Bush, like many sport wannabes, has always seemed to be bothered by fat folks. They are weak willed and pathetic. Way back when, Business Week reported that Bush would often tease Larry Lindsey about being fat. Now comes the news that the Bush administration opposes a WHO effort to fight the now global epidemic of obesity. Turns out that Bush likes the food industry more than he dislikes the notion of fatties. One of the gems of the story: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
Watch closely. This election season is going to feature George W. Bush setting new standards for horsepucky. The whole point is to say anything while not looking like you're pandering for votes. I used to think that messy process the GOP called "obstruction of justice" was Clinton's big joke on people. I think the skepticism of the Bush administration is its big joke. No science that doesn't warrant the making of large amounts of money by Bush cronies can go unquestioned. Remember that Texas is also livestock country, in addition to oil. But then again, Americans don't connect dots very well. Consider this, from the topic article: Turns out I can find exactly the article I'm looking for. Mr. A? Connect to Mr. B: A compelling suggestion, indeed, but the Bush administration is playing a blind idiot's game. The essential argument is that Bush wouldn't believe that throwing someone off a building was responsible for their death until someone brought him every scrap of scientific detail showing him exactly how that happened. After all, the guy could have died of a heart attack just at the thought of being thrown off the building. Of course, Dubya doesn't have time to read the detail, so that's life and our president never seems to consider the gravity of anything. • ABC News: "Vending Machine Controversy." October 29, 2003. See http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA011029Junk_food_kids.html
You have to love film, for the sake of film to like Magnolia. Also, it's approx 3 hours long, but I think well worth the journey, and it's got one of the best casts you'll ever see assembled in one film. And you'll certainly understand why your post made me think of the film if you watch it.
Bush’s pandering to corporate sponsors aside, I wouldn’t want a dime of my taxes paying to “fight” obesity. I doubt there are many people who don’t know that vegetables are healthier than milkshakes. And if they are truly so clueless, they won’t be reading anything my taxes are paying for. I think most fat people are fat by choice.
I tells ya, having a DVD player is rekindling my enjoyment of cinema. I actually despise most films made these days, but I've found that marketing has gotten so bad over the last decade that some films that looked like absolute crap--and not just the TV ads, but the interviews and press coverage as well--have turned out to be pleasant surprises. I must have been stoned senseless while Magnolia was out. I barely remember hearing about it, and that being a speed freak who told me I should see the film. (One of my deepest-seeded, most subtle bigotries is buried in that factoid, incidentally, and it has nothing to do with speed, which is one of my most blatant bigotries.) But, to steer myself back toward the topic itself, well, sort of .... If Bush had left it at say, questioning the science behind Kyoto, that would be one thing. But he questions the science behind heavy metals restrictions in industrial pollution. He questions the science behind species and diversity conservation. He questions the science behind the relationship to fast/junk food and obesity. To consider the idea of "displaced physical activity," we might say yes, there is a displacement of physical activity compared to past generations. And yes, this does contribute to obesity. But take a look at the world. What am I doing right now? I'm sitting in front of a computer. While I don't get paid for it, lots of people do. And so if you account for displaced physical activity in terms of labor activity displacement, increased television viewing, and also home internet use (so much for the walk or bicycle ride to the library) we start to see the picture more clearly. How much of the economy depends on single-occupancy vehicles right now? You could always tell the bicyclists around my office in Seattle; they looked healthier than the rest of us. What I'm getting at is that the Bush administration does not seem to be acknowledging in its position the new and gathering reality that the future involves human beings displacing even more physical activity; if this is the environment, then we certainly need to look at commercial reliance on unhealthy food products. In generic terms, this is a common problem in the United States. The "right thing" to do is about the last thing that "the masses" will do because the "right thing" to do usually requires a greater expenditure of resources. You'll notice that Subway got up to the #2 fast food chain in the United States before it pushed the Jared Diet campaign. Sure, they tried to capitalize on various nutritional elements, but it was only after they were established in their market position that they made a serious power play out of it. Quite simply, it's easier to hawk fatty, carb-loaded foods and hydrogenated oils and MSG than it is to serve healthy food. It's cheaper, too. But early last year the BBC ran an article under the headline, "Fast food 'as addictive as heroin.'" At some point, we must look to the food providers and say, "Lighten up." Of course, I'm 5'10 and the most I've ever weighed in my life is 157 lbs. I've eaten more fast food than some people can survive. Yeah, the stuff's addictive. After I quit working so close to a food court and stopped eating McDonald's every day, I actually went through withdrawal. • "Fast food 'as addictive as heroin.'" BBC News Online, January 30, 2003. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm
