Mixed Messages

Want to know about unintended consequences and what they can do to you and society in general? Look no further than the sudden interest in the obesity crisis. From Michele Obama’s campaign for fitness and backyard gardens to NY Mayor Bloomberg’s war against soda, the government’s major push is against fat.


And its working. According to Gallup, 81 percent of us think obesity is an “extremely serious” or “very serious” social problem. All fine and good, if you ignore that while I was in high school, it was a national crisis that all the girls were developing eating disorders based on unfair media images of women.

The sad thing is, only 67 percent of us rate cigarettes as “extremely serious” or “very serious.” I say sad, because - without getting into the nitty gritty details - using cigarettes is roughly twice as bad for you as being obese. Cigarettes raises your risk of disease 4x, while being obese only raises is 2x. And being just a little overweight actually lowers your risk of dying below 1 (where 1 = average risk) while using cigarettes only occasionally actually puts you at the same risk as an obese person.

The government not only permits cigarettes, it provides manufacturers with tax breaks. Meanwhile, it also helped promote the obesity crisis by pushing low fat, high carb diets as the food choice du jour.

Having promoted both problems, it now tamps down slightly on the most dangerous, while launching an all out war on the less dangerous problem. Most likely because it has run out of ways to shame hard-core smokers, while the social stigma against being obese allows it target them without problem.

Cigarettes yesterday, soda today, burgers tomorrow

When I say I support gay marriage, even though I don’t think its constitutionally protected (at least not under any sensible reading of the due process clause), its because of outcome like the following.

Several years ago people began to bang the drum for heavy regulation of cigarettes as a public health issue. Cigarettes are horrible for you, and I don’t and have never smoked. I don’t support it and frankly, if you smoke, I think you are an idiot. And in public places, the public should be able to ban smoking, but not in private places, so bars and restaurants should be able to allow smoking. But this compromise wasn’t enough, and public policy makers went after these establishments as well.

“No, no,” they said to those who worried about what this could mean down the road, “this is where it ends. Cigarettes are a unique case involving a product that is hazardous as used. It is limited to this one case.”

Except now the use of trans fats is all but illegal (and actually illegal in New York). Also in New York, salt is all but illegal. And then you get Newsweek columnist Michael Tomasky supporting New York’s ban on soda’s containing more than 16 ounces (but not in convenience stores; or grocery stores).

Ok, you say, someone out at a movie or at a McDonald’s can buy two 16 oz sodas if they want more soda.  Same price.  No a big deal. Soda really doesn’t have much in the way of a redeeming quality, so its an easy target.  Obesity is epidemic.  Obesity is clearly unhealthy. Maybe you can see the logic here. I for one can understand the thinking.  If you drink too much soda you really are an idiot, and if you wind up fat, you really only have yourself to blame.  This all makes this is a pretty unique case, correct?

Certainly, except that this is where Tomasky goes next:

“Are bacon-cheeseburgers next? As a practical matter, no. Sodas are an easy target because there is nothing, nothing, nutritionally redeeming about them. But might there come a day when the New York City Department of Health mandates that burgers be limited to, say, four ounces? Indeed there might. And why not? Eight- and ten-ounce burgers are sick things.

“As a practical matter, no.” It’s also not often practical to wage a 2-front war. But once the war on 1 front is won, it makes perfect sense to turn your eye to that other front. So once the battle over 16oz+ soda is over and people are still fat, perhaps then it will be more practical.

When you try to accomplish something good without regards to the means, this is where you can end up.  Because now there is no limiting principle.  Why stop at 4oz burgers.  An eight ounce burger (Tomasky's "sick thing") is twice as large as a four ounce burger, but a four ounce burger is twice as large as a 2 ounce one.

In fact, fried patties of ground meat are certainly one of the, if not the, least healthy ways to eat beef.  Why not ban burgers?  Practical?  Not right now.  Once we are down to 2 ounces per burger, maybe.  And plenty of people will tell you that eating beef isn't healthy anyway.  Why not just ban meat consumption.  Again, as a practical matter, it won't happen today, but I'm not worried about today, I'm worried about tomorrow.

Check out http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/03/newsweek-writer-we-have-this-liberty-bus for more likeminded commentary.

The meltdown over nuclear power

It's started. I received the following in an email at work:

Friend,

We are at an energy crossroads. We could continue rushing blindly down a road strewn with nuclear meltdowns, oil spills, and toxic emissions until we realize too late that we have altered our world’s ability to nourish its inhabitants. Or we could step boldly onto a new road to a time and place where energy is abundant, affordable, and safe for people and our planet. The choice is clear. But as long as the government keeps propping up toxic energy with taxpayer dollars, the roadblocks to a clean energy future are insurmountable.

... help build grassroots momentum for a future free of nuclear emergencies: Forward this message to everyone you know who supports a transition to a clean and safe energy future.

I'm all for ending the government prop-up of energy creation. All it does is distort the price of certain, favored policies, over others. And I'm for cheap, clean power. But the reality is that this just doesn't exist in the way Public Citizen - the author of this letter - hopes. "Clean and safe" pretty much defines nuclear power. We've had what, two accidents, in the entire U.S. No injuries. Compare that to coal and oil, and for fun let's put aside the environmental problems from their burning. You still have oil rig explosions, mine collapses, resulting pollution from obtaining the materials, etc.

Public Citizen's letter is suspiciously quiet about which clean, safe and abundant power source it favors. My guess is wind or solar. But of the two of them, only wind produces a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear. Solar's carbon footprint is actually twice as large. Not to mention the best place for windfarms - which come with their own set of problems outside of having the actual, visible windmills - is in ecologically sensative deserts. And consider the amount of space wind requires to produce 1,000-megawatts over that of nuclear. Geothermal is nice, but requires enough space that it probably isn't an option for cities.

Broadcasting stupidity

Two things of note that fall under this headline:

First, the National Association of Broadcasters is seeking legislation that would require all portable electronic devices to include FM radio. I assume this extends to cell phones, music players and the like. But as posters point out, will it extend to electric razors? And what about AM radio? This is such an obvious ploy for Congressional action to ensure the dominance and relevance of an existing medium - its scary in its overtness. Not that all that many people listen to FM radio any more, what with Pandora, digital music, HD radio and satellite radio. If this passes, I might have to stop listening to FM radio.

The second I have to kinda shoe-horn in. I fully support the right of Muslims to build a mosque/community center at the old Burlington Coat Factory two blocks from Ground Zero. I also support those who oppose the plans to criticize the plan and oppose it, as long as the opposition includes newspaper columns and protests and not government action, which should/would be barred. I even have mixed feelings about whether the plan is appropriate. But I think that you are generally broadcasting your stupidity if you rely on the constitution or religious freedoms to support your argument.

See, I told you they both fit the headline.

It's the trifecta! The trifecta, I tell ya!

Its not exactly the technological singularity, or even the other, more sciency, singularity, but still.

This reason.com post and the accompanying video (well worth a watch in my opinion - but I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think that was the case) hits all the interests: government programs, health and food. And there is a TED mention, to boot.