Readers of this blog know how annoyed I occasionally am by the 'food prudery' and diet faddishness that is common among Americans now -- paradoxically at a time when we have an 'obesity epidemic' and the White House itself is on the march against obesity. It seems there is a 'war on obesity' -- the government always declares 'war' on anything it deems evil. Remember LBJ's ''war on poverty''? A comedian of that time joked that when he heard that 'we' had 'declared war on poverty', he went out and threw a hand grenade at a beggar. Well, now as the government declares war on obesity, people are throwing verbal grenades at transgressors of the 'food laws.' People like Paula Deen, for example.
In the case of the 60s ''war on poverty,'' it looks like poverty won. Jesus Christ himself told us 'the poor you have always with you', after all.
Similarly the fat we have always with us, though undoubtedly more of them than we used to have within recent memory. But in a rather mixed-up society like ours, we have people who get up in arms in a moral sense about other people's food choices, while warning against judgmentalism in regard to sexual morality and personal morality generally. We live in a society which uses terms like ''decadent'' or ''depraved'' (see this Free Republic thread) solely in connection with food. Food can be 'decadent', sinful, or 'depraved', but all manner of sexual perversions are 'a matter of personal preference'. Lying and cheating are winked at by many people, including those at the highest levels of society, but food and diet are areas in which people are quick on the trigger with their condemnation. What does that say about us?
That Free Republic thread I link above actually has a sensible post or two or three; not bad for the FReepers. There is another article at HuffPo about the same subject, Paula Deen and her recent diagnosis of Diabetes. [Sorry but I don't like to link to HuffPo]. But the people there are much more judgmental regarding Paula and her 'depraved' food choices than the FReepers. Many conservatives gripe about liberals and their anti-smoking bias; perhaps following Limbaugh's lead, they defend cigarettes as a matter of personal liberty and choice, while at the same time, they condemn people who make 'sinful' food choices, including Paula Deen.
But did she cause her own diabetes by her 'decadent' cooking and eating habits -- high in carbs, fat, and overall calories? The consensus seems to be a definite yes.
Somebody elsewhere on the Internet says that Paula Deen is being picked on because of her Southern food habits; today's Southern food is not known for being 'nutritionally correct.' Actually, my grandparents' and parents' generations ate 'unhealthily' by today's prissy standards. My grandparents ate fried breakfasts most of the time (bacon, sausage, eggs -- with tomatoes on the side to ''cut the grease'' -- along with country gravy.)
Incidentally my dear grandma lived a healthy 94 years, and was active and alert all her life on that 'unhealthy diet.'
The older generations partook of a lot of 'sweet tea' as well as 'cokes' as do the younger generations. The older folks didn't seem to fare too badly on it. But then again they were much more physically active, and had far less stress in their lives,, though their lives were more arduous in many ways.
Diabetes showed up in our family in my father's generation, and my one aunt who has it is as thin as a rail, and has never, ever had a ''weight problem.'' I know there are many people like this who do not fit the profile of the fat, lazy Type 2 diabetic, yet that stereotype has stuck. There are some who fit that pattern, but some who do not.
However this writer offers a dissenting opinion as to why Diabetes develops. The simplistic consensus is that people gorge themselves into Diabetes, whereas the writer points out, (I'm paraphrasing somewhat) that correlation does not mean causation. Diabetes is connected with sleep apnea, chronic stress, inflammation, excess weight -- but none of these can be said to be the cause or the origin of it. They are all part of a pattern.
We live in strange times in which real immorality is ignored, winked at, excused, justified -- even glorified and glamorized yet people are ready and willing to condemn those who are nutritional criminals, if you will. Postmodern Americans who believe it is a great evil to 'judge' people for their personal sins, even perversion, are willing to condemn those who don't fit the idealized model of fitness and 'correct eating habits.' Hence we have our political 'leaders' passing laws as to what we can and should eat (trans-fats, for example) and indoctrinating our children about healthy eating and weight issues.
I've pondered about why this upside-down morality has become dominant; much of it, I think, stems from our over-valuing of youth, physical perfection, and beauty. Pretty, young trim people are idealized and admired; conversely, the old, the less-than-svelte, and the infirm are devalued because they are deviants from the required standard. We find them unsightly and unappealing. Someone on a conservative forum said that 'fat people should be incinerated.' That kind of blanket statement, directed at a whole class of people, should be seen as 'extreme' yet it is not; it's not challenged by many people.
Support for euthanasia for the old and chronically ill is growing, and many people, especially with the anonymity of the Internet, are emboldened to speak their minds in favor of it. That is worrisome.
In connection with this, I read some discussions about the cruise ship disaster in which the captain did not 'go down with his ship', but left passengers to their fate. On one blog, various commenters denounced chivalry, even asking why they should value the life of an old woman more than that of a 20 year old. Well, when you perceive people only as 'attractive' or 'unattractive' objects, why, indeed, should we honor old people? They've outlived their usefulness in many cases, and they are unsightly, at least when judged by shallow 21st century standards. Those who are not young, beautiful, fit, and sexy should not be consuming oxygen and taking up space. That's what we've come to.
When 'Star Trek, the Next Generation' came along in the 1980s, I actually watched several episodes before swearing it off. One thing that jumped out at me about the series, especially in comparison with the original Star Trek was that the crew members on TNG were all 'physically perfect', more or less, in their spandex Federation uniforms. It appeared that people were chosen for Starfleet (or whatever it was by that time) on the basis of having perfect physiques, and being esthetically pleasing by the current standards. Older people (over 40 or so) were not in evidence. Had society euthanized the old, fat, and infirm by the time of the TNG universe? It appeared so. Everybody was 'diverse and multicultural' and politically correct, as well as physically perfect.
It used to be said by ''black activists' circa 1970 or so that Whites displayed their 'racism' by excluding blacks from advertising and department store displays. After that, diversity became the be-all and end-all, and now dominates our 'advertising'/propaganda. The blacks claimed that the lack of 'people who look like' them meant that Whites envisioned a world which did not include blacks or other 'diversity.' Well, it would seem, now that diversity is enforced strictly, that those who are excluded are not those of different skin tones, but people who are less than perfect physically: the infirm, the old, and the esthetically deficient.
As to Paula Deen, the only way she can salvage her career, probably, is to change her evil ways. She will have to publicly recant her nutritionally incorrect recipes, repent of her obesity and lose 50+ pounds, or lose her place in the spotlight. She will have to get PC religion, in other words. It's very much like those who are politically incorrect; the gods of nutritional correctness have to be appeased, as do the gods of political correctness. Confession, repentance, and atonement have to be made.
The advertising and promotion of foods deemed 'decadent' and 'sinful' will probably be banned from TV, as with smoking and alcohol.
Meanwhile our government scolds us about our food choices and our waistlines, supposedly in the name of our 'health and well being', while they gleefully welcome in immigrants with incurable new diseases. And meanwhile they make it near impossible for us to obtain local foods, or processed-in-America foods, forcing us to consume unsafe products from China, and foods containing bizarre and unhealthy substances.
Just one more instance of governments gone mad, and a society that is conditioned to acquiesce to it all.
