Stossel: The War on Salt Goes National

[bluecheese]

Earlier this year, New York City Mayor and prominent food nag (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/04/20/2009/11/27/rules-for-others/) Michael Bloomberg announced a "voluntary" effort to reduce the salt content in restaurants and processed foods by 25%. Later, a New York State Senator proposed a ban on the use of any salt in restaurant kitchens (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/03/11/the-food-police-want-more/). Now, the Washington Post reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041905049.html?hpid=topnews):

The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products ...
Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification.

The hubris here is staggering. The federal government is going to analyze the salt content in countless different types of processed food, establish limits (and based on what? How much salt is good for me? You? Someone with hypertension? I have low blood pressure; I don’t need to cut back.), and calibrate the limits so that consumers "barely notice". Give me a break.
The science behind the federal government's war on salt is shaky (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2005/08/31/half-baked_science?page=full&comments=true). There is no "right" amount of daily salt consumption. Some people should cut back on salt, but others don’t need to. A study in Current Opinion in Cardiology (http://journals.lww.com/co-cardiology/Abstract/2007/07000/Sodium,_blood_pressure,_and_cardiovascular_disease .8.aspx) found that people who ate low-salt diets were 37 percent more likely to die of cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Michael Alderman, head of the American Society of Hypertension, America's biggest organization of specialists in high blood pressure, wrote in a review of the science in 2000 (http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/5/890):

The problem with this appealing possibility is that a reduction in salt consumption of this magnitude has other—and sometimes adverse—health consequences ... Without knowledge of the sum of the multiple effects of a reduced sodium diet, no single universal prescription for sodium intake can be scientifically justified.

No matter. The government will use its mighty sledgehammer anyway.


Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/04/20/the-war-on-salt-goes-national/?test=latestnews#ixzz0lfpI3o2e (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/04/20/the-war-on-salt-goes-national/?test=latestnews#ixzz0lfpI3o2e)

I guess the government figures that now that they are going to run health care they need to regulate the diets of us worker bees. All for the good of the State Tovarisch.

[ZKP]

Thankfully some old, rich bastard I've never met is there to make decisions for my life and then charge me for it. Especially with salt. I mean, all that sodium unregulated for all this time? How have we survived this long? You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief from the rest of the sheep...I mean citizens of the U.S.

Wow....what are we coming to people?

[matclone]

What? The gov't is concerned about the nation's health enough that they want to do something about it? Damn their nerve!

Pass the salt please, but I can't believe people continually fall for these one-sided, juvenile-styled rants designed to make YOU angry and resentful about things you probably don't understand. What happened to maturity? If I wanted to go stupid, Stossel would be a good start.

[PVC]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. If you want your soup to be saltier, put some salt in it.

[Makeshift Chef]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. If you want your soup to be saltier, put some salt in it.

This. What a spectacular waste of money. They'd better get it right in the amount of salt reduction though, or people will just wind up consuming more as they add it back to their food. Not that I'd advocate eating a bunch of processed foods, make it yourself!

P.S.- They can have my salt when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.... at least I think that's the way that quote went... :D

[bluecheese]

What? The gov't is concerned about the nation's health enough that they want to do something about it? Damn their nerve!

Pass the salt please, but I can't believe people continually fall for these one-sided, juvenile-styled rants designed to make YOU angry and resentful about things you probably don't understand. What happened to maturity? If I wanted to go stupid, Stossel would be a good start.

Right, because continued government instrustion into the lives of indivuduals is what we need. The natural inclination of govt is to micromanage the lives of individuals in incremental steps. But I suppose that is a topic for another thread.

[fnet]

Here's what I'd like to do to John Stossel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ

[bluecheese]

Ahhh ad hominem.

[matclone]

Right, because continued government instrustion into the lives of indivuduals is what we need. The natural inclination of govt is to micromanage the lives of individuals in incremental steps. But I suppose that is a topic for another thread.

While we're busy deconstructing the micromanaging, maybe we should take the government out of the food safety business. Those USDA stickers on meat are just appalling. As for salt, I don't need the govt telling me anything about food. McDonalds can, but not the government.

[bluecheese]

While we're busy deconstructing the micromanaging, maybe we should take the government out of the food safety business. Those USDA stickers on meat are just appalling. As for salt, I don't need the govt telling me anything about food. McDonalds can, but not the government.


And while they're at it, we can have them tell us how to exercise, how many hours of sleep to get at night, and how often to screw. The point is not salt, or the government advising against some percieved ill. Its the government taking an active role in regulating the lives of a citizen. Surely you can see this. Or perhaps you're a fan of the State.

What I find ironic is that no matter what mamma government does to try and save Americans from themselves, we, as a group, seem to be getting fatter, fatter and unhealthier. What's the answer to this? More government regulations of course.

[PVC]

And while they're at it, we can have them tell us how to exercise, how many hours of sleep to get at night, and how often to screw. The point is not salt, or the government advising against some percieved ill. Its the government taking an active role in regulating the lives of a citizen. Surely you can see this. Or perhaps you're a fan of the State.

Helping to regulate people's lives can be a good thing. For example, saying that you should aim for 8 hours of sleep, you should eat lots of green vegetables and watch your salt intake are all good things to know. The problem is that we all have different requirements, and if the government tried to provide specific information that tailors to everyone, shit would get complicated and people would stop listening (as the average population is wont to do). To make it easy, the goverment says "get 8 hours of sleep a day, eat 1,500 mg of sodium a day, and eat 3-5 servings of vegetables". The key is for people (and the government itself) to realize that these are guidelines based on averages, and do not necessarily apply directly to them as individuals.


What I find ironic is that no matter what mamma government does to try and save Americans from themselves, we, as a group, seem to be getting fatter, fatter and unhealthier. What's the answer to this? More government regulations of course.

This is a very good point.

[bluecheese]

To be clear, I have no problem with the gvmt recommending a lower intake of salt. Its the active regulation I have a problem with.

[matclone]

And while they're at it, we can have them tell us how to exercise, how many hours of sleep to get at night, and how often to screw. The point is not salt, or the government advising against some percieved ill. Its the government taking an active role in regulating the lives of a citizen. Surely you can see this. Or perhaps you're a fan of the State.


I don't see it as a black and white proposition, as you apparently do. There are some things that the government needs to be involved in, and others they don't. Where they do get involved, there are appropriate and inappropriate degrees. If the excess consumption of salt has resulted in a national problem, as the CDC and other officials tell us (and note they do qualify who needs to be concerned) http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Sodium/, then it seems reasonable to take some action. As to what's reasonable, we can argue. But, I really don't fear the government all that much.



What I find ironic is that no matter what mamma government does to try and save Americans from themselves, we, as a group, seem to be getting fatter, fatter and unhealthier.

So, they should not be involved? If you have a teenager who gets involved in drinking or drugs--or obesity--do you throw in the towel at some point because they just keep getting bigger?

[PVC]

What I find ironic is that no matter what mamma government does to try and save Americans from themselves, we, as a group, seem to be getting fatter, fatter and unhealthier. What's the answer to this? More government regulations of course.

So, they should not be involved? If you have a teenager who gets involved in drinking or drugs--or obesity--do you throw in the towel at some point because they just keep getting bigger?

No, but if you've been trying and failing for many years then it's probably time to change your strategy.

[bluecheese]

I don't see it as a black and white proposition, as you apparently do. There are some things that the government needs to be involved in, and others they don't. Where they do get involved, there are appropriate and inappropriate degrees. If the excess consumption of salt has resulted in a national problem, as the CDC and other officials tell us (and note they do qualify who needs to be concerned) http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Sodium/, then it seems reasonable to take some action. As to what's reasonable, we can argue. But, I really don't fear the government all that much.



Why do you assume the government knows or even cares what's best for you? If that were the case, why are they not trying to regulate cigarettes or alcohol in the same manner? Why do they just apply a sin tax to these items? Do they think that taxes will deter someone from smoking or drinking?

I wouldn't argue that you should necessarily fear the government as much as be suspicious of their intentions.


So, they should not be involved? If you have a teenager who gets involved in drinking or drugs--or obesity--do you throw in the towel at some point because they just keep getting bigger?

What has their involvment accomplished thus far? I guess they can throw more tax dollars at the problem and hope it fixes itself. Why should I have to suffer because some kids idiot parents let him become a fat ass? Why do his rights not end where mine begin?

[George Noble]

Anyone who doesn't think that life is a competition to see who can last the longest is in need of re-education. If people want to eat food that tastes nice then I have no idea why the government should stand idly by and let them. We are 100% analogous to the government's unruly teenager. I can't believe that stupid internet libertarian fad is blinding people to these obvious facts.

[bluecheese]

Anyone who doesn't think that life is a competition to see who can last the longest is in need of re-education. If people want to eat food that tastes nice then I have no idea why the government should stand idly by and let them. We are 100% analogous to the government's unruly teenager. I can't believe that stupid internet libertarian fad is blinding people to these obvious facts.

Now that is funny.

[MilkEnthusiast]

PVC you make a valid point about individual requirements. Just look at the typical BMI standards - it's ridiculous. Next time you come across one of those online BMI calculators, plug in your height, and then screw around with the weight variable a bit. You'll see how the title of 'obese' is so generously granted.

In general, such tables and charts have far too much room for error to be considered a valuable reference.

[George Noble]

Now that is funny.
Don't get me started on funny. Since when was humour essential?

[cjangelo]

Don't get me started on funny. Since when was humour essential?

Oh my, you ARE funny

[Rorschach]

Funny like a clown?

[LimieJosh]

Why do you assume the government knows or even cares what's best for you? If that were the case, why are they not trying to regulate cigarettes or alcohol in the same manner?

It is not at all analogous. Abstaining from alcohol or tobacco is as simple as choosing not to consume alcohol or tobacco. Successfully following a low sodium diet (ignoring the rights and wrongs of government intrusion and the scientific basis of lower sodium diets) is a mine field that involves ignoring the vast majority of options in your grocery store.

[ColoWayno]

The government is not a person. It cannot care for you or take the blame for mistakes it makes. It takes no responsibility for it's actions.

I could go on and on, but I won't convince anyone of my POV.

[matclone]

The government is not a person.
It cannot care for you or take the blame for mistakes it makes. It takes no responsibility for it's actions.

I could go on and on, but I won't convince anyone of my POV.

You're right, you didn't convince me of anything. As for your remark that govt (unspecified) takes no responsibility for its actions, that's wholly wrong on its face.

[ColoWayno]

You're right, you didn't convince me of anything. As for your remark that govt (unspecified) takes no responsibility for its actions, that's wholly wrong on its face.

So it's fixing the metabolic syndrome crisis it created with it's food pyramid of the 70's? That's good to know.

While I'm here... the government cannot be your friend, or empathize...

[matclone]

Why do you assume the government knows or even cares what's best for you?

Why speak in such broad generalities? Your statement sounds very ideological. The fact that there may be someone in govt who doesn't know or care, doesn't taint the whole enterprise. As for why I assume the govt might know something about salt and its effects on people (thinking of the Center for Disease Control (CDC)), I figure it's their job to do so. Why do I assume they care? Again, it's their job. How is it that police officers do their job, or the armed forces? They're "government" too.



If that were the case, why are they not trying to regulate cigarettes or alcohol in the same manner? Why do they just apply a sin tax to these items? Do they think that taxes will deter someone from smoking or drinking?

I've never liked sin taxes. I think they're a way for the govt to gain revenue that they can't get by other means. They're almost always regressive. But, to your question, eating salt isn't a sin. Besides, no one is proposing a tax so I'm not sure why you're raising this question. The identified problem, as I understand it, is excess salt consumption resulting in significant health problems on a large scale. Restaurant food has been implicated in this. It's not even clear what the govt at various labels intends to do about it besides education. To the extent you're relying on Stossel's article for information, in my view, his credibility is next to zero, and should be taken with a several grains of salt.




I wouldn't argue that you should necessarily fear the government as much as be suspicious of their intentions.

I keep my eyes open.

[matclone]

So it's fixing the metabolic syndrome crisis it created with it's food pyramid of the 70's?

Hawnh?




While I'm here... the government cannot be your friend, or empathize...

Your point being what? That we should abolish government?

[bluecheese]

Matt,

I quoted the Stossel article because he articulated how I felt better than I could. I read on a number of news sites about the FDA attempting to regulate salt content. Hell, the Today's show even brought a nutritionist on to explain to us why this is a good thing.

I brought up cigarettes and alcohol to prove a point. If salt is so bad for us, I think we can agree that cigarettes are even worse for us. Some consider smoking the number one cause of death in America. So if salt is so bad for us, and the government cares so much about us to save us from this evil, then why are they not attempting to regulate other evils in the same manner? Because they make an ass ton of revenue off of sin taxes.



As for your remark that govt (unspecified) takes no responsibility for its actions, that's wholly wrong on its face.


No, that's partially right. Tell that to the people in New Orleans whose homes flooded because the Army Corps knowingly put up shitty levees. They can't sue the Army Corps. As far as I know the Corps never took responsibility, never apologized, and barely recogonized this problem.

I think me and you can go round and round on this. My point is that no matter how good the intentions of government regulation may seem, they normally devolve into an unintended clusterfuck. When the clusterfuck is recognized and becomes overwhelming, instead of figuring out what went wrong and changing their approach, they tend to throw more money at the problem, form new regulatory agencies, and sit back as the problem gets worse. The CDC can say all they want about salt, but at the end of the day its fucking SALT we're talking about, not hydrochloric acid they are putting in the food.

Don't worry though, as soon as they are done with their salt witch hunt, they'll find another boogieman to attack. Maybe next it'll be red meat, or sugar, or whole milk. Stay tuned.
As for your remark that govt (unspecified) takes no responsibility for its actions, that's wholly wrong on its face. Today 09:27 AM

[ColoWayno]

Hawnh?



Your point being what? That we should abolish government?

When you ask for or expect the government to do these things you do harm to yourself and everyone. Government is to be limited in scope to a few things that it can actually do well. Manipulating your diet for you is not one of them.
Read Good Calories, Bad Calories if you want to know how the government goes about making recommendations and scaring people, in this case, into poor diets.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Why speak in such broad generalities? Your statement sounds very ideological. The fact that there may be someone in govt who doesn't know or care, doesn't taint the whole enterprise. As for why I assume the govt might know something about salt and its effects on people (thinking of the Center for Disease Control (CDC)), I figure it's their job to do so. Why do I assume they care? Again, it's their job. How is it that police officers do their job, or the armed forces? They're "government" too.


Mat, you're obviously very young, and naive even for a boy of twelve. If you can name one function the government actually performs efficiently, I'll suck your dick and let msingh take pictures. You figure it's their job to care, so they do? Oh, fuck. The very fact that they somehow believe that if they regulate the salt in a can of soup it will stay regulated in my bowl should tell anybody except a wide-eyed innocent just exactly how idiotic the entire proposition is. That goes for the police (some of whom are my good friends, all of whom now have the incentive to seize my property to pay their salaries, and who regularly lie under oath when it is convenient) and the military (individual members of which are some of my best friends, all of whom will testify that the entire organization is fucked in too many ways to enumerate here (you've heard of the Viet Nam War, I assume)). Grow the fuck up, take responsibility for yourself, and learn to resent encroachment on your subsequently-achieved adulthood.

[ColoWayno]

Word

Mark, are you sure you were never a software engineer? Your use of nested parenthetical expressions is brilliant.

[Rorschach]

It's a complex issue. To believe that all politicians and govt officials are out to get you is paranoid, but the reverse is equally naive.
Until Skynet gains sentience (All hail our robot overlords! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGxdgNJ_lZM)), we're going to be led by fallable people with all their fears, prejudices and personal agendas.

What particularly gets my back up is politicians voting on issues that they have very little knowledge/experience of, and often ignoring experts who're there to advise them.
There's plenty to get angry about. Politicians who don't know the first thing about IT voting on the idiotic Digital Economy Bill... the firing of the government's top drug expert (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sacked-ndash-for-telling-the-truth-about-drugs-1812255.html) for not toeing the party line, the 21 year old "expert" brought in by OFSTED to advise my mother of 30 years experience how to teach, and so on.

However, to demonise everything the government does as a matter of rule is paranoid and counter-productive. Was banning slavery just meddling government officials? There are plenty of people in governments both sides of the Atlantic who are doing their best to try and improve the lives of their fellow man.
This proposed (key word - proposed, they're merely discussing the idea) regulation of added salt in foods is a good example. The idea that this is some shady government conspiracy to oppress the masses honestly baffles me. This isn't aimed at you or me, they're not "banning salt", police aren't going to break into your house and confiscate your table salt. This is targeted at food companies putting massive amounts of salt into shitty food as a flavour-enhancer. If you live off ready-meals and fast-food, you're going to be consuming worryingly high levels of salt, especially if you have a sedentary lifestyle.

Could it be implemented poorly? Sure. Regulating restaurants in particular seems like a fairly impossible task, and certain foods such as peanuts and crisps (sorry, chips) are expected to have a high level of salt. However, the idea is fundamentally sound.
If you want to add salt to your food, you're more than welcome to. However, people on low-income who are forced to eat cheap, crap food currently find it very difficult to avoid high levels of salt. I'm all for regulation to help them.

[ColoWayno]

Was banning slavery just meddling government officials?

Maybe our fearless leaders shouldn't have meddled in the definition of a human being in the first place. Our founders did a lot of things right. They stepped out of bounds when they decided to define a black person as 3/5ths human.
This is a classic example... the government screws up ... hundreds of thousands of people die in the process of fixing it. Don't get me started on the fixes to their fixes in the last half of the 20th century, go read as much Thomas Sowell as you can get your hands on.

[ColoWayno]

To believe that all politicians and govt officials are out to get you is paranoid, but the reverse is equally naive.


I'll tell you how this works. No, they are not out to get me. They are out to be remembered for the great things they have done. This is why they have to find something to fix. The need to feel important and to feel like they will leave a legacy drives these people. Go and read Good Calories, Bad Calories. The Metabolic disaster we have now is largely in part to well intentioned folks who thought very highly of their own stupid ideas and decided to push them onto the rest of us. The fact that weak science was behind the whole thing didn't matter to them. The whole thing is propped up with funding mandates and expected outcomes. Once politics enters into these things (global warming included) there is no sanity in the process. And the worst part is that we will never have anyone to hold accountable... these people will do their damage and move on and someone else will be screwing with us in order to top the last guy.
We don't need them to do these things. We have brains. We have free education. Can't people read labels and decide what's best? If people want to buy processed food that's a decision they can make for themselves. Don't tell me it's for the low income people because eating this way costs more than making food yourself.

[George Noble]

Someone from the Delaware National Guard just forwarded me an email containing what I can only assume are a bunch of its members' personal email addresses. They don't look very competent from here.

Edit - luckily it was only designated FOUO which as far as I can understand means "if you send this to random English kids you are an idiot but probably not a criminal."

[Rorschach]

How do you feel on the legalisation of recreational drugs, ColoWayne?
I'm not trying to be facetious, but your whole argument can be directly transposed onto drug use.
I'm educated, have read up on the subject, and I'm willing to take the health risk, should I be allowed to grow marijuana for my own use? If it's not the government's place to tell me what I can eat/drink/smoke.

If you're against recreational drug use, where is the line drawn on government interference?

[matclone]

One commonly used fallacious argument is an argument by generalization, of which we see several examples here. Just because we know of someone in "government" who isn't all we might expect them to be, or better, someone who says they know someone like that (hearsay), doesn't mean "government" per se is inherently flawed. Conversely, just because people muck up things in the private sector and they carry dead wood, does not mean they are inherently flawed or that every business organization is like Enron or Goldman Sachs.

When I was in the Marine Corps, I was taught, encouraged, and shown how by others to be competent in all I did. In short, competence was highly valued in the "culture" of the organization, despite the fact that there were certainly a number of f-k-d up individuals in the organization. An expression of these values in popular literaure can be found in the books of Robert Heinlein, who was a Naval officer, and always proud of it. The fact we were in "government" did make not us flawed, as has been implicitly asserted here.

I don't know how they do things in Texas, but if I call the police, they show up. If a fire alarm goes off, the fire dept arrives in short order. If I have to go to to the city or county to transact some business, it is not an ordeal. My mail from the U.S. postal service comes 6 days a week, without fail, including those things I've ordered from the Aasgaard Co. (why they don't use a private carrier source like UPS, which is obviously way more competent than "government" is beyond me).

Years ago, I used to work with a woman, who was a self-described Christian, and every conversation we had would inevitably turn into something about Jesus. Obviously, her world was colored by her religious views. I see the same thing happening here: a view of the world colored by an irrational fear and loathing of "government". And if you want to see that expressed in popular non-fiction, yes, read Thomas Sowell.

Why the federal govt's attempts to inform us about excess salt (or health) is a problem for some is beyond me.

[MazdaMatt]

Damn the government for banning cancer causing pesticides! If farmers want to avoid cancer for themselves they wouldn't use it. If consumers want to avoid cancer they can buy a different brand!

Damn the government for banning asbestos! Everyone knows you should just stay clear of it, try not to eat it and keep it safely wrapped up to avoid inhaling. If I don't want to inhale it, i'll just not breath in near it!

Damn the government for banning crack!
Damn the government for banning hookers!
Damn the government for banning recreational bombs!

Government regulation does not exist to protect those who can protect themselves. It exists to protect those that can not. Don't blow a gasket and call me a government lover - yes, they are dumb. Yes they do what they do to try to get re-elected. Yes they make mistakes.

MOST of america is dumb enough to get obese and die/suffer of food related ailments. Maybe somebody needs to take the knife out of the baby's hand before he hurts himself. They aren't talking about banning salt shakers, just reducing the quantity of salt in foods that people don't generally understand are full of salt.

Maybe YOU all understand what you're eating, but MOST americans do not. Ask around among people who are not fitness-oriented as yourselves what a calorie is and see what kind of dumb answers you get.

Incidentally, I'd much rather see liquor banned than pot, but so be it we have it the other way (don't get me wrong again, i love liquor and use it intelligently, but it causes a LOT more problems than pot does).

[Rorschach]

Don't tell me it's for the low income people because eating this way costs more than making food yourself.

I'd disagree on this. Yes, there are ways to feed yourself cheaply and well, but this requires a level of knowledge and effort that most people don't have.
Packaged lasagne costs less than making your own. Frozen pizzas cost less than making you own. Oven chips cost less than making your own (including time, effort, the oil etc).

With a bit of bargain-hunting, or if you live near a farm, you can at well on a tight budget, but most people don't. Mass-produced crap is generally pretty cheap.

[MazdaMatt]

Mass-produced crap is generally pretty cheap.

And who's to know, when the label says "LOW IN FAT" for marketting purposes, but the real reason is because fat isn't cheap and then they need to replace the flavour of fat with something, so they pump it full of salt.

Nearly every "LOW IN FAT" advertised product on the shelf is either LOADED with sugar or salt in quantities that anybody who knows about food would never touch. It doesn't help that they always have product names that imply health "nutrigrain bars", "fiber 1", etc etc etc.

Look arond your local Walmart and tell me all those fatasses WANT to be that way. The fatso in the wheelchair that can't walk due to diabetes planned his meals so he's be there. These people have no idea what they are doing to them. They think these diseases just happened to them, perhaps because they are "genetic" (aka, mom and dad ate filthy shit for food, i eat the same, therefor my problems are passed through genetics)

[misspelledgeoff]

Damn the government for banning cancer causing pesticides! .

Yes, goddamn the fucking government for banning DDT and causing massive deaths among mostly black, brown, and yellow human beings from malaria. But at least they didn't die of cancer, right? And at least MazdaMatt can feel warm and fuzzy about his compassionate, liberal do-good government.

You fucking sheep make me sick.

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.725/news_detail.asp



It took us what has seemed like forever to wade through the junk science held up to be valid, to get to the hard peer-reviewed data. There have been literally thousands of studies of every possible aspect of DDT. What peer-reviewed, replicated scientific data supports the ban on DDT? None.

Instead we found that DDT, the most effective chemical for preventing malaria and a veritable host of other diseases (West Nile virus, Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Dengue fever, lice, yellow fever, river blindness, elephantiasis, St. Louis encephalitis virus, typhus, Chagas disease, bubonic plague, Japanese encephalitis, bed bugs, and many others -- not to mention many bird and animal diseases), had been made a chemical scapegoat, a glorified whipping boy. DDT had to go down to satisfy politics, resulting in massive deaths among mostly black, brown, and yellow human beings.

[George Noble]

Populist interventions are sometimes not backed up by good science? This will change the way I think forever. Next you'll be telling me that the food pyramid wasn't taken straight from Lyle's forum and the alcohol consumption recommendations are made up numbers...

[matclone]

You fucking sheep make me sick.



Yeah, it's too bad you have to live on a planet where there are people who don't see things exactly as you do.

[George Noble]

Yeah, it's too bad you have to live on a planet where there are people who don't see things exactly as you do.
OK, we'll complain about people who disagree with us with internet forums and you can subjugate people who disagree with you with the federal government. Seem fair? Maybe to you.

[matclone]

If you don't have a reasoned argument you can always make a point by resorting to the strawman. It works on talk radio, so why not here?

[misspelledgeoff]

I've seen your posts. You're one to talk about reasoned arguments.


If you don't have a reasoned argument you can always make a point by resorting to the strawman. It works on talk radio, so why not here?

[George Noble]

WTF?? My post was a strawman but yours wasn't? Are you trying to say your response didn't add even the teensiest bit of hyperbole to Joff's post?

So let's say, hypothetically (and in this situation we can pretend that I'm American in the first place), that I disagree with the prohibitionists on the subject of DDT. Can I or can I not use it anyway (since I "don't see things exactly as [they] do")? Or is the federal government stopping me from exercising this choice derived from my "seeing of things differently"?

[Rorschach]

Are you telling me there aren't any pesticides which don't get into the foodchain and kill people? They also banned lead in paints, are people dying from lead-free paint?

[George Noble]

Are you telling me there aren't any pesticides which don't get into the foodchain and kill people? They also banned lead in paints, are people dying from lead-free paint?
Apparently banning lead in paint has resulted in a significant improvement to matclone's diet. Fair play to the government on that point I say.

[George Noble]

PS - bazinga.

[MazdaMatt]

http://plig.org/things/pictures/tn/arguing.med.jpg

[matclone]

WTF?? My post was a strawman but yours wasn't? Are you trying to say your response didn't add even the teensiest bit of hyperbole to Joff's post?

So let's say, hypothetically (and in this situation we can pretend that I'm American in the first place), that I disagree with the prohibitionists on the subject of DDT. Can I or can I not use it anyway (since I "don't see things exactly as [they] do")? Or is the federal government stopping me from exercising this choice derived from my "seeing of things differently"?

I thought were were talking about salt, not DDT. In any case, your post was a strawman because you asserted that I was in favor of some unspecified "subjugation" where none was offered. It's even more of a straw if you were talking about DDT since I said nothing whatsever about that subject.

As to your hypothetical, it depends on whether your disagreement, and subsequent action, is against the law or not.

As for seeing things differently, there are limits. My statement was directed to Geoff, who seems intolerant of any views other than his own, as evidenced by his lack of acknowledgement that any legitimate views other than his own exist ("you fucking mindless sheep"). In the United States, anyway, we have this thing called democracy. No matter its imperfections, prior to government action (like a DDT ban), competing views are typically aired and measured. If the govt takes a position contrary to your view, well, you have to live with it, or influence people to change it. In my view, that's a sight better, than adhering to the whims of a king.

[George Noble]

It's even more of a straw if you were talking about DDT since I said nothing whatsever about that subject.

...

My statement was directed to Geoff,

Whose post was about DDT...

[bluecheese]

An expression of these values in popular literaure can be found in the books of Robert Heinlein, who was a Naval officer, and always proud of it. The fact we were in "government" did make not us flawed, as has been implicitly asserted here.

Matt,

I find it interesting that you invoke Heinlein, considering his stances on government intervention.

For example:


I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand)'s; that I would like to see government reduced to no more than internal police and courts, external armed forces — with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way the government sticks its nose into everything, now.


I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.


Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good

And the list goes on. I also find your mention of our usage of the US Postal Service interesting. For the most part, the Post Office is a self sustaining entity.

[matclone]

What are you quoting from, specifically? I know it's been awhile for me, but I don't remember him citing Ayn Rand. However, they were certainly of the same generation and I think they knew each other.

I know that Heinlein didn't like a lot of government, but my point was to show that "government" qua government (to use an Ayn Rand phrase) isn't flawed. To make such an argument, and to be consistent, you would logically have to include the armed forces, police, etc. Rip addressed this by saying they're all flawed (but didn't say how the private sector is different or why). You, on the other hand, seem to be saying some govt is okay if it is self-sustaining--although you don't acknowledge how govt may have a different purpose. Again, by invoking the military (government) , I was just looking for consistency in argument.

[matclone]

Heinlein clearly indicated that he would have stayed in the Navy but for his health. "The Bravest Man I Ever Knew" (don't quote on the title) was always one of my favorite stories of his.

[ColoWayno]

Well I've been had... now everyone here knows I'm just a slack jawed slavery lovin' lead paint chewin' product of parents who smoked ddt, but not pot because that offends my puritan roots. Do you think about the stupid things you say? No, you do not. Try thinking about the stupid and offensive insinuations you make morons.
What do they do with all of the expensive fat they've been hoarding for other purposes? Don't you guys know, the food corporations reacted to market pressure because we all wanted it because it was supposed to be good for us? And why did we think that? Hmmm? Because our fearless leaders scared the crap out of us about saturated fat and told us to eat 11 serving of bread a day. So now they think salt is bad. I don't care what they think.
If you think we are sooo uneducated that we can't cook food ourselves then whose fault is that? I'd have to blame the same people that gave you your pathetic education. What did you do in school, drool on the liberal instructors?
Education is more than knowing the names of a few logical fallacies. Knowing a few facts helps too. That's why I suggest you actually read Good Calories, Bad Calories and as much Thomas Sowell as you can find (If Barnes and Noble hasn't hidden the last copies of his work).
But every time someone argues with you just bring up slavery or ddt or other things that you know very little about.

[ColoWayno]

a view of the world colored by an irrational fear and loathing of "government". And if you want to see that expressed in popular non-fiction, yes, read Thomas Sowell.

Why the federal govt's attempts to inform us about excess salt (or health) is a problem for some is beyond me.
Why did you use the word colored and irrational in the same paragraph you mention Thomas Sowell you racist pig...
This is the kind of crap I get all of the time so shut up.
"Gee, aren't you forgetting that slavery was a bad idea?"
"Gee, aren't you forgetting that the government fixed it for us?"
Thomas Sowell has more common sense in his little finger than you have in your entire brain. The guy is also a stunning intellectual you dismissive bitch.
They aren't just attempting to inform us. They are trying to change the way we live with more of their ideas.

[ColoWayno]

OK, we'll complain about people who disagree with us with internet forums and you can subjugate people who disagree with you with the federal government. Seem fair? Maybe to you.
Zing

But MatClone will say.... "no one is making salt illegal".
No, they'll just ban adding it to food at restaurants. So instead of salt being added when it should be added, we can sprinkle it on top. We should just be happy they'll let us do that GN. We should just thank them for all they do for us.

And the best thing is, the morons who can't cook won't think of this because they are morons.

[ColoWayno]

=MOST of america is dumb enough to get obese and die/suffer of food related ailments. Maybe somebody needs to take the knife out of the baby's hand before he hurts himself. They aren't talking about banning salt shakers, just reducing the quantity of salt in foods that people don't generally understand are full of salt.

Maybe YOU all understand what you're eating, but MOST americans do not. Ask around among people who are not fitness-oriented as yourselves what a calorie is and see what kind of dumb answers you get.


When did you get such a low opinion of everyone else MM?
How did you get so superior to them? Really... I want to do that too.
You better have the government put moron proof safties on salt shakers as well ... then this great plan might actually work. Or are you proposing beefing up our police forces as well to handle salt traffic, from the shaker to our plates? That's an idea worth looking into.
Can't we just generalize and accept the fact that flavor itself is bad? We all know fatty cuts of beef taste better and our fearless leaders are still insisting that sat. fat is bad. This should be next. No more flavor in food unless it's artificial and government approved.

I love being awake whilst civilization sleeps... I get to rant as much as I want without being interrupted.

[ColoWayno]

To make such an argument, and to be consistent, you would logically have to include the armed forces, police, etc. Rip addressed this by saying they're all flawed (but didn't say how the private sector is different or why).
There are flaws in everything. That's not the point. It makes sense to have police and military government run even though that means there will be the kind of problems you get from massive bureaucracies.
In the private sector I get to express my freedom by choosing from many different options. Some of them may be bad for me, but this is part of being free. If I don't like a certain type of food I'm free to buy something different. Look at the explosion of products claiming to meet peoples perceived dietary needs. You have low fat, low sodium, low flavor, etc. This is the result of demand created by educating people (in some cases mis-educating them). Since we cannot always even educate people properly in choosing healthy foods, what business do we have in dictating how much salt a restaurant can use?

[Rorschach]

You didn't really answer my question. :P
Where do you draw the line on acceptable government intervention? Salt, rotting food, booze, pot, cocaine, murder? It's a sliding scale, and unless you're an anarchist, there have to be some things you believe the government should restrict/forbid.

And, for the record, I wasn't implying that if you criticise the government, you're pro-slavery, just that not every government action is worthy of demonisation.

[ColoWayno]

You didn't really answer my question. :P
Where do you draw the line on acceptable government intervention? Salt, rotting food, booze, pot, cocaine, murder? It's a sliding scale, and unless you're an anarchist, there have to be some things you believe the government should restrict/forbid.

And, for the record, I wasn't implying that if you criticise the government, you're pro-slavery, just that not every government action is worthy of demonisation.

Are you sure? I ranted for a long time and I'm tired. Can't you find an answer in there somewhere? Normally I wouldn't rant during rant recovery. Crime and salt are different things. Cocaine and salt are different things. Slavery and salt are also different. Murder and salt are often confused, but I assure you they are different. Gassing jews is also different from salt. It's a fine line sometimes I know.
I know some people want to smoke pot and I'm not opposed to them doing that. If it's a drug that sends them on a murderous rampage then it's probably best to ban it. Some of these things make you a danger to people around you and that's bad. Some things cause physical addiction in one use and that is bad. Some things can kill you if you just take them once and that's bad. If it kills them over 20 or 30 years then they have time to figure out what they are doing and to quit if they choose, or not.
So somewhere between murder and salt there is a line. It's a slippery ol' slope I know.

[MazdaMatt]

Are salt and cocaine really so different? When used reasonably neither is harmful and when used in excess they are both harmful. Both are rather addictive and long-term use is fairly well connected with poor health.

So I see you've bowed to the government liberal-nazi propaganda [/sacrasm]

http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3484241/k.6D9D/Healthy_living__Salt.htm?src=gg&gclid=COuZ293unKECFSJ25QodQR_MxQ

Your WAR ON FLAVOUR (as I'm sure CNN and Bush would call it) is not necessary. The Heart and Stroke Foundation (they're pretty knowledgable on the topic of hearts and strokes) suggest using herbs and spices in place of salt. In fact, many herbs and spices have been found to have other positive health effects... and they make for better tasting food than salt.

Click that website, they make it pretty clear that people ingest most of their salt completely unknowingly from processed and fast foods. Food processors and fast food joints use salt because it is cheaper than herbs and spices and it is addictive.

Your rediculous comment about thinking that I want people to police salt shakers is retarded. Trying to sensationalize isn't gaining you any credit. I was talking about protecting those people that fall into the category of unknowingly ingesting too much salt by making large corporations reduce salt content.

[ColoWayno]

Are salt and cocaine really so different? When used reasonably neither is harmful and when used in excess they are both harmful. Both are rather addictive and long-term use is fairly well connected with poor health.

So I see you've bowed to the government liberal-nazi propaganda [/sacrasm]

http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3484241/k.6D9D/Healthy_living__Salt.htm?src=gg&gclid=COuZ293unKECFSJ25QodQR_MxQ

Your WAR ON FLAVOUR (as I'm sure CNN and Bush would call it) is not necessary. The Heart and Stroke Foundation (they're pretty knowledgable on the topic of hearts and strokes) suggest using herbs and spices in place of salt. In fact, many herbs and spices have been found to have other positive health effects... and they make for better tasting food than salt.

Click that website, they make it pretty clear that people ingest most of their salt completely unknowingly from processed and fast foods. Food processors and fast food joints use salt because it is cheaper than herbs and spices and it is addictive.

Your rediculous comment about thinking that I want people to police salt shakers is retarded. Trying to sensationalize isn't gaining you any credit. I was talking about protecting those people that fall into the category of unknowingly ingesting too much salt by making large corporations reduce salt content.

Well... nobody told me there was a study somewhere that said herbs and spices were better. I'm so glad that we have these folks to protect the flavor of our food. And if you say it tastes better I'll just have to take your word for it.
But if you don't police the salt shaker you will have accomplished nothing other than irritating a lot of people. That is why I suggested it. Even morons will eventually figure out what is going on. They are already hooked. We need tough love.
There must be someone on this forum who in a youthful misstep accidentally put cocaine on their french fries, or snorted a line of salt. Maybe they can lend their expert opinion on the subject.

[matclone]

Well I've been had... now everyone here knows I'm just a slack jawed slavery lovin' lead paint chewin' product of parents who smoked ddt, but not pot because that offends my puritan roots. Do you think about the stupid things you say? No, you do not. Try thinking about the stupid and offensive insinuations you make morons.
What do they do with all of the expensive fat they've been hoarding for other purposes? Don't you guys know, the food corporations reacted to market pressure because we all wanted it because it was supposed to be good for us? And why did we think that? Hmmm? Because our fearless leaders scared the crap out of us about saturated fat and told us to eat 11 serving of bread a day. So now they think salt is bad. I don't care what they think.
If you think we are sooo uneducated that we can't cook food ourselves then whose fault is that? I'd have to blame the same people that gave you your pathetic education. What did you do in school, drool on the liberal instructors?
Education is more than knowing the names of a few logical fallacies. Knowing a few facts helps too. That's why I suggest you actually read Good Calories, Bad Calories and as much Thomas Sowell as you can find (If Barnes and Noble hasn't hidden the last copies of his work).
But every time someone argues with you just bring up slavery or ddt or other things that you know very little about.


Look out! That baad old gov'ment is coming to getcha! They may even beat you over the head with information.

[matclone]

Why did you use the word colored and irrational in the same paragraph you mention Thomas Sowell you racist pig...
This is the kind of crap I get all of the time so shut up.
"Gee, aren't you forgetting that slavery was a bad idea?"
"Gee, aren't you forgetting that the government fixed it for us?"
Thomas Sowell has more common sense in his little finger than you have in your entire brain. The guy is also a stunning intellectual you dismissive bitch.
They aren't just attempting to inform us. They are trying to change the way we live with more of their ideas.

You may think Thomas Sowell is the second coming, but I don't. I've read his stuff. The problem with ideologues like him, like you, is that you have this tendency to not acknowledge there are other points of view on the table.

[MazdaMatt]

cocain fries... mmmm... those would sell like hotcakes. I've snorted salt WATER before, it is great for congenstion :)

I think the whole idea of this is that you don't NEED to police the salt shaker to make a difference. If processed and fast foods had less salt there would be two effects:
1 - people would eat it and not give a shit because there would be a gradual reduction anyways - there would be no "annoyed people".
2 - processed and fast food places would need to find another way to flavour food, such as herbs and spices, healthy fats, better quality ingredients.

It all just sounds like a good idea to me.

PERSONALLY I don't even have a salt shaker in my house. I just never think to use one. Visitors find it weird, so I end up grinding up some pickling salt for them. I use garlic salt in small quantities, but the benefits of flavour from the garlic outweigh the salt. I also CONSTANTLY use herbs and spices. It makes for better food.

PERONALLY I also avoid eating a lot of fast food because of the salt content. I find it gross. I just never developed that addiction.

On the other hand, a friend of mine eats fast food every day, multiple times and he even puts salt in his bloody beer!

[ColoWayno]

You may think Thomas Sowell is the second coming, but I don't. I've read his stuff. The problem with ideologues like him, like you, is that you have this tendency to not acknowledge there are other points of view on the table.

I acknowledge you, and all of your socialist friends and your ideas, they certainly exist and are on the table. I wouldn't be calling your ideas stupid if I didn't think they existed.
There certainly is room for all kinds of opinions in the world. Most of them should not be turned into public policy and imposed on others.

[matclone]

I acknowledge you, and all of your socialist friends and your ideas, they certainly exist and are on the table. I wouldn't be calling your ideas stupid if I didn't think they existed.

I was talking about acknowledging the legitimacy of other ideas, not just their existence.

You guys are all the same. When you run out of arguments, you resort to calling names.

[ColoWayno]

I was talking about acknowledging the legitimacy of other ideas, not just their existence.

You guys are all the same. When you run out of arguments, you resort to calling names.

I hope you take some solace in the fact that this idea might very well make it into public policy. You certainly don't have to care what I think to feel validated. We'll all be living with the outcome.

[George Noble]

cocain fries... mmmm... those would sell like hotcakes. I've snorted salt WATER before, it is great for congenstion :)

Medical type ammonia caps > MacKenzie's smelling salts > nasal irrigation > whatever pussy medicine normal people use > nothing > homeopathy > government intervention.


Right??

[MazdaMatt]

In this case, yes. Government intervention has never cleared my clogged sinuses as well as salt water or psuedoephedrine.

Then again, psuedoephedrine is all I can get because the gov't banned ephedrine. Works just as well but gives me fewer heart attacks.

[Locutus]

Ephedrine is still OTC in the U.S. Bronkaid, behind the counter.

[misspelledgeoff]

Here's the crux of the matter.

You think Most People are imbeciles incapable of making reasononed decisions. You think they need a Mommy because they cannot protect themselves. Not even from themselves.

I do not share this view of Most People. I believe Most People, when left the fuck alone, will make the right decisions for themselves and their families.

I'm curious how you developed your opinions about Most People? Shopping at Wal-Mart?



Government regulation does not exist to protect those who can protect themselves. It exists to protect those that can not...

MOST of america is dumb enough to get obese and die/suffer of food related ailments. Maybe somebody needs to take the knife out of the baby's hand before he hurts himself.

[matclone]

Here's the crux of the matter.

You think Most People are imbeciles incapable of making reasononed decisions. You think they need a Mommy because they cannot protect themselves. Not even from themselves.

MattMazda said or implied nothing of the sort. You listen to talk radio, don't you? You think that exaggerating someone else's view (as here) somehow validates your own. It doesn't unless you're in a group of people who see things just as you do.

[George Noble]

MattMazda said or implied nothing of the sort.
Are we reading the same posts :confused:

[matclone]

I hope you take some solace in the fact that this idea might very well make it into public policy. You certainly don't have to care what I think to feel validated. We'll all be living with the outcome.

I think you're still missing my point. My point is: you are not acknowledging other legitimate views on this issue. It has nothing to do with whether I feel validated. It has to do with the persuasiveness of your argument. If you insist yours is the only legit view on this issue or any other, people are going to tend to not listen, just the same as if I were to tell you "Jesus Saves!" everytime I talk to you.

Now, it may not matter to you, but there are many people who do not hold the same world or economic view as Sowell does. In fact, I assure you his is a minority view (nothing to do with his race). Likewise, without having read it, and without taking any position of my own, I guarantee the premises of the book you keep citing are disputed. So when you go out in public (or on a public forum like this) and declare "Sowell Saves!", hopefully you will find some people who've read the same books you're read and adopted the same views as you have. If not, you may want to think about how you're going to convince them of your view, besides simply declaring that they're wrong or that they'll "see the light" if only they read "the" book.

[misspelledgeoff]

MattMazda said or implied nothing of the sort. You listen to talk radio, don't you? You think that exaggerating someone else's view (as here) somehow validates your own. It doesn't unless you're in a group of people who see things just as you do.



MOST of america is dumb enough to get obese and die/suffer of food related ailments. Maybe somebody needs to take the knife out of the baby's hand before he hurts himself....


OK Einstein. Whatever you say.

[matclone]

Are we reading the same posts :confused: Perhaps you can cite specific instances where he said or implied:

Most People are imbeciles
Most people are incapable of making reasoned decisions.
Most people need a Mommy
Most people cannot protect themselves. Not even from themselves.

Can anyone say hyperbole?

[George Noble]

Perhaps you can cite specific instances where he said or implied:

Most People are imbeciles
Most people are incapable of making reasoned decisions.
Most people need a Mommy
Most people cannot protect themselves. Not even from themselves.
Perhaps I can.

1. "MOST of america is dumb enough to get obese and die/suffer of food related ailments."
2. "MOST of america is dumb enough to get obese and die/suffer of food related ailments."
3. "Maybe somebody needs to take the knife out of the baby's hand before he hurts himself..."
4. "Maybe somebody needs to take the knife out of the baby's hand before he hurts himself..."


Can anyone say hyperbole?
Sure. Some of us even know what it means.

[matclone]

LOL. Okay, I guess that really means he thinks most people are imbeciles. Argument over.

[George Noble]

LOL. Okay, I guess that really means he thinks most people are imbeciles. Argument over.
You didn't ask me to point out what he really means, you asked me to point out what he said.

[bluecheese]

Perhaps you can cite specific instances where he said or implied:

Most People are imbeciles
Most people are incapable of making reasoned decisions.
Most people need a Mommy
Most people cannot protect themselves. Not even from themselves.

Can anyone say hyperbole?

Mat,


Originally Posted by MazdaMatt http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?p=121841#post121841)
MOST of america is dumb enough to get obese and die/suffer of food related ailments. Maybe somebody needs to take the knife out of the baby's hand before he hurts himself....


I bolded this since you may have missed the other 2 times MazdaMatt's post was quoted.

Let me pose a question to everyone:

What do you believe is the percentage of the American public that believe fast food is actually good for them? 50%? Less than 10%? These people obviously must be saved from themselves.

Mat, you keep saying that the government wants to advise that salt intake may be harmful. From everything I have read, the FDA is not looking to act in an advisory position, they want to regulate the amount of salt in food. Fast food, frozen food, anything made by a company will be regulated. Do they actually believe that the average McDonalds customer thinks that his double quarter pounder with large fries and diet Coke is the same as eating organic broccoli and free range chicken? The problem, at least as I see it, is that they think we are stupid. We obviously cannot act in a manner that is acceptable to them, so they must step in and punish us and our enablers. They won't remove salt entirely, at least not all at once. Instead they will, over time, lower the amount of sodium. Get us nice and used to the lowered salt content. Nice and easy. We don't want a revolt on our hands.

And whoever somehow compared this to slavery... are you kidding me? Slavery is an evil specifically because it involves one individual taking away the rights of another. The ending of slavery was the correct moral action because of this. This move by the FDA erodes personal freedom. Its a very small bit of erosion, most may not even notice it, but it is erosion none the less.


I think you're still missing my point. My point is: you are not acknowledging other legitimate views on this issue

Are you acknowleding ours? Can you see that some people may be getting a little sick of federal intervention in our lives? Even if its just a little at a time? I can definitely see where you are coming from. Some people need help, and the government may be in a good position to offer that help. The problem is they tend to paint with a wide brush when it comes to policy. They obviously can't just limit salt intake for just the "poor" or uneducated. That would be interpreted as racism or classism or some other -ism. So everyone must be regulated. "Don't do that," they say. "Its bad for you."

No matter how well intended their regulations are, they are still government regulations.

[matclone]

Let me pose a question to everyone:

What do you believe is the percentage of the American public that believe fast food is actually good for them? 50%? Less than 10%? These people obviously must be saved from themselves.

I see it as an irrelevant question. Fast and convenience food is a major (although not the only) contributor to obesity in this country, especially in children. I'm not looking for reasons to say "it's your fault". The fact is, it's a major public health problem. If you want to look at it in economic terms, obesity imposes a significant health cost, which affects us all. It also results in diminished productivity, which affects the economy.


Mat, you keep saying that the government wants to advise that salt intake may be harmful. From everything I have read, the FDA is not looking to act in an advisory position, they want to regulate the amount of salt in food. Fast food, frozen food, anything made by a company will be regulated.

You're speaking in hypotheticals. But let's say for argument's sake the govt want to regulate the amount of salt in food. It could be done reasonably or not. If it comes to pass, I don't assume they're going to mess it up.



Do they actually believe that the average McDonalds customer thinks that his double quarter pounder with large fries and diet Coke is the same as eating organic broccoli and free range chicken? The problem, at least as I see it, is that they think we are stupid.

I don't think you're stupid. I dont' think I'm stupid. I don't think the gov't (which is made up of people like you and me) thinks either of us are stupid.


We obviously cannot act in a manner that is acceptable to them, so they must step in and punish us and our enablers.

Again, you are speaking hypothetically. Hypothetically speaking, what do you think your punishment will be? Who are our enablers?



They won't remove salt entirely, at least not all at once. Instead they will, over time, lower the amount of sodium. Get us nice and used to the lowered salt content. Nice and easy. We don't want a revolt on our hands.

And whoever somehow compared this to slavery... are you kidding me? Slavery is an evil specifically because it involves one individual taking away the rights of another. The ending of slavery was the correct moral action because of this. This move by the FDA erodes personal freedom. Its a very small bit of erosion, most may not even notice it, but it is erosion none the less.

It's the proverbial slippery slope (as someone else already mentioned). I'm reminded that opponents of gay marriage frequently like to say that such an institution will inevitably lead to marriage with sheep and how unpersuasive that is to me. Let's see: food--it's been regulated a long time, and except maybe for prohibition, I don't see that it's lead to any significant problems, and no one's protesting that they can't have something.


Are you acknowleding ours? Can you see that some people may be getting a little sick of federal intervention in our lives? Even if its just a little at a time? I can definitely see where you are coming from. Some people need help, and the government may be in a good position to offer that help. The problem is they tend to paint with a wide brush when it comes to policy. They obviously can't just limit salt intake for just the "poor" or uneducated. That would be interpreted as racism or classism or some other -ism. So everyone must be regulated. "Don't do that," they say. "Its bad for you."

The abuse of power, in government or otherwise, is always a danger. Moreover, there are always going to be problems in large societies, and in governance of the same. On the whole, I'm not greatly concerned that the U.S. govt is going to mess up my life or of those around me. It could happen, but I dont' see salt information, or even regulation as a threat.


No matter how well intended their regulations are, they are still government regulations.

In which you return to your argument that regulation (or government) per se is bad. I disagree.

[Bergie]

I see it as an irrelevant question. Fast and convenience food is a major (although not the only) contributor to obesity in this country, especially in children. I'm not looking for reasons to say "it's your fault". The fact is, it's a major public health problem. If you want to look at it in economic terms, obesity imposes a significant health cost, which affects us all. It also results in diminished productivity, which affects the economy.

See Item 1 below



You're speaking in hypotheticals. But let's say for argument's sake the govt want to regulate the amount of salt in food. It could be done reasonably or not. If it comes to pass, I don't assume they're going to mess it up. See Item 2 below

Item 1- We are talking salt content not obesity. The major issue with salt is hypertension. The Canadian research article mentioned earlier stated only 1/3 of the population is sensitive to salt. The other 2/3 have little or no issue with the salt intake.

Item 2 – Hypothetical?


The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products ...

[bluecheese]

The fact is, it's a major public health problem. If you want to look at it in economic terms, obesity imposes a significant health cost, which affects us all. It also results in diminished productivity, which affects the economy.

Doesn't matter.



You're speaking in hypotheticals.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591285,00.html


"U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits"

Perhaps I don't understand your definition of the word "hypothetical."


If it comes to pass, I don't assume they're going to mess it up.

It doesn't matter if they mess it up, or if it goes according to their plans.



what do you think your punishment will be? Who are our enablers?


Our punishment will be the government telling us how to live our lives. Our enablers are McDonalds, Burger King, Sara Lee, Aunt Jemima et al.


On the whole, I'm not greatly concerned that the U.S. govt is going to mess up my life or of those around me. It could happen, but I dont' see salt information, or even regulation as a threat.

Stay tuned, it can only get better. This may lead to nothing or it could be a dismal failure, but once again you are missing my point entirely, and I'm getting rather tired of repeating it.



In which you return to your argument that regulation (or government) per se is bad. I disagree.


Your statement here shows that you do not understand my argument. A law or regulation stating that I cannot murder someone, steal their stuff, or run over their dog on a four wheeler is one thing. All of these would in some way restrict the right of the victim. My rights end where yours begin, and visa versa. I am generally wary of government intrustion, though I do normally leave my tin foil hat at home. But to think that the government, at times, doesn't overstep its bounds is foolish.

[matclone]

Item 1- We are talking salt content not obesity. The major issue with salt is hypertension. The Canadian research article mentioned earlier stated only 1/3 of the population is sensitive to salt. The other 2/3 have little or no issue with the salt intake.

I was responding to bluecheese who was talking about fast food in open ended terms and invoking the specter of gov't intervention. I naturally started talking about obesity. It's related to salt. Poor food = poor health.

In the CDC link I posted earlier it also indicated that salt was a "problem" only for certain groups of people.

[matclone]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591285,00.html


"U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits"

Perhaps I don't understand your definition of the word "hypothetical."

You've repeatedly asserted that the gov't action will be bad, but all we have so far is an intention to act. You may not realize this, but regulations, should they come to pass, are not passed willy nilly. There is typically a public comment period (in which you can express your objections like here), and Congress can intervene if they think a regulation isn't consistent with the law. In short, we have nothing concrete as to what the govt will do, just an intention. That's what I call a hypothetical.





Our punishment will be the government telling us how to live our lives. Our enablers are McDonalds, Burger King, Sara Lee, Aunt Jemima et al.

I'm not worried about it.

[PVC]

You're all fucking tools.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm209155.htm

"A story in today’s Washington Post leaves a mistaken impression that the FDA has begun the process of regulating the amount of sodium in foods. The FDA is not currently working on regulations nor has it made a decision to regulate sodium content in foods at this time."

They're going to change their recommendations for sodium intake and try to get the food industry to lower sodium amounts voluntarily. Everyone take some deep breaths, remove the sticks from your asses and shut the fuck up.

[bluecheese]

You've repeatedly asserted that the gov't action will be bad, but all we have so far is an intention to act. You may not realize this, but regulations, should they come to pass, are not passed willy nilly. There is typically a public comment period (in which you can express your objections like here), and Congress can intervene if they think a regulation isn't consistent with the law. In short, we have nothing concrete as to what the govt will do, just an intention. That's what I call a hypothetical.




I'm not worried about it.

I've repeatedly asserted that the government has no business medling in the lives of private individuals, not that the law itself will necessarily have a bad outcome.
I find it quaint that you believe our government runs smoothly and laws are not passed "willy nilly." Did you not pay attention to the healthcare bill that was haphazardly thrown together, and passed roughshot through congress with a mixture of lies, coersion and bullying? We are just beginning to find out the affect this will have on America. They said that this will not raise the deficit. Oops, they announced yesterday this was wrong. They forgot to include a provision that would cover children immediatley. They accidentally included themselves in the bill, and had to rush to change that. Laws are sometimes passed this way. Unfortunately this is how the government sometimes works.
But, do you think me, or you, or Rip, or anyone expressing dismay on an internet forum changes anything?


You're all fucking tools.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm209155.htm

"A story in today’s Washington Post leaves a mistaken impression that the FDA has begun the process of regulating the amount of sodium in foods. The FDA is not currently working on regulations nor has it made a decision to regulate sodium content in foods at this time."

They're going to change their recommendations for sodium intake and try to get the food industry to lower sodium amounts voluntarily. Everyone take some deep breaths, remove the sticks from your asses and shut the fuck up.

Whew, crisis averted. I wonder if the Post posted a retraction? I still stand by the core of my objection though. Government intervention into the lives of individuals is seldom a good thing, no matter the intentions or the outcome.

[George Noble]

In my country "voluntarily" usually means "subject to a review in six months time at which point we'll find out that voluntary action didn't work and we have to legislate." :)

[Rorschach]

Well that's spoilt a perfectly good argument. Damnit, PVC.

Plenty of fallacies and misconceptions that could still be argued about, but it's a moot point now.

[bluecheese]

Yeah, I haven't had a good e debate in a while. This was refreshing. I mostly argue on sports boards about how badly Les Miles (LSU) will screw up the team this year.

[matclone]

I've repeatedly asserted that the government has no business medling in the lives of private individuals, not that the law itself will necessarily have a bad outcome.

Hmm. Okay.




I find it quaint that you believe our government runs smoothly and laws are not passed "willy nilly." Did you not pay attention to the healthcare bill that was haphazardly thrown together, and passed roughshot through congress with a mixture of lies, coersion and bullying?

Here we go. What a waste of time. Do you not comprehend that everyone doesn't share your point of view? Or do you just not give a fuck? Go join the tea partiers on the hill and stomp your feet like petulant children because you didn't get your way. Fuck.




Whew, crisis averted. I wonder if the Post posted a retraction?

No retraction needed. They cited an unamed source in the FDA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041905049.html?hpid=topnews. The Post article really only alluded to some regulatory action without describing it as fact--a point I've been making more or less all along. The FDA press release didn't really contradict this; it only said there was no current regulatory action--meaning it could conceivably happen in the future.

FDA: "A story in today’s Washington Post leaves a mistaken impression that the FDA has begun the process of regulating the amount of sodium in foods. The FDA is not currently working on regulations nor has it made a decision to regulate sodium content in foods at this time (emphasis added)."

[Rorschach]

This is why vague claims from unnamed sources need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

>_>

[matclone]

:). In the States we refer to it as a grain of salt. But you see what Stossel did. Instead of adding salt, he broke out the lighter fluid.

[bluecheese]

Mat, I've tried to be civil during this debate, but you really are a disingenuous little twat.

Do you debate that the healthcare bill was not rushed through congress? That backroom deals and coercion were not used to get this passed?

You blatantly state that others who do not share your point of view are somehow morons who do not have the ability to comprehend other ideas. To you disagreeing with a thing automatically means that one does not understand a thing - unless that person is you of course.

I have no use for the tea party because I don't believe they will ever get much accomplished. But I understand where their anger comes from. You, on the other hand, believe that anyone who disagrees with an aspect of the government is really just a "bunch of petulant children." Grow up man.

Just because you are entitled to an opinion doesn't mean that the rest of us are required to take you seriously. And we do not have to subscribe to your view in the interest of all seeing things the same way.

[matclone]

Do you debate that the healthcare bill was not rushed through congress? That backroom deals and coercion were not used to get this passed?

The President and the new Congress took office more than a year ago. Shortly thereafter, and consistent with their election and platform promises to reform health care, Congress began considering the same. It's been under the public eye ever since. In any case, the fact remains the law was passed by the legislative process--the way we pass any other law in this country--so don't even allude to this being some underhanded affair.



You blatantly state that others who do not share your point of view are somehow morons

I didn't call anyone a moron, nor did I ascribe characteristics to "anyone who doesn't share my point of view"


I have no use for the tea party because I don't believe they will ever get much accomplished. But I understand where their anger comes from. You, on the other hand, believe that anyone who disagrees with an aspect of the government is really just a "bunch of petulant children."

No, I specifically described the tea partiers as petulants, not "anyone who disagrees with an aspect of the government".


Just because you are entitled to an opinion doesn't mean that the rest of us are required to take you seriously.

Don't then. You can always fall back on Stossel for a "serious" view.

[George Noble]

I just realised that after ten pages of arguing I don't actually know who Stossel is.

[matclone]

A media guy (best known for his TV presentations) who caters to the "conservative" point of view, (where there are two, and only two points of view, (described as liberal and conservative), with no thought in between--perpetually locked in a mock civil war) ala Beck, Limbaugh, O-Reilly, Olberman etc. They all have the same basic marketing strategy.

[bluecheese]

The President and the new Congress took office more than a year ago. Shortly thereafter, and consistent with their election and platform promises to reform health care, Congress began considering the same. It's been under the public eye ever since. In any case, the fact remains the law was passed by the legislative process--the way we pass any other law in this country--so don't even allude to this being some underhanded affair.



You didn't answer my question. Are you stating that the healthcare bill that was voted upon did not get rushed through congress, and that backroom dealing and coercion didn't happen? That things like the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Deal didn't happen?



I didn't call anyone a moron, nor did I ascribe characteristics to "anyone who doesn't share my point of view


No, youre right, you didn't. But anyone who as disagreed with you thus far in this thread, you have accused them of not being able to see that others have a point of view, while you apparently are doing the same thing.


No, I specifically described the tea partiers as petulants, not "anyone who disagrees with an aspect of the government".


And what specifically is it that the Tea Partiers are doing that makes them children in your eyes?



Don't then. You can always fall back on Stossel for a "serious" view.


Ahhh I see now. Stossel doesn't subscribe to your view, so his thoughts are not serious. Or at least thats what I can tell from your post when you put your put sarcastic quotes around the word "serious".

As I stated before, I posted the Stossel article because he articulated how I felt better than I could. I didn't derive any of my feeling from his article.

[matclone]

You didn't answer my question. Are you stating that the healthcare bill that was voted upon did not get rushed through congress, and that backroom dealing and coercion didn't happen? That things like the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Deal didn't happen?

Yes, I'm saying it wasn't "rushed" through Congress.

There's an old saying: sausage and laws--watch neither being made. The backroom dealing and coercion you refer to is gemerally part of the legislative process, and is not exclusive to health care reform. I really object to your insinuation that the American people were somehow cheated. No, everyone isn't pleased.


But anyone who as disagreed with you thus far in this thread, you have accused them of not being able to see that others have a point of view, while you apparently are doing the same thing.

There's that anyone again.


And what specifically is it that the Tea Partiers are doing that makes them children in your eyes?

1. Being anti- everything, without offering solutions (health care being the prime example). It's easier to be against something than it is to find a solution to a complex problem.
2. Acting like they've been cheated, because Congress passed something they didn't like, after it went through extensive public review.
3. Looking up to Glenn Beck and his type, whose rhetoric is always juvenile (primary source of information for tea party characteristics: Denver Post).



Ahhh I see now. Stossel doesn't subscribe to your view, so his thoughts are not serious. Or at least thats what I can tell from your post when you put your put sarcastic quotes around the word "serious".

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you'll see I gave some specific criticism of Stossel: a one sided presentation. Later on, I suggested he was fueling a fire. That's why he shouldn't be taken seriously, not because he doesnt' share my point of view.



As I stated before, I posted the Stossel article because he articulated how I felt better than I could. I didn't derive any of my feeling from his article.

People like Stossel make a point of telling you what you want to hear, while appealing to base instincts like fear (think of Maslow). That is part of their marketing strategy. That is a criticism of Stossel. Not of you. I've noticed that when I hear media sources that express opinions akin to my view, that I tend to be less critical of them. Nonetheless, I've grown real tired of one-sidedness.

[Rorschach]

I just realised that after ten pages of arguing I don't actually know who Stossel is.

Wait, he's a writer for Fox? Why the fuck did I even bother reading this thread?

[Joe D.]

If the government can do this with salt, then it sets a precedent. Next it will be trans fat, which will be a good thing. However, knowing how stupid the government and the average doctor (who should have no say in nutrition, especially power lifting nutrition - he's a doctor, not a nutritionist for athletes) is, there will come a day when saturated fat is deemed to dangerous to allow society to consume. I can see the government trying to ban healthy fatty foods in the future. After they ban the foods, I can see heart disease shooting up 200% from all the extra sugar people will then start to eat. That's my view.

[misspelledgeoff]

Matclone, are you really a 33 year old ex-marine? Because you sound a lot like a 19-year-old college freshman who just took his first philosophy course.

[PVC]

This is why vague claims from unnamed sources need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Why just a pinch of salt? Why do you get to choose how much salt I take with vague claims from unnamed sources? What if I want to take a whole bucket of salt with vague claims from unnamed sources? STOP ERODING MY FREEDOM

[ColoWayno]

"Sowell Saves!"

I said nothing of the sort hypocrite. Is this hyperbole? I only brought up Sowell because some moron thought they needed to remind me that slavery was a bad idea. They had some weird conception that our government had no part in it's establishment but everything to do with ending it. By their logic this justifies having the government regulate our salt intake. I brought up Sowell because you need an education on what happens when the government tries to fix things. I won't go into it because Sowell does this better than anyone else.
I take offense when people try to make moral equivalencies like this. Slavery was an evil institution. People lucky enough to live in civilized countries have nothing in their lives that comes close to comparing. Human nature is such that we want to feel like we are fighting the good fight so in the absence of any really pressing problem some latch onto things like salt (how they get there I do not understand). Others are content to just try to take care of themselves and their families and contribute to their communities. I would never dream of trying to concoct a scheme where by my ideas about exercise or diet or religion or anything like that were forced onto my neighbors.

[Joe D.]

Apparently there are still slaves in the US and the worldwide slave number is somewhere around 27million.

[matclone]

Sowell saves!"


Is this hyperbole?

I suppose. It was intended as satire.


I brought up Sowell because you need an education on what happens when the government tries to fix things.

Thomas Sowell is the way, the truth, and the light.


I would never dream of trying to concoct a scheme where by my ideas about exercise or diet or religion or anything like that were forced onto my neighbors.

Yeah, well, you're also "forced" to obtain a license to drive, and refrain from committing fraud, or poisoning someone. I hate it when people make your particular rhetorical argument.

[coldfire]

Yeah, well, you're also "forced" to obtain a license to drive, and refrain from committing fraud, or poisoning someone. I hate it when people make your particular rhetorical argument.

You really fail to see the difference between forcing you to not violate someone's rights and forcing you to eat less junk food?

[matclone]

You answered your own question, didn't you? Why ask me if you have the answer?

[ColoWayno]

Apparently there are still slaves in the US and the worldwide slave number is somewhere around 27million.

For the sake of all that is good, let us fix that before we worry about salt.

[bluecheese]

You really fail to see the difference between forcing you to not violate someone's rights and forcing you to eat less junk food?

He does.

[ColoWayno]

Thomas Sowell is the way, the truth, and the light.


Maybe Race and Culture would be a good start for you. It's very scholarly. I'm not a complete twit and I had trouble with it.

You are obviously intelligent. All I can liken your style of argument to is a guy who meticulously builds a house with careful attention to every detail, then finds out the location is zoned for a new freeway.

I hereby apologize for calling you names. Also the same to anyone I indirectly called a moron or anything else.

[strongdaniel]

Yeah, well, you're also "forced" to obtain a license to drive, and refrain from committing fraud, or poisoning someone. I hate it when people make your particular rhetorical argument.


Unlike the entities you mentioned, someone's dietary choice does not affect any other person's property or person.

[Rorschach]

I only brought up Sowell because some moron thought they needed to remind me that slavery was a bad idea.
This moron brought it up because some other moron was giving the impression that governments only did nasty evil mean things, which clearly isn't true.
It's a shame some morons lack reading comprehension.



Unlike the entities you mentioned, someone's dietary choice does not affect any other person's property or person.
For a start, it puts up taxes, or in your case, insurance premiums as they put a strain on the healthcare system.

[misspelledgeoff]

This was a beautiful post. No homo.


I said nothing of the sort hypocrite. Is this hyperbole? I only brought up Sowell because some moron thought they needed to remind me that slavery was a bad idea. They had some weird conception that our government had no part in it's establishment but everything to do with ending it. By their logic this justifies having the government regulate our salt intake. I brought up Sowell because you need an education on what happens when the government tries to fix things. I won't go into it because Sowell does this better than anyone else.
I take offense when people try to make moral equivalencies like this. Slavery was an evil institution. People lucky enough to live in civilized countries have nothing in their lives that comes close to comparing. Human nature is such that we want to feel like we are fighting the good fight so in the absence of any really pressing problem some latch onto things like salt (how they get there I do not understand). Others are content to just try to take care of themselves and their families and contribute to their communities. I would never dream of trying to concoct a scheme where by my ideas about exercise or diet or religion or anything like that were forced onto my neighbors.

[ColoWayno]

This moron brought it up because some other moron was giving the impression that governments only did nasty evil mean things, which clearly isn't true.
It's a shame some morons lack reading comprehension.

For a start, it puts up taxes, or in your case, insurance premiums as they put a strain on the healthcare system.

From my earlier post I expressed my apologies to:
"anyone I indirectly called a moron or anything else."
So I want to express my apologies to you directly.

Do you mean salt causes insurance or taxes to go up? I suppose porn causes wrist injuries too? As an evangelical this raises interesting possibilities in my long term goal to spoil everyone's fun.

[George Noble]

www.prowriststraps.com will end your troubles.

[Rorschach]

Belt while dealing with a particularly troublesome crap, wrist-straps while masturbating... this forum is a fount of knowledge and useful advice.

[ColoWayno]

Belt while dealing with a particularly troublesome crap, wrist-straps while masturbating... this forum is a fount of knowledge and useful advice.

Geebs, I meant from overuse of the pointing device on your computer. ;)

[ColoWayno]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/27/filtering_history_105321.html

"Those who mine history for sins are not searching for truth but for opportunities to denigrate their own society, or for grievances that can be cashed in today, at the expense of people who were not even born when the sins of the past were committed." Thomas Sowell

Our politicians do the exact same thing with "health" issues.

[matclone]

Real clear politics? Is that like fair and balanced? Maybe if I start a blog I'll call it The Truth. Or you can.

Sowell:
"If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings-- no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history.

But that is not the message that is being taught in our schools and colleges, or dramatized on television and in the movies. The message that is pounded home again and again is that white people enslaved black people."

I think I get it. Slavery in the U.S. was not a problem, or, if it was, we should just get over it. And those who may have directly or inidirectly suffered some vestigial effects of slavery, like for example the inability to go to school, or vote, or enter a profession, should just get over it too.

Never underestimate the power of someone telling you what you want to hear.

[George Noble]

Belt while dealing with a particularly troublesome crap, wrist-straps while masturbating... this forum is a fount of knowledge and useful advice.
Get wraps for wrist health, not straps. The Strangulators have the best name and give great support. I have a pair of 24" and they're very versatile. APT make the best wraps because the thumb loops are on opposite sides so they both wrap the same way.

[Dash]

I think I get it. Slavery in the U.S. was not a problem, or, if it was, we should just get over it. And those who may have directly or inidirectly suffered some vestigial effects of slavery, like for example the inability to go to school, or vote, or enter a profession, should just get over it too.

No I dont think you do get it.


Never underestimate the power of someone telling you what you want to hear.

On the other hand maybe you do get it but not in the way you think. Do not trust people who tell you that you're the victim of something and you need them to help you. That goes for salt content to the "vestigial effects of slavery". Especially if they're looking for your vote.

[ColoWayno]

Where have you been matclone? Did you catch my apology in my earlier post? I've got this 7x12 job right now that keeps me in front of the computer. I think having me in this time zone has disrupted some flow in the cosmic internet continuum.
It's not that a particular cause is not valid or needs no corrective action. It's just that, at best, these causes are treated by our politicians the same way a team of 6 year old soccer players treat a soccer ball (only our politicians are not all blameless like the soccer kids). It's just not productive, it's misguided, and depending on how much intent you ascribe them, it can seem downright evil.
Politicians do what they do for votes and to build legacies.
At worst you have a cast of characters that will latch onto a real cause and use it intentionally to control people through guilt or fear. As Sowell points out slavery is not unique to America or to white people. Presenting it like it is a "white" thing distorts history, creates unnecessary guilt and misses the point entirely. My wife just had to sit through a college class where one of the books she had to read made the claim that white people are inherently racist. What more can I say?

[matclone]

No I dont think you do get it.

Oh, I get it. I understand Sowell's argument perfectly well. I'm just not buying it. That, you apparently don't get. I'll tell you something else I understand: there are a lot of fools in the world. These include, but are not limited to, those who believe there wasn't really a holocaust; that man didn't really land on the moon; that the U.S. government planned and executed 9-11; that Obama wasn't really born in the United States; that slavery in the U.S. was not a problem, and is not a black/white issue; and that Extenze will make your dick grow larger. I normally try to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and acknowledge that I too have held foolish beliefs at various points in my life, but sometimes silly bullshit needs to be called for what it is, and not coddled.

[matclone]

Where have you been matclone? Did you catch my apology in my earlier post? I've got this 7x12 job right now that keeps me in front of the computer. I think having me in this time zone has disrupted some flow in the cosmic internet continuum.

I think you're working too much, man. Hopefully, this is temporary.


Politicians do what they do for votes and to build legacies. At worst you have a cast of characters that will latch onto a real cause and use it intentionally to control people through guilt or fear.

Most of us would agree that politicians don't always "play it straight" (can't think of a better phrase) and that they (as you say) do what they can for votes. That doesn't mean politicians are inherently evil, or that they don't want to do good. It's more a reflection of the way our political system is structured, including the inevitable compromises they must make to get elected.


As Sowell points out slavery is not unique to America or to white people. So? This sounds like the boy who is caught in the act of doing wrong and offers as a defense, "But Johnny did it!"


Presenting it like it is a "white" thing distorts history, creates unnecessary guilt and misses the point entirely.

No, it doesn't. Sowell's argument about slavery in other parts of the world is a red herring (and a weak one) designed to divert our attention from the specter of race and power relations in the U.S.


My wife just had to sit through a college class where one of the books she had to read made the claim that white people are inherently racist. What more can I say?

Does this bother you? It doesn't bother me. I'm white. I bet your wife wasn't arrested for being white or penalized in any way for someone's claim that she is "inherently racist".

[Dash]

Does this bother you? It doesn't bother me. I'm white. I bet your wife wasn't arrested for being white or penalized in any way for someone's claim that she is "inherently racist".

I'll bet the person accusing whites of being inherently racist wasnt penalized either. It's given a pass. The guilt is strong in you, you must do linear progression.

[matclone]

Well, we know from its constant promulgation on talk radio and other media sources who call themselves "conservative" (probably a slap in the face to classical conservatism) that one of the most heinous crimes in America is to unfairly call a white person "racist" or even to insinuate the same. As a white person, I cannot tell you how much I've suffered from this all my life. I mean, I'll be walking down the street, or going to the ball game and see a person of color who is not Thomas Sowell, and realize that he thinks I'm a racist. Sometimes it just makes me want to cry at the unfairness of it all.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

The accusation of racism cost Don Imus a job, but there has been little word about the commentator that referred to Tim Tebow's all caucasion group during the draft as Nazi's.

ANd slavery has been around nearly as long as man. To say it's an issue to any one group is completely inaccurate.

[matclone]

History matters.

[Rorschach]

White people aren't inherantly racist, people are inherantly racist.

[ColoWayno]

History matters.

White people aren't inherantly racist, people are inherantly racist.

Matclone, I agree, all of it matters.
Rorschach, I think it's possible to make a racist out of just about anyone if one has those feelings fostered at a young enough age. I'm not sure most of us are inherently racist. This is why the way things are presented in school matter.

[Rorschach]

Oh, you can absolutely mould someone into a racist via nurture, but IMO everyone has a certain us-and-them mentality.
It's human nature to judge, we're social creatures, and everyone develops an idea of what they think is "the norm". We need to evaluate the relative position in society of ourselves and everyone else, and since we can't "grok" everyone at a glance, we assign labels subconsciously.
He's wearing a suit so he's rich, he has torn jeans so he's poor, he speaks all common like so he's a bit dumb, he doesn't speak english so he's different and strange. I myself grew up in a predominantly white area, so while I might not think black or oriental people for example are in any way inferior, I still subconsciously see them as being abnormal.
That's fine and to be expected, it's when people assign negative stereotypes to people and act on them when it becomes a problem.

[matclone]

Matclone, I agree, all of it matters.
Rorschach, I think it's possible to make a racist out of just about anyone if one has those feelings fostered at a young enough age. I'm not sure most of us are inherently racist. This is why the way things are presented in school matter.

You object to some uncited source in an academic setting (where different and often conflicting points of view are routinely offered) which supposedly said whites are inherently racist. Conversely, millions are pounded daily (via talk radio and other media sources) with the implicit argument that racism doesn't exist at all (unless it's by a colored person). I don't know about you, but I find that objectionable.

[ColoWayno]

You object to some uncited source in an academic setting (where different and often conflicting points of view are routinely offered) which supposedly said whites are inherently racist. Conversely, millions are pounded daily (via talk radio and other media sources) with the implicit argument that racism doesn't exist at all (unless it's by a colored person). I don't know about you, but I find that objectionable.

Matt, I listen to some talk radio and I've never heard anything like that, not even close. So, I guess we're both guilty of not citing sources.
My wife also had to sit through a lecture by a "communications activist" who told them, as lab assistants in the comm dept., they had a moral obligation to refuse help to any student who wanted to write a speech in opposition to whatever list of causes he supported (not sure of his list, or how you were supposed to know, but it included gay marriage as an example).
Their job was to help students with speech writing and delivery.
<EDIT>
By the way, I think our culture has come a long way in regards to racism. There is still a lot of silly stuff. There's a range. There are still too many racists, but increasingly there are more and more people, of all races, who just seem to be over it*. There is also a phenomenon, unique to white people, of trying too hard to atone for the sins of the past. Depending on the degree, these people can be very annoying to everyone except those who read this as a way to control them.
* By "over it" I don't mean that problems aren't recognized and addressed, it just means that these folks aren't looking for reasons to be offended and aren't worried to distraction about making up for perceived offenses. They just act like normal people and it works.
</EDIT>

[matclone]

Matt, I listen to some talk radio and I've never heard anything like that, not even close. So, I guess we're both guilty of not citing sources.

I said it was an implicit argument. It's quite obvious to me. You will never, ever, hear someone on talk radio (except that small bit that claims to be progressive) acknowledge that racism exists. On the other hand, being offended that someone else accused someone of racism (whether it actually occurred or not) is a regular plot.



My wife also had to sit through a lecture by a "communications activist" who told them, as lab assistants in the comm dept., they had a moral obligation to refuse help to any student who wanted to write a speech in opposition to whatever list of causes he supported (not sure of his list, or how you were supposed to know, but it included gay marriage as an example).
Their job was to help students with speech writing and delivery.
<EDIT>

Sounds like one student's opinion (i.e, the "communications activist"). As I suggested before, college is a place where different, and even controversial ideas are propounded. Your goal as a student is to separate the wheat from the chaff and make arguments for what you believe.


By the way, I think our culture has come a long way in regards to racism.

Certainly.



There is still a lot of silly stuff. There's a range. There are still too many racists, but increasingly there are more and more people, of all races, who just seem to be over it*.

* By "over it" I don't mean that problems aren't recognized and addressed, it just means that these folks aren't looking for reasons to be offended and aren't worried to distraction about making up for perceived offenses. They just act like normal people and it works.
</EDIT>

I predict the number of those who hold onto notions of racism (which have certainly been prevalent in my life time) will contine to grow smaller as new generations arise. I hope I'm right.


There is also a phenomenon, unique to white people, of trying too hard to atone for the sins of the past. Depending on the degree, these people can be very annoying to everyone except those who read this as a way to control them.

I really don't know what you're referring to.

[ColoWayno]

=
Sounds like one student's opinion (i.e, the "communications activist"). As I suggested before, college is a place where different, and even controversial ideas are propounded. Your goal as a student is to separate the wheat from the chaff and make arguments for what you believe.


No, this guy was a professor and advocated not helping people who didn't toe his "progressive" line in the schools lab. The job of my wife was to help students write their speeches, not judge them on the content. Granted, there were guidelines on acceptable content (read no live sex shows). How is this professor facilitative to having different ideas expressed?
Is it hard for you to believe there's at least as much intolerance in the "liberal-progressive" wing as there is in the "conservative" wing?

[matclone]

Yes. I spent many years in several colleges in undergrad and grad school, including those years when I held many views associated with the the conservative wing, including the whole "free market" thing. No disrespect to your wife but the anecdotes you've offered here are not consistent with my experience. Even if we were to accept your claim that some professors are "intolerant", it overlooks the larger culture of the university. It's the one place I know of where diverse and controversial views are actually routinely heard and tolerated. In other words, any intolerance is the exception and not the norm.

[ColoWayno]

Yes. I spent many years in several colleges in undergrad and grad school, including those years when I held many views associated with the the conservative wing, including the whole "free market" thing. No disrespect to your wife but the anecdotes you've offered here are not consistent with my experience. Even if we were to accept your claim that some professors are "intolerant", it overlooks the larger culture of the university. It's the one place I know of where diverse and controversial views are actually routinely heard and tolerated. In other words, any intolerance is the exception and not the norm.

Do you pay any attention to what goes on in Canada with speech commisions? Or this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

[Rorschach]

I imagine if it were a black officer who'd been called a "fucking nigger" you'd be less upset with them being charged with a breach of the peace. Plenty of people on the board here bemoan the idea of people not dealing with the consequences of their actions. Calling a police officer (or even their civilian staff) sub-human or an abomination shows a surprising lack of tact and sense.

Now was that heavy handed? Perhaps. However, this is more than someone being arrested for just speaking their mind, or having a different opinion. Firstly, you're only getting the preacher's side of the story. He's been charged, not convicted, and I doubt it'll progress further than a caution. Secondly, it's not just a black and white issue. Do you have the right not to be followed down the road by a man with a loudspeaker telling you to burn the fucking jews? A member of the public complained to the police (rather glossed over by the article), so it's clear he was upsetting people. There are plenty of ways of expressing your opinions that don't involve standing on the top of a ladder with a loudspeaker inciting hatred.

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.

[ColoWayno]

I imagine if it were a black officer who'd been called a "fucking nigger" you'd be less upset with them being charged with a breach of the peace.

You like making assumptions about people don't you? <edit>Yes, just seeing those words upsets me, but that distorts what happened in the story.</edit> What about the Canadian speech commissions? That covers the written word which no one is obliged to read.

Will you take a stand for free speech when it's things you don't like to hear?



Though written to prevent neo-Nazis and other odious characters from spewing their toxins, these restrictions have become human rights violations in themselves. Among the targets of these laws have been anti-American protesters, an anti-gay Christian pastor, radical Islamists, anti-Hindu Sikhs, French-Canadian nationalists, a movie sympathetic to South Africa, an anti-Semitic Indian, a pro-Zionist book, a Jewish community leader and Salman Rushdie’s novel “The Satanic Verses.’’

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/27/canadas_clampdown_on_free_speech/

[Rorschach]

That was the royal "you". Replace it with "people" if you want.
And I don't see how it's distorting things. What difference is there between bigotry against sexuality compared with race?

[ColoWayno]

I actually read what you posted wrong... you were actually giving me credit for hating the words you quoted... good on you.
I think there used to be a fairly clear idea when speech became an immediate threat to peace. The equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It sounds like someone was just offended in this case. There was nothing like a riot breaking out.

[Rorschach]

Well yes, while the guy was inciting prejudice/hatred and thus breaking the law, it was dealt with rather heavy-handedly. I see this as one guy needing a thicker skin though, rather than a steady march towards a police state.
Note that it was a PCSO, a civilian police assistant, rather than an officer. I'd like to think that police officers are made of sterner stuff. ;)
But well, we weren't there and don't know exactly what was said. As I said, I doubt it'll actually get to court, as it's a pretty mild case. Judges/magistrates aren't idiots, they're not going to prosecute him on the same level as the grand dragon of the KKK encouraging the lynching of black people.