It starts with a “concern” for peoples’ health. It starts with a cause and an effect on a ….person…and then as it begins to dawn how much control can be had, it morphs into the effect on…….’us’. ‘Us’ who are otherwise fine; ‘us’ who deserve to…..live.
Obesity is roughly defined as being 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight.
The figures are shocking, but maybe they will spur action on the part of policy makers and individuals to do something about it.
That “something,” though, is open to much speculation and debate.
There is no denying that obesity is moving from one that affects the individual to one that affects all of us — no matter our size and eating habits.
Yes. The….policymakers….need to do something about that….individual’s …obesity. Because it affects ….us.
See, they only want what’s best for you, and of course society, and of course the people who have to figure out how to pay for Obamacare. And…..The State. That’s why, after giving chapter and verse, after patiently and diligently trying to explain it all to you and still recognizing that you are stubborn, that you like your calories and you like to use them as you wish, they have to, at the end of their editorial,
issue this warning:
“Today, many of us have a “freedom” to be sick. That might not be the case in the future if obesity rates do not fall. And 2012 might just be the year steps were taken to change that rate.”
It isn’t just that in New York City the ……authorities, the ….”policymakers” ….have criminalized the sale, possession and consumption of ‘large, sugary drinks’, or that in San Francisco there is a War on the Happiness of Meals. If you think that sugary drinks is going to be the end of it, think again. And if you think ‘obesity’ is going to be the end of it, read the editorial again and comprehend. These people have put down in black and white a proposition for you. Forget obesity, forget smoking. Forget trans fats. What they wrote is that in the future you might …. not…. have ….. the …..freedom…...to be sick. They didn’t say the freedom to be fat, or the freedom to be emaciated or the freedom to suffer the consequences of doing daredevil stunts on your motorcycle, they said ‘THE FREEDOM TO BE SICK.’ You are going to lose that….freedom.
Imagine standing before ……the court ……and trying to do your best to represent to the magistrates that you…..have not been illicitly consuming sugary drinks, have not been consuming high fructose syrups, have not been buying trans fats on the black market. Imagine standing before them and trying to convince them that you are thirty pounds overweight because you have a metabolism malfunction, or some other malady.
The judges just may not care what caused your condition because, see, it’s not just the size of your waistline, or what caused it, it is that YOU ARE SICK AND YOU NO LONGER HAVE THAT FREEDOM.
Now, you may think that our friendly local newspaper was trying to ingratiate itself with The State, so that when THE FINAL SOLUTION begins, they will be necessary to the goals of The State just as much as they are necessary to it today. And of course you would be right. Nevertheless, it would behoove you at this juncture to not come down with Parkinson’s Disease, with Glaucoma, with a bladder disorder, with a debilitating mental or psychological condition or to in any way exhibit telltale signs of less than perfect health. Because, dear readers ….. you have been warned. If you are not allowed to be ……”sick”…..then it follows that you may not be allowed …..to be.
“First, they came for the fat people. It had nothing to do with us, for we had always been well-proportioned. Then …..my wife got sick…………………..”