The Land Of The (Fat-)Free
MSNBC's Howard Mortman on the elected nannies who seek to take a tax bite out of our junk food. Are you fat? Take a walk, don't take liberties with the price of my once-a-year fast food burger and fries. (Those sugar-dusted McDonald's fries...mmm-mmm good!)
(via Reason's blog)







Avoiding fat, aside from being impossible, is not desirable or necessary. Fat is actually helpful in slowing the absorption of carbohydrates into the system. Some fats, such as those made with soybean, peanut, olive, canola, are actually healthy. It's the saturated and trans fats that should be avoided (essentially, anything that is still a solid at room temperature, like the fat from red meat, butter or margarine. Too many carbs, too fast, will simply cause a massive rush of insulin, which will in turn drop your blood sugar to a low level, lowering your energy level and making you crave more carbohydrates. These no-fat or no-carb diets are simply guity of taking a good thing -- the drastic reduction of empty calories -- and taking it to the obscene extreme.
You want to know the rules for weight loss? Eat a balanced diet and if it has no nutritional value, don't eat it! And recognize the fact that lifting dessert to your face is not exercise.
Patrick at January 13, 2004 7:27 AM
I hate the idea of taxing people who drink at the bar! BAD! Does Jerry Brown want me to drink at home alone? How will I ever meet Mr Right that way?
But some of the other supposedly egregious proposals make good sense. I'd like to know what's wrong with giving consumers more information and more choices about the stuff we eat?
* The Massachusetts General Court debated this bill: "The children's menu in any restaurant which offers such menu shall contain, at least, one item whose fat content does not exceed 22 grams and such items shall be clearly labeled as such."
What the hell is wrong with that?!
Lena at January 13, 2004 8:08 AM
Regulating it into existence, that's what!
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2004 8:14 AM
And the debate continues... Does the government have the right to control and regulate what we eat? That's pretty invasive, and I'm not ready to give them that kind of scrutiny. On the other hand, one person's right to live on Twinkies is also my burden in taxes and insurance premiums.
Maybe we could just sue fat people for sight pollution. The sight of some morbidly obese guy in a thong, for instance. Shouldn't I at least be entitled to the price of the meal I just hurled?
"Your honor, he made me puke!"
Patrick at January 13, 2004 9:01 AM
Lena, what's this? You're asking about meeting Mr. Right? You occassionally sign your posts "Lena will never marry." So, why are you suddenly concerned about Mr. Right? Don't you mean Mr. Right Now?
Patrick at January 13, 2004 9:03 AM
"Regulating it into existence, that's what!"
So you think that restaurants are going to make this change from the goodness of their hearts?
"Does the government have the right to control and regulate what we eat?"
The Massachusetts policy would've only increased choice and information. Kids can still eat all the Ding-Dongs that their parents will buy for them.
"Don't you mean Mr Right Now?"
Pretty much. Though I have been known to date monogamously, fall in love, get trampled on, weep, etc. Believe it or not, I'm human too.
Tender-hearted Lena at January 13, 2004 12:14 PM