ot; romney’s 47% statement

[CA renter]

delete

[CA renter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN]Fixing over eating is easy. Just tax food at an extreme level where people can only afford to buy a little bit of food. Obesity is a first world problem. The solution is to get people to eat like a third world person. You can’t really get them to do it voluntarily, so force them to do it. Kind of like what we are doing with cigarettes.[/quote]

+1

if you think about it, the food industry is following the same playbook as the tobacco industry of the past. Government just need to dust off the same playbook as well.

we already have the same analogous pictures in front of congress. Tobacco industry sitting with a straight face stating that tobacco is not addictive. And food industry sitting with a straight face stating potato is a vegetable.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone would argue that morbid obesity is healthy. It’s just that we’ve gone to such an extreme with respect to how one is supposed to *look* (not having anything to do with health), that we need to re-examine how we define health as it relates to weight.

The youngest person we know who had a heart attack was a fitness buff. He is the only person we know who’s had a heart attack under the age of 50. It happened while he was in the middle of stenuous excercise. He and his wife (who suffered a stroke in her 40s) were/are both extremely concerned about their appearance, taking care to never become “fat.” They really, really hate fat.

I know two people from high school who were always overly concerned about their weight. They are in their 40s and are suffering from osteoporosis and other serious medical conditions. One has already had her hip replaced. She also broke her back when she simply fell on the floor. The other has had various bone breaks in her hands and arms. It’s almost spontaneous, with very little to cause the breaks.

Another person I know from youth has lost most of her teeth (bulemia) and her esophagus is very heavily damaged, and she will likely get to a point where she will have to eat via feeding tube.

Just look at what goes on in Hollywood. Even the ones we’re supposed to aspire to look like can’t do it without the “coffee and cigarette” diet or the “carrots and celery” diet. And they can afford the time and money it takes to have nutritionists and personal trainers.

We need to focus on health, not appearance. There are plenty of skinny, malnourished, unhealthy people out there; and there are plenty of “overweight” people who will never have a serious health complication in their lives. I’ve known plenty of both.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]We need to focus on health, not appearance. There are plenty of skinny, malnourished, unhealthy people out there; and there are plenty of “overweight” people who will never have a serious health complication in their lives. I’ve known plenty of both.[/quote]
No one is saying that we should focus on appearance and not health. But, are you really arguing that on average a fat person (not even morbidly obese) are more healthy than a person who are not overweight (we’re not talking about anorexic or bulimic people here)? We’re talking about average here and not exceptions. Go ahead and ask any health care professionals about the various risks that comes with being overweight. If you don’t believe said healthcare professional, here’s what the government(National Heart Lung and Blood Institute) have to say about the health risks of overweight and obesity: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks.html

So yes, there are healthy non-overweight people who have bad luck and have health problems. However, on average, overweight people are more likely to have health problem.

I can easily use your logic to defend smoking as well. I know some people who have been smoking since they were teenagers and currently are still very healthy. Does that mean smoking have no risk?

[NotCranky]

[quote=zk][quote=Blogstar]Squabbling about what we peons get or don’t get outside of the context of globalism doesn’t seem to make much sense anymore. All most all people of wealth and power have on foot in globalism and are moving the other gradually out of Nationalism. Ron Paul is an exception and you see where that got him. So,yeah it does make sense to see what we get compared to the proles in other regions because it will equalize. Just a matter of a few generations. It remains to be seen if weaker hands will get to keep their property. “Middle class” is a Pavlovian lever that the rich and powerful are not yet ready to give up…kind of like “Democracy”.

Globalism is human social evolution. Nationalism is quickly becoming a smokescreen.[/quote]

Very interesting post. I’ve been pondering the question of by what method America is going to keep its strong, wealthy middle class strong and wealthy in the face of globalism. I must admit that so far I’m stumped. I have to concur with the school of thought that says that, due largely to globalism, the American middle class is not really sustainable in its current form. And I agree with Blogstar that it’s only going to take a few generations.

I do wonder if nationalism will turn uglier in the face of declining wealth for certain nations.[/quote]

It will be interesting. I wonder if there are any good books with well thought out theories on globalism’s evolution up until now, and its future trajectory with commentary on the likely social strategies that will attempt to enable it. Clearly it will not be smooth sailing. My guess is that the age of MAD had a lot to do with the evolution. Globalism is to some degree just the new face of greed. MAD is a threat to the rich and powerful everywhere.

Obviously, the biggest obstacles with the poor are religion and jingoism. Which good book says the world was supposed to end more or less unified? We need some apocalypses and second comings dammit. I think religion won’t be that bad though. Even in Egypt the Islamic rulers are able to scold the zealots when they want to.Nothing a bought and paid for change in propaganda can’t fix.

People who accepted patriotic brainwashing and associated superiority trips all their lives will have a hard time. Can’t really blame them, lots of people are still killing and dieing or being maimed under pretense of Nationalism . Jingoism is kind of a religion here if you post about globalism on a Yahoo thread you can see lots of responses by patriots who will single handedly defeat it with “guns and ammo” from the local Big Five.

As, you say, it will be interesting how those in countries who have had a higher standard of living through trickle down of resources that comes from forms of dominance/and resource management that are not sustainable in a global paradigm. It seems connected to expectations for lower standards of living, or other means of living in the U.S., that a student can know take a course in “sustainability” in high school and even minor in that area at a college like Point Loma Nazarene. It’s like foreshadowing. Lot’s of hints that self reliance/local reliance is in the future.

Recent American laws for terrorism investigation and prosecution, surveillance etc. will be very useful for enforcing globalism as they become more universally adopted in protection of global elites. You are either for globalism, or you are a “terrorist”. The tools are increasingly there to enforce it.

My opinion that a consortium will more or less cooperatively rule the planet in only 3 or 4 generations could be way off. There will probably be many blow ups and failures along the way to what is already in progress and is inevitable. It seems like it could happen that quickly. It would also be interesting to hear what other people who have thought about it more have to say on that.

[CA renter]

Good post, Blogstar/Russ.

I tend to agree with your theory about a consortium ruling the planet in the near future. It might not even take 3-4 generations. I think the trend is accelerating.

You are right, this does not bode well for those who’ve had higher living standards as a result of militarism, control of global natural resources, and nationalism. It seems pretty clear that “the elite” do not have the same sense of “patriotism” as the plebs.

These are certainly interesting times.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]We need to focus on health, not appearance. There are plenty of skinny, malnourished, unhealthy people out there; and there are plenty of “overweight” people who will never have a serious health complication in their lives. I’ve known plenty of both.[/quote]
No one is saying that we should focus on appearance and not health. But, are you really arguing that on average a fat person (not even morbidly obese) are more healthy than a person who are not overweight (we’re not talking about anorexic or bulimic people here)? We’re talking about average here and not exceptions. Go ahead and ask any health care professionals about the various risks that comes with being overweight. If you don’t believe said healthcare professional, here’s what the government(National Heart Lung and Blood Institute) have to say about the health risks of overweight and obesity: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks.html

So yes, there are healthy non-overweight people who have bad luck and have health problems. However, on average, overweight people are more likely to have health problem.

I can easily use your logic to defend smoking as well. I know some people who have been smoking since they were teenagers and currently are still very healthy. Does that mean smoking have no risk?[/quote]

It’s not necessary for *me* to make this argument. There have been numerous studies that show this already (from my post above):

In study after study, overweight and moderately obese patients with certain chronic diseases often live longer and fare better than normal-weight patients with the same ailments. The accumulation of evidence is inspiring some experts to re-examine long-held assumptions about the association between body fat and disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/health…

People who are overweight also tend to live longer than those who are “normal” weight.

IMHO, it has more to do with *lifestyle,* in general, than with being mildly/moderately overweight. You can be overweight but get lots of moderate exercise and eat mostly fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins. You can be “normal” or underweight but get very little exercise and eat mostly crap like McDonalds and processed foods. And then, there’s the genetic factor — the most important factor of all as far as health is concerned, IMHO, and it also largely determines what size and shape you are and how your body uses or stores calories.

[zk]

[quote=Blogstar] So,yeah it does make sense to see what we get compared to the proles in other regions because it will equalize. Just a matter of a few generations. [/quote]

When I say “it” could happen in a few generations, I’m not talking about a consortium. I’m talking about a much lower standard of living in first-world countries, and possibly a marginally higher standard of living in other countries.

I don’t see enough consensus happening for any kind of consortium. Ever. Then there’s the logistical nightmare.

Likely I didn’t understand what you meant by consortium. I’m curious what form you see this consortium taking and (generally) how it would be accomplished.

[an]

CAR, I hope you can tell the difference between probability of getting sick vs probability of staying alive after you got the sickness. I was saying overweight and obese people have higher risk of getting various different kind of sickness compare to average weight person. I want less people getting sick, not more people living longer with sickness. It’s also less stressful on our healthcare system if we have less people getting sick vs more people living longer with sickness.

What’s more likely, an overweight person eating fast food and not exercise or eating fruit, veggies, lean proteins and exercise? I’m not disregarding genetic factor. Lets assume the same genetic make up. I.E. family having a history of heart disease. You have to siblings. One eat right and exercise and another eat nothing but fast food and not exercise. Which one do you think are more likely to be fat and which one are more likely to get a heart attack?

[CA renter]

AN,

Let’s assume the siblings are identical twins. If that’s the case, then the one who doesn’t exercise and eats fast food is certainly more likely to be overweight and have a heart attack, though it’s still not 100%.

Like I’ve said before, nobody is saying that morbid obesity is healthy, but we don’t all need to look like formless broom sticks in order to be healthy. We need to focus more on **health** and less on appearance because appearances can be very deceiving.

…………

“Nearly half of fat people are just as healthy as slim people – and at no more risk of developing heart problems or cancer, researchers claim.

Doing exercise can offset the dangers of being obese, the researchers found.

The study – which is the largest of its kind – abolishes the notion that obesity automatically leads to ill-health.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2198513/People-fat-AND-fit-study-finds-obesity-doesnt-automatically-lead-ill-health.html#ixzz287bzAiT3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=Blogstar] So,yeah it does make sense to see what we get compared to the proles in other regions because it will equalize. Just a matter of a few generations. [/quote]

When I say “it” could happen in a few generations, I’m not talking about a consortium. I’m talking about a much lower standard of living in first-world countries, and possibly a marginally higher standard of living in other countries.

I don’t see enough consensus happening for any kind of consortium. Ever. Then there’s the logistical nightmare.

Likely I didn’t understand what you meant by consortium. I’m curious what form you see this consortium taking and (generally) how it would be accomplished.[/quote]

It’s not too difficult to imagine what this consortium would look like; it already exists today. Look at the wealthiest people in the world and ask yourself: would they rather keep and grow their money/power, or would they rather give it away during their lifetimes?

In some cases, they will want to give to charity in order to help others get a leg up. In many/most cases, if giving away money/power means less for them (relatively speaking), then they will do everything in their power to keep what they have, grow it, and protect it by any means necessary — even if that means others have to die in order for them to maintain their power/wealth. Since these people have access to lawmakers in ways you and I never will, guess who wins this zero-sum game?

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Again, whether this group takes the form of a “public” entity or a “private” entity, it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is how the concentration of wealth and power is affected. I can assure you, they are not trying to figure out how to “spread” their wealth and power among the working people, no matter which (public/private) hat they are wearing.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]AN,

Let’s assume the siblings are identical twins. If that’s the case, then the one who doesn’t exercise and eats fast food is certainly more likely to be overweight and have a heart attack, though it’s still not 100%.

Like I’ve said before, nobody is saying that morbid obesity is healthy, but we don’t all need to look like formless broom sticks in order to be healthy. We need to focus more on **health** and less on appearance because appearances can be very deceiving.[/quote]
Please stop putting words in my mouth and proceed to debate against said word. It’s what one would call a straw man argument.

I never said we all need to look anorexic, bulimic, or other eating disorder. Like you constantly repeated, we need to focus more on health. Guess what, there have been countless studies that prove that when you become overweight, your risk of getting certain type of disease increase. It doesn’t mean your risk goes to 100% and you’re 100% likely will get those disease. However, it has proven that you’re more likely to get those disease compare to if you’re average weight.

So, going back to my identical twins example, I NEVER said the brother who eat badly and don’t exercise have 100% chance of being fat and have 100% of getting a heart attack. If you reread my post carefully, you’ll see that I asked who’s MORE LIKELY to be fat and who’s MORE LIKELY to get a heart attack. Increase likelihood is FAR from 100%.

Again, I hope you can tell the difference between probability of getting sick vs probability of staying alive after you got the sickness. This new article you posted show that fat people fare better than skinny and normal weight counter part who also have heart disease. But, let me ask you, what’s the % of fat people getting heart disease vs % of skinny and average weight people getting heart disease. How about diabetes? This is where the “increase risk” of developing health problem statement comes from. It’s not that you’re guarantee that you’ll get these disease when you’re fat. It’s just that you’re more likely to develop these disease compare to if you’re normal weight.

Also, your article stated this:
‘However, there appears to be a sub-set of obese people who seem to be protected from obesity-related metabolic complications. ‘Our study suggests that metabolically healthy but obese people have a better fitness level than the rest of obese individuals. ‘We believe that getting more exercise broadly and positively influences major body systems and organs and consequently contributes to make someone metabolically healthier, including obese people. ‘In our study, we measure fitness, which is largely influenced by exercise.’
‘Our data support the idea that interventions might be more urgently needed in metabolically unhealthy and unfit obese people, since they are at a higher risk. This research highlights once again the important role of physical fitness as a health marker.’

So, the way I read that is, not all fat people are unhealthy, but nowhere in that article did I see someone say obese people on average are more healthy than average weight people. It said not all obese people are predisposition to getting chronic diseases.

Let me ask you a few simple questions, how do you think one gets fat? It’s it not a simple equation of caloric intake vs caloric expense? Doesn’t excess calories get stored as fat? Which scenario would make you more healthy, scenario a, where you consumes more calories than their exercise and daily activity can expend, so you store that as fat. Or scenario b, where you reduce you caloric intake to a point where it’s even with your expense so there’s nothing left to store as fat.

[NotCranky]

[quote=zk][quote=Blogstar] So,yeah it does make sense to see what we get compared to the proles in other regions because it will equalize. Just a matter of a few generations. [/quote]

When I say “it” could happen in a few generations, I’m not talking about a consortium. I’m talking about a much lower standard of living in first-world countries, and possibly a marginally higher standard of living in other countries.

I don’t see enough consensus happening for any kind of consortium. Ever. Then there’s the logistical nightmare.

Likely I didn’t understand what you meant by consortium. I’m curious what form you see this consortium taking and (generally) how it would be accomplished.[/quote]

Kind of hard to argue about the future. I doubt the “consortium” remains static in this evolution.
It doesn’t have to be the Bilderberg group. Though the Bilderberg group is looking like a pretty good possible ideological predecessor to what may come. It will probably be more and bigger players. Bilderberg, and other such groups, may even turn out to be surrogates.

I found it interesting from CaRenters wiki-link, that members of the group are worried about instability from the current Nation State paradigm. That’s what I said was an obvious factor. The motive for world government by elites is there. Progress is being made on that front.

I don’t think it will be all bad. I prefer it, even as a relatively poor person. It is evolution and can’t be stopped, only delayed. The hard part is that I would also prefer more honesty from Americans who are already deep into it. As I said before, This is pretty much anyone of wealth and power. It’s not a conspiracy, it is right in our faces.

[Arraya]

The power elite are not stupid. They are well aware of the converging crises(the same guys that fund AGW skeptic think tanks understand that it is a problem[otherwise the military would not be preparing for it]but need to maximize profit or somebody else will) and instability of the current world order. Then again, so where the Roman elite but that did nothing to change their behavior. Civilizations collapse because they refuse to adapt and extreme hubris comes with the fall.

It’s just a matter of time before social forces force a change – for better or worse.

———————————-

Modern capitalism has reached the end of its rope. It cannot survive as a system,” Wallerstein said. “And what we are seeing is the structural crisis of the system. The structural crisis goes on for a long time. It really started more or less in the 1970s and will go on for another 20, 30, 40 years. It is not a crisis of a year or of a short moment, it is the major structural unfolding of a system. And we are in transition to another system and, in fact, the real political struggle that is going on in the world that most people refuse to recognize is not about capitalism – should we have or should we not have it – but about what should replace it.”

Immanuel Wallerstein also explained there are two different views on what should replace capitalism.

“I would like a more relatively democratic, more relatively egalitarian world – that is one view,” he said. “We never had that in the history of the world, but it is possible. The other view is that you have a very unequal, polarizing, exploitative system. It does not have to be capitalism. Capitalism is that. But you can do that in many other ways, some of which may be far worse than capitalism.”

And he shared with RT what he thinks of the political struggle unfolding around the world.

“It is technically called a bifurcation of a system,” he said. “Its roots are in many ways the impossibility of continuing the basic principle of capitalism which is seized as the accumulation of capital. And that’s the whole point of capitalism as a system. And it has worked in some ways marvelously well for 500 years. It has been an extremely successful system in what it was trying to do but it has undone itself as all systems do”.

“What happens in a bifurcation is that at some point, the thing tilts and we get into a new, relatively stable situation – the crisis is over, we are in a new system.”

“I sometimes say this is the historicization of the old Greek philosophical distinction between determinism and free will,” he went on. “When the system is relatively stable, it is relatively determined as a system in which we have relatively limited free play. But when it is unstable, when it is going into structural crisis, free will comes into the picture. That is to say, our actions really matter in a way that they did not for 500 years.”

[zk]

I think a consortium is highly unlikely to actually have the kind of influence that Blogstar thinks not unlikely. I think that some other, unspecified system besides capitalism is slightly more likely. But I think more likely than that is sort of chaos lite. Continual shifting of wealth between different groups (be they countries, companies, people, hemispheres, participants in certain economic systems, or whatever), chaos in certain parts of the world and stability in others. This could last for hundreds of years or longer. There might be periods of relative stability and periods of relative chaos. Scattered wars and revolts. Really not too unlike we have now, but with a weakening of the most powerful economies and a slight strengthening of weaker ones.

I see capitalism as always being a major factor. Perhaps I’m shortsighted or naive. I am very curious what kinds of other systems other posters see in the future.

[SK in CV]

[quote=zk]I think a consortium is highly unlikely to actually have the kind of influence that Blogstar thinks not unlikely. I think that some other, unspecified system besides capitalism is slightly more likely. But I think more likely than that is sort of chaos lite. Continual shifting of wealth between different groups (be they countries, companies, people, hemispheres, participants in certain economic systems, or whatever), chaos in certain parts of the world and stability in others. This could last for hundreds of years or longer. There might be periods of relative stability and periods of relative chaos. Scattered wars and revolts. Really not too unlike we have now, but with a weakening of the most powerful economies and a slight strengthening of weaker ones.

I see capitalism as always being a major factor. Perhaps I’m shortsighted or naive. I am very curious what kinds of other systems other posters see in the future.[/quote]

Wait until all the power goes out. Everywhere. Capitalism replaced by anarchy. I saw the documentary. Hot rebel chicks. Sweet.

[Author]

Posts