Retired from a chequered career in construction and curmudgeonly.
Look, you can eat 100% healthy and work out and cook all of your own food, never eat out, and still have health problems. And need health insurance.
I wouldn't dream of claiming otherwise, nor do I object to blatantly socialist nature of the proposed health care reforms. This nation became a socialist country under Lyndon Baines Johnson. There is nothing I can do about that and I cannot see any point in objecting to any pending legislation owing to its "socialist" nature.
And no, I do not expect you to suddenly begin inhaling packaged cookies. Whatever on earth gave you the notion that I was making such a claim? The point I am making is that there are a great many people who do inhale such stuff and that it is making them obese. Such people are responsible for their behavior and no one else. The trouble is, the government is unlikely to treat with us that way.
As I have pointed out, the government is ill-equipped to implement anything other than a one size fits all solution. They will treat with you and I as though we do inhale the equivalent of packaged cookies because that is what so many people do.
Personal responsibility says, "I can take care of myself quite handily, Uncle Sam, thank you very much. No, you are not going to tell me how I must live my life."
It's best with an aromatic rice, dhorst. Oh, and you're welcome.
The Chili's restaurant chain used to serve a chili burger that was actually their "Old Timer" served open face with a quarter cup or so of chile con carne and cheddar cheese. They stopped serving it so I stopped visiting Chili's restaurants. This will not make any difference to them and I know it, but that was the only thing on their menu that I liked.
Oh, and just in case anyone is not up on the news, Health Care Reform Legislation is pending in the US Senate as I am writing this. I have no doubt that it will be a very large bill based on what Senator Edward Kennedy's staff has been writing for several months. I expect it to pass both Houses without it ever being read in full by any legislator. Nor do I have reason to believe that either House will spend any time supervising the FDA and other such agencies while the rules of promulgation are hammered out. Nor is there a reason to think that there will ever be any notification of what those rules are. FDA is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and is not, therefore, an independent agency required to make such notification.
The thing that you just don't seem to be getting is that *this* isn't the crowd who goes and buys the cookies!!!!!!!
Yes, I do understand that. Here is what I want to know. Are serious eaters going to standby and allow the behavior of fools, the majority who are not Serious Eaters in this case, dictate their diets? There is nothing wrong with eating the occasional hamburger w/ fries and a coke, but there is are grave risks associated with eating such stuff every day.
This doesn't even make sense! You wrongly assume that someone who would purchase cookies at the store would then sit and eat 700 calories worth a day?
Oh, yes, yes, sure. Nabisco's Chips Ahoy brand of cookies claims 5 calories per gram. A bag of those last about thirty minutes in the average household. Then there is the cold cereal, already too sweet, with a couple of teaspoons of sugar on top. The large serving of potato chips with two sandwiches made from sliced bread and cheap lunch meat, sugar cured, and a beer or a cocktail or tall soft drink, and then we all go out to the local fast food joint for supper. I watch what people do, I do notmake assumptions. Do you know who does make assumptions? The Federal Government. When they see the majority doing X and Y they assume that everyone does.
The Federal Government has no choice about whether or not it wants to make assumptions. The people in the government have not got the time to make allowances for individual behavior. They always impose a one size fits all solution because that is the only way they can do it.
Now, let's talk about agendas. Guess who has a clear agenda, Robert Kenner, Elise Pearlstein, William Pohlad, Jeff Scholl, Robin Schorr, Dianne Weyermann, Eric Schlosser, Richard Pierce and Melissa Robledo and probably a great many more who I have not named. Any of those names ring a bell with you?
My position is that I want the freedom to buy the foods I wish to buy, from whomever I choose to buy them, without interference from the government or from some wigged out NGO whose members suffer from a Messiah complex. Ergo, I am arguing in favor of individual freedom.
And, unless you have data to back your claims, it is you who assume that the majority on this forum do not wish to read what I write. While we are on the subject of majorities, what if the majority does not wish to read what I write? Nothing about this arrangement of this forum forces them to read anything I post. You don't have to read anything I write if you do not want to. Nothing and no one is forcing you to read my posts.
Yes, I did. Here is the entire thread for those who want to read it without searching. Esther's Marmalade Cake.
One or two slices of cake a week, even at 700 calories per slice, will not hurt you, especially if you get out and exercise. Seven hundred calories per day every day because you can buy cheap cookies at the grocery store will hurt you. How many cookies will you eat if you have to bake every one of them? How many cakes will you bake in a month?
For most people the answer is not very many or none. For avid cooks, especially those who are weight conscious? Once or twice a month.
Are you getting it yet? You must be getting close, given that you pointed out, "Poor food choices have something to do with the title, store bought or self made from scratch." You are right on this score. Here is what I said in the thread you mentioned:
Cakes, cookies and other such stuff should be an occasional treat, not an every day thing. Once in a while, say once or twice in a month, they are not so bad. Eat them every day and you'll rot your teeth while busting your belt.
You are responsible for what you put in your mouth, not the corporations in the food industry. It ain't MacDonald's or Burger King who makes your kids fat, it's you the parent.
People in the government and certain other control freak advocacy groups are insisting that it is all the fault of that evil fast-food industry. Oh, and there is also the "Don't eat meat! You're being mean to the animals" crowd, and then there is also "Don't eat meat because it is bad for the environment" crowd and the "I get a meat hangover so meat must be bad for everyone" sentiment.
If you want the government in full control of your diet then all you need do is remain silent in the face of these kinds of scare mongers and advocacy groups.
You brought up something that piqued my interest and I have been doing a bit of casual research on it.
I can recall exactly when the latest anti-smoking campaign reached fever pitch. It was right after this rather odd air crash. It was one of those days when the Universe Changed. A man named Don Estridge, the man who was in charge of developing the first IBM PC, was sitting in the front part of Delta 191 because he did not smoke. A number of his key employees were sitting in the forward section of the plane as well. Two of them, however, were sitting in the after part of the plane because they smoked. The two sitting aft, as well as many other passengers, survived. Nearly everyone sitting in the forward section survived.
This crash changed history in two ways. The next version of IBM's personal computer was a complete dud and smoking on domestic flights were banned within a month.
If you look at when our obesity problem started, 1980, and when this crash occurred, the match in trends is striking. As the number of smokers declined, the number of obese people increased dramatically. Mind you, people were kicking the habit at an increasing rate prior to the Delta 191 crash, but the government did not become serious about stamping out smoking right after the crash.
What we have here is a very strong clue, not proof and I do not believe that smoking is a preferred solution to obesity. I can say that I had to struggle to keep my weight down after I stopped smoking and that struggle was more unpleasant than the withdrawal symptoms.
Isn't it? As I have pointed out and will here point out again, the government may well decide to regulate or prohibit the consumption of several food items. Some of them are quite necessary to even the most basic of recipes.
There is always hot water cornbread or "hoe-cakes".
Well, let's see. Syrup? Juice or cider? Cherry juice would go well with apple juice or even white grape juice.
Again, GOM, you just spent half of a long post talking about your political views. You keep making assumptions purely to back up your rants on "our odious leadership.
Not assumptions, observations. Currently we have a governor who abandoned his duties for a week, giving no one any advance notice, so that he could have a tryst with his lover in Argentina. Also, we have the wife of a well known congressman about to serve time for corruption charges. We need not look too far back to find a governor who became addicted to a prostitute and used state funds to satisfy his addiction. We have a Secretary of the Treasury on duty who falsified his tax returns.
I don't understand what politics has to do with what I want to make for dinner. I purchase the foods I want to eat from where I want to purchase them.
So far, so good. What if in the name of the health care reform, our odious political leadership elects to remove your favorite foods from the shelves of your favorite grocer? It is even more likely that the government will remove meats from grocery store shelves in the name of "the environment.".
The possibilities I am pointing out are not at all far-fetched. There are more than a few folks who already advocate such measures.
My apologies to any and all who were offended. It was not my intent to offend, but to provoke thought. If there is any audience on this Earth for whom this subject is important it should be this one. People who participate in this forum are people who take food seriously. I know that. There are serious gourmets here. I should think that there is more than one professional chef here. There are likely restaurant owners here. Certainly there are more than a few journalists who specialize in covering the food industry here.
If you took what I said the wrong way, assuming that I was talking about you personally in my first two posts and not the public at large, rest assured that it was the public at large that I meant to describe.
I also understand that many would prefer to avoid politics on this forum. I agree that the subject does often lead to some unpleasant correspondence, but I do not see how we can escape this particular issue. Forewarned is forearmed.
Some of you seem to think or fear that I am preaching against health care reform, but I have seen that as inevitable for a long time. For one thing, most of the major employers in the United States are at their wits end with health care system now extant and want the government to sort it out.
Knowing that health care reform of one kind or another is inevitable, one is obliged to think about what will come next. Consequences of an action are often unforeseen simply because we do not think things all the way through. Many who participate on this forum will not only find their lifestyles affected by health care reform, but will also find their livelihoods and businesses affected by it.
Our political leadership is not reliable if left to its own devices. The dire consequences I have been talking about are far less likely if people let our leaders know in advance what will and will not tolerated. Remember that the bureaucracies charged with enforcing the legislation enacted by Congress interpret that legislation largely without congressional supervision. We will not know the full impact of any health care related legislation until after the sundry bureaucracies have written the Rules of Promulgation and subsequently begin to enforce those rules.
@joyyy, it really is ironic, isn't it? Glad to know you are enjoying the show though.
@dbcurrie, I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intent.
@hungrychristel, prior to violent video games, certain political activists and defense lawyers were blaming cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, for the violent behavior of juvenile delinquents. Before the cartoons got blamed, it was Rock and Roll music and before that it was the Jitterbug or something. When it comes to imposing government control, some will use any excuse, no matter how flimsy it may be. Both Republicans and Democrats are alike in this respect. I remember when one prominent Republican insisted that the move to put stannous flouride in our drinking water was a Communist plot. The intent was to control dental caries, but he drummed up enough fear that most water districts still do not use stannous flouride.
Our odious political leadership thinks of us as being little more than children who can be duped, coddled, kidded and cajoled into doing anything they want us to do. The fact that they have been getting away with one scam after another for decades now suggests that they have reason to believe themselves right.
Well, dbcurrie, there are exceptions to every rule, but anyone who does not find the baking of cookies and its aftermath a chore after the ten or twelve batches in two months is likely to be active enough to not have a problem with his or her weight.
What works for you may not work for anyone else, let alone the majority, but the government has no option but to apply a "one size fits all solution." The problem, assuming the government chooses to address it, is too big to address in any other way.
Who do you want responsible for what you do in your kitchen and when? Do you want to be responsible for that, or do you want a government agency to be responsible for it?
@joyyy, we got a very different health education when I was going to school. We had "balanced diet" drummed into our heads until I was sick of hearing about it. We were constantly reminded of personal hygiene and had our shortcomings pointed out to us when necessary.
We also had to run four laps around the track during P.E. and then did calisthenics after that. If there was time left in P.E. after calisthenics we got to play Four Square or Dodge Ball or softball, or even rag football. What we were not allowed to do was to wander around the school yard and squabble.
Being male, I signed up for Ag, but got stuck in Home Economics owing to scheduling conflicts. In that class we got more "balanced diet" drummed into us with instruction on how to cook said diet. It turned out to be one of the best things that ever happened to me.
I will admit that it is convenient, from a certain point of view, to have the government wave its guns and nudge people into line. After all the government can nudge you and you'll cough up more cash, right? They can nudge you and you will get into line for the draft. What choice will you have? I suppose if we are going to let the government nudge us over tobacco, we may as well let them nudge us away from the sugar bowl. Why not? It's all for the greater good and besides, it will be convenient.
Again, I think health care reform is a done deal. Whether it will work out or not remains to be seen.
Did you take health classes while you were going to school? I did. I still remember most of it. Why is it that so many of us are obese? Could it be because we have given up solid food like pot roast for cheap hamburgers? Oh, and while we started eating too much convenient junk, we also gave up the outdoors for video games and the like.
I consider our political leadership to be odious. I have been watching them on C-SPan for years and can no longer regard them as anything else and I am here talking about Republicans and Democrats alike. If you do not share my opinion, fine. I have no reason to be optimistic about them, let alone reason to trust them.
There is nothing politicians love more than being in control of you. Why? Because having control over you gets them what they want. Right now, they want money. They can never get enough money and there is no reason to think that they will not go crazy on the food business in this political climate.
I think it likely that they will move to cut the cost of our shiny new health care system. They will not have any choice. Obesity is of primary concern to them because obesity leads to most of the chronic health problems they can anticipate paying for in the future. The arguments they used against tobacco will be the same exact arguments that they will use against sugar, and then fat, and then something else.
Call that pessimism if you wish, but understand that I would not have brought this up if I did not think there were grounds for concern.
NYCEater, you might eat more for a while, but it would not take long before the work cycle involved in doing all your own cooking would bring you back to rein. How many times will you bake cookies before you become tired of the chores involved? Would it not behoove the government to say, "Well, we'll let you bake your own cookies, but we are not going to allow you to buy those cheap cookies the stores are selling now. We are going to tax all the sugar and shortening sold to large companies.
There is no way to predict how the details will work out at this point in time, except to say that what you are enjoying today may not be around a few months from now.
We all have an interest in food, this is true. I think that healthcare reform is already a done deal. We are going to get it. Whether I think it is a good thing or not is moot.
And, for what it is worth, there is already talk about increasing taxes on sugar. In other words, now that our odious political leadership has seen fit to place itself in charge of our health care system, how do you suppose they will run it? Ever hear the phrase, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? Obesity is, at the time of this writing, the latest medical bug-a-boo.
Are you willing to let the government control the size of your belly, or are you going to do it? Who is responsible for the size of your belly? You or the about-to-be-hired bureaucrats?
Ouch! But the spell checker did not like "knapping"!
@joyyy, whatever the government does on this issue, we will all be in the same boat. Right now, the precise direction the government might take is not clear. Are you going to like it if they put a 100% surcharge on sugar? Are you going to like it if they suddenly decide to ration eggs? Or will you simply be satisfied to see the fast food joints put out of business? If they do put the fast food chains out of business, do you really think that the government will stop there?
I have not made an attempt to disguise anything. Quite the opposite obtains. I am trying to make things clear.
I don't accept this kind of stupidity as art. It is stupidity and that is all there is to it. Others are welcome to ooh and ah over it if they wish, but it will always be nothing more than stupidity in my eyes.
There are exceptions to every rule, Amandarama. If that is how you like to eat your lobster, more power to you.
@mollykate678, obviously, my diatribe is not aimed at you. However, our odious political leadership is latching onto this as their next Big Issue. They are going to present us with a "solution" here in the near future and I am quite certain that we will not like it. The government seldom hesitates to violate the rights of everyone in order to "look after" the few. In this case, they will be arguing that they are trying to "look after" the majority and they will be right on that point. You and I are rare birds.
@QueenAlli, but you are doing exactly what I am trying to say people should do. You are dealing with your diet in the context of your life. You are controlling what you eat and are not mindlessly buying and consuming the first thing that comes to hand or is the most convenient.
@Amandarama, Everyone has a weakness or weaknesses. That does not exempt us from the responsibility of dealing with them. Mine happens to be bread and sausage. I can easily overeat either one or both.
What I am saying is that you should take care of your own business and not leave it in the hands of others, then bitching when they do not take care of your business they way you wanted them to. Understand? You bake your own cookies if you are going to eat them because you won't eat them nearly as often. You don't blame the grocer or liquor store for your fondness for wine. You work to tame your appetite.
So we need to focus on what we can control, right? Maybe we can't reduce the time we spend in a car or on train, but we can focus on the quality of our food, can't we? The idea I am driving at is that if you insist on better quality you eat less because the food costs more in terms of money or effort or both. If you focus on quality, you don't need to eat as much because you are buying food with more nutrient value. And, let's face it, you are supposed to be buying nutrients first, not convenience or sweetness.
When you bake your own bread, you eat less bread and that is a good thing. When you bake your own cookies, you eat fewer cookies and that is a very good thing.
When you buy cuts of meat that require more cooking time, you eat less and that is a good thing.
Here is the secret prize. When you eat less, you appreciate what you do eat better. Meals become something you can truly enjoy again and not something you gobble down while driving or standing over the sink.