Tuesday, March 12, 2013

In Which I Almost Agree With Bloomberg

While I vehemently disagree with Nazi Bloomberg's ban on large servings of some sugary drinks, I absolutely agree that sugar is likely responsible for the rise of obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and a host of other diseases.  The evidence for that is pretty strong.  Coke or other sodas?  Yeah, but fruit juices are just as bad, along with yogurt with fruit jam in it, and dozens of so-called "healthy" foods.  Ordinary table sugar - sucrose - is composed of two simpler sugars, glucose and fructose, and when you eat table sugar it's rapidly digested to these two simple sugars.  Glucose is used in every cell of they body, and we have a very finely tuned system to strictly control the amount in our blood.  Fructose, on the other hand, goes directly into the liver, the only place it can be metabolized.  It is uniquely toxic to the liver and probably responsible for fatty liver disease,  metabolic syndrome and other problems. 

From that, you can probably assume that I think we either shouldn't be eating sugar at all, or we should be regarding it as a once or twice a year treat.  You're right.  You'd probably be shocked at how much sugar is added to processed foods, since they use 30 or 40 different names on the labels so that they don't all add up to one entry for sugar as the first or second ingredient.  When food manufacturers went for the low fat fad, they added sugar to keep everything from tasting like cardboard.   

But I'm also all about personal choice and responsibility.  The city of New York, or any government, has no business banning things they disapprove of.  Bloomy said something to the effect of it being his responsibility to protect the people of his empire - from themselves, I assume.  Wrong, mein fuehrer.  The city's responsibility - not yours - is the same as if the city opened a hole in the sidewalk.  Tell people it's there and they should watch out for it.  If the city is feeding people, they should eliminate added sugar in what they provide, but guess what? - that just makes it less likely to be regulated because the food industry will fight that.  The judge that ruled the law invalid was right when he said it was so limited it was arbitrary and capricious. 

The only possible reason for the city to have any interest in this is that it spends some the money it takes from some of its people on healthcare for others in the city, and that affects city finances.  And that's one of the prime personal responsibility arguments against socialized healthcare: it expands the government infinitely because anything they want to regulate can be justified with real or junk studies.  The answer is to get government out of health care.  We either do it now, willingly, with our eyes open, or it happens when the governments collapse.  And they will. 

In the wake of the attempts to regulate - or outright confiscate - firearms, there have been a couple of cities floating requirements that all citizens have a firearm.  I disagree.  While they sure don't have the right to deny them, they don't seem to have the right to require them, either.  Just like I don't want Granny driving her old Buick on the interstate 1 mile an hour faster than she can safely drive that 2500 pound kinetic kill vehicle she's sitting in, I don't want someone who doesn't feel comfortable around a gun or feels afraid of them to have one either.

In Colorado, the head of the State Senate spoke proudly with Rachel Mad Cow, telling her how it was oh so important for him to ignore the calls from constituents and do what he just knew was the right thing.  Dude was comparing himself to Lincoln freeing the slaves!  What integrity!  What character! What bullshit!  I've heard talk of Colorado Senators refusing to listen to constituents and then expressing surprise, shock!, that the constituents weren't grateful to them.  Those silly voters thought the representatives were trampling on their rights!  Well, yeah, they were, but that's besides the point.  It was important the lawmakers trample those rights because they know better than us.  They're our Philosopher Kings who know so much better than everyone.  And Bloomberg's money was so green and fresh and smelled so good.  What difference does it make if those cousin-humping redneck voters do manage to get us fired, when we have guaranteed Bloomberg money? 
I wouldn't feel too comfortable about that, Senator Scooter.  As CA points out, there's a lot of good, long range shooters out there. 


4 comments:

  1. And even if it WERE Bloomie's business to tell people what they should and shouldn't eat, his soda ban simply cannot work.

    The 16-ounce sodas are neither the sole nor the primary source of sugar in the fatsos' diets.

    Almost every fatso (my wife included) has some sort of stash of candy or other sugar-rich food in places like the office, the bedroom, the car (and often all three).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well.....Till somebody starts shootin' Its all talk. "They" have are and will do as they damn please. All we do is bitch. The "elected" scum don't care about our "talk" anymore than they do about our "vote". "They" are in fact "above us" in every way that counts. "They" make the rules and we obey-if we do not chose to obey "they"send lots and lots of cops and MAKE you obey-or kill you. You want to be left alone? "They" send cops and kick your ass anyway. But like I said till somebody shoots its all just talk. And raids at Three AM.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obesity is genetic, you get it from your parents not sugar. Diabetes (or metabolic syndrome) is genetic as well. You may not recognize the symptoms until your 20's or 30's but you had it at birth. All the sugar in the world won't give you diabetes if you do not genetically have it. Fructose is indeed converted to glucose in the liver. That is the intent. it is normal, what your liver was intended to do. Our body burns glucose, in other words we live on sugar. When you are thinking your mind is burning glucose. 100% of all the carbohydrates you eat are turned into glucose. Your body can turn fat and protein into glucose if you don't eat enough carbs. Without glucose you die.

    Think about this: By the new standards about 20% of children are obese. Prior to changing those standards in 1998 only 10% were obese. So was it sugar or the new standards that was responsible for the dramatic increase in obesity?

    28% of African American and 30% of hispanics are obese but only 14% of European Americans are obese. we all eat the same crap so how can that be if it is the food that makes you obese?? Should we make everyone eat diets made for obese people? Remember if 20% are obese then 80% are not. Is it right for schools to limit what the skinny kids eat??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point about redefining the standards of what constitutes obesity is one I actually anguish over. I'm very skeptical of the whole idea of an "obesity epidemic". 50 years ago, we were told about starvation in much of the world. Today, we're told more people are obese than starving. When I hear that, I think we should stage a worldwide celebration.

      If you look at pictures of people from public events in the 50s and 60s, they don't look noticeably different than crowds today. I do see the occasional 300 pounder, but does that mean the population is fatter? Not in any statistics I know.

      Delete