership with state health authorities and other national and local health organizations. The group’s goal is “a voluntary reduction of sodium levels with the objective of reducing the amount of salt in packaged and restaurant foods by 25 percent over five years.”

There’s just one problem: Very few food companies have signed on with the NSRI. So how can the reduction stay voluntary? (Hint: It won’t.)

Then there’s the FDA which announced earlier this year that they intended to reduce Americans’ salt intake — without providing any specific details at the time. Notorious food nags at the Center for Science in the Public Interest have been petitioning the FDA for years to revoke salt’s “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) status. This would require the FDA to approve the (much lower) salt content of every food in the nation. (consumerfreedom.com)

They only want what’s best for you, regardless. 🙂

They know better. And if you won’t take “personal responsibility” and do as they say then they’ll just have to force you to do it. 🙂

The Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood may be experiencing some repetitive whiplash.

Responding to a couple articles written in The Daily Caller, LaHood took to his blog in order to clarify his position about whether or not he “believed we should employ a specific technology that would block cell phone signals in cars to prevent drivers from talking or texting behind the wheel.”

“I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones,” LaHood had said on MSNBC. “We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”

In his blog post on Thursday, the Secretary clarified his statements with another quote taken from his MSNBC appearance:

“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that. A number of [cell technology innovators] came to our Distracted Driving Summit here in Washington and presented their technology, and that’s one way. But you have to have good laws, you have to have good enforcement, and you have to have people take personal responsibility. That’s the bottom line.” [Highlighted for enjoyment]

“The boom line,” LaHood repeated after the excerpt, was “personal responsibility.”

“For starters, there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving,” he said. LaHood later added that “No one should need a piece of technology in their car to tell them that talking or texting while driving is incredibly dangerous.”

Sometimes, however, folks do need a little help developing “personal responsibility,” which is why LaHood reminded those reading his blog that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is currently conducting broad distracted driving research so that we can expand what we know about the problem and look for ways to solve it. As part of that research, NHTSA is also evaluating some kinds of technologies that might one day prove helpful, such as collision avoidance and lane departure warning systems. But we also recognize the limitations of technology.

When Lahood said in the blog post that distracted driving was something the DOT would “tackle on all fronts,” he means on the technological front, too.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s “Driver Distraction Plan” sent to TheDC by the DOT specifically mentions the “emerging technical option in managing distractions.” This option specifically includes software that could be “downloaded to a cell phone, [and] has thresholds past which calls are not sent through to the driver but instead sent to voicemail; text messages are also blocked.”

After conducting a survey of the technology, the DOT said “this information can then be used to assess the overall feasibility of these as a countermeasure for distracted driving,” according to the plan. Currently, the NHTSA is “in the planning stages of this project” with a final report expected next year.

Neither the DOT nor the NHTSA responded to requests made by TheDC for further details on this “emerging technical option.”

On Monday, the Department of Transportation launched its awareness week campaign, “The Faces of Distracted Driving Week.” However, it’s not clear whether the campaign was originally intended to include LaHood himself.

And if they can manage that, what’s next? Hmmm…

Big Brother is watching you. So you better be responsible or else!

Enjoy your Thanksgiving next week, because that Turkey is going to be replaced by Tofu someday if you don’t wise up and take Personal Responsibility. 🙂

Can you imagine a more horrifying sight to a Food Policeman than a holiday based on Food, overeating, and gluttony!

The HORROR!

EVIL!!

It must be stopped!

You heard it here first! 🙂

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fconsumerfreedom.com%2Fdownloads%2Fpromotional%2Fdocs%2F041124_thanksgiving.pdf&images=yes

This liability waiver includes an agreement not to haul your host into court on the basis of:

  • Failure to provide nutritional information including calories, fat, carbohydrates, sodium, and trans fat;
  • Failure to warn of potential for overeating because food tastes too good and is provided at no cost;
  • Failure to offer “healthier alternatives” or vegetarian “Tofurky”;
  • Failure to provide information about other venues serving alternative, “healthier” Thanksgiving meals;
  • Failure to warn that dark meat contains more fat than white meat; and
  • Failure to warn that eating too much and not exercising may lead to obesity.

“with this signed form, you can leave the trial lawyers and ‘food police’ out in the cold. That’s something we can all enjoy this Thanksgiving.” (consumerfreedom.com)

Now doesn’t that make you feel better… More personally responsible…:)

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

Recipe for Control

I took up cooking, one, because I found I really enjoy it, but also because it’s better for me to control my own food rather than trust it to a heart attack in a box (have you read the fat & sodium contents on some of those pre-prepared meals!).

But the difference between my approach and the First Lady’s Food Police cudgel approach is I’m not preaching and I’m not trying to control other people.

She is. Just like her husband.

I often wonder who’s the more elitist, her or her husband.

“Even if we give parents all the information they need and improve school meals and build brand new supermarkets on every corner, none of that matters if when families step into a restaurant, they can’t make a healthy choice,” Mrs. Obama told them.

So we have to control you at every turn so you won’t be tempted! 😦

So, instead of speaking to parents about moderation, the first lady wants to micromanage menus, making french fries a special order item at fast-food outlets and apples the default side order of choice for kids. Butter and cream must be cut, and whole wheat pasta must replace white.

Harmless advocacy? Perhaps. But Mrs. Obama’s speeches at political rallies and conventions suggests it’s probably more. The gears of government seem to be turning to her cause.

The Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday announced a $31 million program to combat obesity (and smoking) in eight states. It comes with a plan to go coercive: “Use price to discourage consumption of tobacco and to benefit consumption of healthy food/drinks,” the press release reads. As in price controls?

The coincidences pile up as community organizers tied quite closely to the Obama campaign, including the National Council of La Raza and the NAACP, joined the cause. To aid the effort, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation chipped in a $2 million grant.

Fascinating associates don’t you think? La Raza, a racist hispanic group and the NAACP who calls Tea Partiers racists. Fascinating…

Then there’s the anti-McDonald’s TV ad campaign just launched by the Physicians Committee for Responsibility, another pressure group with a vegetarian and animal-rights agenda. In true Alinsky style, they’ve picked a target, personalized it and laid all the problems of obesity on one fast-food operator.

The advert shows a woman weeping over the body of a man in a morgue, with the man still holding a half-eaten hamburger. Toward the end of the advert, the McDonald’s logo appears along with the tag-line “I was lovin’ it”. The commercial then urges watchers to “High cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart attacks. Tonight, make it vegetarian”.

Then you get Michael Moore who hadn’t been getting any attention lately spouting off that McDonald’s has killed more people than terrorists have.

What’s galling about all this is that Mrs. Obama’s anti-obesity campaign — like the policies pushed by her husband — presumes government has all the answers. In reality, it doesn’t.

Bu they think it does, as long as they are in control of it, that is. The Insufferably Superior Left strikes again!

Diets are a personal choice with different impacts on different people. Some children stay fit eating all the fast food they like; others can’t handle a donut. Some effective low-carbohydrate diets don’t restrict cream and butter at all, but minimize fruit. Go figure.

Micromanaging restaurant menus will only drive consumers to the junk food section at the grocery to get the goodies they crave. It won’t end childhood obesity, the causes of which are far more complex and numerous than trips to the Golden Arches.

But then you just drive the junk food purveyors out of business then and TA DA!   Instant Health! And you have Big Brother and Big Mommy to thank for it! 🙂

Like any solution imposed by big government, Mrs. Obama’s will harm business, limit choice and politicize the personal — a recipe for failure. (IBD)

You have to assume the Insufferably Superior Left actually cares. I know I don’t.

After all, her husband is frequent photographed (to look less like the elite he is) eating very unhealthy foods and he admits to being…a SMOKER!

Don’t do as I do, do as I say!

But Michelle can’t clean up her husband, oh no, she has to crusade against evil fat and salt to save you all from yourselves!

The Empress has no clothes.

She said it’s also important to change these national eating habits because they end up costing billions in additional healthcare costs.

And they want to take over your Health Care from birth to death. Hmmmm…Fascinating… 🙂

“I’m not asking any of you to make drastic changes to every single one of your recipes or to totally change the way you do business,” she said.

Not Yet, at least. 🙂

After all, when Liberals start preaching about it “being for the children” watch out!! (since they consider anyone who disagrees with them as “children” anyhow).

So how long before we “recommend” to a private business what they can serve and just force them to serve what we think is best for you?

After all, restaurants that serve crap, close. That’s business. But what if that’s all they are allowed to serve??

While suggestions that eateries serve a side of apples instead of French fries as the default side dish likely won’t go anywhere, there is another way to serve kids fewer calories. Just make the portions smaller.

Smaller portions mean less cost for the restaurant, and can help kids slim down. Charge the same, serve less food. Talk about a win-win! (Entrepeneur.com)
Exactly. The portion sizes today are about 1/3 larger than say 50 years ago.
If you can teach people to eat less, not just control what they eat, then you can lose weight!
After all, you have to burn more calories than you take in to do it.
And I fail but not as often as I used to and I have cleaned up my diet. So a lot of it is   also because of lack of proper regular exercise to on this middle-aged frame. But that’s another story…
But I don’t want to control you.
I trust with proper education and not liberal hysterics and Alinsky scare tactics that you are capable of make reasonable decisions and understand and accept the consequences of your actions.
But I also know that that part is nearly impossible in today’s liberal entitlement and evade responsibility for everything environment.
That’s what has to change. Not the menu.
“The delusion is that we all make free choices,”- Anti-soda crusader Harold Goldstein
* Obesity lawsuit instigator John “Sue the Bastards” Banzhaf lashes out: “All these platitudes about, ‘people should eat less,’ ‘responsibility,’ all this crap!”

* Marion Nestle, queen of the food scolds, thinks that “balance, moderation and exercise” have no practical importance. “I don’t support that,” she says.

* Discussing “The Politics of Food,” Skip Spitzer of the radical Pesticide Action Network maintains that “the idea of personal responsibility is a cultural construct.”

* PETA medical “expert” Neal Barnard tells tales of food addiction, arguing that “it’s high time we stopped blaming ourselves for over-eating.”

* Kelly “Big Brother” Brownell advocates “a more militant attitude about the toxic food environment, like we have about tobacco… [smoking] became so serious that society overlooked the intrusion on individual rights for the greater social good.” He also suggests that human beings have no more control over their food choices than animals in a cage.

* Margo Wootan, one of the top killjoys at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), implores: “We have got to move beyond personal responsibility.” And when the World Health Organization added a single, understated sentence referencing the “exercise of individual responsibility” to its anti-obesity strategy, CSPI raged: “Obesity is not merely a matter of individual responsibility. Such suggestions are naive and simplistic.”


Here’s how noted food critic Robert Shoffner describes their philosophy: “People are children and have to be protected by Big Brother or Big Nanny from the awful free-market predators … That’s what drives these people — a desire for control of other people’s lives.” (consumerfreedom.com)
So they aren’t the Insufferably Superior are they? 🙂
You are just children who must be led to do what is best for you.
Just like the fact that the fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete whilst on the planet is surgically removed from your bodyweight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory it is vitally important to get a receipt. (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) 🙂

John Stossel: For what it’s worth, here is some of the research we dug up to prepare my Michelle Obama discussion:

In his article “Egg on their Faces,” Steve Malanga points out that “Government dietary advice often proves disastrous.”

Starting in the 1970s… the American Heart Association advised people to reduce drastically their consumption of eggs as part of a goal to limit total cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day (a single egg can have 250 milligrams). The recommendation, seconded by government and other public-health groups, prompted a sharp drop in the consumption of eggs, a food that nutritionists praise as low in calories and high in nutrients. In 2000, the AHA revised its restrictions on eggs to one a day (from a onetime low of three a week)… To what purpose? A 2004 article in The Journal of Nutrition that looked at worldwide studies of egg consumption noted that the current restrictions on eating eggs are “unwarranted for the majority of people and are not supported by scientific data.”

Furthermore:

As a recent review of the latest research in Scientific American pointed out, ever since the first set of federal guidelines appeared in 1980, Americans heard that they had to reduce their intake of saturated fat by cutting back on meat and dairy products and replacing them with carbohydrates. Americans dutifully complied. Since then, obesity has increased sharply, and the progress that the country has made against heart disease has largely come from medical breakthroughs like statin drugs, which lower cholesterol, and more effective medications to control blood pressure.

Malanga also notes that new FDA guidelines recommend a maximum of 1500 milligrams of salt daily (down from 2300).  One hypertension expert observed  that the government’s salt war is a giant uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.

Here are a few more reasons why government shouldn’t tell us what to eat:

We’re living longer than ever! 80 yrs today vs. 57 yrs  80 yrs ago

A CDC study found that more people die every year from being underweight than overweight!  And that moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight.

Government was once excited about BMI index. (body-mass index) Gov Mike Huckabee had all Arkansas kids tested!  But BMI is a lousy measure of health.  According to BMI: Tom Cruise and Arnold Schwarzenegger are obese; GWBush and George Clooney are “overweight”

Calorie counts on menu boards don’t work: people STILL don’t take in fewer calories! A study at McDonald’s , Burger King, Wendy’s, and Kentucky Fried Chicken found that people ordered MORE calories after the labeling law went into effect.

What’s junk food?  Chicago’s new candy tax defines sweets that contain flour as “food” – w/o flour as “candy.”  (Hershey bar? Candy. But Kit Kats, Twix, Twizzlers –are “food”) O.j. and apple juice? More calories than Coke! (97 v 120/cup)

“Protect the children?”  Children are the responsibility of their parents. When the state assumes the role of parent, it makes children of all of us.

It’s a good sign that America has food nannies – means were so rich that these are the things we’re worried about!

The food police haven’t jailed anyone yet, but who knows 20 years down the road?  MeMe Roth suggests annual obesity screenings at school; serving soft drinks to only those over 18; child abuse laws for parents with obese kids; taxes on soda and sweetened drinks.

If the government is allowed to dictate our diet, what’s next? Do they start deciding who we’ll marry, where we’ll work?

Thomas Jefferson said “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

Cartoon

BY Executive Order, Put Down that Twinkie!

During the Health Care “debate” last year I joked about the government coming for your twinkies and wanting to regulate what you eat, since it would impact their Health Care costs when the government takes over your Health Care under the guise of  “qualified plans”. (i.e. if your plan changes and the government doesn’t like the change it’s no longer “qualified” and thus subject to ObamaCare regulations)

So quick but important diversion on an ObamaCare update:

Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.

Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.

The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document.

In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law.

“It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status.”

So change it, and lose it.

I railed against “qualified plans” for months last year.

Under the new health law, current employer-based health plans will be grandfathered — that is, they will not have to follow many Obama-Care provisions that take effect on Jan. 1, 2014. These include benefit mandates, caps on out-of-pocket expenses and limits on age-based premiums.

But they forfeit that grandfathered status if they make changes to the plans by 2014. If so, firms may have to adopt new plans or drop coverage and pay the penalty.

Under the regulations in the document, a plan is no longer considered to be grandfathered if:

It eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition.

It increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above its level as of March 23, 2010.

It increases the fixed amount of cost-sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.

It increases co-payments from March 23, 2010, by an amount that is the greater of: medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5.

The employer’s share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010.

“These rules will ensure that up to 69% of employees — and 80% of workers in small business — will lose their current plan within three years,” said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., a physician. “The reality is this: 58% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed because they fear they will lose their health care — and even their jobs — once this law is fully implemented.”(IBD)

Well, it’s not a joke anymore. They are after you.

President Obama has signed an executive order specifying the treatment for all Americans, to be prescribed by government bureaucrats.

Obama’s order appoints members to a new government committee set up by the Democrats’ new health law that will evaluate, make recommendations about and establish rules for everything from how people exercise to whether they smoke to the food they eat and the medicines they use.  And it specifically requires the committee list the priorities for “lifestyle behavior modification” that the government will pursue.

The council is designed to basically implement future policy that ultimately everything will be governed by federal authorities, from food to dietary supplements to vitamins.

The June 10th executive order establishes the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.

The Food Police. 😦

The council’s membership, including the chiefs of Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Education, and Homeland Security departments as well as the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Federal Trade Commission.


The executive order requires the council to “provide coordination . . . with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States.”

It further must develop a “health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans” and also must “carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the president.”

It will “set specific goals and objectives for improving the health of the United States” and “establish specific and measurable actions and timelines to carry out the strategy.”

The council then will have to report to the president on what it has done, what progress has been made and provide a “list of national priorities on health pfomotion and disease prevention to adderss lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures.”

Herb Titus, a veteran constitutional expert and lawyer, told WND, “The council is designed to basically implement future policy that ultimately everything will be governed by federal authorities, from food to dietary supplements to vitamins.”

Deborah Stockton, executive director of the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association, which deals regularly with natural foods such as raw milk, agreed with the Titus analysis.

“They say, ‘We’re going to centralize power and control. We’re going to be in control,'” she told WND. “It’s [going to be] another epic confrontation between those who will and those who won’t.”

Could it be that noncompliance will bring down the wrath of those agencies?

“It’ll be criminalized … if you don’t follow federal guidelines on nutrition, exercise,” he said. “That’s what this is designed to do. Ultimately bring everything under the federal umbrella. The only way they can accomplish that is through force.

“Ultimately that’s where it’s headed,” Titus said. “This is what people have been warning about. Here you have it.”

The executive order requires the council to “provide coordination … with respect to prevention, wellness and health-promotion practices, the public-health system and integrative health care in the United States.”

“Citizen, stop and show your papers and certify under oath you have properly exercised and ingested the proper amount of nutrition today!” scoffed one blogger.

The order also targets most of the products that are promoted as natural supplements or remedies, demanding that all “prevention programs” be based on the “science” guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control, virtually eliminating anything that is not put through the multimillion-dollar tests required of the federal agency.

Think I’m kidding:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-establishing-national-prevention-health-promotion-and-public-health

Then add: H.R. 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act (pending in Congress)
This bill would give the FDA greater regulatory powers over the national food supply and food providers with the goal of preventing food-borne illnesses and ensuring food safety. More specifically, it would increase the frequency of FDA inspections of food processing plants, expand the FDA’s traceback capabilities for when outbreaks do occur, give the FDA mandatory recall authority, and require food facilities to have safety plans in place in order to mitigate hazards. Concurrently, the bill would impose annual registration fees of $500 on all facilities holding, processing, or manufacturing food and require that such facilities also engaged in the transport or packing of food maintain pedigrees of the origin and previous distribution history of the food. Farms would not have to register.

Does a “Facility” include your garden or greenhouse?

The fun part I’ve seen so far: Recalls:  H.R. 2749 provides the FDA with recall procedures for food that is deemed to be dangerous.  The basis for this determination would be if the Secretary has “reason to believe” the food poses a health risk.

She “deems” it so. And we all know about Democrats and “deeming” 🙂

“I’m sorry citizen that food has been deemed to be a health hazard and you are not allowed to eat it!”

Black Market Salt anyone? 😦

The bill would also require the creation of a national public education program on food safety.  This section additionally mandates that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct food safety research.

After all, you are too dumb to eat healthy to begin with so we have to ‘re-educate’ you. 🙂

Quarantine Authority:  The bill would give FDA the authority to restrict the movement of food within a State (quarantine) if there is credible evidence that the food presents an imminent threat of serious adverse health consequences or death.

Can that be “deemed”??

FDA Regulation of Agriculture:  The bill would authorize and direct the FDA to regulate agricultural production practices, effectively telling farmers how to farm.  Fruit and vegetable producers specifically would be subject to regulatory burdens.  Agricultural groups such as the California Farm Bureau have expressed concern over these issues.
General Summary of H.R. 2749 and Farm Bureau’s Chief Concerns

H.R. 2749 would add significant new regulatory burdens for farmers, especially for produce and nut crops.  The bill would establish farming standards and create a traceability system with strict record-keeping requirements.  FDA would have the authority to conduct on-farm inspections as well as quarantine large geographic areas.  Stiff criminal and civil penalties could be imposed for any violation of the act, including record-keeping mistakes.
http://www.montereycountyfarmbureau.org/Issues/HR_2749.htm

Quarantine Authority and Mandatory Recall: The bill’s quarantine authority allows FDA to quarantine a geographic area if there is credible evidence that food poses a health risk.  The provision does not account for economic losses suffered by food producers, processors or distributors in the quarantine area.  Some Members may be concerned that if the FDA ultimately lifts the quarantine for lack of confirmatory evidence, the agency has no obligation, authority or means to indemnify producers for their losses.   Similarly, the bill allows FDA to act on suspicion to require a producer to cease distribution of food.  No consideration is given in the legislation to indemnification for economic damages if the FDA was wrong.After all, the Government will control your Health care. So why no the nutrition that goes along with it.

So that will be your Food, your Health, and your Energy.

Nothing to oppressive. 🙂

http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr2749

Petition: http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum993.php
CBO Report: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KC3T2Rie_ocJ:www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm%3Findex%3D10478+H.R.+2749:+Food+Safety+Enhancement+Act+of+2009&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjlh3G7CEnBI74BaGpy76CIlAQDXW3brSvgdm4RT50ZGv5T_aUetIZd-GwgirP75PnzVvnmKgJsob6R_qlH5ZCzNj8eIAju6cb4rRAdkeqa5KYWotdp6W0JQC6D9QFahWK1ku8n&sig=AHIEtbS9h81IMhl_JMQ5gs4370vtmCgiJg

We are from the Government and we are here to save you from yourself!

Rejoice Citizen!