JOHN SEMMENS: Semi-News -- A Satirical Look at Recent News
 

Bill Would Bar Restaurants from Serving Obese Customers

Feb. 2, 2008

Nearly 30 percent of Mississippi’s adult residents are obese. This is tops in the nation. In a desperate move to counter this trend, three Mississippi legislators have introduced a bill that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons.

Bill No. 282, is sponsored by Republicans W. T. Mayhall, Jr. and John Read, and Democrat Bobby Shows. The bill would have the state’s Department of Health establish weight criteria after consultation with Mississippi’s Council on Obesity.

If the law passes, all restaurants (except for doughnut shops) will be required to install scales at the door. Would-be patrons weighing too much on the first weighing must be given the option to adjust or remove garments in order see if they can get below the threshold.

A Fat Enforcement Division (FED) would be established within the Mississippi Department of Public Safety and funded by a tax on fried chicken. FED officers will be equipped with their own portable scales and authorized to conduct “no knock” raids on a 24-hour basis. For a first offense, violators will be required to narrow entryways to the restaurant to no more than 18 inches in width. A second offense within a 12-month period will result in revocation of the restaurant’s license.

California Mulls Regulations Aimed at Greenhouse Gases

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is exploring ideas for new regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Jeff Luvium, a CARB policy advisor, says he fears the state will not comply with emission reduction targets set by state law AB32 unless “drastic steps” are taken.

Luvium indicated that a “two pronged” approach was under consideration. “We’ve got to do something to reduce motor vehicle travel,” Luvium said. “This one person per vehicle idea has got to go.” Luvium reminded the media that “illegal aliens manage to get quite a few people into a single vehicle. Why can’t we all be as efficient when we travel?” Luvium suggested that requiring a minimum of at least two persons per motor vehicle trip would be a “modest step in the direction of emulating the illegal alien model.”

The other “prong” involves land use controls. “A lot of our travel results from work trips.” Luvium pointed out. “If people lived where they worked they wouldn’t need to travel so far on a daily basis.” Luvium proposed the establishment of what he called “company towns.”

“If employers would provide housing for their workforce we could really cut down on work commute trips,” he said. “My vision is for each major employer to set up a little community next to the business facility. There would be company provided housing, company stores, recreation, schools, you name it. People could live their entire lives within a very small radius, just like they used to do before the invention of the automobile.”

Clinton Urges “Business Slowdown” to Fight Global Warming

Former president Bill Clinton while campaigning for his wife said the U.S. must endure “some economic sacrifices” in order to save the planet. “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions because we have to save the planet for our grandchildren,” Clinton told an adoring crowd.

Clinton characterized Americans as “rich and selfish.” “Too many think only of self gratification, the pleasures of the moment,” Clinton asserted. “People lack a sense of commitment to family and children. They’d rather engage in titillating themselves when they should be exercising self restraint for the sake of the future.”

The former president said that a “little bit of unemployment would be very tolerable. Look, I’ve been unemployed for more than seven years and I’m doing okay. If I can make sacrifices, so can everyone else.”

Clinton pledged to further cutbacks in his own greenhouse gas emissions by restricting himself to mistresses that are within walking distance. “If a smoker can walk a mile for a camel, I can walk a mile for a hump,” Clinton joked.

In related news, former vice-president Al Gore claimed that slowing down the economy to save the environment is “what Jesus would do.” “Saving the environment is not a political issue,” Gore told the attendees of the “Stewardship of the Earth” luncheon during the New Baptist Covenant Celebration in Atlanta. “It is a moral issue. It is an ethical issue. It is a spiritual issue. Those who oppose me on this are immoral and unethical. They are resisting God’s will for mankind. Death and damnation shall be their reward.” Toward the end of the meeting, Gore was given the “Baptist of the Year Award.”

Iran to End Public Executions

Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, Iran’s chief judge, decreed that executions will no longer take place in public. He also banned the publication of pictures and the broadcast of videos of executions.

“Public executions expose the government to ridicule from foreigners and local dissident elements,” Shahroudi said. “They also stifle the creativity of the executioners. It is better that the enemies of the state be put to death privately. If people just mysteriously disappear, the government’s ability to strike fear into those who oppose its righteous rule will be enhanced.”

In related news, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured the world that Israel’s execution would be “public and glorious.” “We are counting the days until our development of peaceful nuclear power gives us the means to eliminate the Zionist occupation of Palestine,” Ahmadinejad boasted. “Israel’s reign of terror against the faithful has reached its final stage. The day when a Muslim can openly revile a Jew without fear of retaliation is imminent.”

British National Health Weighs “Writing Off” Bad Risks

The British National Health Service (NHS) is considering its options for shoring up the financial condition of this socialized medicine system.

“The problem is, when the government provides free health care the system gets clogged with malingerers and hypochondriacs,” said Dr. Frank Sayer, a general practitioner in the NHS. “With little or no out-of-pocket cost, people with minor or imagined ailments haven’t much incentive to moderate their demand for service. The vast majority of these patients don’t need to see a doctor. They will get well on their own. But they come to us, using up time and resources.”

Dealing with this problem has been blocked by politics. Since the vast majority of voters are relatively healthy most of the time, a system that caters to their minor complaints serves a majority of voters. The small minority that is seriously ill carries less weight at the ballot box. The result is a system that is driven toward providing largely unnecessary care for the healthy while neglecting to invest in the expensive means to treat the desperately ill.

Cognizant of the politics behind the NHS, policymakers are seeking ways to avoid the cost of serving the seriously ill minority. One approach that is gaining traction is to set age limits on who may be treated. “The idea is that a person who is elderly and out of the workforce is more socially expendable,” Sayer said. “It is argued that these people have already led full lives and that they owe it to society to make way for the younger generations.”

Another potential source of savings would be to exclude those with unhealthy lifestyles from receiving care. “We have told people that smoking, drinking, and overeating is bad for them,” Sayer pointed out. “The government feels it has a right to deny treatment to those who don’t do as they have been told.”

Sayer warned that Americans shouldn’t be too quick to criticize. “You’re moving toward the same type of system in your country,” Sayer observed. “The political dynamics are pushing you in the same direction. Promising free or cheap health care funded by the government is a big vote getter. You may be a few decades behind us, but you’re on your way toward undermining the whole foundation of medicine, too.”

In related news, the Sierra club has proposed a so-called “couch potato” tax in which video games and televisions would face levies to fund programs that encourage families to spend more time outdoors. Mike Casaus of the Sierra Club says “people are spending too much time indoors in front of the TV when they should be out hiking and camping. We are asking the government to step in and help modify people’s behavior. The tax on sedentary pleasures is the ‘stick.’ The great outdoors is the ‘carrot.’” The Sierra Club predicts the tax would raise about $4 million per year that could be used for programs like an outdoor classroom to tech children about the outdoors.

Semi-News’ Presidential Endorsement

Normally, I wouldn’t think of endorsing a presidential candidate. After all, who would care what I think? But faced with the stampede of celebrity endorsements for various candidates, I figured I know at least as much about politics as these luminaries. Why shouldn’t I endorse someone?

Of course, the decision to announce an endorsement is freighted with responsibility. How is one to choose? At this stage of the game, the options have narrowed. Many worthy candidates have already dropped out. Former senator John Edwards’ (D-N.C.) plan to sue America into prosperity offered the promise of riches to every undeserving sloth in the country. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was the only candidate alert to the threat of extraterrestrial invasion. Former senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) had some good ideas, but had a hard time fitting the campaign into his schedule. For my endorsement to carry any weight, I realize I must select from those still in the running.

Among the Democrats we have Senator Barack Obama (Ill.) and Senator Hillary Clinton (N.Y.). Now, Obama has several attractive qualities. He is half black and half white, half Muslim and half Christian, half American and half foreign and has many half-baked ideas. Obama has been endorsed by wrestler Hulk Hogan and famed swimmer, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Clinton has aided and abetted many of her husband’s and former president Bill’s activities over the years and has yet to go to jail. This demonstrates a dexterity that is the envy of every professional politician. She has been endorsed by “People Who Need People” singer, Barbra Steisand.

Among the Republicans we have Senator John McCain (Ariz.), former governor Mitt Romney (Mass), former governor Mike Huckabee (Ark.), and Representative Ron Paul (Tex). McCain has been widely hailed as a “maverick.” A maverick is an unbranded cow. This is important because a branded cow is not a maverick. The media have gone to great efforts over the years to emphasize this. McCain has been endorsed by baseball player Curt Schilling.

Romney probably has the most breadth of any of the Republicans, having at one time or another been on every side of all the important issues. Such flexibility could come in handy in an uncertain future or when the political winds change direction. Romney has been endorsed by Donny and Marie Osmond, who I have heard may be dance contestants on some reality TV show.

Huckabee is from Arkansas, a state that gave America one of its only two impeached presidents. Whether Huckabee could follow in the footsteps of that other Arkansan president is unknown, but like that other president, he has wowed crowds by playing a musical instrument on the campaign trail. Huckabee has been endorsed by movie tough-guy Chuck Norris who could probably beat up all the other celebrity endorsers, with the possible exception of Hulk Hogan.

Ron Paul appears to take the U.S. Constitution seriously. This is generally regarded as a critical blunder by most political experts and may have severely hampered his campaign. Dr. Paul is also a gynecologist. This gives him a perspective on women’s tissues that is unduplicated by any of the other candidates. Paul has been endorsed by Alice’s Restaurant customer Arlo Guthrie.

Given these choices, I’ll have to throw my support to Ron Paul. We are going to see the name of whoever becomes president in print and hear it over the airwaves for the next four years. Of all the candidates, Ron Paul’s name is the shortest. In print it will use up less ink. Less ink means lower costs and less impact on the environment. On broadcast news, it will take less time to say his name. This will save precious time, allowing broadcasts to end earlier or move on to more interesting topics.

In sum, it seems clear that electing Ron Paul president will have less negative impact on the economy and the environment than electing any of the others. In my opinion, this is a very tangible reason why Ron Paul ought to be our next president.

 
 

John Semmens' Semi-News Archives: