Curtis Dahlgren
The Nanny State can't even keep her stories straight!
By Curtis Dahlgren
"dictatorship, n, 1. The form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator;
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or CONTROL." — Webster's New Universal Dictionary
AN OPEN LETTER TO MY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, PART 2:
Dear On Wisconsin magazine:
I always look forward to reading your publication, but as an (undergrad) alum, may I offer some comments (or, "can" I — without being pigeon-holed as anti-intellectual, or "anti-science")? I'm a full time writer of nearly 500 commentaries and just had one of them published in UP magazine. Anyway, one of my recent topics was "Has science ever been totally apolitical?"
I was defending truly objective science from the corrupting influence of politics, but of course my critics accused me of attacking science and "progress" — which means my point went right over their heads (phony environmental or food scare stories are not helping science credibility).
At the risk of being lampooned again, I'd like to comment on your current article re the "War on Obesity" and NC professor Barry Popkin. He says that obese people outnumber under-nourished people 2 to 1, and he "doesn't believe this is simply the result of individual overindulgence" [i.e., the glutton is the "victim"].
With the assistance of Dr. Popkin, NY guv Patterson in 2010 proposed a "penny-per-ounce tax on soda and other sweet drinks" [this is the quintessential collusion between "science" and politics that has made Big Brother the most bloated person in America].
Popkin declares "excessive red meat bad for global climate control" [there is no such thing as human control over the climate].
Back to the article: Long before Jamie Oliver and Michael Pollan put our food supply "on trial," Popkin was warning of the coming obesity epidemic" [how come our life-expectancy keeps getting longer for both sexes if this is an "epidemic"?].
Granted, obesity is visually disgusting, and I know of some such people, but coincidentally most of them are on federal food stamps and/or "crazy checks" [a friend of mine, just a little guy, gets $200 worth of food stamps every month due in part to addiction-related "disabilities," while I survive on about one-third of that much (and I worked all my life, starting around age 4 on a dairy farm)].
And now Big Sis/Big Nan/Big Bro's Labor Department wants to tell farm kids that they can no longer drive tractors — just sit on your butt, play video games, and get fat, I guess! All this political correctness is enough to make a sane man puke up his 99-cent McDouble burger [as an aside, it sure is nice to be able to go into a restaurant and eat for $1 instead of $5; I use the $4 I save to buy one gallon of gas so I can get home again].
I wonder if it's a coincidence that Barry Popkin's North Carolina is where the Food Police confiscated a 4-year-old's turkey sandwich and told her to eat deep-fried chicken nuggets? The nanny state can't even keep its calorie-counting straight.
Back to the article: "Popkin adds, [Chapel Hill] is a liberal oasis in the middle of an enormous chunk of reality in the South" [what, pray tell, are you talkin' 'bout, Willis? 'Chunk of reality' is government-speak for hayseed, gun-totin, Bible thumpin, flat-earth Fundies, fiddle-playin hicks that the EDUCATED in Chapel Hill can't stomach. I would add that most of those people in the mountains of "da South" are in better physical shape than your average professor in Chapel Hill. And you can quote me on that!].
Very truly,
The Old Man
P.S. Popkin says, "I work within the system and with governments to make changes."
I rest my case. Science is NOT apolitical, and Popkin just made my case for me.
PPS:
For those of you in the upper midwest with access to UP magazine by Porcupine Press, you can read one of my columns in the upcoming issue ("Why would anyone live in the U.P. of Michigan").
www.upmag.net
© Curtis Dahlgren
March 10, 2012
"dictatorship, n, 1. The form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator;
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or CONTROL." — Webster's New Universal Dictionary
AN OPEN LETTER TO MY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, PART 2:
Dear On Wisconsin magazine:
I always look forward to reading your publication, but as an (undergrad) alum, may I offer some comments (or, "can" I — without being pigeon-holed as anti-intellectual, or "anti-science")? I'm a full time writer of nearly 500 commentaries and just had one of them published in UP magazine. Anyway, one of my recent topics was "Has science ever been totally apolitical?"
I was defending truly objective science from the corrupting influence of politics, but of course my critics accused me of attacking science and "progress" — which means my point went right over their heads (phony environmental or food scare stories are not helping science credibility).
At the risk of being lampooned again, I'd like to comment on your current article re the "War on Obesity" and NC professor Barry Popkin. He says that obese people outnumber under-nourished people 2 to 1, and he "doesn't believe this is simply the result of individual overindulgence" [i.e., the glutton is the "victim"].
With the assistance of Dr. Popkin, NY guv Patterson in 2010 proposed a "penny-per-ounce tax on soda and other sweet drinks" [this is the quintessential collusion between "science" and politics that has made Big Brother the most bloated person in America].
Popkin declares "excessive red meat bad for global climate control" [there is no such thing as human control over the climate].
Back to the article: Long before Jamie Oliver and Michael Pollan put our food supply "on trial," Popkin was warning of the coming obesity epidemic" [how come our life-expectancy keeps getting longer for both sexes if this is an "epidemic"?].
Granted, obesity is visually disgusting, and I know of some such people, but coincidentally most of them are on federal food stamps and/or "crazy checks" [a friend of mine, just a little guy, gets $200 worth of food stamps every month due in part to addiction-related "disabilities," while I survive on about one-third of that much (and I worked all my life, starting around age 4 on a dairy farm)].
And now Big Sis/Big Nan/Big Bro's Labor Department wants to tell farm kids that they can no longer drive tractors — just sit on your butt, play video games, and get fat, I guess! All this political correctness is enough to make a sane man puke up his 99-cent McDouble burger [as an aside, it sure is nice to be able to go into a restaurant and eat for $1 instead of $5; I use the $4 I save to buy one gallon of gas so I can get home again].
I wonder if it's a coincidence that Barry Popkin's North Carolina is where the Food Police confiscated a 4-year-old's turkey sandwich and told her to eat deep-fried chicken nuggets? The nanny state can't even keep its calorie-counting straight.
Back to the article: "Popkin adds, [Chapel Hill] is a liberal oasis in the middle of an enormous chunk of reality in the South" [what, pray tell, are you talkin' 'bout, Willis? 'Chunk of reality' is government-speak for hayseed, gun-totin, Bible thumpin, flat-earth Fundies, fiddle-playin hicks that the EDUCATED in Chapel Hill can't stomach. I would add that most of those people in the mountains of "da South" are in better physical shape than your average professor in Chapel Hill. And you can quote me on that!].
Very truly,
The Old Man
P.S. Popkin says, "I work within the system and with governments to make changes."
I rest my case. Science is NOT apolitical, and Popkin just made my case for me.
PPS:
For those of you in the upper midwest with access to UP magazine by Porcupine Press, you can read one of my columns in the upcoming issue ("Why would anyone live in the U.P. of Michigan").
www.upmag.net
© Curtis Dahlgren
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
