Thanks to Steve for Night Editing - more on all of your thoughts in a bit, but first tell us what you think technology (particularly the internet) can do for democracy. Next up - blaming obesity and fighting it.
Researchers say obese people consume 18% more calories than the average, which boosts demand for food and pushes up prices. So fat people are to blame for the global food crisis. Interpreting the research slightly differently, obesity can also be blamed for climate change, as all that extra food has to be driven to shops so they can buy it.
But how to get rid of obesity? At least among children, the best way is bribery, according to Swiss research. Could that really be good for children? And could it work for adults too?
Right, on to what you discussed overnight, which I’m going to boil down to the wishes of people vs the wishes of the state, both Steve’s suggestion where California’s top court overturned a public approved ban on same-sex marriage and Lydia’s (via Ros) about the 11-year-old forced to have chemotherapy against his and his parents’ wishes. Who knows best, the people or the experts?
And another thing you’ve been discussing is Barack Obama’s sweetie moment. Something I’d pick out is Augustino’s point about context - many of you talk about friends using the word, but there’s no suggestion Obama knew the reporter in question. But how important is language - can using a word tell you something about a person, and can a powerful person using a word opress someone?
@1700 GMT
RSS feed
Good evening Sweeties:
I will be moderating this evening, and I was able to get out of having sushi out tonight, so I could be a hermit and moderate.
Here’s a good beginning point: California’s Supreme Court has overturned a same sex marriage ban.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
Several issues this brings up, of course the obvious is same sex marriage. The second is that the Court overturned a referendum, meaning the people voted to ban same sex marriage directly, and the court is overturning the will of the people, so this is the “judicial activism” that you hear people on the right. On the one hand you have “equal protection” argument but on the other hand the democratic voice of the people was overturned by a group of unelected judges. So should equal protection of the laws trump the will of the majority?
We were sent this by Lydia in California.
‘This is a huge news story here in Canada. An 11-year-old boy who has leukemia says he does not want to go for another round of chemotherapy. His parents want to abide by his wishes, but the courts have decided to listen to the doctors and are forcing him to undergo another round of chemo.
Could make for an interesting debate. Do we listen to an 11-year-old when it comes to medical decisions regarding their own health? Do we force treatment no matter what the odds?’
here’s a link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080513.wchemocustody0513/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
And by the way Steve, I mean I know night editing can be an exciting time, but better than sushi. this is commitment up there with brett who posted while fixing his mate’s car.
Yeah, I could bring my phone and moderate from the dinner table, but that would probably be a bit rude and antisocial.
Ros, you need to fix the date on the title of this thread. Thank you.
There was a similar story in the US, and the kid died, refused a blood transfusion for religious grounds.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=3930789&page=2
I think there was another story exactly like the Canadian story, in fact, maybe it was the same one, though I thought it was in the US, about parents deferring to their child’s views about alternative approaches, which sounds exactly like this story.
I really don’t think people should defer to what an 11 year old wants. I mean, if given this amount of latitude all the time, 11 year olds would each chocolate for every meal. We shouldn’t allow them to make life or death decisions.
Steve,
The issue of whether the government should have the right/power to overturn a bad decision of the people by the people for the people has been on my mind lately. I was watching PBS one night. Nothing new there. In one of the shows, it was mentioned that Abraham Lincoln used very undemocratic methods to go over the heads of the people and end slavery. There was some other President who abided by the will of the people on a matter that was obviously against the moral expectations of a democracy.
And then we have the invasion of Iraq. Massive public outcry, executive did not care.
How do make the checks and balances work? Where do we draw the line on who gets to overturn whom and when?
Steve,
thanks for moderating this show….
BURMA APPROVES THE CONSITUTION:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7402105.stm
Good evening Steve
+ The will of the people is wonderful in theory, but the average opinion of a group of people is generally just that—average—and often wrong! If we wait for the will of the people, we might be here a long time. I have never, ever heard an argument, with any weight, to refute this simple fact of democracy, which is repeatedly overlooked. If you voice it, you are called an elitist. Well, I love elitists!
+ This all ties in with bringing democracy to the world, when many of the people or cultures in the world are incapable of making equitable decisions. It also relates to, the tolerance of intolerant people—foolishly advocated by so many.
- Portland, Oregon
Good evening Steve and thanks for your opening address it makes me feel at home.
In The UK same sex couples can have a Civil Partenship. This is often done for inheritance etc. Frankly I cannot see the point. Friends of mine have lived together for 40 years and have not bothered. They have drawn up wills so that the surviving partner inherits the estate.
Judges overturning the will of the people seems to me completely wrong. What happened to democracy?
The little boy I feel should be allowed his wishes. I have known many people who have had chemotherapy. It can be a devastating treatment. Granted it may prolong life and occasionally cure, but the majority still died. Sadly sometimes we have to accept the inevitable however painful.
Here is a story from Southern Ohio. A judge sentenced a father to 180 days in jail or until his 18 year old daughter gets her GED. She has failed it at least once. His daughters is in his legal custody. That means her receives child support for her. His daughter is the single mother of a 1 year old. She had a record for truancy. In the state of Ohio a judge may hold the parents responsible for their child’s school attendance. So despite the headline, the real reason for the sentence is truancy.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXYQiNLQsgp51Q3pX6p2aPdnyYuQD90KNG4G0
Then in a related story on talk of the nation a school has started putting GPS locater bracelets on chronic truancy offenders.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90477623
Anybody have any thoughts on these ideas? I will reserve mine for now.
Ros,
As you can see you’ve all got a very dedicated listener base lol.
@ The blood transfusions and treatment vs. personal / religious / moral beliefs would be a VERY interesting discussion. There are so many sides which have conflicting interests.
For example:
- it is the doctors job and duty to do well for the patient.
- It is the patients religion or wants / beliefs which contradict this in instances where life saving blood transfusions and other treatments are needed.
- It is the parents duty to care for their child and make decisions for them if they are not old enough or unable to make the decisions for themselves. Who then has ultimate say on whether to accept or reject treatment that may save someones life based on religious or personal beliefs?
Should a doctor then knowingly reject the best and maybe only treatment method because the patient doesn’t want to undergo it?
Lubna is a medical student, lets see what she thinks on this topic! Any other doctors in the house?
My father is a physician, maybe i can get his take on this issue.
@ Dwight
I think there is more to that story, because why was he ordered to make sure she gets her GED months ago? What happened then? And can a judge even “order” someone to do something like that, especially when there is no requirement that somebody graduate high school? Doesn’t Ohio have a 16 year old dropout age? Her obligations for education are finished at that point, right? So I think unless there’s more to the story, the judge abused his/her power by jailing the father for the behavior of his adult daughter.
As for truancy in general, if they don’t want to go to class, then let them skip. I would rather than skip class that provide a disruption to class anyways.
I have to disagree Peter. The will of the people can still violate the constitution, or just be bad. Say if the majority of people in the UK wanted to round up all homosexuals and kill them? That’s democracy, but wouldn’t you want the courts to strike that down? The court in this situation said the will of the people violated equal protection of the laws, as opposite sexes could marry, but not people of the same sex. Different treatment. Some of the best anologies in the past, and was certainly used in this case was the anti-miscenigation (sorry for my spelling) laws in the US that banned interracial marriage. The laws were struck down I believe in 1971 in Loving v. Virginia.
As for the 11 year old making life or death decisions, I think that’s a bad idea. You wouldn’t trust a kid that age to drive a car, or pick what he would eat for dinner, so why life or death decisions? I think a parent agreeing to something like that would be like a parent not being able to say no to the child’s demands for candy or toys, though I realize this situation is different, and the child has been on chemo. A child cannot even walk into an emergency room and get treated for a broken leg without permission from an adult.
@ steve,
Yah, they said she had a history of truancy. That means she had been to court over it. That usually means she had missed more then 10 school days in a quarter. It is also a means to punish kids for being on the wrong path. She continued to miss school. At that point it probably had a lot to do with trying to take care of a 6 month old. At least I hope it was.
Here in Ohio you can drop out at 16 as long as you have a job and your parents blessing. However, you have to drop out. If you do not you are still susceptible under the rules of the system.
The TOTN program had a principal who said the program had been monitored like a scientific study. The data showed a 98% decrease in truancy and it was coupled with parenting programs. He said most students and parents reported a huge increase in the satisfaction of their relationship.
If the students are skipping school, that means they are out doing something else. I would rather have unruly citizens confined to a place where I know I can find them, and regulate their environment. It is way easier to police a school then a city. Maybe if they had kept her in school she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant at 16.
The ones who can’t find it in themselves to not be disruptive might have to go to special classrooms or schools where they are treated more like prisoners. It would just ready them for the inevitable. The real problem here is that the parents are not doing their job. It is quite possible that they don’t exactly know how to or what that job is because they were never shown. That cycle has to stop somewhere.
I am personally against same-sex marriages. However, it is part of American history to legally exclude many minorities, and it is always regretted. A judge is not responsible to the people, and that is why he isn’t elected. A judge is responsible to justice, as defined by the Constitution. Forbidding any human to a mate by a government is a clear restriction of pursuing happiness, without question. Although I am opposed to same-sex marriages, I am much more opposed to the notion that a government, which really should be building roads and sheltering the homeless, is going to busy itself by meddling in someone’s life just to tell them that they’re not allowed to find a life-partner.
Seriously, can the states please stop bothering themselves with the personal lives of productive citizens, and start looking to fix what is broken. Let’s fix the pot hole in front of the homeless shelter, and then get those homeless people showered, shaven, and jobs.
@ gay marriage
I don’t know why anybody would want to fight for this right. I wish it was illegal for straight couples to marry. “I would love to honey, but the law is the law.” That way when the relationships do what 60% of all marriages do, no one gets the bigger half of your stuff.
The word “marriage” has no right in the legal arena. Every union should be treated as a civil union as far as the state is concerned. Let the “marriages” take place in the churches.
@ Abdul
The pursuit of happiness isn’t a standard that is used or should be used in determining the constitutionality of things. In this case it was an equal protection argument that won the day. The pursuit of happiness could lead to frightening results. Some people are only happy after murdering people, or raping someone, or molesting children. I’m opposed to same sex marriages too, hence if I ever get married, it will be with a woman. If people have problems with something, like they don’t like gay sex, porn, then don’t have gay sex or don’t watch porn, but leave people free to do what they want so long as they aren’t harming other people. In fact, I don’t even think government should recognize marriage at all. If you want a religious ceremony, fine go ahead, but the state should have nothing to do with it. No benefits, no recognition, if not then unmarried people are at a disadvantage and hence discriminated against.
Hi Again Steve,
I hear what you say but the judges are not elected. I still feel it is wrong.
As for the little boy it just breaks my heart to think of him suffering so much. Will they cure him anyway? Chemotherapy can be truly devastating. One of my friends many years ago just asked to be allowed to die she had suffered so much. I accept they want to try and save his life but how long must he suffer?
There is a constitutional implication that all citizens have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. in turn your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness can not infringe on anybody else’s right to those same attributes. So murdering is a violation of another citizens rights. therefore unconstitutional.
The US is clearly in need of a constitutional amendment that very precisely defines and delimits the power of judges, right up to the Supreme Court.
States rights seem ever more tenuous in the face of these activist judges. No rational person believes that any part of the US constitution was ever intended to grant a right of same sex marriage. A constitution is supposed to be the considered political will of a society. There’s something very seriously wrong when judges consistently interpret a constitution in a way that flouts the customs and expectations of the society whose will it’s supposed to express.Things that should either be decided by individual states or enacted after a constitutional amendment are being imposed on American society by a handful of unrepresentative and ideologically committed judges . This judicial tyranny makes a mockery of democracy.
Just to note: Selena raised the issue of the child being treated for cancer on Blank Page No. 6.
@ Abdul
Most governments do the same - I have asked before why governments are so obsessed with sex, what people do in their own bedroom or relationship has got nothing to do with the government.
date fixed. sorry about that. well noticed shirley.
I have to disagree with you strongly here VictorK. This was a state court, determining the constitutionality of a state law. It’s the most appropriate case for a court to hear. It didn’t determine that same sex marriage was a good thing, it just said you cannot prohibit it for a group of people and permit it for another, it was an equal protection issue. There should be no amendment limiting power of state judges, that takes away from the states’ rights themselves!
@ Dwight, if there is a constitutional implication of a pursuit of happiness, what meaning does that have if violating someone else’s rights trumps it?
I’ll give you a different scenario. A consentual homicide. One person gets happy from killing. Another person wants to be killed. Murder laws would still apply.
Same with prostitution, bother are consenting, both are happy, one to get some, and the other to get paid, yet there are laws prohibiting that. Should prostitution laws be unconstitutional despite following clearly within the state’s police power?
Happiness is so subjective, it would make a terrible gauge of what should be constitutional or not.
Steve-
actually this or a similar thing to it happened all the time when we lived in California- usually the people would vote something in and the opposition would immediately file a lawsuit blocking the action from taking place- usually using the ” the people who voted this in didn’t know what they were voting for’ excuse (or “we are smarter than you are”
In Oregon we voted in Doctor assisted suicide and the US government tried thru Congress to get it blocked- what about medical marijuana laws??, and the US government not caring about the will of the people.
I think the Supreme Court of Cal was just following the lead of the US government and doing what THEY wanted to do.
And honestly- what’s the big deal with gay marriage? Why are people so afraid of it? I’d rather see 2 men or 2 women who love each other get married than most celebrity couples who use marriage as a PR tool
@ Dwight
“Then in a related story on talk of the nation a school has started putting GPS locater bracelets on chronic truancy offenders.”
doesn’t this fall into the “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” vein?
you can drag a kid to school but you can’t make him think?
Kids should be at school becasue they want to be there- if they are too ignorant to understand why they are there, we are wasting tax dollars
@ Steve
The two reasons that you give are examples of hotly contested issues. A person wanting to be killed and a person wanting to kill is exactly what happens in Physician assisted suicide. Some states have even legalized it. The National constitution says nothing about prostitution. That is why it is legal in Nevada. It used to be legal all over out west. This is in fact a case where two people have interest outside the morally accepted. Morals still dictate this counties laws.
@ Dwight
I assure you, the Constitution says nothing about murder either. Murder, like prostitution, is a state matter, reserved to the states since they were not enumerated in the Constitution. Physician assisted suicide isn’t always someone wanting to kill, and another wanting to be killed. Only in the case of Kevorkian, he actually activated the mechanism, hence why he was charged with and convicted of murder. In the past, he just set it up, and they would activate it, hence he wasn’t guilt of murder in those cases.
I ask again, how can pursuit of happiness be a basis for what is “constitutional” besides the point it’s not in the Constitution? I mean, if that were the case, then another example would be smoking bans. Say in a state where smoking is banned, a bar is owned by a smoker, all the clients smoke, and all of the employees smoke. Nobody complains about smoke in the bar, but the state has banned smoking. That’s completely within the police powers, just as banning cigarettes all togehter would be. Because these people are unhappy that they cannot smoke in their establishment would make grounds for a perfectly acceptable excercise of the state’s police power to be unconstitutional?
@ Janet
This GPS program was supposedly coupled with parenting counseling. The guy said the success rate was documented and successful. One kid entered the 9th grade a gang leader and finished school with his diploma.
Again, kids on the street are more of a nuisance then kids in some classroom. You might have to pay a teacher a little better to “baby sit” these kids. But until they are old enough to get a job or welfare, they need to not be on the street. You are going to have to deal with them and all of their ignorance one way or the other. I would rather deal with it in a more controlled environment.
First get them there, then find out why they won’t or can’t learn. You can’t find that out on the street.
@ Dwight
I agree with you about marriage. Why would anyone want the right?
Paging BBC people and anyone living in London:
Do you know this guy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/tvfactual/dancruickshank.shtml
He was a professor in my study in London program back in 1996, I think back then his claim to fame was something he did on the Baedecker Raids. I never took his class, but he took us on a pub crawl in London, hilarious guy. Apparently I learned the history of the pubs of London, I cannot remember much, but he would also do the “ghost tour” aspect of it, I forgot which one that was, but I remember him taking us to the George Inn (by London Bridge) and the Chesire Inn or (cheese?) cannot remember, but I was getting over my aversion to rotten egg smelling beer at the time. I think every female in my program was madly in love with him.
@ Steve,
But murder does infringe on the rights of another individual. It is simple; you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t stop me from doing what I want. So you might like to murder me, but since I want to live, you can not legally perform your action because it will stop me from performing mine. We are “equal” in the eyes of the law. Kind of like playing “Risk” the defender wins all ties. Pick some other way to be happy.
The smoking ban is a pet peeve of mine. They used the fact that second hand smoke makes other people in the bar less healthy. The debate is when do you get to make your free choice. To me the choice should have been made before you enter the bar.
I would be alright with, “smoking is allowed in this bar, enter at your own risk.” This is an area of where people are using grey areas of the above concept to push things that are really moral based. Only because of the health reason have those laws successfully passed. (That and the huge amounts of money that backed them from the tobacco lawsuits.) In Ohio the law is already being challenged. Nude dancing can not be regulated on the federal level. You have to put up a sign warning people that there is adult entertainment. But the same people who advocated the smoking ban would love to see nude dancing go away too. A giant thorn is that “indecency” has been accepted as harmful to the community. But what is “decent” is arbitrary and determined by the community. Some communities determine strip bars to be “indecent” and by extension “harmful to the community.”
Me I think $20 to have some chick show you want you can not have is “indecent”.
There are a few laws on the books that are flatly unconstitutional. Yet they are still there. Helmet laws and seatbelt laws are great examples. They make a lot of money for tiny towns.
@ Dwight
You don’t understand the definition of murder though. Murder doesn’t necessarily mean “evil, horrible man, waiting to slit your throat”, it means at common law the “unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought”. Nobody can legally have permission to kill another person. Malice aforethought really only means intent to kill. Motive is irrelevant. Even if it were for the most compassionate of reasons, what kevorkian did is still murder. It’s an ugly word, and I’m not saying he should be treated like a serial killer, but it’s still murder. They don’t take motive into account for guilt, just for sentencing. That’s why he was guilty of murder. You could have a dying relative, stricken with cancer, suffering, begging you to pull the plug, if you actually reached out and unplugged them yourself while they were conscious, you’d be guilty of murder, despite your intent to relieve their suffering.
Of course it gets complicated with living wills and stuff like that, if they were unconscious, and you had a living will, and the doctor withheld food, then that wouldn’t be murder. Remember the Schiavo thing? Not murder. Murder absolutely doesn’t have to be the gun wielding killer, though it normally is. You have to understand that nobody other than law enforcement officers or people acting in self defense have the right to kill someone. Hence, murder.
Murder is a term like democracy, misunderstood. Democracy can produce horrible results. If the majority want to kill the minority, that’s democracy. Words aren’t always what you think they are.
@ Dwight
You might want to look up the Supreme Court’s history on indecency and what is obscene. Apparently in the 1960’s-1970s they would have porn viewing nights to determine it. Funny stuff. I would recommend law school for that reason alone.
Can you give me what you would consider examples of unconstitutional laws?
The only clear one I can think of, that the Supreme court has said was constitution, was the selective service. Clear violation of the 13th amendment, just as the draft would be, yet if you need a result, you make a way to get it. Sometimes the constitution is a result. But just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
Dwight, you just know how to push anarchist buttons, don’t you? Your idea of restricting marriage to religious ceremonies and establishing civil unions in its place is interesting. How do you think the two of them would be different from each other? Do you think that it should be possible to walk into a synagogue, have the Rabbi marry you, and at the same time have it considered a a legal civil union?
Steve,
What would be the implications of raising a prohibition against murder to the level of the Constitution? Aren’t there already federal laws against murder?
Regarding young people with intensively awful diseases that have intensively awul treatments:
It is taking so long for my dinosaur computer to load up The Globe and Mail. Has anyone here ever known a young person who had cancer? Has anyone here ever wandered the halls of a pediatric oncology unit? These children have an indominatable spirit - and a soul older than most adults who accompany them. COnsidering that human nature is pro-survival, especially in young people, if a child were to ask me to “make it stop, Mommy,” I would be hard-pressed to refuse his request. It is indeed a heart-breaking decision. I wish that no-one ever had to make it. But a child with such a huge burden to bear should be regarded on a case-by-case basis, not as part of a blanket consideration of children in general.
This issue was dealt with in an episode of the U.S. TV series “House,” which airs on Fox TV. My family and I discussed the issue at some length. I also knew a young lady who fought cancer for several years before deciding on her own to stop treatment. Her passing was terrible hard on all of us in the community. However, I fully respect her decision as her own to be made.
@ Shirley
The US Constitution is one of enumerated powers. It grants the federal goverernment certain powers, and that which it does’t have, is left to the states. Police powers (powers to regulate illegal drugs, etc) are left to the states. There are federal murder laws, but only applies to federal enclaves, like DC before the 1970s, and military bases, and US government property. It’s the state that makes laws about murder, drugs, prostitution, etc. The reason there are federal drug laws is because so many drugs cross state lines, then that invokes the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, hence they can regulat it. But there could never be a general federal law against murder, because we have a federal system here, and it’s a state issue to deal with.
Like I said, helmet laws and Seatbelt laws are “unconstitutional”. I find happiness in riding with the wind in my face in an open cockpit. Yet at least 12 states exist where these laws as extreme. These laws stop only my happiness. They do not have anything to do with stopping anybody else’s’ happiness. They don’t even violate the decency laws.
The very way we issue fines through the court system is really unconstitutional. It does not treat everybody equally. I might make $100 an hour. You might make $300 a week. We both could get a speeding ticket in the exact same spot. We are both fined $100. Yet the financial impact to me is no where near as detrimental as it would be to you.
Illegalization of most drugs is really unconstitutional. If I want to take a drug and make myself “happy” that is of no consequences to anybody else’s inalienable rights. My actions while on the drugs are what I should be held accountable for. Yet in some strange twist of events, being “high” or “drunk” is a defense used to get a lesser sentence in many cases.
These are three diverse deviations from the constitution. If these idea are vaguely covered by the constitution, I would love to know where.
The word “unlawful” is the part of the term that people have argued in euthanasia cases. The opponents argue that nobody in their “full mental capacity” would grant permission to be killed. There for “mentally incapable” are protected by the people, and permission must be given by the people.
@ Dwight
You’re confusing two things right now. First, unconstitional to you means things you don’t like. That’s not what it is. Second, you’re confusing state issues with federal. There I dont’ think is a federal helmet law. It’s state. Not all states have one. Your stte is the problem. Seatbelt laws are all done by the states, as they should. It’s a state issue. Police power. I would highly recommend you at least check out a nutshell on constitutional law. You are guilty of confusing the US constitution with the state of Ohio’s constitution.
@ Shirley (and then I must go to bed. I got to keep the world safe for the flying public early tomorrow. For that I need beauty sleep and lots of it.) lol
Civil unions grant all rights given to a married couple by the state. Right to inheritance, right to joint insurance, right be legal guardian in event of emergency. I have known Gay couples and common law couples to have problems with these three issues. A Marriage gives the couple the rights granted to them by the church. Whatever those rights are according to ones church. In Ohio we have to get a marriage license. At that point it would be just as east to say, congrats you are civilly joined as far as the state is concerned. you must now pay a lawyer a bunch of money to make this not so. Have a nice day. “Have fun storming the castle”. Then later in the week we go to the church and once again a drunken, child molesting hypocrite wearing a funny robe says that god blesses our decision. “What god has put together let no man separate.” However in 60% of the cases a different hypocrite wearing a different funny robe in fact separates them.
But that is how it works. The state grants state right. The church grants church rights. and give them two different terms so people don’t get confused. You are more then welcome to do one either or both.
I quite understand the difference. However, the state is not supposed to be able to make a law that violates my constitutional rights. That is how things such as abortion ends up in front of the supreme court. The state made a law, and somebody said, “nuh ahh. That is violating a woman’s federally granted rights.” As far as I know, there is no law on the books that says it is legal to have an abortion. The Supreme Court just said, “It is a right and no state may outlaw it with their constitution”. I am saying that there are laws that are on the state constitution that infringe on the ones in the Federal constitution.
There are plenty of constitutional laws that I don’t like. These laws violate my right to be alive, free, and happy, while the activity I whish to partake in violates nobody else’s ability to be alive, free, and happy.
It’s a wee bit late. So I will be checking out. Good night everyone.
It’s funny that I have the right to mutilate my body for purposes of vanity or tatoo every inch of my skin, but when it comes to the choice of when or how I want to die or whether or not I want to bear children everyone else wants to have a say. It’s your body and personal property why should we give up the right to do as wish with it?
On the Leukaemia story, may i refer you to this remarkable blog, written by a remarkable man.
http://baldyblog.freshblogs.co.uk/2008/05/the_beginning_of_the_end.html
Researchers say obese people consume 18% more calories than the average, which boosts demand for food and pushes up prices. So fat people are to blame for the global food crisis. Interpreting the research slightly differently, obesity can also be blamed for climate change, as all that extra food has to be driven to shops so they can buy it.
I’m all over this. As I’m sure Steve will be too haha.
Its so un-PC but its so factual and correct. It doesn’t have to be just weight though, the term ‘fat’ can be used to describe our bloated and materialistic lives that we in the west lead. Everything from the amount of food we eat, to the amount of fossil fuels we use, to the amount of stuff we need to amass to impress others and store, this lifetime collection of stuff leads to the need for bigger houses, bigger cars/trucks to transport it along with our bigger bodies. And soon the whole process is self-sustaining, we need everything bigger and bigger because we and our lives are bigger.
There is really no debate there that someone who is 350 lbs is going to consumer more food and fuel (to transport themselves around) than someone who is 150 lbs [transport methods being equal]. It’s a fact and fat people need to deal with it.
Someone who spends 2 hours a day exercising outdoors via running or biking will use less energy and fossil fuels than someone sitting indoors with the a/c or heat on and watching TV for those 2 hours. Exercise and energy reduction go hand in and on a multitude of levels.
On a more humanitarian note though, I was fat as a kid and was made fun of all the time. I got sick of it and brought my eating problems under control and began running. I know how much it hurt to be ridiculed by my peers and society. This isn’t a matter of simply blaming, we need to be part of the solution and encourage those who are trying to change their weight situation. I’m not talking about some Dr. Phil cry session where everyone is clapping. I mean actually helping to support physical activity and health in your community through community events and such. Got a fat neighbor? Offer to have them accompany you on a walk!
Can fat people be solely blamed? Nope, but their consumption patterns are not part of the solution. Maybe the materialistic and consumer driven society we live in is to blame? Then again… people have a conscious and self control.
Regards,
Brett ~ Richmond, Va.
Falling in Love=a physical and biological process taking place in a body. it used to be in a female and male body, but now in a male-male body,, and so on. Due to the physical intensity one looses weight, so lets all fall in love, and reduce the world warming a bit.
A bloody cheek., blaming obesity for the down fall of the industrial nations in controlling their industries. America when will you get to grips with the situation, bio fuel does not decrease warming, the energy needed to produce exceeds the gain. Europe stop the sale of quotas, some firms are living from the sale of them. And if you want to blame anybody, blame the food producers that make the unhealthy, obesity making products, and not the fat men or woman.
I prefer the cow farting theory, because it makes me laugh. On top of that how about a fart collecting system, put all the cows on a farm under a dome, collect the farts, and compress them into a liquid, to drive the milking machine. Call it FATS, fart accumulating trial system, and reduce the climatic warming at the same time.
Obesity is not always due to over eating, take cortisone for a while and see what happens, so please drop that theory. If burgers were only sold in healthy bread rolls, they would still be eaten. Stop selling fatty salad dressings, and just use oil, vinegar, sweetener, onion, garlic, and chives. and seasoning to choice.
Two ways of looking at it Optimistic, and Pessimistic Which way do you want to go???????.
just going to heave my 102kg out of the made to wear office chair, and go and increase the world warming by eating my lunch.
Have a nice weekend, throw on the grill, and think: x number of grills, burning x amount of charcoal, or gas, for x hours =x amount of atmospheric warming. and leave the obesities alone.
John in Germany.
If burgers were only sold in healthy bread rolls, they would still be eaten. Stop selling fatty salad dressings, and just use oil, vinegar, sweetener, onion, garlic, and chives. and seasoning to choice.
Good points, but those dressings in addition to all of the other fatty and processed foods which cramp our grocer shelves are there because there is a market for them. You can play the blame game with the consumer, or with the corporation, even with the grocer. Both each hold their own faults. It isn’t as if there aren’t healthy alternatives at the grocer’s… You just have to hunt for them and sift through all the fat, salt, and processed sugars/sweetners.
On the flip side: Why worry about social responsibility of firms? If you can sell it, go for it! Screw the health risks and all that jazz, right?
@ John, in the majority, vast majority of cases, obesity is from overeating and not exercising enough. I just had to turn away from the work pantry because two female employees entered it, that means there was no chance for me to be able to fit in between them while they blabber on about whatever Reality TV show, to be able for me to get filtered water. And yes, they constantly are eating, don’t take the stairs, probably don’t even know what a gym is. If it were rare, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It’s not rare.
@Brett.
Wrong.
John in Germany
don’t take the stairs,
Biggest pet peeve ever! People get in the elevator and go up one floor. Im thinking to myself “C’mon, really?”
@Brett.
Wrong.
John in Germany
Which part?
Blaming society? Blaming corporations? Blaming the consumer? Blaming the grocer?
Please elaborate.
@ Brett
Sometimes there may be no entry on the stairs. In my building, not every flood has a kastle key thing, so maybe that’s the reason.. But it’s very obvious on my commute who walks up the escalator and who doesn’t, and in my building, it’s obvious who takes the stairs and who doesn’t.
I don’t know what the figures are, but one problem with people telling you they don’t eat much has to do with math. There are two types. I call the first type “girl math”. I know this will offend some people, however it was a term dubbed because 95% of the people I know who use it are female. This math my wife uses at the store to justify buying two things we don’t need when there is a buy one get one free sale. She comes home and gleefully announces, “I saved ‘X’ dollars because one was free.” She applies this same math to dieting. “I don’t understand why I am not loosing weight. I only ate a bowl of cereal this morning, a salad at lunch, and then this decent sized meal.” “really?’ I ask her. “I thought it was Tina’s birthday in the office today.” “It was” she replies, “But that is birthday cake, so that doesn’t count.” This applies to all the snacks, cookies, and bagels that come her way throughout the day. The other kind of math is real math. Like when I say, “I am starving, all I had to eat today was a bowl of cereal this morning.” Guess what I had. A bowl of cereal in the morning.
Diet works just like a car. We all still have to obey the 1st law of thermal dynamics that says energy can not be created or destroyed, just changed in form. Like a car we have to fill our gas tanks with energy to make us go. Some cars drive a lot of miles in a day, other cars only get filled up once every other week. All cars (and bodies) get different MPG and we have to now when to fill them. Unlike a car that if overfilled spills “energy” out on the ground, our bodies store that energy as fat. Maybe through some weird twist of fate your body only needs to take in nourishment once a month.
@ Dwight
Funny stuff. I love the coworkers who say they barely eat, but cannot lose weight. You should see all the snack foods they have. If there’s every donuts, free food, or whatever announced, they run there, and take it all. I’ve seen the “I barely eat” types walk away with 4 donuts before, leaving none for anyone else. Someone brought in some “low fat” (ahhah) banana chocolate chip cake, and it was gone within 5 minutes, they huddled around like like lions around a dead gazelle.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1806579,00.html
“India to America, Eat Less Fatties”
@Brett
Screwing the health risks. and Social responsibility of firms. Markets are made by the producers, costly advertising campaigns, and a predominate greed. Promis promising you can be like me if you eat like me, slim figured, holding a double double burger, topped with fatty cheese and a big chunk of salted, smoked dead pig.
The health risk doesn’t cost the firms a cent, its the overstretched medical insurances that fork out the dollars/Euros.
Product placement is the key……..
John in Germany.
@Brett
Screwing the health risks. and Social responsibility of firms.
Another time when you wish emotion could be transfered more easily over type. I wrote those words in sarcasm. I agree with what you said, right there.