Props To Breitbart’s John Nolte!



This coincides with the Hurry Up and Die! post.  You see, that thought isn’t confined to Japan.  It’s embraced in the US as well. 

John Nolte has an article up. 

AP, NBC Ask: Time to Publicly Shame the Obese, Let Smokers Die?

Nolte highlights a couple stories…… here’s the first one. 

Associated Press medical writer Mike Stobbe published a piece that takes seriously the idea of singling out smokers and the overweight with public shaming campaigns:

That said, public health officials shouldn’t shy away from tough anti-obesity efforts, said Callahan, the bioethicist. Callahan caused a public stir this week with a paper that called for a more aggressive public health campaign that tries to shame and stigmatize overeaters the way past public health campaigns have shamed and stigmatized smokers.

National obesity rates are essentially static, and public health campaigns that gently try to educate people about the benefits of exercise and healthy eating just aren’t working, Callahan argued. We need to get obese people to change their behavior. If they are angry or hurt by it, so be it, he said.

The piece also opens with this disturbing question:

Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?

Earlier this week, NBC News published an article that also took this idea seriously:

Daniel Callahan, a senior research scholar and president emeritus of The Hastings Center, put out a new paper this week calling for a renewed emphasis on social pressure against heavy people — what some may call fat-shaming — including public posters that would pose questions like this:

“If you are overweight or obese, are you pleased with the way that you look?”

These horrid statements were uttered in the name of cost.  Nolte is quick to note a couple of things. ….

The thing to keep in mind is that the media’s latest liberty-crushing march has absolutely nothing to do with their stated concerns over public health and the effect certain habits have on the cost of health care and the government treasury.

That’s all a big fat lie; a fig-leaf to couch outright oppression as do-goodery.

First off, nothing else that explodes the cost of anything ever bothers the Left. If the Left was truly concerned with the cost of health care, they never would’ve pushed ObamaCare. If the Left was truly concerned with the deficit, they would’ve voted Obama out of office in a landslide.

How true.  The left doesn’t give two shiites about the deficit.  What the heck?  The specifically voted for that clown because and only because he doesn’t give two shiites about our deficit spending.  He also notes…

No, if you’ll notice, the only time the media and Left wring their hands over expense and cost is when that hand-wringing can be manipulated into an excuse to control other people’s lives.

How true. 

There’s much more to say, but for relative brevity, just read his post.  But, know that he stated this….

Biases upfront: I’m a 46 year-old health nut obsessed with exercise and eating right. I don’t smoke or drink,  and there are supermodels who worry less about their weight. However, I do admire those who don’t live like that; who might not live as long as I do, but will probably enjoy their overall quality of life more than my somewhat Spartan one.

And now, here’s my biases.  I smoke like a chimney!  While bitches like Stobbe and Callahan want to cry about the high costs of smokers, someone needs to remind them about the taxes smokers pay that they don’t.  STFU.  Those two idiots can bitch when the taxes are removed from the cigarettes that fund everything from roads to schools.  It is the 3rd largest revenues source for the US.  Until someone shows me a study which factors in the additional taxes I pay over the rest of the freeloading world, they can ….. (you can fill in the blank.)  

If that’s not enough, I drink like a fish!  I’m on my seventh beer as I’m writing this and I’ll have seven more before the night’s through.  Yes, there are beverages that are cheaper and not taxed as much, but this is what I prefer at the moment.  I’m free to choose to do so.  And as far as the banana smokers who want to bitch about it, I’m paying for stuff you’re not willing to.  STFU. 

More, I eat what I want.  There’s nothing better than a great steak!  (Ok, as far as food goes.)  A nice slab of red meat, sizzled on the outside but pink in the middle (I’m preferable to KC strips) is divine!  I prefer fried potatoes to go with it, but it’s hard to find that in a restaurant.  At home, potatoes fried with grease is the way to go!  A veggie and salad smothered with blue cheese and that’s heaven! 

The best part?  I’m 5’7″, 150 lbs., just helped my brother move, lifted on freezers, refrigerators, washers and dryers and some heavy wood stuff I don’t even know what to call, and a very large TV I was surprised was still in existence.  My bp is 120/80 as of 3 months ago.  I’m about 50 y/o.  Yeh, we had a dolly to help, but, all of it went into pick-ups. 

No, I don’t run anymore, but, I used to.  I’ll live longer and die quicker than those totalitarian scumbags.  I’ll have paid more taxes for these supposed sins than they’ll ever dream of.  Don’t let these bitches brow beat anyone.  It isn’t a concern for your health, it isn’t a concern about the deficit, it is only a desire to control some one else’ life.  I think there’s a special place in hell for those people.  …… to bad…..  I know they don’t have any of the juevos necessary to try and take my guns (as these are the same bitches who are trying to do so).  Then, they’d get to find out if there really was a special place in hell for them. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Props To Breitbart’s John Nolte!

  1. Martin C says:

    Hi James,
    First a comment on your ‘lifestyle’: I LOVE IT ! I don’t smoke, but enjoy eating what I want also. I like a nice ribeye steak, and a TALL beer. I also enjoy a tall gin and tonic with grapefruit juice maybe 3-4 times a week. Overall I do eat sensibly, but don’t deny myself anything. That, to me, is part of the problem today. People ‘buy in’ way too much to the ‘diet craze’ and all, and I think the ‘depriving’ of things they want (though in sensible proportions) is not good . . .

    I still run 3-4 miles probably 4 times a week (and some other light ‘workouts’ of push-ups, pull-ups. sit-ups), and go out and play with the kids regularly. I truly believe that staying active is the biggest part of staying healthy (fyi I am 50+, 5’11”, 165 lbs, and and since I give platelets/plasma regularly, I know my BP is around 110/70, heart rate 55-60), and I look forward to reaching 90 years old like my grandmother, who always was active – that is, if we still have country as great as the USA then . . 🙂 ).

    From the health care point, controlling the cost as I see it would look at it this way: understanding that just because people pay into medicare or other health insurance, that doesn’t ENTITLE them to ANY PROCEDURE they want or even need, if the cost is too much. Some ‘less expensive’ procedures may get covered 80% or so. But others that are long term and VERY EXPENSIVE may require more ‘out of pocket’.
    I don’t want to sound down, depressing, or ‘uncaring’, but if someone contracts a bad cancer, that is hugely expensive treatment, insurance may cover some, but they just might have to pay the majority on their own. IF they cant’, well, . . . I’m sorry . . . that’s how it goes . . . NOW why do I say this? It’s obvious, that if ALL paying in end up taking out MORE than was paid, the system is doomed to fail. There has to be limits somewhere. IF NOT, health insurance/medicare will keep going up higher and higher . .. when will it end . . ?

    Now I agree, trying to ‘shame ‘ people into changing there way as the article is terrible. And some may say that what I just said about those with ‘HIGH COST’ issues probably sounds like what people talk about in the ‘death squads’ . .
    SO then what do we do? I see that as the ‘indirect’ point of the article – IF people were ‘healthier’, it would seem to be overall a less burden to the ‘system’ – maybe. But approaching it as the article does is awful.

    Sorry if this sounded too philosophical, or maybe too ‘attacking’ of those with severe and ‘high cost ‘ illnessess . . .

    • suyts says:

      Martin, thanks, and no, it isn’t too philosophical. The thing about insurance is, some people, will inevitably withdraw more benefits than they paid for, others will not. That’s the point of insurance. Insurance companies set their rates where they are basically betting each of us will pay in more than we extract. They win the bet most of the time or they cease as an insurance company.

      Where we run into trouble is medicare and mandates. If the US is going to mandate that I pay in, mandate that I participate in insurance, then they have to accept the obligations on their part which come with the mandates. We don’t address medicare because its some sort of sacred cow, but, we all know it isn’t sustainable. The problem is easily identifiable. It isn’t obesity or smoking, it’s the fact that we’re all living longer.

      While one can use this post as an indictment of our government, I think it could also be used in a broader sense, towards our society. What would be the costs to the nation if we hadn’t decided to tax and mandate? Well, almost nothing. Currently, I’m between jobs and have no insurance. This time next year, this will no be optional. They are going to force me to buy insurance.

      My point is, if they’re going to take my money, then they’re going to accept the consequences of their mandates. They are using costs as an excuse to control, but the costs are incurred by their mandates. If they’re going to cry about the costs then they should have kept their hands out of my pockets all these years. If they’re going to welch on the bet, then all they have to do is give me my money back and we’ll call it even. But, what isn’t going to happen without some severe pushback is that they would take the fruits of my labor all these years and then use costs as a segue to control. Which is exactly what much of society is trying to do.

      We all knew this would be the end result of their taxes and mandates. We told them this would happen. Now, in typical totalitarian leftist form, they want to change the rules. and move the goal posts. Well, we’re out of field to do so. The answer is obvious. A little less taxation and mandates, and we’d be amazed at how many would go ahead and die.

      Isn’t it something? Breaking the molds like this? Height/weight proportional, BP is good… etc…. It gives me a satisfaction that many will never know because they’re too scared to live. I’m sure you have a similar sense!

      I shoot pool once a week in local bars and clubs. When I look around at all the people engaging in the eating and drinking and the like, I see that most are pretty healthy. Some aren’t. Most are older than I am. They’re doing the things which make them happy. They are living life instead of existing, while nutters like Callahan and Aso wish for people to exist or die.

  2. kim2ooo says:


    Controversy in the Hastings Center Report: Responding to an Article on Obesity

    Gregory E. Kaebnick, 01/25/2013

    Nearly everyone agrees that obesity is a significant public health problem in the United States, and nearly everyone agrees that the public health responses to it so far have been disappointing. So what should be done about it? In the January-February issue of the Hastings Center Report, an article by Hastings Center co-founder, senior scholar, and president emeritus Daniel Callahan urges more government regulation, business initiatives, a focus on childhood prevention, and stepping up social pressure to discourage people from becoming obese. Callahan argues that social pressure was successfully employed to reduce the incidence of smoking in the United States.

    The article’s focus on social pressure is extremely controversial, as responses from the media, readers, other bioethicists, other Hastings scholars, and the general public is making abundantly clear. (These blog posts at The Atlantic and The Huffington Post are representative.) Respondents have raised a number of objections to this part of Callahan’s argument: that it gets the facts about stigmatization wrong, that the analogy to smoking mischaracterizes what was effective about smoking prevention efforts, and that it is demeaning to people who are overweight (and already agonizing about it). In addition, some who have seen reports about the article are concerned that Callahan’s position may increase school bullying.

    The article is actually one of several very controversial pieces that have appeared in the Report in recent years. Others include articles on the Western media coverage of female genital cutting and on physician involvement in executions and torture. And scores of articles, essays, and other commentary in the Report have staked out positions that, though less controversial than the positions above, are still deeply objectionable to at least some readers.

    The editorial decision whether to publish these pieces is often difficult, even agonizing. Accepting an article for publication may look like accepting the article’s position, but in fact, the question we try to answer is not whether we agree with the piece. The Report and the Center exist to foster free debate on important and very difficult questions, and they therefore try to avoid taking positions themselves. Those of us who edit the Report sometimes agree with what eventually appears in the Report, and sometimes disagree. (And others at The Hastings Center may agree or disagree with the Report’s decisions about publication.)

    Publishing an article certainly reflects a decision that the article makes a useful contribution of some sort to the societal discussions it addresses. What counts as a “useful contribution” is complicated, though. One great way of contributing usefully to a debate is to point out the right answer to it, but even a position that is roundly rejected may be said to move a debate forward—by effectively articulating a widely held position, for example, clarifying a distinction, or showing the implications of an analogy. A widely rejected piece can also be useful by stimulating insights from readers who might then become authors themselves.

    Neither do we want to go to the other extreme, of course, and stir up controversy for controversy’s sake. It is ongoing productive exchange that we seek, not just authors with whom we agree and not just authors who will goad us or our readers.

    In that spirit, we invite responses to Callahan’s article, both on Bioethics Forum and in the Hastings Center Report. The responses should be thoughtful, but they may certainly disagree with the positions Callahan tries to develop, and they may disagree very strongly. We cannot promise to publish everything sent us, but we are interested in seeing your views. We aim to use this occasion to generate wide-ranging ideas about how best to address the obesity epidemic. Those interested in writing commentaries are encouraged to contact us at

    Gregory E. Kaebnick is the editor of the Hastings Center Report and editorial director of The Hastings Center.

    Posted by Susan Gilbert at 01/25/2013 12:08:46 PM |

    HAS THE MIGHTY DR. Dr. Daniel Callahan …STRUCK OUT?

  3. kim2ooo says:

    Ooooooooooooo I DIDN’T DO IT

    Life and Career

    This man reminds me of a tyrannical Jason Robards, who wants to take away the rights of individual citizens who smoke cigarettes and overeat. How dare someone in his position make the statement that if obese people don’t change their eating habits and become healthier, we will MAKE them change, and if they are unhappy about it, “So be it.” Us smokers are so glad you spent your life in bioethics, Mr. Callahan, a line of work that until I saw my MSN newsfeed this morning I didn’t even know existed. I was unaware of an apparently empirically ethical environmental code. Who created it? Is it Biblical? New or Old Testament? Clue me in, because I’d love to know what gives you the right to tell other people how to live their obviously disgusting and shitty lives. Don’t worry; even if you never said THAT particularly, I know how you really feel. Why try and help a flock of vermin so clearly beneath you? At least try and hide your disdain if you actually want to get somewhere. I’ve got your picture now, and your book, with its ridiculously bland title “In Search of the Good.” I’ll recognize you if I ever see you, and whether or not your weak non-smoking lungs can handle it, be prepared for a thick cloud of putrid smoke in your ear the minute you make up your mind to buy that goddamn vegan stew at your nearest Organic Health Food Store.

    Do you understand how undermining it is to your entire cessation of smoking campaign to tell people that they have to change their lives — or else? Tell me again. Just tell me again that those “gentle” exercise/don’t smoke/eat well campaigns have actually done all that they could to convince people to treat themselves better. Tell me again that there is such a phenomenal emphasis on exercise and proper diet in our country’s educational system that we’re simply idiots to ignore what we’ve been taught. Show me statistics of how many smokers have actually quit because somebody told them that they were going to lose their teeth and die. Look, I live a life of this constant, uninformed jabbering. Do you? Have you? Ever? Why in God’s name would you ever think that the next best step would be to Heil Hitler on everybody and send them to the clean air gas chambers? I mean, what’s more, why would you ever think that it is okay to tell other people that they have no choice but to comply with what you believe is healthy and right? Where did you go to school, Mr. Callahan? You are obviously not a people person. I do not trust your opinion or credentials at all.

    Yale? Jesus Christ. You are considered to be one of our nation’s “Best and Brightest.”

    Here’s to hoping my secondhand smoke finds you soon, and cures you of your pathetic delusions. Any proposition you could make at this point for the betterment of my health would be almost as bad as when they tried to implement spray water bottles back in the 80s for non-smokers to use on us if we ever lit up in front of them. Where you behind that as well? Just try it. I’ve got my mace ready.

    Sincerely, Your Worst Nightmare

  4. sth_txs says:

    The most aggravating thing about these anti obesity crusaders is that no mention is ever made of the agri food complex subsidized by the government providing all that ‘nutritious’ food. Though I’m not a luddite, I have some reservations about Monsanto’s control of the seeds for corn and wheat and am bothered by that these have been genetically modified without any real test on long term human health. Not that I would look to the government to offer any ‘protection’ here.

    • suyts says:

      The corn issue is a huge one. I don’t look at it as a health issue, but is most certainly is a control issue. You’re right, there are no long term tests. And, it is very worrisome to me that the govt exercises so much control in the agriculture business when we see that our govt. would benefit greatly by people dying early. But, our farmers have bitten the apple already. They’ve taken the govt money. And with the money comes obligations. Always.

  5. Latitude says:

    cigarette taxes are going to Obamacare…….smokers are going to have to pay an additional over $5000 each year……

    Looks like a setup where smokers will not buy insurance…..

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, it’s going to criminalize me. If I tell them I’m a smoker, it will cost me more and I’ll get less. Or if I don’t buy their crap insurance, they’ll fine me. Well, we can square it all up when they come for my guns. .

      • Latitude says:

        LOL……’s going to be a lot cheaper to not buy insurance and just pay the fine

      • suyts says:

        Right, maybe. But, then, they’re in my pocket and I get nothing for paying them. That’s the point. They want people like me to pay, but, they don’t want to hold up their end of the bargain. They just want me to pay, and then die. I’d happily sign away the government’s obligation to me in regards to healthcare, all they have to do is give me my money back, and we’ll call it even. Give me every dime I’ve paid in taxes for smoking and every dime I’ve paid that went to medicare and medicaide. and I’m good.

      • DirkH says:

        I managed to quit smoking via nicotine chewing gums (I had to as I was diagnosed with a small emphysema. Even though emphysema is said to be irreversible, I feel like I have completely recovered. Diagnosis was 6 years ago, I switched from cigarettes to chewing gums within a few days which worked far better than expected.

        drawback is I’m still chewing them – I like Nicotine Oxide a.k.a. Niacine a.k.a a Vitamin B too much. Or maybe not me but my brain does.)

    • philjourdan says:

      Tobacco tax is the prime funding of S-Chip.

  6. DirkH says:

    The people who want to stigmatise the obese could be finding themselves stigmatized themselves like the eugenicist socialist progressives did.

    Obesity could be caused by gut bacteria:

    And BTW, why not just remove the fat if medical problems can be foreseen; shouldn’t that be a cost efficient therapy covered by Obamacare (in other words, much cheaper than treating follow up problems.)
    Looks like it’s a piece of cake (pun intended) these days:

    • suyts says:

      But then the totalitarian nutters wouldn’t have an excuse to exercise control over other people!! We can’t have that!!!

      I quit smoking a couple of times in my life, but, once when I was in the Army and once a few years ago. But, the last time was just to make sure I could. I’ve no real desire to quit smoking. And, when I see someone attack smokers, I light up and buy more. It’s more of a statement for me than anything else.

  7. cdquarles says:

    Do not forget that ‘obesity’ is not defined the way you think it is. It has been defined in a manner that guarantees an ‘epidemic’. The definition is weight (kg) divided by height (meters) squared. This definition does not take into account differences in body composition. The old one was based on fat mass percentage measured by water displacement. (A ‘fat’ person displaces less water compared to his body’s volume. This kind of measurement is not as easily done as having someone step on an uncalibrated scale.)

  8. philjourdan says:

    Death Panels rise again.

    I have actually seen liberals already arguing this. And they have no clue what they are doing – they are the good sheep.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s