Who is responsible for your health?

This ad is from the CDC which is no longer
just the Centers for Disease Control,but is
now the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.

Forgive me for getting this wrong, but I always thought I - and I alone - was responsible for my health.

Sure, genetics play a role, but whether I was overweight or underweight , ate junk food or fruits and vegetables, exercised or not ... all that was on me.

Apparently I'm wrong.  Well, at least according to today's lead editorial in The Blade.

Yes, they do say our individual health is partially on us and the decisions we make, but they also say:

"The report notes that Ohio ranks near the top in the percentage of its adults who smoke, and of children exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes. Such things are as much a matter of individual responsibility, or its absence, as of inadequate public policy.

Really?  Inadequate public policy is to blame if you or I smoke?

Who DOESN'T know that smoking is bad for you?

In fact, people who do smoke, do so in spite of the fact that they know it's bad for them and for anyone who lives in their smoke-filled house.

How can inadequate public policy be to blame for that?

They even write:

"But it isn't just the responsibility of government to make Ohioans healthier and more productive."

Hmm... I guess I missed that responsibility in the U.S. Constitution as well as the state constitution.

For the record, I don't smoke - never have.  Neither has my husband. My sister does, but she doesn't smoke in my house and has never asked to do so.  Most smokers are considerate in that respect.

But no amount of government spending is going to make her stop. In fact, I doubt that anyone has decided to stop smoking because government spent money on an advertisement bemoaning the ill effects of the practice.

People stop smoking when THEY want to. They are the ones who must make the choice, which means it is entirely an individual responsibility and action.

The primary reason for the editorial is to call for "greater public investment" - that means spending - arguing that the more government spends on preventive care, the less it should end up spending on actual, more expensive, care as a result of bad habits.

You see, the 'logic' is that if government spends more money up front telling people how to be healthy, they'll have to spend less treating these people when they end up with costly diseases like cancer, heart disease, etc...

But first the people have to actually head the direction from the government to lead healthier lives - and that certainly isn't the case, at least, not for the majority of people.

There's an easy solution to the state spending so much money on actual care of illnesses that are preventable:  Don't.

What if the government warned people ahead of time that if they get cancer from smoking none of their health bills will be covered?  In fact, what if the government said that the cost of any illness or disease that was the result of self-inflicted activity wouldn't be covered?

Would people make better decisions knowing they'd be responsible for all the costs associated with bad habits, or that they might have to go without treatment if they couldn't afford it?

It's an interesting question and one that too few stop to consider.

But the government is all too happy to pay because, in doing so, they develop justification for telling you how to live. It is the 'logic' they use for controlling your life:  We're going to end of paying for your health care so we have the authority to tell you how to keep yourself healthy so we don't have to pay so much.

Oh, they might not say so in so many words, the bottom line is control - of your eating habits, exercise regimen and decisions.

Just look at Michele Obama's Healthy Hunger-Free Act which, as of a year ago, had 1 million kids leaving the school lunch line.

It doesn't stop.

And sadly, too many editorials are all to happy to jump on the bandwagon and advocate for even more government involvement in our daily lives, because (clearly) they know what is best and its for our own good.

Smoking bans - coming soon to a park near you

I always hesitate to write about this topic for fear that some local nanny state government will decide to copy the idea. But if we don't educate ourselves about such efforts, they will continue unabated.

My husband's been doing some work in Pennsylvania and has brought me several newspapers from the area. In a recent Lancaster, PA, paper, I read an article about a plan to ban smoking in parks.

An effort to stamp out smoking in public places was introduced in Mountville Borough on Monday, but officials took no action.

Angela Trout, communications coordinator for the Lancaster YWCA, and Mary LeVasseur, manager of community health and wellness for Lancaster General Health, presented details of the Young Lungs at Play initiative to borough council members.

"One of our initiatives is to have smoke-free, tobacco free outdoor areas," LeVasseur said.

The program seeks to ban smoking in all municipal-owned open areas and parks in the county.

From what I could find on line, the Young Lungs At Play program is primarily in Pennsylvania and New York - so far. Soon, however, I'm sure it will be coming to a town near you.

When smoking bans first started, they were only going to be in airplanes - an enclosed area where people couldn't get away from the smoke. Then they extended to restaurants and other eateries, and to public buildings and then to entrances to public buildings. Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maine and Oregon, and also Puerto Rico - have banned smoking in cars when children are present.

And now, under the convenient 'for the children' excuse, towns are banning smoking outside.

You can see that those who warned of a slippery slope were, indeed, correct.

Don't get me wrong - I don't smoke and don't like inhaling it, second-hand or otherwise. I find it to be a vile practice and hate that too many smokers believe the entire world is their ashtray so they leave their butts everywhere. I've known polite smokers (whom I appreciate) and rude ones. I believe much of the problems with smoking and the desire for smoking bans relates more to a lack of manners than anything else.

I don't have a problem with a private business - even one open to public accommodation - making their business smoke-free. And I don't have a problem with a local government deciding that their office buildings and work environment will be smoke-free.

What I do have a problem with is the imposition, through the force of government, of someone else's choice on me and others, even when it is one I agree with.

Because I didn't like the smell of smoke and the way it lingered on my clothes and in my hair, I didn't go to bars. I made a choice based upon my own wants to not subject myself to such an environment. There were plenty of others who chose differently, as is their option in a free society.

But along came the busybodies - people who decided they knew better than the rest of us - who pushed to have their non-smoking preference mandated and enforced by government through threat of criminal sanctions.

And, not surprisingly, there were plenty of politicians and newspaper editorial boards (who also hand out endorsements to the politicians) ready to jump on the bandwagon to exercise control over what should have been handled by a free market and a private property owner's business decision-making.

Yes - I do believe that a free-market solution existed. I do believe that increasing amounts of non-smokers would have influenced the decisions of business owners to make their establishments smoke-free. And while it might have resulting in some places being completely smoke-free while others were not, this is the path I would have chosen. People could then patronize only those places that served their interests - as it should be in a free market.

But just when others were beginning to think along the same lines, "for the children' comes along - and no one wants to be (gasp!) against children!

So now we have more busybodies pushing towns to outlaw smoking outside to "protect children from the effects of secondhand smoke" and preserve "green spaces as a model for a healthy lifestyle." See? They obviously know better than you do.

But do they?

Supporters of outdoor smoking bans will point to studies that say any exposure to smoke is harmful, especially to people with certain conditions like asthma or other breathing issues.

But one of the studies referenced by many groups, has details that aren't always shared by smoking ban supporters.

"We were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns," said Wayne Ott, professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and co-author of the JAWMA study. "For example, if you're at a sidewalk café, and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke."

Unlike indoor tobacco smoke, which can persist for hours, the researchers found that outdoor smoke disappears rapidly when a cigarette is extinguished. "Our data also show that if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker, your exposure levels are much lower," Klepeis added.

"...outdoor smoke disappears rapidly..."
"...if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker..."
These are the two points rarely mentioned by outdoor smoking ban supporters.

So if you're outside at a park and there is a smoker there, just move away from him. Or, if the smoker is upwind of the playground equipment, politely ask if they wouldn't mind moving to a downwind position.

As I've found most smokers respond well to being asked politely to accommodate others, common courtesy - from both the smoker and the requesster - could easily address outdoor smoking and (gasp!) without the involvement of government. See how easy that is?

There are costs associated with making a law to ban smoking in public parks. Legal fees and advertising costs to adopt and publicize a new law could be a challenge for some towns, especially smaller ones or those that have budget problems.

Never fear, though. In the time-proven approach, the Mountville supporters of the smoking ban are perfectly willing to accept incrementalism:

At the very least, she (Trout) said municipalities could look at establishing designated smoking areas that are not near areas where children play.

Just like with restaurants, they'll start with designated smoking areas and then keep moving the ball down the field. And after they get this law, they will find that further protection of the children is necessary. 'We've done so much to protect children in public, but the real problem is what they're exposed to in private,' they'll say.

Think about it - who brings children to the park? Their parents. And if the child's parents don't smoke, it's likely that they'll be exposed to smoke from the parents of their friends and neighbors.

So what is a nanny state supposed to do? Well, ban smoking at home, of course. It's already being supported and suggested by individuals in the U.S, as well as by publications from the National Institutes of Health. After all, it's "for the children."

Let's not forget Obamacare, either. When the government controls your health care, they'll control your health habits, as well.

To a nanny state, and increasingly to people within the nanny state, this makes perfect sense. If the government (taxpayer) is going to cover the costs of your medical treatments, they have every 'right' to tell you how to live and what things you are allowed to do to reduce the costs of your care - costs that everyone (well, taxpayers) are covering.

And since government is all about a one-size-fits-all approach, banning unhealthy behavior is clearly the best way to go about regulating medical costs.

Yes, this is a slippery slope.

My solution would be easier and wouldn't result in an erosion of liberty for everyone: don't cover the health costs of anyone and they'll be more likely to be responsible in their health choices and/or be willing to suffer the consequences of bad decisions. See how easy that is? And it's so much better and cheaper than creating a law to ban anything and everything that might cause one (or some) people harm while not impacting others.

But the goal in these efforts is NOT freedom.

Sadly, too many Americans just don't understand the slope they're on.

Will EPA ban on rat and mouse poison be another DDT fiasco?

Based upon bogus information and political considerations, the United States banned DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) in 1972. Its use began in 1943 and it was one of the most widely-used pesticides, as it was especially successful at controlling malaria and typhus during World War II. Paul Hermann Müller was even awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery "of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods."

But in 1962, Rachel Carson published a book called Silent Spring that *suggested* DDT and other pesticides were dangerous to the environment and wildlife - and caused cancer in humans. It was this book and the subsequent emergence of the environmentalism movement, fueled by the formation of the Environmental Defense Fund whose goal to have to DDT outlawed, that resulted in the ban.

But the issue of whether or not a ban was truly necessary has been fraught with controversy, from the original decision and whether or not the science supported it, to the claim that millions have died of malaria as a result of the lack of sufficient deterrent to the insects that carry it.

As this author relates:

As to the circumstances surrounding the banning of DDT, the November 1980 issue of Fusion magazine (page 52) stated: "When U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William Ruckelshaus was about to announce his decision to ban DDT in June 1972, he confided to a friend, "There is no scientific basis for banning this chemical --- this is a political decision."" The 'friend' was never identified however. In a commentary the magazine concluded (page 56): "The EPA and environmentalists must be held accountable for their crime: There was not a single human death from DDT usage; there have been untold thousands of deaths and millions of disease-stricken persons as a result of the DDT banning."

Fusion's most comprehensive article about DDT (a dozen or so pages) was in their June 1979 issue. The article stated that independent tests refuted nearly every single government claim as to the harmful effects to wildlife from exposure to DDT and addressed each claim. As evidence DDT wasn't harmful to wildlife, the article stated wildlife living downstream from DDT manufacturing plants actually thrived, their numbers increased. There wasn't any disagreement about any lethalness to humans however because the government never claimed there were any deaths, and there wasn't, not a single one. In summation the article concluded the 'political' reason for banning DDT was because it was 'saving too many third-world lives'... an utterly shocking observation.

And now, today, we have a plan to ban 20 rate and mouse control products because they use loose bait.

Note, this latest decision is not because the product, itself, is banned - but because of how it could be used.

You see, the EPA (and the nanny-state government) believes that many of these types of pest control products are used in homes where children or pets could come into contact with them.

The Heartland Institute details how critics of the ban (especially those representing businesses whose products may be on the chopping block) are quick to emphasize the minimal health benefits and the many potential costs of the ban. They point out the following:

• The EPA's proposed ban could force people to rely on products from an alternate class of rodenticides which, unlike the products targeted by EPA, have no antidote.

• EPA's decision could also force consumers to avoid treating their homes for rodents unless they can afford to hire a pest control professional to use the ingredients denied to individuals.

• People living in poverty are most afflicted by rodent problems, and they will be the ones most adversely affected by the proposed ban because they will be unable to afford the professional exterminators made necessary by the ban on these do-it-yourself consumer products.

As the Heartland article explains, the EPA's decision to ban these household products is based largely on a single statistic:

"...between 1993 and 2008 the American Association of Poison Control Centers received 12,000 to 15,000 reports of rat and mouse poison exposures each year regarding children under 6 years old. Improper use, however, is not a good enough reason to ban such useful product from the market..." (emphasis added)

The worst part about this is the fact that other products and activities, when used or done incorrectly, cause even more harm - but they're not being banned.

Todd M. Wynn, director of the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council, is quoted in the article:

“Each year, hundreds of thousands of children are treated for bicycle-related injuries; nearly half of these children are diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries. Does that mean we should ban bicycles? We allow parents to make these choices every day, but EPA steps in and seeks to make these decisions instead of American families,” Wynn said.

“There are certain levels of acceptable risk in society, and parents play an important role by weighing the potential risks and benefits of using a product. This is not saying there is no government role in consumer protection, but one must be sure there is a proper assessment of the science and risk involved and not base regulations and bans on emotionally driven statistics of exposure to children,” he explained.

Unfortunately, our government believes it is responsible for keeping everyone from harm, even if doing so harms others in the process or erodes our liberties and freedom to make choices on our own.

It's a nanny-state government that assumes it knows better than us and then makes our decisions for us. You see, we cannot be trusted to make the 'right' decisions on our own and, rather than hold parents accountable if their child should happen to get into such poison, they'll just impose a ban.

After all, if it saves just one life...

Ohio House promotes nanny state with new texting ban

I received two press releases yesterday regarding House Bill 99, the cell phone texting ban, which would "prohibit driving a vehicle while using an electronic communications device to write, send or read a text-based communications."

It was sponsored by Rex Damschroder (R-Fremont) who said upon passage:

“Texting while driving is a danger that has affected many within our communities,” Damschroder said. “We took an important step today toward addressing this issue and making our roads and highways safer.”

In a release from Terry Boose (R-Norwalk Township) was this comment:

“Texting while driving is a distraction that has resulted in many unfortunate automobile accidents that have led to the loss of lives,” said Boose. “House Bill 99 will make our roads safer by banning texting while driving.”

What I don't understand is why Republicans - supposedly the party of limited government and personal responsibility - are rejoicing over the passage of an unneeded law and the expansion of government.

First, there are already laws on the books regarding distracted driving. It's "Operation in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property" (ORC 4511.20). Texting while driving is certainly covered under that description - but so is shaving while driving, putting on makeup while driving, reading a newspaper while driving, etc., etc., etc. There is no need for another law when one already exists.

Additionally, as my post from October of 2009 (when Toledo was considering such a ban) details:

As author Radley Balko explains, "...we need to get over the idea that we can solve every bad habit with a new law. We can't, and this issue illustrates why."

Because, as he documents, despite the increase in cell phone usage, traffic fatalities and accidents have dropped. Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle even has a post about Lucas County getting traffic safety grants where the press release from the state touts this fact in Ohio:

In the past three years, Ohio roadway fatalities have decreased to near record lows. There were 1,191 fatalities on Ohio roads in 2008, down from 1,257 in 2007 and 1,239 in 2006.

So why, exactly, do we need a law?

Why indeed?

Secondly, they're not going to stop people from texting and driving - they'll only give police another excuse to pull people over. Also from the October 2009 column, quoting the same author:

These laws aren't about safety; they're about symbolism.

Here are two things these bans will do: They'll give police officers another reason to pull people over, and they'll bring in revenue for the municipalities that aggressively enforce them. I think both are arguments against a ban. You may disagree, but the one thing these bans aren't likely to do is make the roads much safer. And if they won't accomplish that, there's no reason to enact them.

Precisely!

This law is all about emotion, as documented in my November 2009 post on the issue.

'Polls show people want such a ban...'

'Polls show people think texting while driving is as dangerous as drinking while driving...'

Yes, because we all know how accurate polls are and they certainly reflect a well-thought, reasoned argument in favor of a further limitation on our liberties. Why - if the people 'believe' it's needed, it must be! Let's create a law because people believe something that may or may not be true. This is such a terrific method of determining public policy, I can't believe we don't do it all the time!

But there is also a failure to understand the reason we have laws. As District 2 Councilman D. Michael Collins explained to me, "...laws are created to insure and protect the citizens from harm and injury."

And this is the same 'logic' promoted by the two Republicans - that such a law will "...make our roads safer."

As I wrote then,

"...laws are not created to insure and protect us from harm and injury. Laws are supposed to exist to guarantee our rights and freedoms. They protect our right to life by penalizing those who would take it. They protect our right to property by penalizing those who would steal it or damage it.

No amount of laws can ever keep us from injury, and they shouldn't try. But if this is what a councilman believes laws are for, what other onerous, duplicate and freedom-destroying ordinances will he introduce and support in the future?"

I can understand why Councilman Collins would think otherwise, but not our Republican representatives in the Ohio House. They're supposed to be upholding our Republican Party principles and adhering to the Constitution - not promoting the idea that they're 'keeping us safe' merely by passing a law.

In explaining his vote in favor of Toledo's texting ban, Republican District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski said one of the things impacting his 'yes' vote was that council would be 'taking a 'proactive approach' - if we make it illegal, some people won't do it and that may help the problem.'

Perhaps that's what our state legislators thought as well. But if that's the case, I wonder what other laws they'd support 'if they save just one life...' which is the emotional appeal that so many make when they want onerous, unnecessary laws on the books.

So now we have a law that cannot be enforced and will not keep us any safer on the roads and highways than we were before. As the author Balko said in the article quoted above, it's TOBAL-itis:

TOBAL is short for "There Oughtta Be a Law." Here's the progression of symptoms: Wrenching anecdotes about the effects of some alleged new trend make national news. A panic takes root in the media. Earnest editorialists scrawl urgent pleas for action. Politicians grandstand. Soon enough, we have our new law or regulation. It doesn't matter if the law is enforceable or may have unintended consequences. Nor does it matter if the law will have any actual effect on the problem it was passed to address. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the problem actually exists. The mere feeling that it exists is sufficient.

And so it goes with the panic over texting while driving. I'm not going to defend the act of clumsily thumbing out an E-mail while guiding a 2-ton, gasoline-loaded missile down the highway at 70 miles per hour. That's foolish. Nor will I argue there's some right to drive while iPhone-ing tucked into a constitutional penumbra. I will argue that we need to get over the idea that we can solve every bad habit with a new law.

Thank you Republican House members for reacting rather than thinking and for giving us more of a nanny state with a false sense of security than we had before you saved us from ourselves.

The tanning bed police - protecting you from yourself

Yesterday I posted about a new law Rep. Courtney Combs has introduced, H.B. 119, that would require a doctor's permission for anyone under 18 to tan. Ohio law already requires parental permission, but this law would eliminate the parent's role and turn it over to a doctor.

My friend and fellow blogger Matt Hurley, Weapons of Mass Discussion, linked to my post on his Facebook page and here is the discussion that ensued.

Rachel Mullen Manias: My 11 year old is drinking coffee right now for a migraine. Should I have gotten a doctor's note first?

Matt Hurley: That sounds like a question for State Rep. Combs. His office number is (614) 644-6721. :)

Rachel Mullen Manias: So are the tanning salons going to have to file claims with insurance companies? What a tremendous amount of regulation for generally family owned business.
I am very disturbed by this bill.

Maggie Thurber: Great question Rachel!!! Those unintended consequences strike again.

Rachel Mullen Manias: So I called and the Aide told me that I can give my daughter coffee for a migraine. He also said that if you can afford a tan you can afford a doctor's visit.

Rachel Mullen Manias: So I called back. It wouldn't be a prescription so there would be no claim to process. Just authorization that the tanning salon would keep on file.
Oh and if I have a tanning bed in my own home I still need a doctor's note. I wonder who would be knocking on my door to verify that.

Matt Hurley: Did you get that guy's name?

Maggie Thurber: Rachel - that's hilarious! My doctor's co-pay is $20 for an office visit. A tan costs $7. But I suppose the aide completely missed the whole 'who gets to be parent - you or the nanny state' sarcasm of your question. lol

Matt Hurley: The Tanning Bed Police. A division of the Ohio Highway Patrol. To Protect and Serve.

I wonder if Rep. Combs has thought this through in terms of a doctor's order. Why wouldn't the order then be subject to medical reimbursement claims? If, as some people claim, there is a 'right' to health care, does it naturally follow that there is a 'right' to tan, if a doctor must order it? If this law is passed, how soon will it be before states are paying for tanning for medicaid/medicare recipients?

What about the office visit? I know my cost to visit the doctor is only a $20 co-pay, but the insurance company pays the rest of it. How will insurance companies like having to pay for an office visit so some parent can get a permission note for their kid to tan?!? What is THAT going to do to insurance rates?

And why stop at children? If it's bad for you, it's bad for you so perhaps the state ought to require a doctor's permission for everyone. But maybe they won't go that far - especially since that might reduce the number of tanning visits people make and that would hurt the state coffers, considering they're now collecting tax on such 'services.'

This is a ridiculous piece of legislation that isn't going to do anything to reduce skin cancer rates. Maybe our legislators should stop promoting these kinds of feel-good/sound-good bills that do nothing but add to our costs and, instead, focus on ways to address the state's estimate $8 billion budget deficit.

As I said originally...I can hope.

Is Rep. Courtney Combs really a Republican?

I have to wonder, considering his primary sponsorship of H.B. 119 which would prohibit the sale of indoor tanning to anyone under the age of 18 unless permission has been granted through a prescription by a physician.

Fellow Ohio blogger, Matt Hurley at Weapons of Mass Discussion has the press release which states:

The current law requires that consumers under 18 obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to receiving tanning services. House Bill 119 seeks to eliminate such wording to protect teens from the early onset of serious medical conditions.

So why would an elected official who identifies himself as a Republican want to remove the authority of the parent and replace it with the authority of the state?

Are tanning services bad for you? Probably. Is it a bad idea of children to use tanning beds? Probably. Who should be responsible for making that decision? Parents.

But this law would remove the ability of a parent to make the decision with the state mandating that only a doctor can decide. So the state and this representative (along with the other sponsors of the bill) are saying that parents aren't good enough to make such decisions. Only doctors should be able to decide such a thing.

I have a problem with this. The more we remove the ability of parents to decide on behalf of their children, the more power we give to the government to make those decisions instead.

Some will say that the government isn't deciding at all - they're just requiring that doctors do. But that is still removing the ability of the parent to be the parent and I have a problem with someone who is supposed to believe in the freedom of the individual sponsoring such an action by the government.

Maybe Rep. Combs has a good track record on other issues, but this is a fundamental philosophical question: who is the better choice for making decisions on behalf of children - the parents or the government? And if you believe the government should be able to mandate someone other than a parent to make a decision about usage of a tanning salon, what will be next?

Remember, they said banning smoking was only going to be on airplanes, so the slippery slopes do exist.

This bill substitutes the opinion of the government for the opinion of the parent. I hope other Republicans in Ohio's legislature will refuse to start down this path, but I fear that hope is slim.

All hail government dietary guidelines!

What Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in this CNSNews article is so alarming on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.

Let's start with the premise: I wouldn't be healthy if it weren't for the government telling me what to do.

As if no one in the world would be healthy or know how to eat in a manner that contributes, rather than detracts, from health if there weren't dietary guidelines coming from an all-knowing, all-power nanny state!

On Monday, he and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius 'unveiled' new dietary guidelines. Here's what he had to say at George Washington University:

“I must admit personally, I had never read the dietary guidelines until I got this job. But I read them in detail. I read all of them and I realized how significantly different my eating habits were from what constituted a healthy pattern. So personally, my life has changed by virtue of these dietary guidelines.”

He could have just as easily - and more honestly - said: "I never read them because they had absolutely no bearing on my life until I got hired to promote them."

These guidelines have been published since 1980.

Oh my! Whatever did we do prior to then???

I was 16 in 1980 and I knew, even then, what constituted healthy eating and what I should and should not put into my mouth. And prior to 1980, we certainly had a vast majority of Americans who knew the same thing. In fact, I'd wager that today most people know what is good for them and what isn't in terms of sustenance. And I'd further wager that nearly all of them don't even know that the government tells us what we *should* eat.

Just recently, I decided to do what Vilsack and his wife are doing - keep track of what I eat. I didn't need a government to help me find out how many calories are in the food I chosen - I just did a simple Google search, found several websites that contain searchable lists and then I bookmarked the one I liked. Every now and then, there's an item they don't list, so I just Google that item and I can usually find multiple sources of the calories in less than two seconds.

And how might people who don't have computers in their homes do the same thing? Well, they can go down to their local tax-payer funded library and either use the free computer there or get a free card and check out a book (for free) that will tell them the same thing.

The government's *guidelines* are a duplication of what already exists and the only reason to follow their instructions rather than any others is because, obviously, the bureaucrats who suck up our tax dollars to tell us these things know so much more than doctors and dietitians and nutritionists. After all - if you can't trust your government, who can you trust?

But the story gets even scarier. Read this portion of the article and pay attention to the mindset:

HHS Secretary Sebelius said if Americans make unhealthy choices, it hurts the country’s prosperity.

“You can’t be educated if you’re sick each and every day; you’re not a good student,” she said.

“You won’t be as productive or as innovative as a working member of this society if your health condition is debilitating so this has a tremendous cost overall on America’s prosperity.”

She later added that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is helping design safer neighborhoods to increase access to healthier foods.

“When you have to walk two miles in some neighborhoods to get fresh produce at the near super market but only a block away it’s easy to get chips or other kinds of high calorie foods, that makes it very difficult to eat nutritious meals,” she said.

“When it’s not safe to play outside or send your children outside, it’s very tough for kids to get the exercise they need so again the Recovery Act is helping neighborhoods and cities invest in ways to make it easier for people to make healthier choices from serving healthier school lunches to designing more walkable neighborhoods."

See? If you don't do as the government orders, the 'nation' is at risk.

Really? If I don't do what I need to do to keep myself healthy, that has no impact on anyone other than myself and, maybe my family if they rely upon my health for their own. The only way my individual health impacts the nation is if someone else has to care for me, either by providing me a house and food if I cannot, or by providing any medical treatment that may be necessary as a result of my choices. The solution to this dilemma of others paying for my bad choices is NOT to begin to control those choices for me, but to eliminate the obligation for others to pay. Simple - but that certainly does not take us down the path of bigger, more powerful government that knows best and wants to control my life.

But look at the logic: you can't be a good student and get an education if you're sick. That's such a crock of lies I don't know where to begin as most children these days aren't getting a good education regardless. Just take a look at any of the indicators and you'll see a majority of students (in urban public schools, at least) are in schools that are failing them - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with a 'sick' child. Besides, the same government using this lie spends billions every year to feed kids in schools - assuming a parental responsibility that engenders a mentality of slavery, with children growing up dependent upon the government for their needs.

Then there is the communistic-like reference to not being a good 'working member of society' if you aren't healthy - as if your only purpose in being is the betterment of society and not your own personal goals or freedom.

I'm reminded so strongly of the communist propaganda:

Young builders of Communism, go forth toward the new heights (achievements) in education and labour.

Value the Bread!

Alcohol - the enemy of the production!

"Cultivate vegetables!"

"Come comrade, join us in the collective farm!"

Civilized life - productive work

What's next? A Ministry of Plenty (Miniplenty) to properly dispense what we should be eating?

But that's not all - government's failed stimulus, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is our saving grace. Why, if it weren't for ARRA and the benevolent government politicians you might have to walk two miles to a grocery store! Never mind the fact that walking two miles is good for you and is something you should do on regular basis anyway, especially if a more healthier you is a goal.

No, according to Sec. Sebelius, you're just too darn stupid and lazy and would rather buy junk food at the local carryout.

So that's why these new guidelines are so important. Now that they've been issued all these stupid, lazy people she's referring to will actually eat better! Besides, with all that ARRA stimulus money, you stupid, lazy, unhealthy people will now have walkable neighborhoods and healthy food choices on every corner!

Yeah, right!

Do you think she's ever paid attention to all the anecdotal (and documented) stories of people on food stamps - sorry, it's called SNAP now because that's less stigmatizing - who buy chips and pop and ice cream and ignore fruits and vegetables? If she were to actually gather the information about what people were buying with 'other people's money' would she realize that she's fighting a losing battle and the only way to actually accomplish the goal would be to completely take over and just provide the meals she approves of to everyone in the country?

Perhaps that's the next step, especially with Obamacare leading to the anti-logic that now that the government is paying for your medical treatment it can dictate your behavior to ensure health.

We're already on the slippery slope, as I've previously written:

These people who seek to control us know that they really can't control our eating or our choices. So, in the plan detailed in the article, they're going to control the products we purchase by regulating what food manufacturers can and cannot do within the free market.

I know how I'll respond: I won't purchase those products. And if all product choices have new regulations that cut out something I like, I'll just add it after the fact.

I am not a child whose eating habits need to be regulated by people who think they know better than me. I have a doctor whose opinion I trust infinitely more than some bureaucrat in Washington - or some epidemiologist who gets appointed to serve on some panel.

I am a free individual - or so I thought - who is responsible for myself and willing to abide by the consequences if I choose to eat salt - or any other product some do-gooders think I should avoid.

And this sentiment of freedom - liberty to live a life of one's own choosing - is what led our founders to establish this great nation. I cannot help but believe they would be appalled at what we have become.

Can you imagine how much it cost to do these stupid, one-size-fits all-ignore-the-individual-health-conditions-of-a-person guidelines? How many millions are spent for the government to duplicate what is already available for free simply by looking? And what were our representatives in Congress thinking when they passed the law that requires these to be done???

And the absolutely worst part of the whole thing is that the *guidelines* are wrong! Or rather - they've changed so dramatically over time that following them could be worse than not. According to this history of the food pyramid, the first USDA guide, issued in 1917, emphasized five groups:

1.milk and meat
2.cereals
3.vegetables and fruit
4.fats and fatty foods
5.sugars and sugary foods.

In 1946, it was seven groups:

1.Milk and milk products
2.Meat, poultry, fish, eggs, beans, peas and nuts
3.Bread, flour and cereals
4.Leafy green and yellow vegetables
5.Potatoes and sweet potatoes
6.Citrus, tomato, cabbage, salad greens
7.Butter, fortified margarine

By 1956, it down to four basic groups:

1.Milk
2.Meat
3.Fruits and vegetables
4.Grain products

In 1977, it was recommended "that all Americans reduce their fat, saturated fat and cholesterol consumption, and increase their carbohydrate consumption to 55-60% of daily calories." By the 1990s, carbs were out and, today, more fish and fruit are the focus.

Granted, all this is based upon new knowledge and science, but since when has the government ever been able to keep up with what's going on in the free market or been on the cutting edge? As I wrote earlier, the more accurate and timely information is readily available and it doesn't require a bureaucrat to dispense.

What a utter waste - at a time when the nation is broke. And what a complete disregard for the limited powers our Constitution dictates for the federal government.

I am not a child!

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

I was reading through headlines today and came across this article about the plans for the Food and Drug Administration to begin regulating salt.

Apparently, according to the article, we're just too stupid to know what's good for us and continue to do things in our private lives that the government and 'experts' just don't approve of.

"Until now, the government has pushed the food industry to voluntarily reduce salt and tried to educate consumers about the dangers of excessive sodium. But in a study to be released Wednesday, an expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes that those measures have failed. The panel will recommend that the government take action, according to sources familiar with the findings."

See? They've tried to tell us that salt is bad but we just don't listen.

They've tried to get companies to reduce salt in their food products, but apparently, we, as consumers, don't happen to like those kinds of changes and won't purchase those reduced-salt products in enough volume to make them profitable.

But the arrogance of these 'experts' continues to astound me.

"We can't just rely on the individual to do something," said Cheryl Anderson, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who served on the Institute of Medicine committee.

You cannot be trusted to behave in a manner that someone else thinks is right, so you must be forced into conformity through government regulations on suppliers.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as this is the standard route for 'advocates' to take. Failing to win the 'hearts and minds' of the individuals they seek to influence, groups turn to government to force their opinions/beliefs on others through laws and regulations.

But these 'experts' and the government know they can't just outlaw salt because there would be significant backlash. So they're going to gradually modify our behavior.

"This is a 10-year program," one source said. "This is not rolling off a log. We're talking about a comprehensive phase-down of a widely used ingredient. We're talking about embedded tastes in a whole generation of people."

I cannot help but be reminded of the boiling frog scenario.

I used to love McDonald's french fries. I know they aren't good for me, but I didn't eat them every day. However, between the changes in the types of oils they use for frying them and the reduction in salt they put on them, I don't like them anymore. Even putting extra salt on them to make up for what they no longer use isn't enough. So I don't eat them at all anymore.

The consumer is smarter than the government and the experts.

Is salt bad for you? Not always. Too much salt can cause health problems in some people. A lack of salt in your system can also cause health problems. Government's one-size-fits-all approach certainly doesn't work for everyone and each of us should be responsible for our own bodies and our own health.

But that's not government's idea of how things should go. They obviously believe they exist to keep us from making bad decisions. They justify such action by saying that government incurs the cost for the consequences of poor health choices. But that's easily solved by having government STOP such actions that absolve the individual from the consequences of their decisions.

But just like with the bailouts, government uses the funding they've provided to dictate the terms and behaviors. Our government is telling companies what type of products to make because they own a significant stake in the company. And now that government health care is the law (for the time being, hopefully) why should we expect anything less than control over what we eat, how much we exercise and other behaviors that might result in health issues the government (actually taxpayers) will be paying for? They'll justify this with the phrase of the 'common good.' As everyone is paying for your health care, it's in everyone's best interest that you be forced to behave in a way that leads to your own good health.

Sounds like communist China to me. Though the government stops short of regulating food purchases of people who receive food stamps, even though many of those individuals are the very ones most in need of 'education' about healthy eating choices. But government, in its warped sense of fairness, can't let some people make their own choices because they make good ones while seeking to control the decisions of people who make bad choices - so everyone must be regulated.

These people who seek to control us know that they really can't control our eating or our choices. So, in the plan detailed in the article, they're going to control the products we purchase by regulating what food manufacturers can and cannot do within the free market.

I know how I'll respond: I won't purchase those products. And if all product choices have new regulations that cut out something I like, I'll just add it after the fact.

I am not a child whose eating habits need to be regulated by people who think they know better than me. I have a doctor whose opinion I trust infinitely more than some bureaucrat in Washington - or some epidemiologist who gets appointed to serve on some panel.

I am a free individual - or so I thought - who is responsible for myself and willing to abide by the consequences if I choose to eat salt - or any other product some do-gooders think I should avoid.

And this sentiment of freedom - liberty to live a life of one's own choosing - is what led our founders to establish this great nation. I cannot help but believe they would be appalled at what we have become.

"In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs." ~ Walter Lippmann

Quote of the Day

"If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy." ~ John Stossel

Quote of the Day

From Dennis Prager in a speech to the Republican members of Congress:

"We have to learn to make our complex beliefs simple -- though never simplistic. And this is our powerful response to government doing more and more for people: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

And here's how we explain it: The bigger the government, the less I do for myself, for my family and for my community. That is why we Americans give more charity and devote more time to volunteering than Europeans do. The European knows: The government, the state, will take care of me, my children, my parents, my neighbors and my community. I don't have to do anything. The bigger question in many Europeans' lives is, "How much vacation time will I have and where will I spend that vacation?"

That is what happens when the state gets bigger -- you become smaller. The dream of America was that the individual was to be a giant. The state stays small so as to enable each of us to be as big as we can be. We are each created in God's image. The state is not in God's image, but it is vying to be that. This is the battle you're fighting. You are fighting a cosmic battle because this is the most important society ever devised, the United States of America."

Why Are Americans Giving Up Their Freedom?

This is a column published in Townhall.com by David Strom, the President of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Until recently he was President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, one of the largest and most successful state-based taxpayer advocacy organizations in the country. It's a powerful commentary that we should all heed, which is why I'm reprinting it here.

Are Americans tiring of individual liberty?

It sure seems so. How else can you explain the proliferation of laws that regulate the most mundane aspects of our lives, and the mostly passive reaction of Americans to the ever increasing micromanagement of our lives?

Liberty has always been a tougher sell than many of us assume. We all want the freedom to do as we like, but few of us are as committed to allowing others to act contrary to our notion of right and wrong. Majorities have always sought and often found ways to impose their views upon minorities. The most vocal minorities have often been successful in imposing their will on the majority, at least for a time.

So there is nothing new about threats to Individual liberty being a daily part of our lives. What is new is that the institutional barriers to regulating our daily lives have effectively broken down. It took a Constitutional Amendment to pass prohibition of alcohol (and repeal it). Who today expects a Constitutional fight over smoking, obesity, trans-fats, or any of the myriad personal issues now under the purview of government control?

America was founded on the belief that government power should be strictly limited, because the alternative to limited power was unlimited power. The framers of the Constitution were rightly concerned that without strict institutional barriers to the expansion of government powers there would eventually be no barriers at all. Power, in any form, longs to be absolute.

Unfortunately, the concept of limited government is becoming an anachronism in today’s America.

There are no limits on what government can regulate because we have accepted the notion that there are no limits to the benefits government can and should bestow upon us. Fifty percent of health care is paid for by the government—including universal health care for all of us over 65. Your trans-fat laden donut today could mean higher taxes for me in the future. Ditto for smoking and other risky behavior.

The pervasiveness of government power over our lives is so complete that at times it becomes invisible. Today only the most obvious and egregious violations of our liberty seem to get people riled. For instance, Californians rebelled at the idea of government control over their thermostats, but Americans have in the main meekly submitted to massive social engineering in their daily lives.

Americans have made a bargain with the devil. Dispensing with the idea of limited government in realm of benefits has meant dispensing with the idea of any limits to government power at all. Once we accept the notion that government should ensure that our pursuit of happiness succeeds, we have accepted the notion that government has the right to define what a happy life should look like.

We can call this trend the encroachment of the “nanny state,” which it is, or the spread of “liberal fascism,” which it also is. But it is also the inevitable result of Americans’ increasing desire to have government guarantee that more and more aspects of our lives turn out all right.

Limiting government power requires limiting the benefits that government can bestow upon us, and right now that seems a bridge too far for some Americans. The revival of the conservative movement will not depend upon conservatives making peace with the welfare state, as some are arguing. It will depend, instead, on tapping into Americans’ uneasiness regarding the encroachments of the State into more and more aspects of our private lives.

Can conservatives succeed in convincing Americans that government benefits, and hence power, should be limited? Perhaps. But only if they remind Americans (as Barry Goldwater did) that a government big enough to give you everything you want is one big enough to take away everything you have.