My wife, the nurse-type, has taught me to initially give grossly obese humans the benefit of the doubt… because it is conceivably possible, however unlikely, that their condition is from a freak “gland” issue or some other medical condition that they either did or did not bring upon themselves. The aforementioned fellow definitely appeared to be a self-infliction.

But I also believe in freedom. I think everyone is free to eat however they choose to within their means. I say “within their means” because I think there is something fundamentally flawed with being obese AND collecting public assistance. I’ve covered this before including the sometimes non-usefulness of WIC.

For instance, does it make any sense to give food stamps to obese people? Okay, there could be the extreme exception for medical reasons, loss of a provider, natural disaster or other misfortune. But I mean, really… on the whole is someone who is obese really in need of assistance getting food? Aren’t those people’s layers of lipo-love-flesh a testament to the fact that they have a ready supply and are indeed eating very well, thank you?

So if you have your own money then you should be able to use it to buy whatever food you like (healthy or unhealthy) and eat it in whatever quantities you like (dainty or super-sized) however often you like (first breakfast, second breakfast, elevensies, and so on). My communist state of New York has already banned trans-fats from restaurant use in some areas – even though this has problems of its own.

And recently we find that misguided (read authoritarian) politicians in Mississippi want to ban fat people from restaurants!? How insane is that? Granted, I’ve seen some of the largest people anywhere at the local Chinese buffet squatting in a booth and scarfing down every fried morsel they can get their greasy, stubby fingers on. But so what? It’s a free country, right? Or at least it WAS.

Here’s the rub… to be a FREE country you have to enforce two very important principles. First, people must have free choice. Second, people must bear the consequences of their choices (both good and bad) . This is tremendously important. Consequences to one’s own actions is a feedback mechanism that must not be tampered with or the delicate balance that allows for free choice will be disrupted.

If people want to eat gluttonously, that this their free choice. Then, if they want to fly somewhere, and their large torso won’t fit into a normal airplane seat, then they can buy two tickets for adjacent seats or choose another form of travel. If their morbid obesity causes severe medical problems, they need to figure out how to pay the upcoming medical bills or go without medical attention. If they are wealthy and can pay medical bills without batting an eyelash, good for them. If they used their free choice to acquire health insurance, good for them. If they used their free choice to blow their money on non-essentials, then they should rely on family and friends to help pay their bills (NOT the government).

If the government stepped in and “cushioned” everyone whose gluttonous lifestyle caused huge medical bills, then that combined with finite resources would create the need to start dictating to people what they can and cannot eat. This is bad, but is necessary in a socialist state where health care is “provided”. The UK is already projecting huge costs to the public over the next few decades due to the terrible obesity “problem”. Who knows what further behavioral restrictions will be put in place there. That is exactly why I’m 100% opposed to ANY form of universal healthcare.

For starters I put together a new design for a friend’s business. It’s just a front page for now but it suffices as a nice new internet face for their shop. I’ll be enhancing it over the next weeks with tabbed paging and additional content.

I also reached a trivial yet important milestone (does that compute?)… my humble little blog has accrued more in ad revenue than my total hosting costs to date for all my websites including future costs thru October 2008. As shocking as that seems try this one… after analyzing my traffic stats it would seem the economy of Negative99 is driven by UK school kids! Who’d of thought? God save the Queen!

Another milestone… I have passed 28,000 spam comments since around mid-2006. The reason you don’t see but a tiny sliver of them ever on my blog is because of a GREAT little filter from Akismet that checks every comment I get against its brilliant detection scheme. And be glad you don’t see them… car insurance, porn, gambling, porn, penis enlargement, porn, prescription drugs, porn, porn, porn… *yech*.

5 Myths About Turning Out The Vote

By Michael McDonald
Sunday, October 29, 2006

If you’re an upstanding U.S. citizen, you’ll stand up and be counted this Election Day, right? Well, maybe not. Just because Americans can vote doesn’t mean they do. But who shows up is what decides the tight races, which makes turnout one of the most closely watched aspects of every election — and one that has fostered a number of myths. Here are five, debunked:

1. Thanks to increasing voter apathy, turnout keeps dwindling.

This is the mother of all turnout myths. There may be plenty of apathetic voters out there, but the idea that ever fewer Americans are showing up at the polls should be put to rest. What’s really happening is that the number of people not eligible to vote is rising — making it seem as though turnout is dropping.

Those who bemoan a decline in American civic society point to the drop in turnout from 55.2 percent in 1972, when 18-year-olds were granted the right to vote, to the low point of 48.9 percent in 1996. But that’s looking at the total voting-age population, which includes lots of people who aren’t eligible to vote — namely, noncitizens and convicted felons. These ineligible populations have increased dramatically over the past three decades, from about 2 percent of the voting-age population in 1972 to 10 percent today.

When you take them out of the equation, the post-1972 “decline” vanishes. Turnout rates among those eligible to vote have averaged 55.3 percent in presidential elections and 39.4 percent in midterm elections for the past three decades. There has been variation, of course, with turnout as low as 51.7 percent in 1996 and rebounding to 60.3 percent by 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, in fact, is on a par with the low-60 percent turnout rates of the 1950s and ’60s.

I remember hearing back in 1996 and 2000, amidst the campus “Rock the Vote” slogans, all the rhetoric with regard to politicians “disenfranchising” the youth of America. The media were heartbroken that today’s youngsters were turned off by politics, and that somehow this meant that something was wrong with politics, and that politicians needed to start resonating with young skater punks and slutty beeper-chicks.

Frankly, modern culture has so cultivated a generation of fast-food entertainment addicts that the fact of the matter is young voter-eligibles don’t vote because it bores them. And of course, they believe they have the right to be entertained by all. Politicians in drag with little chirping LED buttons would “resonate” more, you see.

Personally, I’m glad when politics is wicked boring… because it keeps the easily distracted and the entertainment junkies away, and that produces a higher quality result (in general) in the election.

2 Other countries’ higher turnout indicates more vibrant democracies.

You can’t compare apples and oranges. Voting rules differ from nation to nation, producing different turnout rates. Some countries have mandatory voting. If Americans were fined $100 for playing voter hooky on Election Day, U.S. participation might increase dramatically. But in fact, many people with a ballot pointed at their head simply cast a blank one or a nonsense vote for Mickey Mouse.

Moreover, most countries have national elections maybe once every five years; the United States has presidential or congressional elections every two years. Frequent elections may lead to voter fatigue. New European Union elections, for instance, seem to be depressing turnout in member countries. After decades of trailing turnout in the United Kingdom, U.S. turnout in 2004 was on a par with recent British elections, in which turnout was 59.4 percent in 2001 and 61.4 percent in 2005.

Americans are asked to vote more often — in national, state, local and primary contests — than the citizens of any other country. They can be forgiven for missing one or two elections, can’t they? Even then, over the course of several elections, Americans have more chances to participate and their turnout may be higher than that in countries where people vote only once every five years.

This one really speaks for itself. However, I don’t think voting once every two years is even approaching the level of voter fatigue. For crying out loud, it’s only once every two years?!

3 Negative ads turn off voters and reduce turnout.

Don’t be so sure. The case on this one is still open. Negative TV advertising increased in the mid-1980s, but turnout hasn’t gone down correspondingly. The negative Swift boat campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) apparently did little to depress turnout in the 2004 presidential race.

Some academic studies have found that negative advertising increases turnout. And that’s not so surprising: A particularly nasty ad grabs people’s attention and gets them talking. People participate when they’re interested. A recent GOP attack ad on Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), a Senate candidate, has changed the dynamic of the race, probably not because it changed minds or dissuaded Democrats, but because it energized listless Republicans.

We’ll have to wait to see whether the attack on Ford backfires because voters perceive it as unfair. That’s the danger of going negative. So campaigns tend to stick to “contrast ads,” in which candidates contrast their records with those of their opponents. When people see stark differences between candidates, they’re more likely to vote.

I saw the Ford ad he speaks of and thought it was hilarious. I think the attack ads are effective. I think they mobilize the “base”, even though I only partly even agree with the concept of “mobilizing the base” in the first place.

Now some apathetic or undecided voters may be turned off by the negative ads, but not many… and when you hear people tout numbers claiming the voters want positive campaigns, don’t believe it. People, because we are a miserable lot of pulp-lovers, are drawn to salacious details of impropriety and corruption. It’s like a reality show or a soap opera. If the negative ads didn’t work they wouldn’t be used… it’s that simple.

4 The Republican “72-hour campaign” will win the election.

Not necessarily. You can lead citizens to the ballot, but you can’t make them vote.

Republicans supposedly have a super-sophisticated last-minute get-out-the-vote effort that identifies voters who’ll be pivotal in electing their candidates. Studies of a campaign’s personal contact with voters through phone calls, door-to-door solicitation and the like find that it does have some positive effect on turnout. But people vote for many reasons other than meeting a campaign worker, such as the issues, the closeness of the election and the candidates’ likeability. Further, these studies focus on get-out-the-vote drives in low-turnout elections, when contacts from other campaigns and outside groups are minimal. We don’t know what the effects of mobilization drives are in highly competitive races in which people are bombarded by media stories, television ads and direct mail.

Republican get-out-the-vote efforts could make a difference in close elections if Democrats simply sat on the sidelines. But this year Democrats have vowed to match the GOP mobilization voter for voter. So it’ll take more than just knowing whether a prospective voter owns a Volvo or a BMW for Republicans to eke out victory in a competitive race.

This election is the first I’ve ever heard about this super-whamo-dyne GOP 72-hour race for the cure. Sounds like more of a mystical Dem-demoralizer to me… make’em think you’ve got magic pixie-dust that’ll hack into voting machines untraceably.

5 Making voter registration easier would dramatically increase turnout.

Well, yes and no.

In 1993, the Democratic government in Washington enacted “Motor Voter,” a program that allowed people to register to vote when they received their driver’s license or visited a welfare office. Democrats thought that if everyone were registered, turnout rates would increase — by as much as 7 percentage points.

But while many people registered to vote, turnout didn’t go up much. Subsequent studies found only small increases in turnout attributable to Motor Voter, perhaps 2 percentage points.

Sizable increases in turnout can be seen in states with Election Day registration, which allows people to register when they vote. This may be related to the fact that lots of people don’t make up their minds to vote until Election Day, rather than months in advance when they get a license.

Personally, I hate anything that makes it easier for people to vote… including (and especially) lazy people. Or easier for people who don’t plan for the future (i.e. election day). Chances are, if registering ahead of time to vote – and looking up ahead of time where you need to go to do so – is too much work for you to be bothered with, then your vote most assuredly should NOT count.

The best election results are during periods of inclement weather and heavy reality show programming.