Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 02/ 2/2011

A stretch

By Tom Toles

c_02022011.gif

***

Sweet dreams

I'm sure that any effort by the government in general or Michelle Obama in particular to encourage good eating habits and healthy diets will be regarded by some as Nannystatery hiding under that dome that covers their dinner platter.

With skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes and hypertension and the absolutely mammoth costs that are associated with these, you'd think that better nutrition would be one campaign we could all get behind. If one hadn't seen every public policy discussion sink into the Big Gulp of Ideology. And, of course, special interests. Why here, already, we have the SALT INSTITUTE "weighing in." Even though we hadn't heard of the Salt Institute before, of course there had to be one. But would we have guessed that their mission was overtly to cram more salt into food? Um, yes. But what a colorfully imaginative argument they have come up with to avoid cutting some of the excess salt out of food: That the salt-lusting zombies would eat MORE food in their quest to satisfy their apparently diagnosed and acknowledged salt addiction. What an image. What a country.

I await the conservative market-based "solution" to this one. "Early death" comes to mind. Anything else? --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_02022011.gif

By Tom Toles  | February 2, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Health care, Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The riddle
Next: Code White

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

I would guess what a Liberal might say about them (Steve Jobs and Bill Gates) is they should have a higher tax rate. They might even agree themselves.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr
----------------------------
But the question remains what is the "right" tax rate. The highest tax rate under Clinton was 39.6% and now it is 35%. If we raised the tax rate to 39.6%, would liberals say, "It should be higher"?

The game, "It should be higher" can ALWAYS be played.

I myself would be in favor of a higher tax rate (perhaps for all of us) but only after we agree that "mandatory expenditures" are cut and remain limited.

As long as there are expenditures which are "mandatory" and not tied to revenues, we are never going to have a balanced budget no matter what the tax rate.

New York state spends 28 billion dollars a year on medicaid alone. Other states are in similar shapes. Until we control these mandatory costs, any extra money raised will not be spent on development and research but will disappear down the hungry mouths of the health establishment.

Posted by: rjpal | February 4, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I think that Americans of both stripes are excessively addicted to individual freedom. Some people believe in the right to own an automatic weapon. Others believe in the right of a married woman to have an abortion without consulting with her husband.

Ultimately, this obsession with autonomy decreases co-ordination, because every joint enterprise involves some commitment, and hence some loss of freedom. If a woman can have have an abortion without even bothering to inform her husband, then what happens to marriage vows? What happens to the idea of joint parenthood? They go out the window.

It may be hard for America to change since it still has something of the Wild West mentality, where there was enormous freedom and enormous lawlessness.

But at least America could show some respect for other societies where somewhat less freedom is tolerated (and I mean SOMEWHAT less freedom, not a dictatorship).

Giving up a certain amount of freedom in order to live in a more harmonious society may be good, and it need not be like Orwell's 1984.

Posted by: rjpal | February 4, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

…folks who have 'unhealthy' eating habits die faster and require less medical care (and less government expense) than folks who eat healthy, visit the doctor regularly and use medical services longer. – rightspokeBlas
**************************************
As a healthcare professional, I have heard this argument offered before: those with unhealthy habits die sooner, consuming less healthcare while those with “healthy habits” live longer, consuming more healthcare. While the argument has a certain pleasing conventional wisdom, there is no valid study supporting the assertion.
A wide array of factors plays into life span; habits, genetics, environmental factors, and yes, even your zip code. (Several validated studies suggest your zip code is a highly accurate predictor of morbidity and mortality.) Using medical costs as the sole measure to assess the impact of unhealthy v healthy life-style habits is too narrow. What about indirect costs: Lost productivity due to missed work associated with those unhealthy life-style choices may offset your presumed decrease in medical care costs. Opposing that, the pleasing logic that healthy life-style choices infer higher productivity is also a touted but unproven belief.
What data I do have access to demonstrate the RATE of diabetes associated with obesity IS increasing. Thus, we need to understand what is causing the increase in the incidence of obesity. That appears to be the shift from diets with lower saturated fats, reasonable salt content, and limited refined sugar content to highly processed foods with higher amounts of those components.
And, by the way, as a true Southerner, they are COLLARD greens, cooked most properly with a nice piece of Fat Back and a dash of Tony C’s…

Posted by: BillFer | February 3, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

jhnnywalker wrote:

["This really isn't true for most wealthy people. They started out that way. Also, a lot of wealth isn't "earned" anymore in the traditional sense, that being producing a product or service and selling it to people for profit. I would guess what a Liberal might say about them is they should have a higher tax rate. They might even agree themselves."]

-----------------------

A couple of points:

1 - I'm a Conservative and enjoy defending Conservatives. However, that doesn't mean I directly defend 'the wealthy'. I believe in capitalism and the opportunity to make your fortune; and I believe in fairness to all (including the wealthy) in the tax code.

2 - I am not sure most wealthy folks 'start out that way.' I'm willing to listen/be convinced of that - I've just never seen any stats that back up that claim - have you?

3 - I do agree that money isn't earned in the 'traditional sense' (such as manufacturing) as much anymore and I think that remains an issue for our country.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 2, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

My comment really depends on your definition of "wealthy" though.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 2, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

We could definitely make the case that wealthier folks have an easier life (such as those who gain great wealth through inheritance) but the majority of wealthy folks worked their hind-ends off for their place in life.
---------
This really isn't true for most wealthy people. They started out that way. Also, a lot of wealth isn't "earned" anymore in the traditional sense, that being producing a product or service and selling it to people for profit.
----------
Another point I would make - Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are incredibly wealthy Liberals. I wonder what Liberals say about those two - are they critical of these men because they made a fortune? Or does the 'Liberal Exception' rule get pulled out for them...because of course - they're Liberal!
--------
I would guess what a Liberal might say about them is they should have a higher tax rate. They might even agree themselves.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 2, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I do not think just the wealthy are living longer so your supposition isn't supported.

Posted by: pararanger22

He was referring to back then, in 1776, when wealthy people probably did live longer.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr

----------------------------

jhnnywalkr,

I disagree. He made this point:

"People lived hard and they lived short, unless they were wealthy and life was easy for them. Hey, maybe not so much has changed since those days."

His barb was that 'the wealthy' live longer, easier lives not only back then but also nowadays.

I disagree with the 'live longer' part and the statistics back that up.

We could definitely make the case that wealthier folks have an easier life (such as those who gain great wealth through inheritance) but the majority of wealthy folks worked their hind-ends off for their place in life.

Another point I would make - Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are incredibly wealthy Liberals. I wonder what Liberals say about those two - are they critical of these men because they made a fortune? Or does the 'Liberal Exception' rule get pulled out for them...because of course - they're Liberal!

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 2, 2011 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Understanding life expectancy in the past.

The notion of past life expectancy is quite misunderstood. While we have made great strides in general maintenance medicine and in geriatric treatment to extend life, the actual data reveals that in past years, once we got through childhood, life expectancy was not nearly as short as we imagine it was.
The key to our great advances in life expectancy was the reduction in infant mortality.

For white men in the US in 1850, the average remaining life at birth was 38.5 years. However, if you managed to survive childhood to the age of 10, you were expected to live another 48 years for a total age of 58. If you survived to age 30, you were expected to live another 34 years for a total of 64 years, and so on.

You can see the data at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Posted by: msatin1 | February 2, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Understanding life expectancy in the past.

The notion of past life expectancy is quite misunderstood. While we have made great strides in general maintenance medicine and in geriatric treatment to extend life, the actual data reveals that in past years, once we got through childhood, life expectancy was not nearly as short as we imagine it was.
The key to our great advances in life expectancy was the reduction in infant mortality.

For white men in the US in 1850, the average remaining life at birth was 38.5 years. However, if you managed to survive childhood to the age of 10, you were expected to live another 48 years for a total age of 58. If you survived to age 30, you were expected to live another 34 years for a total of 64 years, and so on.

You can see the data at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Posted by: msatin1 | February 2, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I do not think just the wealthy are living longer so your supposition isn't supported.

Posted by: pararanger22

He was referring to back then, in 1776, when wealthy people probably did live longer.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 2, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner wrote:

["Perhaps conservatives want to drag us back to the days of our founding fathers. In 1776, the U.S. life expectancy was about 35 years--that solved a lot of problems I would imagine. People lived hard and they lived short, unless they were wealthy and life was easy for them. Hey, maybe not so much has changed since those days."]

----------------------
More Liberal populist nonsense. Let's examine the US life expectency table per the UN: overall in the US, we expect to live until we're 78 (75 for men; 80 for women). Thus, if we did not have Obamacare, we're still living over twice as long as we were in 1776.

I do not think just the wealthy are living longer so your supposition isn't supported.

Liberals. Unlimited whining. Limited brain power.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 2, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately, the constitutionality of the PPACA will be determined by the SCOTUS. Perhaps conservatives want to drag us back to the days of our founding fathers. In 1776, the U.S. life expectancy was about 35 years--that solved a lot of problems I would imagine. People lived hard and they lived short, unless they were wealthy and life was easy for them. Hey, maybe not so much has changed since those days.

The unfortunate thing is that "encouraging" people to eat well seems likely to evolve into mandating what people eat. The 2nd unfortunate thing is that healthy eating is not much of an option, because healthy choices are not available in restaurants or small grocery stores where I live. If people lived in a rural area as I do, they'd know what I mean. I'm all in favor of encouraging and making available, but not the mandating. And I don't add salt to my food--unless I cook from scratch, I assume that the food I order or buy has enough salt in it.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 2, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

~~.ususally end up swimming with a couple of fruitcakes every day....

Too funny LOL !!

Trans Fat has been banned in some areas already.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 2, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Will12

I just love it when people ask me for references of double blind, randomized controlled studies in peer reviewed medical journals. They may be very boring for most readers, but peer-reviewed publications do represent the actual clinical evidence that the zealots at the dietary guidelines have neglected to share with the public.

Let's start with this peer-revied paper just published in 'Metabolism, Clinical and Experimental' by Garg et al, of the Harvard Medical School. It's entitled, "Low-salt diet increases insulin resistance in healthy subjects" and describes how otherwise healthy people develop insulin resistance (the precursor to diabetes)within 7 days of being placed on a low-salt regime, while those that were on a regular salt diet did not.

You can see it at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21036373

The number of peer-reviewed, double-blind, randomized controlled studies that have been shunted aside by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Group because they did not fit their agenda makes it clear that the Guidelines are far more a product of ideology than science.

And, if your interested in the impact of low salt diets on heart patients, check out the papers by Paterna et al in 'Clinical Science' and the 'American Journal of Cardiology' - "Normal-sodium diet compared with low-sodium diet in compensated congestive heart failure" which can be found at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17688420
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19101237

These latter papers demonstrate how congestive heart patients placed on low salt diets died or were readmitted to hospital in far greater numbers that those placed on regular salt diets. Have you ever asked yourself why this peer-reviewed information was never brought to the attention of the public?

There are literally hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers in medical journals cautioning against the population-wide reduction of salt - and a full objective evaluation of the subject of salt and health outcomes has never been carried out in the USA. Would it not be preferable to do that before subjecting the entire population to a level of salt lower than any other country in the world and far lower than at any time in recorded history.

That's OK if you want to be the lab rat - but I'd rather see an evaluation of the science first.

Posted by: msatin1 | February 2, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles, before there is a solution, conservative, market-based, or otherwise, there must exist a problem. As you see it, the problem is that a bunch of people consume certain foods and additives to an extent that you frown upon, and to boot, allow their children to do likewise. While there is nothing wrong with informing folks about the perceived consequences of ingesting certain substances, there should perhaps be limits to the amount of time and money the federal government spends in trying to scold the broad, unwashed masses into submission when it comes to dietary habits. Don't you think the Feds have bigger fish to fry? oops, excuse me, to grill?
While the First Lady is to be lauded for putting her broad shoulders behind the effort to tackle obesity (a weighty task, to be sure) the reality is that she has embarked in a Quixotic endeavor. Does it not appear odd to you that, the more awareness about the hazards attached to the consumption of certain foods, the greater the increase in the incidence of adverse consequences therefrom?
But, of course, I am not suggesting that the warnings are the cause of the problem, only that they are hardly the cure. In the distant (and not so distant) past, our life expectancy was shorter, so that a lot of folks didn't live long enough to get fat and die from causes related to obesity in their golden years. Similarly, before the advent of insulin, diabetics died pretty quick, so that there never were many of them walking around to pad the stats. In short, it seems that our problem is simply the consequence of our success: more abundant amounts of food for folks who manage to live longer, thus allowing the slower agents of death to catch up and bring about the inevitable.
To some, perhaps living a few years longer may be worth the trouble of going through life eating grass and berries, while others might place more value on the enjoyment they experience from gorging on pork chops. What is absurd is to seek to justify the federal jabbering about 'healthy foods' under the guise of promoting lower government health care costs. The reality is that folks who have 'unhealthy' eating habits die faster and require less medical care (and less government expense) than folks who eat healthy, visit the doctor regularly and use medical services longer.
So, thank you Mrs. Obama for preaching good eating habits, now, please, pass the salt, these collared greens are too bland.

Posted by: rightspokeBlas | February 2, 2011 12:05 PM | Report abuse

~~example, "fruits & vegetables" are always mentioned in the same breath yet have entirely different effects on the body, weight & health. Thanks for listening, maybe.
Posted by: jmh6~~~

I know I'm not Thomas(thank god:-)
but I'm listening and you do have a very good point.
In fact I just heard today that the fructose found in fruit is actually bad for your skin...anti-collagen .
I do love my fruit too..ususally end up swimming with a couple of fruitcakes every day....

Posted by: bertzel | February 2, 2011 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Well if anyone was suggesting making these things illegal you might have a point.
Posted by: jhnnywalkr~~~

Just wait jwalkr...just wait.

Posted by: bertzel | February 2, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

These little 'sinfull' things should not be kept from me because someone else has no self control!

Posted by: bertzel

Well if anyone was suggesting making these things illegal you might have a point.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 2, 2011 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Thomas,
Do you notice that the defination of "healthy" foods is always vague. Each special interests advocates its position & the government compromises. It would be nice if we stopped arguing about intervention & freedom & received facts. For example, "fruits & vegetables" are always mentioned in the same breath yet have entirely different effects on the body, weight & health. Thanks for listening, maybe.

Posted by: jmh6 | February 2, 2011 11:33 AM | Report abuse

~~Wash Rinse and Fluff Dry

Posted by: dalyplanet~~~

Funny daly...very funny! |

Posted by: bertzel | February 2, 2011 11:31 AM | Report abuse

msatin1, were the studies double blind? Could you link to the peer-reviewed studies that were published in a reputable nutrition journal that is relied on by reputable research institutions?

I would prefer it not be Salt Weekly.

Posted by: will12 | February 2, 2011 11:29 AM | Report abuse

bertzel said:

These little 'sinfull' things should not be kept from me because someone else has no self control!

I agree with you wholeheartedly for taking things in moderation. peanuts and beer are some of my favorites. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that these shouldn't be available but that our dependence on them as a consistent part of our diet is not healthy for us.

If we decide to buy more healthy foods and fewer fatty foods, as devout capitalists, we will produce less when the demand goes down and that would be a good thing for everyone. I suppose a similar discussion could arise over the prohibition of selling alcoholic beverages to young people under a certain age because some would have less self control..?? Just a thought......

Posted by: cmarston99 | February 2, 2011 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Tom, I'm with the Salt Institute and I always find it a bit strange to see the looks of disbelief I get when I tell people that lowering the salt content of foods will greatly increase the obesity epidemic. How can that be?

Well, it’s quite simple really. People will eat more food and calories just to satisfy their innate appetite for salt. Most professional nutritionists will agree.

For any skeptics out there, we have a great many similar examples. When we produced ‘light’ beer, people drank far more of it; when we cut the sugar out of soft drinks, people swilled tons more low-cal beverages; when we cut the fat out of foods, people gorged themselves on low-fat, no-fat foods to such an extent, they ushered in the current obesity epidemic.

What do you possibly think people will do when they face a big bag of low-salt chips, Tom?

Posted by: msatin1 | February 2, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse

You and I are poles apart, Tom, but I have to say today's cartoon is a gem!

Posted by: quiensabe | February 2, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Wash Rinse and Fluff Dry

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 2, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

~~~It's painfully obvious to me that you just don't like anyone suggesting that you change your lifestyle. Personally, there's nothing more important than good health - once it's gone, it's really gone. Thank you Ms. Obama for caring about the youth of this country - apparently, many of their parents don't care!
Posted by: cmarston99 ~~~

Here's the BIG thing cmarston99.
Once in a GREAT while I like to pick up some fast food.
Once in a GREAT while I like to eat potato chips.
Once in a GREAT while I like to eat salted peanuts in the shell (go great with beer also once in a great while)...

Do you understand the pattern?

It is called moderation.
Self control.
These little 'sinfull' things should not be kept from me because someone else has no self control!
And my kids and I are not overweight.
Thanks to this parent.

Posted by: bertzel | February 2, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Brainwashing.We need more brainwashing to control the masses...Problem solved.

double?

Posted by: bertzel | February 2, 2011 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Brainwashing.We need more brainwashing to control the masses...Problem solved.

Posted by: bertzel | February 2, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I guess I'm missing something here...I spend more money to eat healthy food to avoid costly medical problems in the future. You fat boys and girls are whining about the administration suggesting that you also should eat healthy foods and avoid costly medical problems in the future. Your medical problems clearly will cost you more in medical insurance premiums if you have insurance or will cost me more in higher premiums if you don't have insurance.

It's painfully obvious to me that you just don't like anyone suggesting that you change your lifestyle. Personally, there's nothing more important than good health - once it's gone, it's really gone. Thank you Ms. Obama for caring about the youth of this country - apparently, many of their parents don't care!

Posted by: cmarston99 | February 2, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

It appears that we have stamped out hunger in the US.

The nutrition facts labels do not work because people can't read ? Food pyramid ?

Perhaps a Life Coach assigned to all overweight persons, A Jobs program.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 2, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

The federal judges' decision is spot on! Quite funny too how he jabbed his finger right in the lefts' eye with his reference to the original tea party. Hilarious how Toles seems to think this is an over reach by the court when the libs have been legislating from the bench for decades. It's also amusing that the Democrats snookered themselves by not including a severability clause in this farce. On the other hand, they couldn't because the CBO would have exposed the whole thing as the budget buster that it is. I love it!!

Posted by: Timanddori | February 2, 2011 10:23 AM | Report abuse

when the state stops financing drug abuse and the birthrate of welfare drones,thats when!

Posted by: jmounday | February 2, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

More quickly than you can say "activist judge legislating from the bench" the right turns on their collective heel to back an action they previously whined about...

I guess it is only OK when their team does it. Isn't encroachment an automatic first down?

Eat less junk, more whole grains and vegetables, drink less alcohol, exercise regularly. We really shouldn't need to be told these things. But look at America's fat, over protected, under educated, self important, children; they could use a little nutritional guidance and mom and dad sure aren't doing it. Personal responsibility, anybody? Bueller?

But it seems that for most of the extreme right "personal responsibility" is actually code for "no social conscious".

Posted by: pete1013 | February 2, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Little Tommy cartoonist shouldn't pretend he knows something about the Constitution, or about writing for that matter. Stick to your leftwing drawings, Little Tommy.

Posted by: NorplantNow | February 2, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: skinnynomore

Totalitarian Tom. Is there anything you don't think should be regulated?

Of course. Abortion, flag burning, gay marriage

Posted by: sold2u | February 2, 2011 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Nanny state, leave us alone.

We're all going to die stone broke anyway, because the medical establishment will take every cent we have before it kills us. Noneo f us will live frorever, and dying will be slow and painful.

Let us have a few small joys out of our life before that happens.

Posted by: samsara15 | February 2, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Enough of these salty comments! Who cares about horses who won't drink salt water? You can pepper me with answers, as long as it thins out the crowd.

Not to worry about the effects of obesity. Our new Health Care Act will cure you, only the line in the doctor's waitng room will be longer.

Even the fat cats will get fatter, until they explode.

Thanks for reading. You are the salt of the earth!

Posted by: AMorgen | February 2, 2011 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Look (honestly) at those children esp but also the adults at your local fast food hangout; if honest, one can see the obesity (fatness) of the children there along with their parents, etc stuffing their faces with the relevant food - loads of salt included. It is their choice of course as it is what they may eat at their home - healthy or unhealthy and where the obesity continues to thrive in both child and parent. Greasy, salt laden foods abound at their tables and in time they will be at their local ERs with chest pain, diabetes symptoms, stroke symptoms, knee and hip problems from the obesity also or years of pigging out and the increasing waistline be it man or woman or child. Some who have health care insurance will receive relevant care but what of those who don't but just go to the local ER for the above symptoms generally don't pay for the ER or MD coverage at least in full largely due to the fact that they would rather indulge and spend their monies at the fast food or local diner eating their salt laden and greasy foods. It is their choice just as it is for millions to endorse the health care bill and what Michelle Obama is preaching about healthy diets and the high risk of diabetes type I in children but also later type II in adults. We are a country quickly becoming second rate with our diets, use of tobacco products,irrational lack of handgun controls and their abuse, lack of exercise, and intelligent use of our minds! Myself I'll stick with Obama and the health care plan.

Posted by: davidmswyahoocom | February 2, 2011 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Toles gets it wrong but not WI!

Hurrah for the Wisconsin AG!

He is absolutely right to challenge whether or not WI should adhere to the 'Making Grandma Shovel-Ready Act of 2010'

As for the comment circulating about giving back the $40M the Feds sent to WI for Obamacare, that is a typical red-herring thrown out by the Liberal Scum Diaspora (LSD). WI was forced to take that cash to set up their mandated program. This new Act is expensive to administer - so that money is probably gone. But if they still have it, sure - send it back and tell the Feds to do something worthy with it like fix Social Security or pay down a bb sized portion of the debt. Anything but spend it on another massive, stupid, Federal porkgram.

What hilarious bull. The long-con the DemoDummies conjured up to create a voter dependency, not-so-cleverly-disguised as something 'good' for Americans, is coming to an end.

Get your popcorn ready - the volume of Liberal whining is about to go way up!

But watch TT. He'll bank away from this issue like a C130 under fire 'Chaff!' 'Flare!' 'Smoke!' and all we'll hear about is climate change and the Metro for a month.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 2, 2011 5:20 AM | Report abuse

Totalitarian Tom. Is there anything you don't think should be regulated?

Posted by: skinnynomore | February 2, 2011 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Ah, but in Arizona the death panels do exist, jornolibist. They are putting the price of organ transplants that may actually save a life.

Posted by: Falling4Ever | February 2, 2011 1:46 AM | Report abuse

I get so many sample stuff for free its awesome. Actually it is not difficult to find them just search online for "123 Get Samples" It is the best way!

Posted by: jackiemichel2 | February 2, 2011 12:21 AM | Report abuse

A real smart guy, Solomon, once said "What God made crooked, man can not make straight"
Posted by: dalyplanet

My Reply...
What God made straight, man ignores and pays the price.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | February 1, 2011 11:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't see why people are getting mad at the government suggesting, not legislating, suggesting, that people eat healthier and trying to give them tools to help them do so, or that the First Lady has decided to promote this particular benign cause.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 1, 2011 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I realize Michelle Obama needs a job, and hectoring us to eat our broccoli and to put down the salt shaker qualifies, but doesn't she have anything better to do?

Since the government feels it has the right to lecture you on your diet when it isn't running healthcare, just imagine how bad they will be if they ever do manage healthcare for the nation. We'll have an army of lawyers demanding warning signs outside of every Burger King and government employees outside of every liquor store trying to talk us out of getting a six pack. Not to mention a special tax for everything they find objectionable.

No thanks.

Posted by: sold2u | February 1, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

On behalf of the Ninny State, we worth our salt say, "More cholesterol for all!"

Posted by: 4Runner1 | February 1, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

what ever kids!
concerning LIFE in general...YOU Are lacking!

Take for instance, Toles speaking on behalf of salt??? or lack thereof?

We...tho I know it does not concern YOU..
have major Uprisings within gee I dunno...this PLANET!!! and you are so comfy with your take on things...I can only smile or laugh or perhaps chuckle..
whatever, I drink tea as well.

by the way...survived last battle...perhaps false alarm : )

Posted by: bertzel | February 1, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

bert --- got a very long, productive, prosperous and self actualized life going --thanks for the nanny type concern though.

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 1, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Ding dong the Democrat's Death Panels are dead ding dong the wicked Democrat's Death Panels are dead!!!!!

Posted by: jornolibist | February 1, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

and billy...get a life.

Posted by: bertzel | February 1, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Isn't is grand to have your staff grow and bring you your healthy veggies?
Isn't is grand to have your staff bring you your Kobe steak?
Isn't grand to have the lib media to tell to tell everybody else what to eat?

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 1, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Yo daly...laugh!!!!!

Posted by: bertzel | February 1, 2011 8:25 PM | Report abuse

~~~~Posted by: docwhocuts~~

Hey...don't EVEN get me started on carbs!!!
If you are athletic...fine...If not ..STAY AWAY!!!!

Posted by: bertzel | February 1, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps a 'market based' Cap and Trade program for all high sodium, high fat, fast food restaurants with tradable allowances so the healthy choice early adopters can offset their loss of market share with fat credits from those that continue to pollute our bodies with fat and salt.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 1, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

what nonsense....

why not attack big govt for the food pyramid they put out 20 years ago.....

all carbs.... all day..... couldn't have to do with massive corn/wheat subsidies.....

Big govt is MORE to blame for our health status than ANY OTHER VARIABLE by far.

Posted by: docwhocuts | February 1, 2011 8:13 PM | Report abuse

~~A real smart guy, Solomon, once said "What God made crooked, man can not make straight"

This applies to eating too much and poorly and no exercise. No government program will fix this.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.Posted by: dalyplanet

Wow daly...

Posted by: bertzel | February 1, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

~~The GOP owns the history of all Repbublicans, ranger~~~

What???

Interruptions abound.
Geeze...I did have something of what I thought was important ( key phrase) to say but lost said train of thought,damn!

Posted by: bertzel | February 1, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Ahh. To salt or not to salt.
LOL!!!
salt is not good...hey, don't take my word for it tho...I only speak from experience.
and yes whoever said seasalt 'weighed' less. I guess it all depends too on the type of salt you use...ground vs.chunky!
Should I bow down and thank the Feds for alerting me to this info???
NOT.

Posted by: bertzel | February 1, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Toles likes to attack Conservatives about everything. Today's rant is a good indicator of that.

Conservatives are for good eating habits, I assure you.

As for the Salt lobby, I'm not sure where I stand on that one. We need salt in our diet and heaven knows, it helps a lot of food taste better. I personally never use it given my grandfather's stroke was attributed to his heavy use of salt on all food. From the political perspective, I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats defending salt and sugar and food products (you think Ben Nelson isn't a Soldier for the corn lobby?).

Get real Toles. This type of issue is the same on both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 1, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

A real smart guy, Solomon, once said "What God made crooked, man can not make straight"

This applies to eating too much and poorly and no exercise. No government program will fix this.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 1, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

In the spirit of, “You can’t make stuff up like this,” has anyone thought about how the phrase, “lower-sodium sea salt,” might just POSSIBLY be a marketing tool? The salt molecule consisting of one atom of sodium bound to one item of chlorine (NaCl), the question would be, “How do you reduce the level of sodium in salt without also reducing the chlorine?”

And the answer to the question would be, “You don’t.”

Lower-sodium sea salt has exactly the same proportion of sodium to chlorine (1:1) as common table salt. The difference is that, by weight, there is less salt.
The sea salt sold in stores, you see, is ground coarser than regular table salt so that less actual salt (and more air) fits in a given volume. A teaspoon of sea-salt weighs less than a teaspoon of table salt; therefore, it contains less sodium.

AND (this is a BONUS, doncha know) less chlorine, too!

As long as you season by the spoonful and not to taste, “lower-sodium sea salt” will contribute to a lower-salt diet... a marketing coup right up there with tapwater in plastic bottles!

The Salt Institute, indeed. Hahahahaha…

Posted by: jonroesler | February 1, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I would say Legislative overreach is no longer covered.

We are fortunately, not yet a Mob rule Federal Government.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 1, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

It is funny that the harder the Nanny State tries to tell us how to eat, the fatter we collectively get. !?

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 1, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company