New at Reason

NP | January 9, 2008, 8:26am | #

You know, I was willing to give Kristol the benefit of the doubt, but oh boy...

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 8:42am | #

Cue John to tell us how Huckadizzle is better than a Democrat just because he puts an "R" next to his name.

DavidS | January 9, 2008, 8:52am | #

What about these persistent rumours that his rapid weight loss was due to his having his stomach stapled?

Fluffy | January 9, 2008, 8:59am | #

I don't like to encourage people to think of overeating in terms of "addiction", because I think the paradigm that applies the addiction model to everything people do that they like to do is both absurd and dangerous.

But let's say for the sake of argument Huckabee was, in fact, "addicted" to food, and overcame that addiction.

In that case he definitely shouldn't be President, because ex-addicts are some of the most irrational and insufferable a-holes in the world.

First, because they tend to proselytize. "I overcame my addiction, and YOU CAN, TOO!" Spare me your concern, please. Pile that tendency on top of someone who was already an evangelical minister, and you basically have the potential for a sort of preachmonster that could go all Cloverfield on us.

Second, because they tend to define down addiction as part of their psychological quest to minimize their own previous personal failures. To a reformed alcoholic, everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. "I'm not the only loser! The rest of you are losers, too! I went through a period where I couldn't control my behavior, so that means none of you can control your behavior, either!" Ex-addicts are psychologically invested in models of behavior that trend towards nanny-statism, because it's hard for many of them to admit to themselves that I don't need their help, and I don't need government compulsion, to avoid fucking up like they did.

Reinmoose | January 9, 2008, 9:06am | #

Or, you know, we could always just stop subsidizing food.

Now that RP's done with Iowa, maybe he can make a statement about the nation's health (as he is a doctor) and indicate that by having universal health care we're spending money to make a problem and spending money to fix it. It would be simpler just to stop spending the money that creates the problem by eliminating most agricultural subsidies, which go largely to already rich major businesses anyway.

J sub D | January 9, 2008, 9:18am | #

In that case he definitely shouldn't be President, because ex-addicts are some of the most irrational and insufferable a-holes in the world.

My list of the most insufferable, self righteous people WAS "ex-smpkers, Catholic converts and married whores." I've added slimmed down fatties to my list in honor of the Yokel Baptist Preacher.

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 9:31am | #

Episiarch, just wait. Huckadizzle is a harbinger for the oncoming War on Fat. 10 years later people are going to seize on that statement as "genius and visionary" instead of the downright unscientific stupidity that it is.

It happens fast, too. Remember what smoking was like in the 80s? The early 90s even? Everywhere...and in less than a generation it's gone.

My list of the most insufferable, self righteous people WAS "ex-smokers, Catholic converts and married whores."

J sub - it cuts both ways...cue Akira for the atheist version of this.

Married whores though? Really? I didn't know that one. Don't forget to add former alcoholics to the list.

Nutter | January 9, 2008, 9:42am | #

Any "converts" of any kind are driven to prove their authenticity and quickly become insufferable. Ever talk to a newly minted libertarian?

LarryA | January 9, 2008, 9:45am | #

"We do not need the government to become the ‘grease police,'" he writes, "dictating what size cheeseburgers the law will allow or taxing obese people at a different rate than thin people because of the likelihood of additional health care costs associated with obesity."

"If we continue with this trend," he told CNN in 2006, "within another generation you'll see kids dropping dead at their desks at the high school."

So which is it? Kids who drop dead in high school aren’t going to cost hardly anything in health care.

When are reporters going to challenge the bogus “health care cost” argument? The really expensive folks are the super healthy who live to 105, spending half their life on Medicare and the last decade or so in long term care paid for with Medicaid.

J sub D | January 9, 2008, 9:51am | #

J sub - it cuts both ways...cue Akira for the atheist version of this.

There's some truth there. I have a gut feeling that the most strident atheists used to be "True Believers".

mk | January 9, 2008, 9:56am | #

because ex-addicts are some of the most irrational and insufferable a-holes in the world.

I had almost forgot that I am an irrational and insufferable asshole because I stopped drinking and doing drugs all those years ago. Thanks for the reminder Fluffy.

James Ard | January 9, 2008, 9:58am | #

Don't forget crooked campaigners who vanquish the first amendment to make amends.

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 10:03am | #

And don't forget your Mac users and converts.

Oh ye gods, quoted for truth.

Does anyone remember when GG became a "Straussian" and that was all he could talk about in every post?

I bet I was like that when I was first a "Randian". Man.

J sub D | January 9, 2008, 10:09am | #

When are reporters going to challenge the bogus “health care cost” argument? The really expensive folks are the super healthy who live to 105, spending half their life on Medicare and the last decade or so in long term care paid for with Medicaid.

I've never seen the study that compares TOTAL health care costs between smokers and non-smokers. Just did a google though, and this from todays New York Times came up.
I love coincidences.

John | January 9, 2008, 10:45am | #

"There's some truth there. I have a gut feeling that the most strident atheists used to be "True Believers"."

I have found you can divide atheists into two camps. The first says "I don't believe but I understand why some people do and that in doing so they derrive a lot of confort and meaning even though what they believe in is false." The second says "I dont' believe in God and the belief in God and religion in general is the root of all evil in the world and anyone who does believe is a dangerous fool." I have found almost invarably that the second types were either raised in or were once involved in very strict and devout branches of religion. Some people just can't keep it between the ditches and veer from one side to the other.

The same is true of ex-fatties and addicts. Listen to an AA alum explain to you how you are an alcholic and in denial because you have gotten drunk a couple of times in the last month.

edcoast | January 9, 2008, 11:32am | #

John, your analysis is great. I'm in the second category - full-blown evangelical, charismatic, speaking in tongues and all that crap becomes oh-so-strident atheist. I lay awake at night worrying about the Coming Theocracy. Fortunately (I think) my wife is a believer (but not part of that described above), so when I start to wear my unbelief on my sleeve, she shoots me "your not getting any" dirty looks. Shuts me right up.

J sub D | January 9, 2008, 11:40am | #

...she shoots me "your not getting any" dirty looks.

That sounds strangely familiar. Yet women often complain they lack power. Go figure,

Ska | January 9, 2008, 1:00pm | #

The really expensive folks are the super healthy who live to 105, spending half their life on Medicare and the last decade or so in long term care paid for with Medicaid.


'tis quite true. There is actually a subset of law practice dedicated to liquidating assets (to your family and charity) so that middle-middle and middle-upper class folks can qualify for Medicaire to pay for the enormous costs of LT care/nursing home care.

Jake | January 9, 2008, 1:21pm | #

No amount of government nanny state-ism is going to get obese people to turn off the TV, cut their intake of junk food and insane Cheesecake Factory food portions and exercise enough to shed the 100's of pounds they've accumulated over the years.

What it's likely going to take is a publicized population 'dieoff' in large numbers. Of course it's already happening albeit slowly, which is why the media does little to report on it. Look at the rising number of teenagers with "type 2" diabetes as well as the number of elementary school kids too! (i.e. Type 2 is diet related diabetes - totally based on poor choices vs. hereditary). It's sickening. Feeding kids too much is just as much of a form of child abuse as is starving a kid.

Thus 'kids' are beginning to experience such life threatening health conditions as heart attacks, strokes, gangrene, amputations etc. due to being too fat!

Pretty soon insurance companies will refuse to insure fat employees (because they will otherwise bankrupt the insurance industry). Did you know that health insurance companies are now paying for invasive stomach stapling surgeries? They reason that covering a near 6 figure surgery cost will save them a ton of money in the long run that would otherwise result in a substantial amount of obesity related medical services (especially if the person dies during the surgery). Fact.

Transportation companies are starting to charge fat customers more. Hopefully the clothing manufacturers will too so those of use who are not fat can stop subsidizing those who are. Since when did a XXXXXL shirt become a normal acceptable part of life?

With enough inconvenience some fat people will eventually do something about their health. Good for them. If others choose to die a slow death instead, then so be it. It's their choice.

TrickyVic | January 9, 2008, 1:33pm | #

The Nanny will make sure you have plenty of court mandated programs to help you with _______ abuse.

Craig | January 9, 2008, 6:42pm | #

The killer High Fruitcose Corn Syrup has run amok in our society making people fat because of its sweet, sweet goodness that people just can't resist and it was not even mentioned in any of his speeches.

Actually, we can resist it. It can't hold a candle to real sugar, but that costs too much because

(A) Corn is subsidized, because Iowa votes first

and

(B) Imported sugar faces steep tariffs.

Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | January 9, 2008, 7:30pm | #

And, purely anecdotally, my thin friends spend a lot of time "burdening" the medical system with all their sports-related injuries, so here at mid-life, you thin folks owe ME a lot of money.

economist | January 9, 2008, 8:30pm | #

I just had a funny thought: Cartman as the grease police. Think about it. "Respect my authorita, fatass".