I've been saying it for twenty years or more, behavior modification and control of the masses is underway. The nanny state is in full motion, and we are being told what is "best" for us, and in more and more instances, given few and fewer options if you happen to disagree with the current prevailing wisdom.
The do-gooders have waged a successful campaign of intimidation and terror targeted at the ridiculously labeled "Big Tobacco," and their willfully self destructive addicts. Smoking is routinely condemned, wthout a second thought.
Even before insurance companies started requiring premiums based on smoking status, the thought control police had waged a successful battle for the hearts and minds of Joe Citizen. The smoking population had dwindled to 25% of the population, according to the experts. Now it was time to get punative.
Smokers have been relegated to second class citizenship, banished to the netherlands of a minimum of 250 feet from the door. Entire states have banned smoking in public.
I know a great many of you are saying to yourselves, "so what?" You'll say "smoking is bad for you."
That isn't the point.
You could argue taking risks is "bad" for you, because you will fail more often than succeed. Does that mean we should stop taking risks?
I'm not advocating smoking, I'm advocating the restoration of free will, without interference or approval from the nanny state that believes it knows what is best for me.
Rember that 25% I mentioned earlier, the proportion of the American population that smokes?
How many "obese" people are in the country, according to the experts? Sixy percent is the figure they give, isn't it? And the morbidly obese-- checks in with a larger percentage than smokers, at nearly a third of the people.
Do you really think they're going to ignore your girth, tubbies of the world? I've been saying it for twenty years or better, "they'll go after the fatsos next."
Need proof it's only a matter of time, before I'm proven correct?
Obama said he's not wedded to any specific system, but he thinks the plan he'll eventually support will offer universal coverage and will squeeze efficiencies out of the health care system. It also will stress preventive programs, such as weight control.
Trust me, all you sofa spuds, they're coming for YOU ! ! ! !
That's lower case j upper case J, a, c, k, jJack, Write-In jJack, make it your Mandate in 08
jJack Midknight Make it Mandate08
Write-In jJack Midknight - Candidate for President of the United States in 2008
jJack Midknight's Third Party Alternative
Join The Boston Tea Party
Get Madate 08 Campaign Stickers - Buttons - T-Shirts From
The Committee To Elect jJack
Catch up with jJack from his Archives
Read All of jJack's Articles
Official Home of The Boston Tea Party and The Committee to Elect jJack
Power to the People, Right On ! ! !
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
My question is if parents are not doing their job of teaching their children how to take care of their bodies, which clearly they or not, or their wouldn't be so many basic health problems that might be resolved with preventitive medicine, then where are our children going to learn these things? I certainly don't want the government mandating how I am to take care of my body, but, we as individuals have to take the responsibility to take care of ourselves or Big Brother IS going to come after us.
Besides, most of the parents are tubbies too *double chuckle*
Hey Donald, thanks for the input ! ! !
Unfortunately, given the facts about human nature – that not everyone is rational, intelligent, or mature in mind – we need rules to help the more self-destructive among the humans. It's not just a matter of controlling people, but a matter of trying to save money. Preventing someone from engaging in unhealthy behavior is cheaper than having to care for them after they get sick because of it. It's cheaper to keep someone from smoking than to pay for treating their cancer. It's cheaper to educate someone about eating right than pay for treating for all their subsequent health issues.
That's only a "problem" for idiiots. I don't need the Surgeon General to tell me ciggies kill, they've been referred to as "death sticks" in this country for well over 200 years.
Long before Surgeon General Luther Terry rose to speak to the "dangers" of smoking, people knew the truth, and only fools ignored it. If you want to pretend we need the government to "protect" us from LIARS, well then you've bought into the very nanny state mentality I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, given the facts about human nature – that not everyone is rational, intelligent, or mature in mind – we need rules to help the more self-destructive among the humans. It's not just a matter of controlling people, but a matter of trying to save money. Preventing someone from engaging in unhealthy behavior is cheaper than having to care for them after they get sick because of it
You've just given the rationalization that will be used by most Americans, as they willingly GIVE UP THEIR OWN FREEDOMS, in the name of "what is best for us."
Whether you ascribe that "best" to our own health, or the very survival of this country.
The FACT is, I personally would rather see this nation go down in FLAMES, rather than live under the yoke of a federal nanny government that FORCES me to live in a manner THEY see fit, in a manner THEY say is "healthy" for me.
In this brave new world you have seemingly already accepted, "flawed" creatures such as myself would never be born, and Spina Bifida patients would simply be put to death because "IT" would cost too much to take care of that person over their entire lifetime.
The fact is, if the federal government wasn't in the business of paying for healthcare, they wouldn't have the NEED to control us, as they wouldn't care if we were sick or not.
The fact is, that is the VERY REASON the nanny state continues to exist. PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN IN TO THE FALSE SECURITY the nanny state says it offers.
Yet, no one believes "Social Security" will be there for me.
The nanny state has failed already, and is currently in the process of DESTROYING th is nation of FREEDOM. The more the nanny state takes over, the farther our nation falls.
It makes me SICK, but you've apparently embraced the role of the nanny state.
It's cheaper to educate someone about eating right than pay for treating for all their subsequent health issues.
They don't just stop at "education" sprout, that's the problem. You know it, I know it, we all know it. They MAKE LAWS FOR YOU TO FOLLOW, and if you don't---- well, you'll see.
You really made a great point! Why can't cigarette companies advertise just as much as fast food Restaurant? Habitual use of both will shorten your life! We could add in candy companies..ice cream makers..etc...the list is endless!
I am very puzzled by this post. In another post you defend Bush's Iraq war, but yet here you condemn the federal governments eroding of big tabacco rights. In a way I kinda agree with you on this one. Which is why i'm puzzled. How can you condemn the fed for taking away some rights but support them for taking away others. Which rights are you for suspending, and which are you for keeping.
As far as punitive. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. People in this country are quick to blame everyone else for their problems. I believe that any court case should be thrown out with just a few basic questions.
1. Has anyone ever told you that smoking is bad for you. yes
2. Did you ever read the warning on the pack no
Case Dismissed.
As for the "tubbies", It always cracks me up to hear hicks, that are 5' tall and 5 ' round, in line at McD's or the King's, complaining about being fat. I want 2 big macs a large fry and a diet coke. Super size that too. Then they huff and puff to get back to their cars, to light up with little bubba and Becky Sue in the back seat.
If you are really cherish freedom, as I do, Stop supporting Bush.
I don't-- that's just your silly perception of my positions.
Which rights are you for suspending, and which are you for keeping.
I'm not for suspending any rights.
Has anyone ever told you that smoking is bad for you
No one had to tell me, I knew it all along.
Did you ever read the warning on the pack
Of course.
If you are really cherish freedom
I do, which is PRECISELY why I support the global war on terror in general, and in Iraq specifically.
Getting back to the issue at hand. Can you not support the war on terrorism and still condemn Bush's trashing of the Constitution. Not that his predecessor didn't have something to do with this too. Which goes to my point about the federal government taking the power away from the people.
The questions I asked where retorical questions. These questions should be asked in all these trials against the tabacco companies. I am totally against tabacco and their whole agenda, however, for the time being, this is still America, and we still have some rights left, for now.
They both financed, and harbored them.
there were NO links to global terrorism
That isn't what the Congressional authorization to use force said--- and it certainly isn't true based on a great many other facts.
Saddam was paying suicide bombers to blow up Isreal, not America.
So what ?? Terrorists are terrorists. In addition-- we are obligated by treaty to protect Israel if they are attacked.
Bush's trashing of the Constitution
There has been no "trashing" of the Constitution. This is merely fringe, left wing blather.
Hence, you remain mired in your self imposed ignorance.
Only the weak "give up" on their convictions, or those that don't believe what they say in the first place *chuckle*
You can't prove any of your lies, so you simply suggest I'm brainwashed. What a surprise.
ig·no·rance
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness
Hey i'm not the one denying things that have been admitted to by this administration.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long
Yeah, no feces, you're the one inventing such things out of thin air *chuckle*
If you say so, Madam Cleo *ROFL*
"as a rodeo clown offering little more than distraction" Thanks, rodeo clowns are some pretty brave people. Crazy but brave. And by the way, those bull riders don't view rodeo clowns as a distractions, I believe most of them see them as potential life savers when they get into trouble. Kinda like 911 with funny makeup. Oh also watched you movie. Pretty good.
V out, and n[]nn, "chuckle"
ps.
what is Bu$h hidding now, lost emails? You don't really think their stupid do you. I don't. Can you say coverup!!!!
Smokers cost tax dollars. They cost insurance dollars for everybody. They inflict their nasty fumes upon the unwilling. Get real.
Ditto for the tubbies, only 3Xs as much.
right here....
Did you used to post on Bushlies.com I watched some of your movies, pretty good, but WTF? Strange.
BTW 5 million emails lost? Coverup? Illegal use of accounts? What do YOU think is going on?
No, why would I ?? I don't believe he's lied.
Wouldn't you expect something named "WTF?" to be strange ?? *chuckle*
Samething that was probably going on when Hillary couldn't find all of those PHYSICAL documents that were ostensibly "lost," I suppose, why don't you tell me??
Your definition of "lie" must be very elastic. I mean the man is political dead meat anyway so what's the point of defending him? What's the practical difference between lies and witholding or ignoring the truth? If you choose to accept "proof" that supports your pre-determined plan instead of significant evidence disputing your plan isn't that a form of lie? And considering many would die if you cherry pick intel supporting your ideological positon instead of objective truth isn't that tantamount to a lie? And, most importantly, isn't continuing to defend and support such despicable fantasy aiding and abetting lies? Or are lies now considered a new neo-con definition of truth? And before you exhale another brain fart consider the specfics of each question with more than semi-literate pap.
You missed out. There were just as many Bu$hites there defending him as people opposing him. It was fun. And, come on now, you really don't believe he hasn't lied about anything do you. They all do it. What about "i'm a uniter, not a divider", or "I believe in states rights" or how about this jewel, 'if I find out that anybody in my administration had anything to do with leaking classified information, they'll be fired". or was it convicted that he said, Oh yeah, it was both. Got to lower that bar. These are just the ones that the public have caught him at. If you just scratch the surface many more are there to find.
"Samething that was probably going on when Hillary couldn't find all of those PHYSICAL documents that were ostensibly "lost," I suppose, why don't you tell me??"
So you DO agree that governments DO coverup? Does this also mean, that you think, that maybe, YOUR government may be covering up something? Please say Yes, Please say Yes. Because if you don't, you may be a republibot. haha!
That's only fitting, since statements like "Bush lied" cause me to respond. *G*
Your definition of "lie" must be very elastic.
Not really--- KNOWINGLY telling a falsehood, or causing a deception.
What's the practical difference between lies and witholding or ignoring the truth?
None, but you can't prove Bush has done that.
If you choose to accept "proof" that supports your pre-determined plan instead of significant evidence disputing your plan isn't that a form of lie?
Not if you believe the so called "proof," even if that "proof" turns out to be wrong in the end.
And considering many would die if you cherry pick intel supporting your ideological positon instead of objective truth isn't that tantamount to a lie?
Perhaps, but the charge of "cherrypicking" isn't entered into proven evidence.
And, most importantly, isn't continuing to defend and support such despicable fantasy aiding and abetting lies?
I would ask the same of those promoting the lies "Bush stole the election" and "Bush lied and people died."
consider the specfics of each question with more than semi-literate pap.
Who defines "pap?" YOU ???? I'm not sure I'd allow that measure as valid.
come on now, you really don't believe he hasn't lied about anything do you.
Yes, I believe he's innocent until proven guilty, what a novel concept eh ???
These are just the ones that the public have caught him at.
Those are just the fantasies you believe, nothing more.
So you DO agree that governments DO coverup?
Sure, Nixon sure did-- not sure about anyone else.
Does this also mean, that you think, that maybe, YOUR government may be covering up something?
May ??? Of course, the possibility exists. So what ??? It certainly hasn't been proven, and hasn't even officially been charged.
That sounds very dubious to me.
Sorry
There's hope after all!!!!
Either that, or force them to pay a higher premium, like they already do to smokers.