Selling Our Souls Down the River

State Control of Stools and Urine

The electronic communication zone is running hot over some inane comments by some “researchers in public health”.  These illuminati were interviewed on national radio and had the temerity to utter the following inanity:

Obesity, she said, was “not a problem with individual choice and self-discipline, which we’ve proved successfully doesn’t work”.  Instead it’s the fault of “big institutions and the market”.

Most of the criticism rightly points out that for 99 percent of the obese population their condition is caused by three things–what they ingest, how much, and what is not done to burn the calories off.  It is a completely self-inflicted condition.  Quite right.
  Naturally, the “researchers in public health”  have alternative predictable solutions: more rules, regulations, restriction, and government controls over what you eat.  In the end, the government will have to ration our food and ban lots of nasty things.  We will end up clinging to Mother’s skirts in a perpetual, malingering second childhood. 

Naturally enough this sort of nannying (incidentally, both researchers are females) is offensive.  At this point in history most New Zealanders resent a government telling them how to act, what to think, and above all, what to eat.  Sadly almost no-one amongst the objectors is prepared to acknowledge that the fight was lost almost eighty years ago. 

When our forebears, in their myopic wisdom, decided that government had a duty to provide state funded health-care, and voted for politicians who would give them their lusts,  it was all over, rover.  For, as a perceptive sage pointed out, if you cede to government the duty and responsibility to take care of your health, you have implicitly given over total control of  your physical being.  A government that is responsible for your healthcare, is responsible for your health, period; such a government will inevitably extend its reach to control what you eat and what is allowed to come out the rear end–and how often. 

It will all be done under the cloak of cost containment, of course.  We have got to control what people eat, because if we don’t the rampant costs of treating the obesity epidemic will squash us all flat.  It’s a matter of survival of our species as we know it.  Toss in a dose of guilt and another generous helping of pious pity and who can resist–with principled consistency, that is?

Most of those railing against the two nannies who “research” public health do so with a fair dose of inconsistent hypocrisy.  We do not doubt that these objectors would at the same time argue for the reasonableness of a publicly funded health system per se.  Getting rid of the entire nannying edifice would be as offensive to them as the stupid observations of our elite health researchers.

We repeat: if you are going to look to government to fund your doctors’ visits, health procedures, subsidize your medicine, and provide you with hospitals you have already, in principle, ceded to the state control over your body.  Such a Leviathan will eventually move to control the food you ingest, the air that you breathe, the hours you must sleep, the length and temperature of your showers, and the “quality” of your stools and urine.

Whilst we remain gratified that there are still people in this country who will stand up to intrusive government controls, another part of us want to say, “Stop your whining.  You sold your souls to the Devil a long, long time ago.  Now Old Nick has come to collect.”   

>Crocodile Tears and False Pity

>Personal Accountability and Constructive Compassion

There is a long standing Christian civil tradition not to speak ill of the dead. A corollary is that one should not seek to make political capital out of them either.

Over recent days we have been treated to the unedifying spectacle of a public inquiry into the death of Folole Muliaga in South Auckland. Mrs Muliaga, you recall, died when electric power was cut off to her home due to the unpaid electricity bills, since she was apparently dependant on an oxygen respirator.

The unfortunate case proved to be a gift for those wanting to engage in pure political theatre. Rich capitalists were portrayed as preying upon the vulnerable. Dirty profit was being put ahead of human beings. Mrs Muliaga was Polynesian, so the incident had racial-overtones. Public socialised healthcare was implicated as partially responsible because the lady should have been receiving professional medical care.

Particularly repugnant was the media manipulation (the media, were apparently willingly and credulously co-opted into the scam) by a politically ambitious union official, who happened to be related to the family by marriage. He played every one of the above themes to perfection. The man had a talent of sorts. He subsequently became the Labour Party candidate for the area in the forthcoming election. The funeral of the poor lady was attended by no less a personage than the Prime Minister herself. Political theatre at its best.

The overwhelming themes in the entire tawdry episode were carried along upon a wailing emotional aria of pity, coupled with its inevitable doppelganger, a swelling chorus of guilt. Someone, some institution, some influence, something was to blame. Our job was to find out, and sheet home the blame. Then our guilt would be assuaged and atoned.

The politics of guilt and pity—ever the whipsaw of Athenian liberalism—marched up front and centre. The conductor was the unscrupulous, ambitious brother-in-law. The musical performers were the sensationalist media. And so the band played on.

Now we have been confronted with the facts and evidence of the public inquiry. The best thing to say about this—which is really a waste of public money—guilt and pity money—is that the reality is finally emerging. As so often is the case, the reality is far from the sensationalist melodrama of political theatre.

A brief summary of the facts (hat tip Halfdone) which testimony has elicited to date is:

1. Mrs Muliaga was near death, being morbidly obese, and the respirator was “window dressing.”

2. Her doctors had decided that Mrs Muliaga was not to be resuscitated if she collapsed in hospital.

3. Her case nurse repeatedly warned her about her diet, which overused fatty foods, and of her lack of exercise. She warned her that if she did not radically change her lifestyle, she would die within twelve months. Mrs Muliaga said that she found it very difficult to change.

4. Mrs Muliaga admitted to her charge nurse that she was erratic in taking her medication, despite being shown an x-ray of her enlarged heart, and being warned that it would not cope if placed under stress.

5. As a result of the one time that she complained about power costs, the hospital helped arranged an emergency payment to cover the bills.

6. She was told that for the respirator to be effective it had to be used 16 hours per day. Mrs Muliaga admitted that she was irregular in the use of the oxygen machine. Her medical advisers testified that she could have died at any time even if she were on the respirator at the time.

7. The Muliaga’s had been sent 50 overdue power bill requests in seven years, including eight urgent disconnection letters and four final disconnection notices. It was once disconnected, then reconnected the next day.

What is Jerusalem’s perspective on this? Clearly, every death is part of the tragedy of the human condition, ever since the Fall. Mrs Muliaga’s passing from the sight of mortal men is no exception. But the salutary note which modern Athens is morally incapable of acknowledging, but which must be duly regarded, is personal responsibility. Human beings are in God’s image: therefore, everyone is accountable and responsible for their own actions. Unbelieving Athens is a society built upon the opposite proposition: that we are without guilt, but that someone else is to blame.

Christian society insists that the buck stops with each one of us. You are accountable! You are responsible! In the Christian world-view, it is as if the pointing finger of Lord Kitchener is constantly before us. You cannot absolve yourself by devolving responsibility on to someone else.

It is part of the complex of sin to seek to blame someone or something else. Modern Athens has made blame-shifting into an art form. It has successively and comprehensively institutionalised the eliding of personal accountability and the transfer of blame to others or something else. Adam said, “the woman Thou gavest to be with me,” is the reason I sinned. Eve said, “the serpent deceived me,” so she claimed that she was exploited. The Lord, of course, did not accept these excuses for a moment. The death of Mrs Muliaga, and indeed the death of every human being since the Fall, proves it.

By contrast, in the culture and ethic of Jerusalem, Mrs Muliaga was primarily responsible and accountable for her own well-being and health. Is she not in God’s image? Was she not bound by the sixth commandment (“thou shalt not kill”) with respect to her own life during her days upon earth. She was not well served by family, friends, church, or the socialised health system to the extent that they individually and collectively they did not sheet home this truth to her and confront her with it. We rather think they did not, since it would be such an unPC thing to do in modern Athens. But, whether they did or not, she was still responsible.

Her family, her husband in particular, but also her adult children, had God-given duties and responsibilities to her. They had a duty to sheet home her responsibility toward herself, and her family, but above all, to her God. Was not her husband duty bound to love his own wife as if she were his own body? They had a duty to command, cajole, and assist. If she struggled with the self-discipline of exercise (and when one has become so morbidly obese, such a failing is easily understandable), they had a duty to do everything possible to encourage and assist her, exercising with her, providing both an example and encouragement.

If she struggled with getting her diet right, reducing her intake of fatty foods, the other family members should have banned her from the kitchen and the shops, taken over the cooking, and controlled her (and their) diet. They should have said, “We love you too much not to do this,” and acted accordingly.

Sadly, in the “blame-seeking” exercise of the inquiry, the family—both immediate and extended—do not appear to acknowledge any responsibility at all.

It is an abiding sadness that so many Pacific island families, migrating to New Zealand, being professing Christians, have been first seduced then captured by the ethics and values of Athenian socialism. Possibly, it has been an easy capture since they have just transferred tribal corporate ethical systems to New Zealand socialism and its institutions.

In tribal cultures, the One (the tribe) is usually more important than the Many (the individual, followed by the nuclear family). The Tribe is the ultimate provider and protector. Few tribal cultures insist upon personal responsibility and individual accountability. Few tribal cultures have reckoned properly with the original command that a man is to “leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife”—which establishes a new locus of social authority, over which the One, the Tribe, cannot be overlord.

Such tribal cultures are easy pickings for Athenian socialists who, themselves, have imbibed deeply the ethics and values of tribalism—albeit in a far worse and more degenerate form.

In Jerusalem the One and the Many are equally ultimate, each having their respective spheres of duty and responsibility. Jerusalem will, therefore, have nothing to do with the politics of guilt and pity. In Jerusalem, the One (the Church, the State) as commanded by her Lord, insists upon the politics of personal accountability and constructive compassion (otherwise known in the vernacular as “tough love”) of the Many.

Likewise, in Jerusalem the Many resist any attempts by the One to remove responsibility and accountability from them. They remain faithfully independent, insisting upon the duties and responsibilities placed upon them by the Lord.

Of these things, Gollum-like Athens knows nothing, preferring instead slyly to pass off responsibility at every opportunity. From “the Devil made me do it” to “I was not breast fed as a baby” the panoply of excuses rains down incessantly.

In the meantime, may all who have sought to create and bank political capital from the death of this unfortunate lady find their just desserts. And for the one who has passed beyond the sight of mortal men, Mrs Muliaga, may she indeed Rest in Peace.

For the rest of us, may we reflect and learn appropriate lessons, taking up our individual and familial responsibilities, even as the Living God has laid them upon us.

>The S-Files

>Dr Robyn Toomath: The Sinister Undertones of an Egregious Appeal to Pity.

Contra Celsum has nominated Dr Robyn Toomath, spokesperson for Fight the Obesity Trust for an S-Award.

Citation:

Dr Robyn Toomath has appeared before the parliamentary committee considering the galactically stupid Public Health Bill. She is quoted as arguing: “People are desperate for Nanny State’s help. Parents are desperate for help to get their children to eat healthily.”

She also endeavoured to get everyone’s heart to bleed by telling us that she keeps a notebook detailing the patients who were admitted to her hospital ward, suffering severe problems because they were overweight. “I know from my day to day experience how big this problem is.” (We are sure no pun was intended)

She claimed that her patients “were intelligent people who knew they needed to regulate their diet and lose weight, but were overwhelmed by a nutritional environment which promoted high-energy, unhealthy foods.” (NZ Herald, 24th April, 2008)

So, laying aside the unconscionable and completely irrelevant appeal to pity, let us analyse what Toomath is actually saying:

1. People are enslaved and cannot control their own lives.
2. People are fundamentally irresponsible.
3. Parents cannot train and teach their children to eat appropriate foods.
4. People know what is right, but lack the will power to do it.
5. People are conditioned by the (nutritional) environment so completely they are “overwhelmed”.

Her solution? Nanny state (yes, she actually used the term) needs to step in to help them.

According to Toomath’s world-view liberty, freedom, responsibility, and accountability do not exist. Since everyone is enslaved already, the best thing to do is increase the intrusive powers of the state and make our slavery both overt and official.

Now, laying aside the ethical and philosophical and religious problems with Toomath’s world-view, let us just address it on a pragmatic basis. Let’s just be clear that Toomath’s solution will actually make obesity worse. If enslavement has caused the obesity problem, more enslavement will not arrest it; it will make it worse. If people are unable to control their appetites now, when the state makes itself responsible for what they eat, peoples’ appetites will enslave them even more. It will then becomes the government’s problem that I desire and eat such things.

Secondly, one never ceases to be amazed at the inconsistency of those who argue, on the one hand, that citizens are morally incompetent, yet, in the same breath, argue the moral competence of government and government officials. There is a universal suppressed premise amongst such people that once someone is either elected or goes to work for the state they become morally perfected or escape the moral imperfections of those whom they are required to govern.

But let us be clear. If Toomath is to be taken seriously she must also argue that we entrust our lives in this matter to state officials, legislators, institutions and bureaucrats who:

1. Are enslaved and cannot control their lives.
2. Who are fundamentally irresponsible.
3. Who will be utterly incompetent and unable to teach us and train us to eat the right foods
4. Who will know what should be done to overcome the problem, but will be completely unable to carry it out.
5. Who will themselves be conditioned by the nutritional environment so that they won’t be able to do anything about it.

Someone needs to send Dr Toomath a “please explain” notice.

Remember the adage—when governments step in to prevent or lessen a deemed social evil, the inevitable outcome is that the social evil multiplies and becomes worse. Toomath’s “ultimate solution” will actually throw petrol on the obesity fire—or, to use a more apt metaphor, will sweeten and enrich the obesity pie.

At Contra Celsum, we suggest a far more Christian solution to this social problem.

1. Let the government declare that “You are what you eat”, that everyone is responsible, and will be made to face the consequences of their behaviour. If you become obese it is highly probable that a short and painful life awaits you.
2. The government to allocate an obesity public health voucher to every New Zealander which will entitle them to limited treatment for a range of notified obesity related health problems.
3. If a person is admitted to a public hospital for treatment for a notified obesity related health problem, and is obese, the cost of treatment will be born by their voucher.
4. Once the voucher is used up, no further publicly funded treatment for obesity related illnesses will be available. The cost will have to be met by the patient or his/her extended family, charity, insurance, or social networks.

Our solution assumes that people are not slaves, they are accountable and they are responsible. Our solution presupposes that people are thereby treated with respect. Our solution dignifies man, rather than degrades him. Our solution represents principled tough love. Moreover, our solution will radically reduce obesity over time.

Dr Robyn Toomath—S-Award Class II for behaviour that is Stupid, Short Sighted and Stupefied.

>Become Obese–Your Government Needs You

>

Obesity: A Pseudo-Epidemic and Its False Cure

It’s official. We have a new epidemic. It’s called obesity. The threat is dire. The consequences unspeakable.

Athenian politicians and governments love apocalyptic epidemics. They allow them to take on the patina of being “Great Redeemers”. They are saving us from ourselves.

Recently, the NZ Government introduced an “anti-obesity” bill into Parliament. Yes, the government is going to ban fatness. The Public Health Bill claims to provide new ways for the Cabinet or the Director General of Health to act against the suspected causes of obesity. First it was tobacco. We didn’t say anything because, well, tobacco is dirty. Then it was alcohol. That hurt a bit more, but, what can you do? We still did not say anything. The government knows best—and let’s not forget all those super educated health professionals (aka highly paid bureaucrat—consultants.) We placidly and supinely let the government restrict, ban, control, and propagandize. We let politicians tell us what to think.

Now it is food. It’s too late to do anything now. We have already let them in. The doors are wide open now, and they cannot be shut.

What will happen? Well, we will have taxes on obesity-causing food. We will have restrictions on advertising food and drink that cause fatness. We will have endless sermons and lectures and pontifications from politicians, governments, bureaucrats, and other go-gooders. The fast-food industry as we know it will be black-balled. Subsidies will be given to “Tofu Take Out” joints.

Why? It is a simple question. Why is the government engaging in this new evangelical campaign—apart from its own moral self-righteousness? Money. Western governments are concerned about all the collateral diseases that accompany obesity, for which the taxpayer will have to fund treatment. Billions will have to be found for treatment of heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, and other diseases that result from obesity.

Enter the fly-in-the-ointment. A recent authoritative, scholarly paper produced in Holland, published in the journal PloS Medicine (“Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure”) has demonstrated that obese people cost the health system less in the long run. We could also add heavy drinkers and smokers to this list.

Why is this? Obese people live shorter lives. Healthy, gym addicted, diet conscious people live longer, but tend to die from longer term degenerative diseases. It turns out that total lifetime health spending is greatest for healthy people. In other words, if the government is successful in making us more healthy in its attempt to reduce the socialised medicine spend, the more the costs of socialised medicine will rise. The government has been, and increasingly will, waste millions of your dollars trying to make you healthy. If it is successful, it will end up spending even more than it otherwise would have.

Ban fit people. Tax gyms. Subsidize fatty foods. Run tobacco education classes in schools to teach children the pleasures of the delightful weed. Become obese. Your government needs you, fat. The taxpayer needs you. Love those rolls. Let’s have beautyflab competitions. I can just see the new TV reality shows now.

So, the economics don’t stack up. Public health care costs are ballooning because we are living longer and more illnesses and diseases are treatable with increasingly sophisticated procedures. It turns out that trying to make us less obese by controlling what people eat will only make the problem worse.

Athens is stupid. Stupid in the extreme. But some will object. Should not Christians be concerned when people are in poor health? Surely the command, “Thou shalt not kill” requires us to do all we can to assist others to be healthy? Yes and yes. Surely, then, Christians should support socialised medicine and regard the anti-obesity campaign as laudable and do all they can to support it. No and no and no.

There is just a tiny, small matter of responsibility—personal and familial responsibility. Bluntly put, if you eat the wrong food and become obese you will likely die prematurely. Those are the consequences of your decision. If you feed your children garbage, they too are likely to have all sorts of severe health problems. You are responsible. You are accountable. If you want your children to die early, feed them rubbish. You will be allowed to face the consequences of your stupidity and folly. That is the truth. That is the authentic Christian position. The loving thing to do is to work within the rubric of personal accountability and responsibility because people are better off for it.

I can just hear the “tut tutting” Athenian liberals as they take another sip of pinot gris. “There are many who don’t know how to take responsibility for themselves. They are victims. They are oppressed. We have to take responsibility for them.”

This is none other than the twenty first century version of the “white man’s burden.” It was arrogant paternalism that led western nations into the reckless colonial era. The consequences are still with us today. But taking over control of countries and territories was justified as having a duty to “help them.”

A similar arrogant paternalism of western liberals has lead to a host of institutionalised evils, socialised medicine amongst them. The consequence is that it has encouraged virtually entire generations not to take responsibility for themselves and their dependants. It’s always someone else’s fault. Parents are now whining about food companies advertising on TV—wanting the government to “do something about it.” That will help solve our children’s eating problems.

Try turning the TV off if its that much of a problem. Take responsibility. Take ownership. Be a real parent for a change. Try putting a decent meal on the table and if the kids won’t eat it, take it away and tell them the next meal will be in five hours time. Lock the fridge in the meantime.

For too long successive generations have recited daily the modern Athenian liturgy:

High Priest of Athens: “We will fix it. Don’t you worry. Just vote for us.”

People: “Right-oh. You fix it then. How much will you fix, by the way?”

High Priest: “Cradle to the grave, mate. Don’t you worry. Cradle to the grave.”

Only it never can be sustained. It never works. It only creates bigger and larger problems on a nation wide scale. And they are here now.

The so-called national obesity epidemic is an outward physical manifestation of a widespread spiritual malaise of self-indulgence, irresponsibility, and a hand-to-mouth gratification. It is a vivid picture of the best that Athens can do. Generations have been taught to believe that others are going to run around them and their children, making things right for them. Cradle to the grave. Omni-competent, infinitely resourced governments will do the trick. We will love you. We will care for you. Just vote for us.

But Jerusalem says, that way may seem right to you, but its end is death. Stop it—now—for your own sake, and the sake of your children. You—yes, you—own the problem. Take ownership. Fix it. Be a real parent, for a change, not just a playactor. If you and your children are going to survive there are some things that are going to have to happen on your watch—and one of them is that you and your children are going to have to eat decent food—that is, if you want them to survive.

Who loves more? Jerusalem or Athens?