After years of ostentatious non-judgementalism, liberal educrats have finally found an issue where the morality is absolute. Yep: it's the war on chocolate. Actually, I think they've got a point, they really are teaching the kids a valuable lesson, namely the difference between liberals and conservatives. Hey, kids, not only do we not rob your sweeties, we think it should be legal to shoot anyone who does.
Still, you have to say this: it certainly throws the achievements of Ronaldus Magnus into sharp relief. In 1980, still deep in the Cold War, we lived with the possibility of millions of Marxist savages storming westwards, then suddenly the stoppidy-stoopid B-movie actor got elected and now Marxists are reduced to taking candy from babies.
Short summary: Marxists wanted to conquer Western Europe, but now they have to settle for seizing the Galaxy instead. Also, the Twix and the Kit-Kats. They're not against all chocolates though - in fact, the management appears to be 99% Flakes. Here's the Hag-in-Chief herself:
But let's just take time-out to check the scorecard here: liberal educrats claim educayshun is kind of like brain surgery, but extra hard, and so no one who hasn't spent at least yearsmoking pot studying education at a teacher training college can possibly have any useful input. On the other hand, it turns out fitness and nutrition are so easy even semi-literates who've never held down a real job and couldn't give you the formula for ice can decide what every one else should eat. Makes you wonder why Arsenal make such a song and dance about it all, right?
Of course, that leads on to the other factor. Back in the day, we could eat just about anything without weight being an issue. Hey, it's almost like there's some other factor that's missing....
But that's the thing. Horrible liberal hags screech about the dangers of obesity, but when it comes to the one thing that always works to get rid of fat? Nope, things are bad, but not bad enough to justify actual exercise.
Hmmmm... is it just me, or are other people beginning to suspect that it isn't really about health, after all. Hey, not only do predictions of an Impending Fatocalyspse make the whole Global Warming thing look like hard science, at least Al Gore doesn't have an enormous CO2-eating machine sitting unused in his loft (For the benefit of any teachers reading this, CO2 is the chemical formula for carbon dioxide).
As with the other example Julie points out, liberals seem to have adopted the belief that the law is a Lamarckian project, growing new nodules as the need arises. People flying airliners into buildings was one thing, but kids eating chocolate? Suddenly, it turns out that the whole 'human rights' thing is a bit of a drag after all....
Yes, I know what you're thinking: can we stop with the incessant whining about racial profiling at airports if we use teachers to search the lunatics dressed as Osama Bin Laden? It's a tempting thought, but the terrorists might be offended by their extremist anti-western views.
After all, it's not just the appalling governmental thuggery on display here. There's also the terrible science. Eating chocolate at 10 years old can make you fat in later life? Huh? How does that work? Really: these people should be locked in a small room until they can come up with a plausible mechanism to explain how chocolate bars ingested in 2009 can suddenly re materialise in the gut in 2025. Where does it go in between?
Nope, fat thirty-somethings got that way because of what they're doing now, not what they did back in the Reagan years. Losing weight isn't that hard: eat less, exercise more, except now the debate has been hijacked by screechy dimbulbs like Deborah Metcalf, trying to use it to download their frustrations at being going-nowhere, idiot losers. Enough already: there is nothing in a whole truck load of Yorkie bars quite as toxic or liable to lead to failure as letting Junior be influenced by these worthless members of Britain's self-selecting underclass.
Still, you have to say this: it certainly throws the achievements of Ronaldus Magnus into sharp relief. In 1980, still deep in the Cold War, we lived with the possibility of millions of Marxist savages storming westwards, then suddenly the stoppidy-stoopid B-movie actor got elected and now Marxists are reduced to taking candy from babies.
Short summary: Marxists wanted to conquer Western Europe, but now they have to settle for seizing the Galaxy instead. Also, the Twix and the Kit-Kats. They're not against all chocolates though - in fact, the management appears to be 99% Flakes. Here's the Hag-in-Chief herself:
Headmistress Deborah Metcalf said: 'We were finding that some children could be bringing in crisps, a Mars bar and can of Coke with their lunches. This stance is trying to work with parents to provide a healthy meal for their children.'Yes, seizing other people's property in order to try and conscript their children into your hippy-dippy, New Age junk science cult counts as working with parents, much as the guy with a machete and a balaclava works with passers-by to re engineer their financial arrangements.
But let's just take time-out to check the scorecard here: liberal educrats claim educayshun is kind of like brain surgery, but extra hard, and so no one who hasn't spent at least year
Of course, that leads on to the other factor. Back in the day, we could eat just about anything without weight being an issue. Hey, it's almost like there's some other factor that's missing....
But that's the thing. Horrible liberal hags screech about the dangers of obesity, but when it comes to the one thing that always works to get rid of fat? Nope, things are bad, but not bad enough to justify actual exercise.
Hmmmm... is it just me, or are other people beginning to suspect that it isn't really about health, after all. Hey, not only do predictions of an Impending Fatocalyspse make the whole Global Warming thing look like hard science, at least Al Gore doesn't have an enormous CO2-eating machine sitting unused in his loft (For the benefit of any teachers reading this, CO2 is the chemical formula for carbon dioxide).
As with the other example Julie points out, liberals seem to have adopted the belief that the law is a Lamarckian project, growing new nodules as the need arises. People flying airliners into buildings was one thing, but kids eating chocolate? Suddenly, it turns out that the whole 'human rights' thing is a bit of a drag after all....
Yes, I know what you're thinking: can we stop with the incessant whining about racial profiling at airports if we use teachers to search the lunatics dressed as Osama Bin Laden? It's a tempting thought, but the terrorists might be offended by their extremist anti-western views.
After all, it's not just the appalling governmental thuggery on display here. There's also the terrible science. Eating chocolate at 10 years old can make you fat in later life? Huh? How does that work? Really: these people should be locked in a small room until they can come up with a plausible mechanism to explain how chocolate bars ingested in 2009 can suddenly re materialise in the gut in 2025. Where does it go in between?
Nope, fat thirty-somethings got that way because of what they're doing now, not what they did back in the Reagan years. Losing weight isn't that hard: eat less, exercise more, except now the debate has been hijacked by screechy dimbulbs like Deborah Metcalf, trying to use it to download their frustrations at being going-nowhere, idiot losers. Enough already: there is nothing in a whole truck load of Yorkie bars quite as toxic or liable to lead to failure as letting Junior be influenced by these worthless members of Britain's self-selecting underclass.
No comments:
Post a Comment