camwyn: (ew)
[personal profile] camwyn
I think you have bigger problems to worry about than whether restaurants should be allowed to feed obese people.

WHAT THE HELL.

No government has the right to do that, to be that intrusively and obnoxiously paternalistic. None.

Representatives Mayhall, Read and Shows? This is what you're saying, whether you realize it or not:

"We know what's best for you, FAT BOY. Go home, FAT BOY. No one wants to see you doing things in public that everybody else in the state does in public, FAT BOY. We'll tell you it's about your health, FAT BOY, but really, if we gave a rat's patoot about your health we'd have banned the sale of cigarettes to anybody with a cough or alcohol to anybody with any kind of neurological issues."

"You're fat. We don't love you. We need somebody to pick on and it's socially okay to hate fat people. So leave our restaurants, FAT BOY, because nobody wants to be reminded that you exist."

Date: 2008-02-01 10:43 pm (UTC)
silveraspen: silver trees against a blue sky background (don't f*ck by spicedrum)
From: [personal profile] silveraspen
... what. What.

Just tell me that's proposed legislation, and not passed legislation. That would make it at least a tiny bit better.

ARGH.

Date: 2008-02-01 10:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com
I've lived in Mississippi. Someone in the Lege is taking the piss out of somebody, for political ends, if it's not a joke. It's not exactly a state full of skinny people, but it is a state full of people who are determined to eat what they damned well please, and screw the consequences. It's the sort of place where "eat dessert first" not only seems perfectly reasonable, but no one thnks it odd when you go ahead and have dessert again at the end of the meal. If restaurants didn't serve the obese, they'd be out of business from lack of customers.

It would be interesting to see who put this forward, and if (as seems likely) they are planning on making it seem like it's all Hillary Clinton's fault, mean bossy bitch that she is--"See, my distinguished colleagues: this is exactly the sort of thing we have to look forward to if That Woman gets back into the White House--she's the sort of woman who thinks it's funny to come up with a campaign ad where she keeps her husband from having onion rings, one of America's great foods--"for his own good"!"

Date: 2008-02-01 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pandoras-closet.livejournal.com
Two things:

One, They're serious (http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-fat-people-allowed-only-slim-will-be.html)

Two, can I metaqoute you?

Date: 2008-02-01 11:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bigscary.livejournal.com
Note that the top two names on the bill are republicans, and the third is a "Dem" who voted for the republican candidate for speaker this year.

Date: 2008-02-01 11:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dragonwhishes.livejournal.com
... I.

What.

Date: 2008-02-01 11:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vivian-shaw.livejournal.com
My lack of God.

Wow. That's the special kind of stupid.

Date: 2008-02-02 12:59 am (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
How serious can it be when they admit that they know it's not gonna pass?

Date: 2008-02-02 01:00 am (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
Yeah, well, it is Mississippi. Consistently ranked in the bottom five states for education. Also, poorest state in the union.

Date: 2008-02-02 01:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] darthrami.livejournal.com
What the fucking fuck??? Is this something that's being proposed, or something that's passed already?

Date: 2008-02-02 01:07 am (UTC)
mephron: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mephron
http://sclerotic-rings.livejournal.com/1927663.html

Someone's interesting take on the idea that this is not 'punish fat people' but 'punish people who need public assistance' with all that goes with in our current society as far as the fact that a can of Chef Boy-Ar-Dee ravioli costs less than the equivalent in either fresh meat or fresh vegetables.

Date: 2008-02-02 04:02 am (UTC)
vivien: picture of me drunk and giggling (Default)
From: [personal profile] vivien
Interesting.

My husband, who is a smoker, has often said that anti-smoking legislation is the tip of the iceberg as far as the encroachment of personal civil liberties is concerned. I, an asthmatic who despises being near smoke (he neither smokes in the house nor near me at all), disagree, but legislation like this leads me to wonder if he's not right.

The iceberg tipped long ago

Date: 2008-02-02 04:12 am (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
Nah, laws against public nudity, and prohibitions of various bedroom antics, way predate anti-smoking laws.

Date: 2008-02-02 07:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vadrice.livejournal.com
i say in protest we all go to mississippi and have lots of sex with fat people.

Date: 2008-02-03 02:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com
According to the junkfoodscience article, Should this pass, scales will appear at the door of restaurants, people with BMIs of 30 or higher won't be allowed to be served. And to comply with government regulations, restaurants will have to keep records of patrons' BMIs.

I wonder if anyone has pointed out that since muscle is denser than fat, athletes tend to have higher BMIs - does this mean that the local sports hero won't be served? Also, has anyone thought about the effect having public weigh-stations at restaurant entrances is likely to have on the problem of eating disorders among teenagers?

Profile

camwyn: Me in a bomber jacket and jeans standing next to a green two-man North Andover Flight Academy helicopter. (Default)
camwyn

February 2026

S M T W T F S
12345 67
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 10th, 2026 12:18 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios