![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jan. 11th, 2012
The doomsday clock is back to five minutes to midnight.
This icon is accurate again. OOhhhhhhhh shit.
Important announcement!
Jan. 11th, 2012 04:46 pmI have located my missing ushanka!
Now I have two. At least I was smart and got the new one in a different colour. And I do think black goes better with the Black Coat of Swoopiness. The other one is from Moscow though, and I am incredibly sentimental about it, and also it is warmer and more comfortable.
This winter has barely called for ushankas at all, not that I'm complaining.
Now I have two. At least I was smart and got the new one in a different colour. And I do think black goes better with the Black Coat of Swoopiness. The other one is from Moscow though, and I am incredibly sentimental about it, and also it is warmer and more comfortable.
This winter has barely called for ushankas at all, not that I'm complaining.
Health and austerity
Jan. 11th, 2012 06:08 pmI've mentioned before that there is really no reason to harp on the Honourable Wife-Beater's girth when there are so many other reasons to bash him (for those keeping track, he beats his wife, may be abusive to his children, is a dangerous drunk driver, is incapable of doing basic math, hates queers, immigrants, and poor people, uses racist slurs, wants everyone to choke to death on car exhaust, makes rude gestures at six-year-old girls, is a pathological liar, and probably can't read, either. Also he has a stupid face.).
I'm against fat-bashing. Let's critique his policies. Let's criminally charge him for the illegal things that he's done. If we're going to talk about Ford's issues with food, let's talk about how he threatened to cut school breakfast programs for poor kids. But I don't give a shit if he's fat or not.
However, in a desperate saving throw, the Honourable Wife-Beater is publicly going on a diet. If there's one thing the idiot public likes, it's a diet success story—even though in real life, dieters have only a 5% chance of keeping the weight off long-term, so it's not the greatest of all examples to set. This bollocks had even the Star and its commenters wishing him luck.
Well, I don't care if he diets or not—what concerns me is the vocabulary of austerity measures. How do you convince a populace to accept a decrease in its standard of living? Why does anyone but the 1% vote for so-called fiscal conservatives at all, when their policies are so clearly against the interests of most people?
I might be stretching here, but I think there's a connection between economic rhetoric and the jargon of the dieting industry. We are asked to "tighten our belts" in preparation for "lean economic times." Companies and institutions are "scaled back." The idea that starvation is good for our health is invoked with suggestions of "bitter medicine"—accept that you will pay more and get less, because it's for your own good. It's the old Protestant work ethic—we like diets and cutbacks not because they're beneficial, but because suffering gives our lives meaning.
Meanwhile, the Honourable Wife-Beater's policies are anything but healthy. I mentioned the school breakfast programs (which probably won't get cut). How about removing cycling lanes? Closing public pools? Attacking shelters and seniors' homes?
Look, it's great if people want to get in shape. I think obesity is a collective issue, not an individual one, and is best reduced by eliminating corn subsidies and subsidizing healthier crops instead, but whatever floats your boat. But don't expect me to cheer for the Honourable Wife-Beater's health when he is directly and maliciously damaging the health of people who actually matter.
I'm against fat-bashing. Let's critique his policies. Let's criminally charge him for the illegal things that he's done. If we're going to talk about Ford's issues with food, let's talk about how he threatened to cut school breakfast programs for poor kids. But I don't give a shit if he's fat or not.
However, in a desperate saving throw, the Honourable Wife-Beater is publicly going on a diet. If there's one thing the idiot public likes, it's a diet success story—even though in real life, dieters have only a 5% chance of keeping the weight off long-term, so it's not the greatest of all examples to set. This bollocks had even the Star and its commenters wishing him luck.
Well, I don't care if he diets or not—what concerns me is the vocabulary of austerity measures. How do you convince a populace to accept a decrease in its standard of living? Why does anyone but the 1% vote for so-called fiscal conservatives at all, when their policies are so clearly against the interests of most people?
I might be stretching here, but I think there's a connection between economic rhetoric and the jargon of the dieting industry. We are asked to "tighten our belts" in preparation for "lean economic times." Companies and institutions are "scaled back." The idea that starvation is good for our health is invoked with suggestions of "bitter medicine"—accept that you will pay more and get less, because it's for your own good. It's the old Protestant work ethic—we like diets and cutbacks not because they're beneficial, but because suffering gives our lives meaning.
Meanwhile, the Honourable Wife-Beater's policies are anything but healthy. I mentioned the school breakfast programs (which probably won't get cut). How about removing cycling lanes? Closing public pools? Attacking shelters and seniors' homes?
Look, it's great if people want to get in shape. I think obesity is a collective issue, not an individual one, and is best reduced by eliminating corn subsidies and subsidizing healthier crops instead, but whatever floats your boat. But don't expect me to cheer for the Honourable Wife-Beater's health when he is directly and maliciously damaging the health of people who actually matter.