One more thing to throw in before I'm out...

It's interesting to note that many of the "idiot" academics (to quote from earlier posters) who've studied this issue see it as mainly a cost/benefit analysis. Obesity and related illnesses are very very expensive, and they are on the rise. Prevention is much cheaper, and easier to do for that matter. People who study this issue (like at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis) have outlined lots of simple things that could be done rather easily.

In addition, these don't necessarily have to infringe on anyone's freedoms. The government gets to set policy (e.g. the food pyramid) and has lots of sway in the way funding, subsides, etc. are distributed as one simple example. This is a far cry from banning this or that food.

One thing we out to expect from our leaders is leadership (imagine that) on this issue. Instead, I think we're getting a lot more of, "F*ck it, do whatever you want, we're not about to step in and offend any big contributers. We in the goverment aren't interested in the long-term future."

---

----
Aerosexual.

i definitely agree with you on the categorizing similarly to smokers.

i think, though, that the categorizing should go a step further. more public education stuff would be great.

many kudos to francois for standing up to most others. anyone noticed the correlation between complaints about bush or america bashers and character attacks? this is definitely not a liberal forum, much as the conservatives among us would say....hey, kinda like the media...

but just like smoking, the government can't just step back and hope people will make the rigght decision. i don't think strict strict regulations are the right idea, but something significant needs to be done - like regulating advertising - for, example. the childhood of america has changed significantly over the past few decades. i think the government needs to do something - a longterm something.

and just because we triathletes had the drive to get fit, doesn't mean everyone else does - it'd be great if they did. i'd love to see health care costs have some sort of fitness effect to them.

g'night,
darrell hoy
(self-professed dem/independent)
(looking forward to some logical arguments back, please)

There are very good points being made from all directions.

Here's what I am concerned with ....

It really doesn't matter what "is a good idea" or "what should the government do" ... what matters is "what CAN the government do". By that I mean what can they do without impinging on an individual's rights. People are basically "allowed" (as set forth in the constitution, etc) to do whatever they want until it impinge's on someone else's rights. That inherently will allow for some crazy and sometimes distateful things. Most people claim to love freedom but don't want other people to do things "they don't like" or "don't think are right", even though it doesn't impinge or violate any of their rights. It cannot be both ways.

We have a democratic government, but we are not a democracy. In other words there are certain things that cannot be in place even if the majority want it. Those things are in the Bill of Rights and Ammendments, etc (I hope I am not sounding condescending. I'm sort of new to this protecting liberty thing, so many times, pharses and examples are just my way of getting my ideas in order). For example, if the majority of people wanted to only allow those with a college degree to vote, you couldn't have that even if 99.5% of the people voted for it. It goes against our documents (A specific Ammendment in this case). Illustrating that we are a constitutionally-limited country. There are things you cannot take away or even regulate.

IMO, fast food is in this category. If a person wants to gorge themselves on a steady rotation of McD's, Burger King, and Hardees, then they have that right. The only way you can get that stopped is to prove that they violate your rights or the right's of others (Proving that is very hard in this case). Sort of how it's not legal to smoke in public places where the freedom to smoke violates the rights of others to not smoke (i.e. their secondhand smoke gets into your lungs).

So, the only thing the government can do is take a proactive approach and educate their citizens on what is healthy and what is not. My McDonalds has a nutrition data table posted on their wall illustrating the carb/fat/pro content of each of their items, as well as calories, etc. At this point it is up to the customer to decide on their own what to order.

As far as regulating advertising ... that is a tricky deal. Sure, they do it with cigarettes and beer, but does fast food really fall into those categories? Is fast food the culprit or abuse of fast food? Does everyone that eats fast food frequently develop heart disease, etc? [The case could be made whether the gov't has the right to even regulate the ads of cigs and beer]

Again, this whole freedom and liberty thing is tricky. It allows people to do things you don't agree with, and to do things that are knowlingly harmful to themselves.

When you start regulating potentially harmful things, you can get to the point where virtually anything from skateboards to candy to cycling, etc could be regulated (i.e. mandatory motorcycle/bicycle helmets, seat belts, etc).

We need to be careful not to encourage what I call "limited freedom" or "regulated freedom", b/c neither is the freedom. In other words, if it doesn't violate anyone else's rights, what can the government legally do?

Side Note: I am not saying that everything is perfect in what we do (or our govenment does); there are some things I would drastically change (especially knee-jerk reactionary laws & certain policies regarding political contributions, etc and judges seemingly taking their liberties to do what they want) but I think we need to be constantly looking out for liberty ... she is a delicate thing that once cracked or broken, will never be the same.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

It is simply none of the goverments buisness what I shovel into my gullet. If I want a burger I want a burger. You have nothing to do with it.

A few points...

1. Public education is not in the constitution. It is not a federal matter. That is a state and local matter. The states and cities can build all the local schools they want. Saying the federal goverment should not be involved in education does not mean poor kids will be stupid. That is a knee jerk reaction of someone who puts slogans and sound bites above logic.

2. Limiting advertising is about the lamest thing I ever saw. Ya know why people smoke? They like it. You can get quite a buzz off the cancer sticks. Little kids don't blaze up because of Joe Camel they smoke because thier buddies offered them a cig or thier parent smoke.

We eat fast food for one reason. We are wired too. Be it creationism or evolution the amount of food avaible today is unreal. Even compare to 30 years ago food is just too easy to get. We where hard wired to eat when plentiful so when the starvation hit, which was all the time, we would have something to burn off.

Salt and fat where very rare to our evolutionary kin. We they had the luck of finding it they pigged out. When I get my hands on a Whataburger my hunter gather pops right out.

3. Education. Ya know what everyone knows about a proper diet. They do. Get real. We are told aobut it all the time in the news, on the street, by our doctors in our schools.

Growing up we where given lesson after lesson after lesson on eating right. I didn't need gym class I had a K-mart bike and insane friends. The world was our oyster because I didn't have to come home till the street light came on. PE class? Fuck rope climbing. We are all becoming indoor creatures. The goverment can't do shit about that.

4. Bush. You want someone to slam Bush? Look here I am! At the same time what can this dude really do? Tell you high fat diets and little excerise makes you fat? Tell you being fat makes you sick? When have we been denied this info? Goddamnit people that is all Oprah, Dr. Phil and magazines talk about. No one is stupid on this subject!!! WE ALL KNOW!!! IF YOU TELL ME YOU DON'T I'M CALLING YOU A LIAR TO YOUR FACE!!! YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

Also while Clinton shuffled around in disturbing shorts for a mile or two letting his dimpled fatty bright white thighs dance for all the ladies out there Bush runs.

Eyes forward, upright posture, short quick strides. He runs hard. Swat and spits and is in pretty damn good shape. I don't think he is trying to make America fat.

This whole thread is a bullshit troll to slam Bush.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

if you post, at least make the effort and have the courtesy to read the previous posts...

1. the WHO is not looking at what you put in your mouth, just making suggestions such as limiting advertising...

2. limiting advertising does work! it certainly reduced drunk-driving in France and other Euro countries as well as it reduced the amount of smoking (even though, it's still high compared to here). Saying it does not work is very ill-advised considering there were 23% less death on the roads in France this year...

3. in any case, the amount and diversity (well...hmmm...)of food to choose here wouldn't be affected...you just wouldn't be tempted all the time...

4. btw, as everyone here is so concerned about losing their freedom of choice etc... (and so am I but once again the WHO recommendations do not affect them) did you ever wonder if having vending machines at school from the time you're a kid and then seeing ads. everywhere for junk food, may at the end affect your ability to make decisions?
The thing that strikes me is that most obese people you see in the street are not eating a lot during a meal really...but they seem to be eating all day long...because there is always some junk food to buy. Eating becomes a reflex, some takes cigarettes, others eat, others drink...all 3 kill.

the thread (if you read it) didn't bash Bush. It was (but a few exceptions) a discussion on whether the gov. should do something, nothing else.

By high growth rates I mean economic growth compared to France in particular, but to Western Europe in general. Other industiral countries such as Japan count in the mix as well. Obviously this is relative to other countires and relative to historial patterns.

I don't know where that quote about expecting others to look up to us and we to look down on them came from. Certainly not from me. I intellectually disagree with many of the decisions France makes, but I don't look down on them. When it comes to food and wine, they rock. I am looking forward to my first 12 hour IM so I can drink that Dom Perignon in my refrigerator. I expect it will be there for a while.

I believe you are wrong about the importance of immigration to this country. It continues to be critical. We aren't going to be able to pay those Social Security checks to old farts like me for long unless we continue to recruit strong backs from the rest of the world to pay the taxes. Without immigration our population would start falling because Americans aren't making babies. The apartment complex I am building would never get out of the ground if you took away all sources of immigrant labor. I don't like those facts, but they are reality and must be dealt with accordingly.

Aj... sorry about that quote thing... yep, you didn't say that... in fact, I didn't even realize there were quotes.

I think you hit it on the head with immigration... the need for immigrants is directly related to it's economic benefit to the country. It is a reality (as you put it). However, it seems that while we may want immigrants to do certain jobs, it's not acceptable to have an immigrant take other jobs. I find that not to be a good long term direction and solution to labor shortages. Instead, it produces a demand for immigrants for the wrong reason.... Reasons that sometimes place an unwarranted demand on government social programs.

I think there is a difference between labor shortages and immigrant labor shortages. Population growth (in and of itself) is not always a good or bad idea. (IMHO) It is productivity of that incremental population growth that generates the best economic benefit. While it may be a good idea to get current benefits from foreign labor... It certainly would be an equally good idea that future benefits be accounted for (your reference to Social Security is a good example of future benefits). Unfortunately, some believe that it is the "undergound" cheap/illegal labor force is that portion of immigration that denies the current and future benefits normally paid through taxes.

So... to make my position more clear, I will try to answer the question - Is immigration critical to economic growth? I would say yes and no... it depends on the industry. However, I would also say immigrant labor is critically important to helping maintaining a global balance of labor costs. When you can get a programmer from Russia to do the same job as an American worker it definately does one thing... makes the labor costs in that area remain low. Good for business (perhaps)... but, bad for Labor. A contrary example would be trade labor (as you noted). In that case, it is less exportable as a labor source and may be necessary for economic growth. Other examples can be used to show this globalization of Labor (or lack of), but the question still remains...Are we an immigration dependent economic growth country? Since we are both a service and industrial based economy, I think it is a yes/no answer.

Good post - AJ.

FWIW Joe Moya

Joe Moya

I believe the answer to the economy growth dependent on immigration is not a yes/no thing. It is a yes thing in this country at this time.

If you want an example of what gradual population loss does to an area, take a look at Buffalo. I don't have the numbers, but I believe the area has been slowly losing population since WWII. It is a depressed economic area. No offense intended to Buffalo. That is where the Franke clan multiplied after my great grandfather settled there in 1883. Lots of Frankes still there. Not many of them are prosperous. All the Frankes that prospered left.

To get more extreme, one of the balkan countries is projected to lose half of its population over the next 50 years. If you want a depression, go there.

Exporting programming jobs to Russia is bad for the programming labor market here, but it is very good for the market in Russia.

I dislike the fact that the well being of the American economy is dependent on immigration, but that is the fact. Everyone doing the concrete pouring on my site is South American. Only the crane operator is Anglo. As he commented, "They haven't learned how to do this job yet. Give them time."

People who work hard can be patient. I went to Princeton and they work pouring my concrete. Two generations from now, some of their grandchildren will go to Princeton and some of my grandchildren will pour concrete. That is how it should be, and in America, that is how it is.

"Everyone doing the concrete pouring on my site is South American"

Don't they have any Mexican workers? :)

I'm with Mr. Tibbs, You just want an excuse to rip Bush the USA or both. What should we regulate next? Playing with your self will make you go blind, better regulate that.

Jack this is not a direct response to you, I just clicked on reply in your post b/c it was closest to the bottom.

-----------------------------------------------

If we look at advertising to teens in America and rate its effectiveness we have to give it a big ol friggin ' donut hole (that's a "zero" for you non-Americans). Edit: *** I mean when we look at "advertising regulation" towards teens ***.

They limit beer, cigs, (even weed, though it's illegal) etc advertising and yet the rate of consumption among teens is increasing as is smoking, as is marijuana use.

The anti-advertising targets teens to be concerned about their future and their health.

There's 2 things we need to realise about teens:

1. The "future" to a teenager is "what am I going to do tonight". Next year or 5 years from now is non-existent. So, threatening a kid using marijuana by saying he'll live in his mom's basement forever is useless. They think it's hilarious. Living with mom, who does your laundry, cooks your food, while you play XBox and surf the next for porn, get high, until you're 35. Bring it on! That thread is dead.

2. Teens are invinsible. Health is not a concern.

Our advertising (or anti-advertising) has targeted the wrong aspects. Teens seem to care about 2 things, their car, and their ability to get naked.

Now, if you make a law where a teen is caught with cigs or beer and their license is taken away until they are 18, smoking and drinking will go down. It won't be eliminated but it will decrease.

Likewise, kids don't run out and buy Count Chocula, Lucky Charms, M&M's, Reese's, etc because they are advertised to. They buy them (or parents buy them) because their kids love it b/c it's loaded with sugar. Is that hard to understand?

Also, kids don't get their allowance and run buy a happy meal. Parents buy fast food b/c it's convenient. Now whether the kids says "McD's" or "BK" b/c one of them has a Nemo toy in it, they can be due to advertising ... but make no mistake kids are not handing $$$ over to McD's. When it comes to kids, McD's does much more good than harm (look at all their charities , really look at them).

I know when we eat at McD's 1-2 a week (need to limit it to 1 time a week), it's because my wife and I both put in a good day at work, I trained for 2 hours, we're both tired, the toddler is hungry, we need to do laundry, I have school stuff to work on, jacob needs a bath, played with , tucked, in, etc. So we take the easy route and buy McD's. The food's nothing special, it's simply cheap and easy, and warm. Normally, we have food prepared in advance, but not always. We don't McD's because my son likes the clown or the ninja toy in the box. We get it because it's convenient and it tastes better than BK.

Limiting McD's advertising towards kids will do little if anything towards breaking America's fast food habit.

The task is much more difficult and it involves changing life habits. Trying to get people to stop doing something they really like and is very convenient. Good Luck. Mission Impossible 3 to say the least.

---------------------------------------

IMO, topics like these ARE used to bash or at least kidney punch a president or leader. People will complain that there are guns all over the place and rip the president because of it. They forget we have a bill of rights that says we can have guns all over the place, and that can never be taken away.

I fear that this happens waaaaay to often in the campaign trail during elections. The peopple just don't know any better, and the politicians capitalize on that.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

No, not a single one in the concrete trade. We will see about the other trades. A very sharp Columbian runs the project. He has workers from Columbia, Honduras and Nicaragua, only one of whom speaks any English. The quality of the work is excellent.

I think your statements say a lot about immigration and it's impact on industry. But, to say immigration as a labor force is a necessity is only relative to the industry and not so much a sign of the times.

When you used Buffalo as an example, you provide a good example of why I say it is relative to an industry (or region of the country). When you look at Buffalo's economic history, you would see it was industry based. It produced labor intensive products with a strong dependency on raw material products.

Other industries are more service based and whose labor demands were of a different source. Example of those labor skills required were less manual in nature and more technical. As the country evolved from it's post WWII past, it went from an industrialized based economy to a technologically based economy. It became more service oriented and less manufacturing.

The reason Buffalo failed to develop was because it labor force failed to evolve into a technology based economy. An example of a city that could have fallen into the same fate but didn't is Austin, Tx. Austin was a service based economy dependent upon government jobs. Those jobs were dependent on the tax bases of Texas. At that time (post WWII to early 80's), the tax bases of Texas was Oil (a raw material). Had Austin not had the resources and fortitude to develop into a technological base economy and away from oil based government jobs, it to would be like Buffalo. Instead, it became a high growth technology base economy (...a silicon valley of the south). I can think of a few other examples that both reflect Buffalo's problems and Austin's successes. But, basically it was failure to adapt and change that caused the many problems. It's labor force grew and prospered (without immigration).

I agree labor suffers (when you think in domestic terms). But, it does not suffer in global terms. There loss is our gain - Our gain is their loss. Labor is a difficult issue to place into one acceptable answer. It is a representation of what is working and what is not... Labor and it's population moves from one inefficient system to a more efficient system. Buffalo happen to have an inefficient system... as a result, it lost a major source of labor. You can look at the Oil Industry and see the exact same issues... only it could potentially have severe domestic repercussions if our source for foreign crude is ever cut off completely.

I guess the point is very simalar to your points... it just that that the examples you point out are a result of inefficiency's that generate a multi-generational dependency upon the same skills to provide the same income. The fact is, they don't. A 100th generation of candle makers is not going to have the same level of affluence as the the 3rd generation computer programmer.

Things change for sake of improvement... unfortunately, many see change as unemployment instead of opportunity. And, shortages do show up in certain industries and areas... and those gaps are filled by immigrant labor force - thank goodness. But, it doesn't provide overall economic growth... instead, true economic growth is mostly being created by more efficient economies/industries. The other less fortunate industries/regions only provide marginal pluses to the economic equation. In essence, they provide jobs and fewer careers. They provide a base for employment but do not provide economic growth and labor skill improvement.

FWIW Joe Moya

"limiting advertising" = limiting my speech.

If the product I make is legal then I should be able to tell the world about it. If the product is so bad then why the hell is it legal?the thread (if you read it) didn't bash Bush. It was (but a few exceptions) a discussion on whether the gov. should do something, nothing else.


"the thread (if you read it) didn't bash Bush."

Then why was he brought up? If it wasn't a troll then why say his name and bring up how people feel about him? TROLL

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

you are doing it again...
I didn't bring up Bush...I answered to the first post that said "all those bashing Bush and the US" (note that I hadn't posted anything before that) and said that the vast majority here have not bashed the US.

Is it really hard to understand that you can love a country and yet not agree with absolutely everything in this country?

Second thing I said was that I don't like Bush. I didn't bash him. I just added that some of the guidelines of the WHO are interesting, nothing else...
Maybe they also have interesting ideas...

But in any case, the only thing I realize is that each time the threads turn into something about US politics etc...many here will just not read what I write, they will just assume "an other bashing of america"...
this has been the same thing every single time and you are doing it again, putting words in my mouth and assuming I am going to bash the US and Bush...not matter what I write. Funny thing is if I post tomorrow with an other pseudo, I am fairly certain answers would be different...

I can write, I love this country, love where I live etc...it does not matter...always here the same BS after my posts as soon as it is about politics...some of you on some thread have made good points that I aknowledged (some stuff AJ said about economy in particular)...on the other hand you never take the time to read.

so whatever you think, go ahead and say "fc.kin french, hypocrit, etc"...without any more thoughts.

You said,

"I hate the fucking leberal academia i have to deal with every day at school, now it's infiltrated this forum... "

.. kinda funny.... wait till you have to deal with it in the real world.

Joe Moya

"fc.kin french, hypocrit, etc"...without any more thoughts. "

Is the crack good in El Paso? Can you send your left over stuff to me? Brother I didn't say shit about you. My man and fellow Giant fan Cervelodude started this thread. If you would have read my post you would have heard me say I'll slam Bush all day.

My issues are 2.

One- Thinking the goverment should have anyting to do with what you eat. No it shouldn't.

B. I think it is odd that the title of this orginal thread had anyting to do with Bush.

Read read my post. I said it not you. You are not a target.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Exactly, Mr. T:

Our government has 2 jobs by definition:

1. Prevent/Defend me from being attacked by foreign armies

2. Arrest/Punish me when I violate someone else's rights.

Any views of "protection" or "prevention" of someone committing a crime against me is imaginary. They have no right to protect me from my own personal choice. Police generally don't arrest criminals for crimes they "were going to commit". They only get involved (99% of the time) when a crime has happened. They didn't provide security to the victim. We keep giving away freedom for security the government cannot possibly provide.

The government can suggest all they want. But, that's it.

Yes, the title thread was intended to inspire Bush-bashers to reload their weapons with new ammo.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

www.obesite.com
--> 10% of adults are obese, slightly less for kids.

http://www.stomachstapling.com/usatoday.html
--> 30% of americans are obese, ranges between 25% for "healthy" cities to nearly 38% in New Orleans.
numbers of 1997. unlikely to have dropped since then...last number I saw for the US was 34%.

Both countries use the same 30% over BMI to define obesity. Also, 10% americans have life-threatening obesity.


the european country with most obese people is
Finland with 19%. Lowest number is italy with 6.5%

http://www.weight-loss-i.com/weight-loss-data/anti-obesity-policy.htm

funny thing is that 25 states in the US are considering precisely what we discussed here: limiting sales of candies in school among other things

http://www.weight-loss-i.com/weight-loss-data/anti-obesity-policy.htm


you can also check these numbers at an official
site
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
but they are harder to dig out...

maybe you saw lots of "fatties", but I see tons (pun intended) here...we were really shocked when we arrive.
Scarier is that the % of overweight people (BMI between 25 and 30) is 32% in Europe and 60% in the US...

Maybe it has increased in Europe in recent years (it certainly has actually) but there is still a lot of eating to do before catching up...

so here are your numbers...founded statement now.

"A proper government, a government which is designed to allow man to live his life to the fullest according to his nature (as a rational being), is a government which upholds individual rights and does not itself violate them in any way. The name of that political system is Capitalism. "

the problem with this definition is that it assumes that human beings are rational...that's a major problem. So you can always argue that as soon as a person is not acting rationally, the gov. is entitled to show up and add a rule.

The gov. (be it state or federal) does it on our roads because we are not rational enough to evaluate the speed we should drive at, they add a rule for the number of beers/wine/tequila etc...you can have to be in condition to drive...
I am not sure if at this stage the number of obese people is such that it actually generates consequences that limits our own individual liberties, but if it became the case, then it would be our gov.'s job (although I am not sure if would be at the state or federal level) to do something about it.

So, the government cannot regulate? They should only get involved after a crime has been committed? Say, after a manufacturer has polluted your drinking water? And the manufacturer has gone out of business, and there's nobody left accountable? Wonderful. Sounds Libertarian.

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I believe I'm looking at the same data you are Francois. Your 30% figure for the US appears a little off (by 11% for men and 5% for women).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...t/whatis_stats.shtml

Based on this site with these numbers it doesn't appear to me that the US is too out of line with other developed nations regarding obesity. They say nothing about the relative growth rates in obesity.

As far as I'm concerned these numbers don't say much other than that alot of people are fat and it ain't just Americans.

We can all play around with numbers to support our arguments. That's why there's so much bullshit in numbers and supporting 'sources'.

Thank goodness the US is around to produce close to 70% of all new pharmaceutical drugs to help us and the rest of the world cope with the various ills we face. (source National Assoc of Pharmaceutical Sales Reps. now, go find some article that refutes this!)

... Wow! I really wish it was that simple... but, it's not.

FWIW Joe Moya

Just another quick observation. Do you think a source with the name "stomachstapling" just might favor employing slightly upward bias in it's numbers?