Ann Coulter: Why Not Ban Sodomy if "We all have to pay”?

On a recent episode of Fox News Channel's Geraldo at Large, Ann Coulter squared off against Nanny State enthusiast MeMe Roth regarding New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's crusade against just about everything. It's an interesting segment, not least of which because Coulter is totally right (!). Here's a partial transcript courtesy of Mediaite's Andrew Kirell:

Anti-obesity advocate (and big Bloomberg fan) MeMe Roth started off praising the mayor’s various efforts by noting that he is a “student of behavioral psychology” who understands that “increasing the inconvenience just a little bit” will lead to better choices by the consumer....

When Roth made the claim that bans on various unhealthy activities are warranted because “we pick up the tab” for other’s bad habits, Coulter countered that “I think you’re going to have to do something about the gay bathhouses.”

“AIDS is very expensive, and if I’m paying for it, how about discouraging that behavior?” she explained.

Later, while clarifying that she doesn’t actually want to ban homosexual activity, she told Roth, “If you’re argument is ‘Smoking: we all have to pay,’ then why not ‘Sodomy: we all have to pay.’” She told Roth that a consistent position on “nannying” would require her to be “anti-bathhouses” in addition to anti-smoking.

For her part, Roth sticks to the point that because of socialized medicine, we're all picking up the tab for other people (she ignores data suggested elevated health risk factors for gay men). Coulter goes out of her way to say that she doesn't want to ban anybody from doing anything - she wants to de-socialize health-care systems so these sorts of things are not political issues.

More here.

Hand it to Coulter, who has done fundraising for gay groups and calls herself a "right-wing Judy Garland": She's absolutely right to underscore the incredibly selective bias of most nanny-state activists. And to emphasize the incredibly reactionary logic underlying attempts to control people's behaviors.

The logic of the nanny staters should compel them to target all sorts of behaviors to which they give a pass - really, why not ban skiing if you're against activities that cost the rest of us money? That nanny staters routinely focus things such as smoking, drinking, gambling, TV watching, weight issues, and the like strongly suggests an implicit class bias in which relatively wealthy and politically connected elites are simply enforcing their preferred lifestyle choices over the less powerful. It has nothing to do with "public health" or helping people. As I suggested earlier today in regard to Bloomberg's soda ban -which would do absolutely nothing to slim waistlines in New York - it's about elevating personal preference to the status of scientific decree.

Here's the Coulter/Roth vid.

For previous posts about Ann Coulter, including her tirades against libertarian "pussies," go here.

In 2010, I debated MeMe Roth on Stossel. Check it out here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    That logic is so much fun to play with. If we want to register all gun owners, why not register all those with AIDS or other STDS?

  • fish||

    How bout women prone to reproducing with multiple partners while "living on the dole"? I think that qualifies as a "cost to society".

  • ||

    No John, doing a registration check is cumbersome in the heat of the moment, we should tattoo people who have STIs (STD has been deprecated like VD was). With a tattoo you can just have at-a-glance knowledge of what you're getting yourself into.

    The only problem is that then nobody will get tested and mandatory marking will give a false sense of security. C'est la vie.

  • John||

    that is why you do all of that and ban all sex outside of marriage.

  • ||

    Umm officer, we're married, just not to each other.

    I'm sure partially subsidized Valtrex for all is cheaper than legally enforcing 1950s sexual ideals.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Show on the doll where the 1950s touched you.

  • ||

    Oh my, the irony here is delicious.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm sorry I kept you awake last night, but it's really your mother's fault for locating her bedroom over the basement.

  • ||

    I just had a chaste friendship with the 1950s until he pinned me senior year. Then I wore his letterman jacket and he took me to lovers lane where we locked lips for a bit in the back of his full-sized American car. He wanted more, but I told him I'm not that kind of girl. Now we're married and I take enough Valium to kill an elephant and make cakes that are boozier than an Irish funeral.

  • mr simple||

    Almost nailed it, but what about the ungrateful kids?

  • ||

    That's because they drowned in the bath as toddlers. We don't talk about it, but it's why my husband won't touch me anymore, and none of my friends from church come over or invite me out.

  • wareagle||

    what you're getting yourself into

    please tell me you meant to use that phrase.

  • ||

    I did!

    /lie

  • albo||

    Etch each sperm with a unique serial number so we can know who to blame for the infection/welfare baby.

  • ||

    La vee.

  • Killazontherun||

    VD is such a sexy sounding word that when it was in common usage in the 70s and 80s we all ran around trying to get it. Changed to STD, the word sounds so hollow, bureaucratic and sterile it has lost all of its romantic appeal even though it still burns when you pee.

  • ||

    Veni VD Vici

    I came
    I contracted
    I cankered

  • BigT||

    Vidi, vici, veni

    I saw.
    I conquered.
    I came.

  • ||

    Are you kidding!? If you get herpes you can go horseback riding and/or canoeing in beautiful settings on a daily basis. Thanks to Valtrex!

    Do those ads weird anyone else out?

  • wareagle||

    it's the next generation of tampon ads where the women always wore white and invariably spent their periods playing tennis or something similar.

  • Zeb||

    All the ads like that where they don't want to get too specific about what the product is actually for are pretty weird. I also like the "look how much blue liquid this pad can soak up" ads.

  • R C Dean||

    I know. I thought "Man, if you're using it to soak up some kind of blue discharge, you should probably see a doctor."

  • Tony||

    We register all drivers of cars. Registering people themselves for how they were born actually runs into civil rights issues. Registering people for choosing to buy a deadly weapon is called public safety.

  • Brutus||

    Gee, Tony found a way, however specious, to exempt himself and his pals again. I know you are all as stunned as I am.

  • Tony||

    Which raises the question: do libertarians favor licensing drivers (after passing a test proving they can drive)? Or no?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    No. Fuck travel restrictions such as traffic laws and licenses. Use road at own risk.

  • sarcasmic||

    it's about elevating personal preference to the status of scientific decree.

    Consensus is the new science.

    Oh, and that chick in the pic is waaaaaay to skinny for John.

  • prolefeed||

    She's too bony -- and white.

  • John||

    And Coulter doesn't go far enough. Why not ban premarital sex and adultery? I have to pay for the bastard kids and the STDs that result from such activities. And adultery and pre martial sex was illegal for most of history.

  • SugarFree||

    Ban marriage. Deciding divorces costs me money as well.

  • John||

    Ban non procreational sex.

  • SugarFree||

    No, ban that too. We have to pay for everyone else's kids.

  • Aresen||

    Ban non procreational sex.

    Francis I would like to subscribe to your blog.

  • Bam!||

    That's an argument to ban divorce, not marriage.

  • Zeb||

    No john, you're just not thinking big enough here. Banning stuff will never work. You need a list of approved and permissible activities, foods, etc. There are way to many things in the world; bans will never be able to keep up.

  • ||

    it's about elevating personal preference to the status of scientific decree

    Or it's really just about CONTROL. Like always.

  • SugarFree||

    Couter vs. Roth: two albino mantises rasping against one another until they collapse into a pile of dust and hate.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're saying that if you had the opportunity to see those two do lesbian porn that you'd turn around and walk the other way?

  • fish||

    I don't know! The sheer horror of it might be fairly compelling!

  • SugarFree||

    Porn was what I was describing.

  • sarcasmic||

    I thought it was a celebrity death match.

  • SugarFree||

    You act like there has to be a difference.

  • John||

    I would I think. Roth has some seriously saggy and ugly boobs.

  • sarcasmic||

    You think they're big enough to sag?

  • John||

    Touche

  • Enough About Palin||

    Could be a set of floppers.

  • Brett L||

    No, I'd turn and run the other way. Besides. I can watch two 40-something blondes with flesh melting crack habits go at it on the internet anytime. And choose not to. Ever.

  • Loki||

    You're saying that if you had the opportunity to see those two do lesbian porn that you'd turn around and walk the other way?

    Which one's the submissive? I'm assuming that Rogers would be the submissive while Coulter is the dominatrix, but then again it's possible that her public persona is just cover for the fact that she enjoys being stapped to a table with a ball gag in her mouth and hate fisted while told what a whore she is.

    And yes, I'm assuming any lesbian porn between these two would be a BDSM hate-fucking the likes of which the internet has never seen.

  • John||

    Coulter would have Roth on her knees begging to be fed an In and Out Burger and a shake.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't want to know.

    Only at H&R could so much of a thread be devoted to a hypothetical lesbo scenario involving Anne Coulter.

  • mr simple||

    He said from the corner coat pile.

  • sarcasmic||

    Only at H&R could so much of a thread be devoted to a hypothetical lesbo scenario involving Anne Coulter.

    This may come as a surprise to you, but many men happen to like skinny blondes.

    Even John might pass over a fatty for a skinny blonde.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Well Coulter is a lot more attractive now that the hair is changed. However, 'mantis' is all too apt a description. On the other hand, mantises are cool...

  • John||

    I have to admit, I would grudge fuck Roth.

  • sarcasmic||

    I would. But that goes without saying.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Coulter would have Roth on her knees begging to be fed an In and Out Burger and a shake.

    Actually, as far as fast food goes, In N Out is probably the healthiest choice in the industry. All natural, fresh ingredients. For some people, In N Out is probably the healthiest meal they eat all week. Just saying.

  • UCrawford||

    Hmmmm...I think Whataburger is probably the better selection health-wise. I've eaten at both places, in multiple locations, frequently enough to compile a good sample size, and while I love In-N-Out, the grease quotient on any burger I've ever had there is far beyond Whataburger. Not to mention if you order off the secret menu for In-N-Out, your Animal Style selections load up on cheese and salad dressing. Also, last I saw, In-N-Out didn't offer a fruit selection in lieu of fries like Whataburger, or an under 500 calorie menu. But it's been awhile and perhaps In-N-Out has changed since I last went two years ago.

  • mr simple||

    Which one's the submissive?

    That's what the wrestling match at the beginning is supposed to determine.

  • Mensan||

    You know that chapter in World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War where T. Sean Collins talks about the celebrity house being overrun? He says the dried up old blonde right-wing political hack was screwing the hell out of the left-wing political comedy guy. I always figured the woman was Coulter, but I could never decide if the guy was Jon Stewart or Bill Maher.

  • ||

    I feel like SF could do a decent short story about lesbian lich sex with that starting image.

  • SugarFree||

    Lesbian lich porn is so first-half of March 2013. Get with the times, jesse.

  • ||

    Like you're actually up with the current trends. You're still listening to the New Kids On the Block.

  • SugarFree||

    New Kicks on the Block, moran. It's the ultra-hip indie band that only plays covers of the soundtracks used in 80s Vans' commercials.

    Sorry all the cool music is over before it makes it to flannel salmon land.

  • ||

    I'm sorry; I bow to the vastly superior scene of Lexington, KY. I mean, who doesn't?

  • SugarFree||

    We have three jam bands, asshole. Three!

  • ||

    "In my professional opinion, we're looking at a full-blown hippie jamfest the size of which we've never seen."

  • prolefeed||

    To be fair, that's three bands that bang spoons on empty jam jars.

    Salmon flannel land is waaay better, as even a cursory listen to the green side of 947.fm would show.

  • Tim||

    Liar! C'est impossible!

  • phandaal||

    Lexington has horses and Kentucky Ale. And Kentucky Light Ale, which has more calories than the original. And no, that's not a joke, it really does.

  • Bobarian||

    Anyone who drinks real ale and says 'I wonder how many calories are in this?' is missing the whole purpose and should be punched in the face.

  • ||

    Ugh, I rely on the commentariat here to keep me abreast of what mythical horrors should be engaging in lesbian porn at any given time. Clearly you aren't doing your job SF, don't take it out on me.

  • SugarFree||

    what mythical horrors should be engaging in lesbian porn

    Sadly, Feinstein and Pelosi are all too real.

  • ||

    Wait, really? I thought they were just libertarian hobgoblins; tales to tell the children at night to keep them from behaving badly.

  • SugarFree||

    Scariest pop-up book ever.

    "Mommy, skip the Nancy page. I don't want no more nightmares, momma."

  • ||

    ...And the little girl who would not finish her breakfast, or lay out her clothes the night before was spirited away by the Feinstein to the seventh circle of hell, also called "Sacramento" where the crone slid a long filthy fingernail from her navel to her sternum while the girl still lived and slurped on her warm entrails.

    And that, child, is what happens to disobedient little girls.

  • R C Dean||

    tales to tell the children at night to keep them from behaving badly.

    These are libertarian children, after all.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Couter vs. Roth: two albino mantises rasping against one another until they collapse into a pile of dust and hate.

    Come on! I know you can do better than this! I know you want to! I can feel the hatred growing inside you! Give in to the Dark Side!

  • ||

    Give in to the Dark Side!

    Next you'll tell SF that he needs to breathe.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    “AIDS is very expensive, and if I’m paying for it, how about discouraging that behavior?” she explained.

    Later, while clarifying that she doesn’t actually want to ban homosexual activity, she told Roth, “If you’re argument is ‘Smoking: we all have to pay,’ then why not ‘Sodomy: we all have to pay.’” She told Roth that a consistent position on “nannying” would require her to be “anti-bathhouses” in addition to anti-smoking.

    Did MeMeMeMeMeMeMeME! blue screen at this demonstration of the hole in her reasoning?

    The new game of the statists is to make everything common property, money, healthcare, etc., and then apply the tragedy of the commons as an excuse for regulating it and rationing it.

    Communism by increments.

  • sarcasmic||

    Externalities!

  • albo||

    And all externalities are negative. Not a single one to be found.

  • Enough About Palin||

    ^^YES^^

  • Juice||

    But Ann Coulter is contradicting her own earlier statements about marijuana, no?

  • Zeb||

    Wait, wasn't Coulter just using exactly that same logic to justify drug prohibition?

  • SugarFree||

    Expecting consistency foolishly is the hobgoblin of the non-pundit mind.

  • John||

    Good question. She seemed to be saying that we should get rid of socialized medicine because it becomes an excuse to control everything and justifies the drug war. But perhaps I am being too charitable.

  • Zeb||

    That was basically what she was saying, but it seemed that it also justified prohibition in her mind.

    She just says whatever she needs to say so that people will keep putting her on TV and buying her books.

  • blackford_oakes||

    Haha a few weeks ago I sent a letter to the editor of the local newspaper making the same point about banning sodomy if we are going to ban soda.

  • Zeb||

    I prefer examples like skiing or riding motorcycles as they are more broadly appealing activities that are even more risky.

  • John||

    One of my favorite things to do is whenever one of the good little suburban concerned moms I know is talking about the evils of football and head injuries, pointing out how tens of thousands of young girls are severely injured every year playing soccer. At some point I expect steam to come out of one of them's ears.

  • wareagle||

    and there is also cheerleading, which has its own body count that includes injuries far more serious than what is seen on football fields.

  • Killazontherun||

    And its entirely true too. At the high school level soccer is a more injurious sport. Especially if played the right way. Now the real right way is that of 12th century Spanish soldiers kicking around the skull of a vanquished foe, or that of an unlucky commoner.

  • Killazontherun||

    It's been totally nerfed ever since.

  • Zeb||

    Watch out. Next the safety patrol will try to ban heading the ball (or have they already done that?).

  • lafe.long||

    amusing... but pointing things like that out to those moms is probly why we end up with kids dressed up in K9 protective suits on the kickball field.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "That nanny staters routinely focus things such as smoking, drinking, gambling, TV watching, weight issues, and the like strongly suggests an implicit class bias in which relatively wealthy and politically connected elites are simply enforcing their preferred lifestyle choices over the less powerful."

    That is so paranoid! Who on earth would imagine such a scenario?

    http://archive.org/details/servilestate00belluoft

  • ||

    While she happened to be right in this instance, Coulter (or any republican/democrat) playing the consistency card is rather amusing.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's all just selective puritanism disquised as do gooding. We just can't get away from it.

  • ||

    Why are we this far into the comments without another deep discussion of Nick's Coulter fixation? I, for one, am now decidedly more concerned.

  • John||

    Coulter would have all the testosterone in that relationship.

  • Zeb||

    The Jacket would put her in her place.

  • John||

    Doubtful. Coulter would eat him alive, which is why it will never happen. They both would want to other to be the alpha.

  • Cytotoxic||

    OH DEAR GOD what if they merge, like Spiderman and The Symbiont? I guess that's what Nick is. Coulter + The Jacket = Venom.

  • John||

    Lets just say I am glad Coulter is too old to have children.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like she would ever have children. That would interfere with her career.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Michael Page?

    There must have been some bad-ass recessive genes in that pool.

  • Zeb||

    I mean the actual jacket.

  • Loki||

    Nick's obviously hate fucking her on a regular basis. What else is there to know?

  • Killazontherun||

    I wasn't going to mention it this time out of fear there might be pullback on this romance developing before our eyes. Shhh! Let's just watch the love bloom. It's Spring after all.

  • Mensan||

    Speaking of spring lovin' (possibly NSFW).

  • Doctor Whom||

    I made that point in a local political newsletter back in 1994.

  • John||

    From the Village Voice link

    Yesterday, we pointed to a Times piece about MeMe Roth, the Upper West Side mother of two who has her kids sneak any junk food they've been given at school into a Tupperware she calls a "junk food collector" so that they can bring it back to her and she can use it as evidence against the school's feeding practices.

    This is why in some cultures it is okay for children to kill their parents.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I wouldn't say, OK, but it is understandable.

  • BuSab Agent||

    The children of puritans have this odd habit of being really wild. It will be interesting to see what happens to Roth's spawn in the next 10-20 years.

  • ||

    The same Ann Coulter who uses the exact same argument as MeMe Roth in favor of the War on Drugs.

  • John||

    Except that wasn't her point. Her point was that socialized medicine is the biggest justification for the war on drugs and therefore should be destroyed first.

  • ||

    Well then she's a pussy for even caring about or speaking out against this soda ban thing.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think she had a point. She just wanted to be mean to libertarians because they won't cooperate with her plan for whatever she thinks is most important. I've never heard her speak in opposition to prohibition.

    In any case, she is an evil cunt and no one should care what she has to say.

  • IceTrey||

    No her point was because we have socialized medicine she is OK with throwing people who smoke weed in jail. In other words because the government sucks she's fine with the WOD.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I tend to think that if medicine were largely de-socialized, she'd have another reason why we're stupid pussies to care about prohibition.

  • ||

    For her part, Roth sticks to the point that because of socialized medicine, we're all picking up the tab for other people.

    Goddamn the circular logic of progressives.

    It's almost as if nobody predicted that once the state was paying for your health that it would have (more) incentive to control your behavior.

  • John||

    Remember when people said that socialized medicine would lead to the government controlling our diets? Those people were all just paranoid wingnuts.

  • ||

    Yes, because I was one of those paranoid wingnuts. I also remember predicting the "but think how much worse it would have been without" stimulus argument. Clearly I am a soothsayer. Or, predictable outcomes are predictable.

  • Loki||

    It's almost as if nobody predicted that once the state was paying for your health that it would have (more) incentive to control your behavior.

    Feature, not bug (at least to prog-tards).

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure it was planned all along. Progressives are cunning liars. In everything they do there is always an unstated end game to which they will never admit.

  • John||

    When they went after smokers people said fat people were next. But no, that could never happen. The progtards told us so.

  • sarcasmic||

    When they made sexual orientation a protected class they openly mocked anyone who suggested it was a step towards gay marriage.
    They're liars. Plain and simple.

  • GILMORE||

    I've made the same point repeatedly to some "progressives" and they seem to fail to make the simple connection =

    - When you insist that we provide "benefits" for people, whether they ask for them or not, you then immediately assume some kind of un-agreed upon quid-pro-quo from the recipients; you insist that you now have a "stake" in their decision-making, and therefore have every right to insist they either be restricted from one behavior or forced into another, and most certainly have monies stripped from them to 'pay' for the benefits you've lavished on others.

    The point is, they insist on "universal" healthcare... and once they get even *near* that, then they start demanding complete control over people's lives! - why not? - "WE'RE PAYING FOR IT!!" they cry! "YOU OWE US - WE OWN YOU" Smoking, fatty foods, fast cars, and of course FIREARMS? Ban-Hammer away! It's all for your own good! TAKE YOUR MEDICINE.

    It has been extremely difficult to explain to people that these "social costs" only exist because Progressives insist on Payment at the point of a gun.

  • sarcasmic||

    Progressives believe freedom means being free from the consequences of your own actions, so long as you take orders and ask permission from authority.

    In this way ObamaCare will make us more free, as it shields us from the consequences of our eating habits, so long as we obey authority when they tell us what we may or may not consume.

    Freedom is slavery.

  • GILMORE||

    I still react with a certain stunned disbelief when the NYT editorials proudly defend the idea that the Nanny State makes us "more free"

    e.g.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03.....d=all&_r=0

    ""We feel as if we lose some dignity. But that’s the way it is, and there’s no dignity in clinging to an illusion.""

    i.e. "the collar and chains may rub you raw at first, but soon you will come to be thrilled when you are allowed from your cage to be fed your food ration. In the end it is 'worth it'. You never had much self-control anyway"

    As I frequently note = there are times when you wonder if they are a) sincere and honest, but deluded or b) completely mendacious and draping the word "liberty" and "freedom" like chocolate sauce on their steaming pile of horseshit.

    I blame George Lakoff. DIE, LAKOFF!! DIE!!

  • John||

    Of course, what people fear is that this is just the beginning: today it’s soda, tomorrow it’s the guy standing behind you making you eat your broccoli, floss your teeth, and watch “PBS NewsHour” every day. What this ignores is that successful paternalistic laws are done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis: if it’s too painful, it’s not a good law. Making these analyses is something the government has the resources to do, just as now it sets automobile construction standards while considering both the need for affordability and the desire for safety.

    Vomit.

  • R C Dean||

    if it’s too painful, it’s not a good law.

    But if its not pretty fucking painful, it doesn't change behavior. Especially the lifestyle behavior they have such a boner for.

  • John||

    She is such a lying sack of shit. She pretends these laws are soft and easy. No. no law is soft and easy. If they were, no one would abide by them. Ultimately every law carries the threat of locking you in a cage for violating it.

  • minarchist||

    Bingo!

  • Gleep Glop||

    I have a feeling that "progressives" would make an exception when it comes to other public provided benefits, such as TANF, SNAP, and the like.

  • ||

    Why not just get us out of the business of paying for eachother's health care?

  • Brutus||

    THAT'S CRAZY TALK!!!

  • mr simple||

    Apparently, MeMe also recently was featured in a Guardian article, in which she compared eating to rape--overeaters being rapists and their bodies being the victims...
    The Guardian article reveals that MeMe sometimes goes all day without eating--and "feels great!" about it.

    Seriously this sounds like she has some deep seeded displaced fears, like maybe about a handsy uncle who thought she was a cute, chubby little girl.

    "We have to stop bad uncles, uh, I mean fatties from overeating. And if you tell anyone about it nobody will believe you and they will all hate you. For being fat."

  • Cytotoxic||

    I remember not long ago all your daughter were belong to anorexia. Now it 'feels great'!

  • Zeb||

    I think you may be overgeneralizing a bit. Though it's hard to say. I can't quite decide if some progressives are always worrying about obesity and others about anorexia and body image, or if they are all just that inconsistent. Somewhere in the middle seems like a good bet.

  • wwhorton||

    I mean, one look at the bikini picture and the first word that comes to mind is "anorexia."

    Granted, the first coherent thought is, "...desperate for attention...daddy issues...a little too prim...she's two Zombies away from DVDA..."

  • wwhorton||

    "...MeMe Roth, the Upper West Side..."

    Yes, thank you, that's all I need to know.

  • John||

    It is kind of funny that a media whore like Roth is named "MeMe".

  • margaretsusen||

    Oliver. even though Kenneth`s st0ry is impressive, last thursday I bought a great new Dodge from having earned $7431 this last month and-in excess of, ten k last munth. it's by-far my favourite job I've ever had. I began this 5 months ago and practically straight away began to earn more than $85 per/hr. I use the details on this website http://googleads.co.uk.qr.net/kgzE

  • Moe19||

    Anonbot,
    You would have had me except for the "great new Dodge" part. That's simply unbelievable.

  • ||

    I hate the term "hatefuck", but um...Meme, gimme a call.

  • John||

    She can call me too.

  • ||

    Before or after she's called Warty?

  • Brutus||

    She'll need a good sandblasting after.

  • Professional Target||

    praising the mayor’s various efforts by noting that he is a “student of behavioral psychology” who understands that “increasing the inconvenience just a little bit” will lead to better choices by the consumer....

    Since obesity has been relegated to the psychiatry department 50 years ago, America's weight has gone up and up. If behavior modification worked against hunger hormones, I would have remained the slimmest guy you ever saw.

  • John||

    I wonder sometimes if there isn't something to the idea that the change in wheat and the use of corn syrup is what made people fat.

    I don't buy for a minute that people somehow became less disciplined than they once were. Something else changed causing people who were not otherwise fat to become so.

  • Zeb||

    I think it should be pretty obvious. The combination of abundant carbohydrate heavy food and less active lifestyles and more sedentary work.

    I think that the lower physical activity is probably the biggest thing. It's not like people weren't eating loads of sugar earlier in the 20th century.

  • John||

    But it is not like people were magically active in the 70s, either. The other factor is everyone used to smoke. And smoking makes you thin.

  • Professional Target||

    Nicotine is one of the most effective weight loss drug known. I don't dig the side effects, though.

  • John||

    The side effects to being fat are pretty shitty too.

  • Professional Target||

    My father smoked and had two heart attacks before my age now. My mother's on oxygen. I'll take being overweight (230 lbs, down from 365 lbs) over that. And I'm losing weight again now that I've upped the fat content of my food.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Fatty Magoo everybody!

  • Brutus||

    Same here. Down nearly 90 pounds on a low-carb, high-fat and -protein lifestyle. It's the carbs.

  • Professional Target||

    It's not like people weren't eating loads of sugar earlier in the 20th century.

    Sugar consumption was much lower than now. More importantly, every woman knew about "the fattening carbohydrate." Hell, even Barney Fife went off about carbohydrates and glucose on The Andy Griffith Show in 1964. The bit is probably on Youtube.

  • Zeb||

    That's true. I should have added the whole war on fat and the big push to eat more grains to my list.

  • Mensan||

  • Professional Target||

    I wonder sometimes if there isn't something to the idea that the change in wheat and the use of corn syrup is what made people fat.

    Wheat is full of alpha amylopectin, which is digested very quickly, giving a big, fast blood glucose pulse. The insulin to take care of that stuffs it in your fat.

    The problem with HFCS is that it's so cheap they put it in everything. Try to find a loaf of bread that doesn't have added corn syrup or some equivalent. It's possible, but harder than you would think.

  • John||

    And it is cheap because it is so heavily subsidized. The government creating the problem just seems too believable.

  • Professional Target||

    McGovern Commission. Ag subsidies. Food Pyramid lies.

    People just don't think about the two and a half million years people were hunter-gatherers. Nobody tells them about the Inuit thinking vegetable matter was beneath human dignity. 70% of their calories came from fat, but no obesity, no cancer, no cardiac problems until they started eating the Western diet.

  • IceTrey||

    How can we know that pre-westernized Inuits didn't die of cancer? If they had it I imagine that they would just get sick and die without anyone knowing why.

  • Professional Target||

    How can we know that pre-westernized Inuits didn't die of cancer?

    Because some of them still live that way.

  • IceTrey||

    Small sample size is bad science.

  • Tony||

    I'm no fan of nanny state regulations but I could tell this article was Nick's from the whiny, common sense-averse tone. Yes regulations tend to focus on the big problems that can be theoretically handled without too much intrusion (such as forcing gay men to be castrated or put to death, or whatever the fuck you think is so clever and analogous), such as smoking and bad nutrition.

    It's not a question of whether you believe in the concept of public health. The metrics exist regardless. And we're fat and unhealthy. I'm not saying Bloomberg and other nanny staters have it right, but public health is a legitimate concern of the state (since, god willing, healthcare costs will always be socialized--i.e., we're not going to start checking pockets for insurance cards before giving life-saving care). People being unhealthy in large numbers is every bit as much a social and state concern as people being stupid in large numbers. I hope this country uses public resources to work on both problems.

  • minarchist||

    There is a big leap from insuring herd immunity against small pox through vaccinations or tracking down Typhoid Mary and, "Since we are paying for your healthcare, we going to monitor and enforce your BMI."

    The State has no more business being involved in medical care than it does in the mortgage business or alt energy business. And the more we allow it, the worse it gets, not just in terms of market function but freedom and democracy as well.

    There are elements on the left that want to see a complete collapse, and this is one of the ways they are going to bring it about.

  • Tony||

    Healthcare is quite arguably even more basic a need than education. The only reason the state did education first was because modern medicine was invented after education. There is no difference. Now, perhaps you're against public education, but adding healthcare to the list of state responsibilities isn't exactly a radical step in reality.

    I'm not sure why you think appending apocalyptic paranoia helps your argument.

  • Mickey Rat||

    And how is having education run by the government working out for us? Expensive, low quality and full of entitled employees full of excuses for their failure.

  • minarchist||

    That you consider healthcare a basic "need" should not create the obligation to me or anyone else to pay for it.

  • Brutus||

    And who's going to manufacture all of the equipment, consumibles, drugs, etc?

  • arbe59||

    "we're not going to start checking pockets for insurance cards before giving life-saving care".

    Yet, if I try to check out at the grocery store with some life-saving food and it turns out I'm broke, the store won't just give me the food and hope that I pay later. Why should I consider it self-evident that life-saving care will never be turned down. And what the hell does insurance have to do with it?

  • SumpTump||

    Dang that girl is fine! WOuld totally bang!
    www.MaxAnon.tk

  • Fate||

    Watching the idiotic laws that keep hitting NY, I'd just about swear that these people are using Australia as a model for what they can get people to accept.

    Gun control (effective ban) - Check.
    Hide cigarettes, ban smoking everywhere you can - Check.
    A truly horrendous number of ridiculous safety laws - Check.
    Rapidly increasing food laws - Check.

    Take it from someone that lives under this crap, plus thousands upon thousands of other useless and restrictive laws and regs - this is no way to live a life.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Ann Coulter is a man.

  • juris imprudent||

    So... Nick's fascination with Coulter now bends to sodomy. That is what this was all about, right?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement