Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

The issue at hand is that the root of RedKing's problem is partly cultural (people live unhealthy lives, for a variety of reasons), and yet political policy (in the United States) has both legal and political (i.e. Redking's comment about "the people who are against ... 'food police'") restrictions against attempting to alter the cultural practices of its citizenry. There are a variety of things it can do to influence them in the right direction, but all are necessarily indirect. Banning Fried Chicken (not that that has been proposed) would be counter-productive: it would hurt the poor, it could get struck down by the Supreme Court, it probably wouldn't even work, and would quite quickly deplete the political mandate of any individual or party who attempted to do it (a fact which should be considered as important as any other; we in NYC remember Bloomberg's "War against Big Soda"). To some extent we have to take cultural factors as a given.

[RedKing]

Yeah, Bloomberg was what I had in mind -- look at the backlash from that, even though it makes sense from an economic standpoint.

And yeah, there's consequences to any move like that. Banning cheap, shitty food raises food costs for poor people unless you're going to start providing them with low-costs alternatives (and convincing a trailer park family to eat quinoa and organic greens...good luck with that).

Plus the lobbying by the Shitty Food Associations (the Poultry Council would cry fowl), the Restaurant associations, etc. And then there's just the fact that *I* don't want to see fried chicken banned. Hell, I love a good fried chicken. I just also know that I need to cut back on it and that too much of it is a bad thing. Ultimately, personal responsibility is the only way to pull society out of the medical cost death spiral, but that's really tough to do without enforcing it in some way that makes it no longer personal responsibility. Smoking rates continue to go down, and while increased taxes are part of it, it's a lot of factors at work -- culturally it just doesn't have the "cool" factor that it did in earlier decades, the health risks are far better known, and the tobacco companies publicly acted like dicks and got hung out to dry for it. But this is another issues that correlates with education and income. Poor people and/or uneducated people are more likely to smoke, even though they're the strata that can least afford additional health costs.

[Zangi]

Subsidizing healthy foods(specifically so that companies producing/providing them would sell them at competitive prices...) would probably go a long way...

[RedKing]

inb4 PepsiCo commissions a study to tout the health benefits of the Taco Bell Beefy 7-Layer Quesarito, in conjunction with the National Beef Council and National Dairy Association (their motto: "If it doesn't have too much cheese, it doesn't have ENOUGH cheese")

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Taco Bell and the National Beef Council would never cooperate, they sell mutually exclusive products.

[Baffler]

I feel that now is as good a time as any to plug a growing alternative livestock solution.

[smjjames]

A Tennessee republican says we should round up Syrian refugees already in the US and investigate whether they are terrorists or not. After I read that, I thought 'wouldn't that have a chance of pushing some individuals, Syrian or not, over the edge to ISIS?'.

Also, the whole refugee issue is really schisming along party lines.

[Baffler]

It seems odd that that sort of conscientiousness would be directed toward "bring in refugees" instead of "solve the problem we have a large hand in causing."

[Frumple]

*shrugs* It's been setting in over the last little while that we have no goddamn clue how to do that, I do believe. Refugees we can bring in.

But nah, there's plenty of conscientiousness being directed towards solving the problem, too. Haven't you noticed how many calls we've been getting to completely genocide the entire region :V

[smjjames]

Theres probably a dose of 'Not In My Backyard' here plus kneejerk reactions by republicans.

*shrugs* It's been setting in over the last little while that we have no goddamn clue how to do that, I do believe. Refugees we can bring in.

But nah, there's plenty of conscientiousness being directed towards solving the problem, too. Haven't you noticed how many calls we've been getting to completely genocide the entire region :V

I too have (rarely) felt like we should just glass them, but thats out of frustration at something that we keep bungling up and wish we could just be DONE with and I know that's not a solution.

[Strife26]

Screw the Pax Americana and go global disengagement with an eye towards isolationism on everything that's not commercial.

[RedKing]

That's mostly impossible *because* of the commercial bits. The first time ISIS takes over a refinery belonging to ExxonMobil, you can be damn sure we're not staying isolationist.

[Strife26]

Or you shrug and hope the isolationism interest wins out, maybe hellfire people who need it. Oil and banana wars are both reasonably annoying

[wierd]

A Tennessee republican says we should round up Syrian refugees already in the US and investigate whether they are terrorists or not. After I read that, I thought 'wouldn't that have a chance of pushing some individuals, Syrian or not, over the edge to ISIS?'.

Also, the whole refugee issue is really schisming along party lines.

This is sure looking more and more like McCarthyism. The US did concentration camps during WWII for japanese descent americans. Are we really suggesting doing this again? seriously, this guy thinks the McCarthy era was good or something? jesus h christ on a pogostick.


----

The US does not need pure isolationism. That's what North Korea has, and it's bad.

What would be "healthy" for the US, would be to stop trying to pretend that we own the damned world, and axe the nauseating "We're number one!!!" elitism bullshit. The only thing we are number one at is military spending.

We need, desperately, to accept that the world does not exist for our pleasure, and to just live in that world like all the other "not number one" countries. You know, a normal country, and not the jingoistic sideshow we currently have.

Other countries engage in international commerce without the kind of we cause. We should do it like they do.

[RedKing]

Other countries engage in international commerce without the kind of we cause. We should do it like they do.

That's because American commerce realized about 110 years ago (if not before) that they could use the American military as one of their "competitive advantages". The "military-industrial" complex is something of a misnomer. See: Central America, Banana Wars.

Not saying you're wrong as to what we *should* do, just that you might as well order a side of unicorns while you're at it.