While I was having a healthy breakfast the other morning, I became incensed at a particular TV commercial for TUMS.' TUMS itself is a fine product for relieving excess stomach acid, but that's NOT how the commercial was positioning the product.A man, standing in the evening rain, is looking through the glass into a restaurant, gazing hungrily and sadly while the cook is frying up a bunch of meat and pouring cheese all over it.' The music accentuates the man's painful disappointment.' The scene is a "take-off" on the situation where a starving child has his nose against the glass watching rich people dine, while his stomach has shrunken to the size of a raisin.It was not very funny.The next shot is of a TUMS bottle.' The shot after that is of the man who had been looking into the restaurant eating this ferociously unhealthy sandwich of meat fried in a ton of oil with artery-clogging cheese melted all over it.Not very funny, either.So, here is a product which is NOT being promoted as a rescue effort for someone struck with a little excess acid.' This product is now being promoted as an ENABLER of horrible eating habits (Hey!' Eat that rich, fattening food - because now we have a way to get you through it with minimal discomfort!) Since two thirds of Americans (including children) are fat or obese, this is so irresponsible that I am ALMOST speechless.' Showing people they can indulge in unbelievably unhealthy eating with the help of TUMS sounds like something you would see in a comedy movie, but not in an actual promotion of a supposedly healthy product.I liked it better when they were touting the amount of calcium in it for strong bones.It's not the fault of the TUMS tablets.' It's the fault of the greedy folks behind it, who are willing to let people hurt themselves, if it sells a tablet. More >>

More >>

A female professor from Oxford University in England, in an article published in the Journal of Population Economics, has decided that American and British men (who don't mind lending a hand when it comes to housework), make the best husbands, while Australian men are the worst.' She's also "decided" that Norway, Sweden, and Northern Ireland, where men "lend a hand in housework," are egalitarian countries which produce better husbands.I say: unbelievable feminista hogwash!! The professor's definition of a good husband is ridiculous.' Men who are sexually faithful, who work hard to provide for and protect their families, who take care of the plumbing and the lawn are not good husbands, because they don't do what used to be called "women's work."' This is just one more salvo in the war against masculinity, in which men are completely emasculated because they're told that they're neither good men nor good husbands unless they fold the laundry.When women call me complaining about such things (usually women who are at home), I ask them if they drive their husband's route in traffic every day, or if they deal with difficult bosses or co-workers, or if they aren't able to take breaks whenever they choose or take care of all the car and house repair issues.' They say "no," but expect him to do housework in addition to all his other responsibilities.In those situations where both husband and wife have full-time jobs, and there's a "war" about who's going to take care of household chores, I say they should budget and pay for part-time housecleaning help, or one of them ought to reassess their life and decide if having no one at home to make a nest is worth the money they both make.There are biological and psychological imperatives in females for nesting/child care, and in males for conquering/protecting.' When these are turned inside out, there is usually (but not always) a reaction in the female to feel less respectful and sexual toward her mate.' Women don't stare at skinny guys with spectacles when they walk by, but they do stare at Bowflex-toned commercial male actors with huge pecs and biceps.' Why?' It's the animal attraction of a male who, potentially, is sexually healthy enough to produce offspring and then provide and protect.Women who want emasculated men generally have huge hostility issues with masculinity (which they got from their mothers or the feminist teachers of their women's studies courses), and want to be able to control the man (never as much as their mother could) or are just too scared of their normal natural dependency on a real man.A better study would be to find out what household situations make MEN happiest, because those are the ones which, overall, are going to attract the men who make the best husbands.' Happy husbands spend more time with their families, and would swim through shark-infested waters for them.' This particular study?'' Just another piece of feminist propaganda flotsam. More >>

More >>

More >>

More >>

More >>

It seems that it's very much in the nature of human nature to expect more without having more expected of us.' Because so much energy is being focused on the cost of health care and the proposed programs for universal health insurance, the flip side of the equation is starting to get attention.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unveiled a free website application last week called LEANWorks, designed to motivate employers to start "healthy living" and weight loss programs for their employees, because being overweight is a major cause of certain illnesses, and also contributes to missed work days and higher insurance costs.' Of course, representatives of organizations like the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance are up in arms over this.A keystone to the LEANWorks program is the "obesity cost calculator" for companies to estimate how much their obese and overweight employees are costing them in higher insurance rates and missed work days each year.' The ultimate point is to get preventive programs in place.Of course, the "fat advocates" don't want responsibility - just perks.' They are claiming everything from prejudice to discrimination.' In their view, facts are irrelevant.' It's just their "feelings" that count.'It's no secret that obesity is a big risk factor for chronic diseases.' Obesity has accounted for over 25% of the rise in medical costs between 1987 and 2001, according to Dr. Bill Dietz, Director of the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity at the CDC.' While it is also true that people of normal weight have medical issues which result in work day losses and higher insurance costs, most of their conditions are not as controllable as excess body fat.It is the moral responsibility of those who are overweight and obese, of those who smoke, of those who abuse alcohol and various drugs to correct their activities for the greater good of the community which has to take on responsibility for the negative consequences of their behavior, and their lack of self-discipline and commitment to health.If the greater "we" is responsible for taking financial hits in order to cater to the predictable consequences of your actions, then you become accountable to the greater "we," and we cut out the nonsense about discrimination and prejudice against fat.' It isn't healthy, plain and simple.' And now that you think about it, it isn't fair , either. More >>

More >>

More >>