“Sitting is the new smoking.” “‘The chair is out to kill us,’ a Mayo doctor says. Several studies point to the health risks of too much sitting.” We can see it now – “Bloomberg to ban chairs that don’t contain upwards-pointing spikes in the seats!” “Congress debates new sofa tax!” “States sue La-Z-Boy to recover healthcare costs for diseases caused by its recliners!” Big Furniture in the crosshairs…
View Comments (33)
"What difference does it make?"
When it comes down to it, none of this matters because we will be in FEMA/DHS camps well before we die.
Obama Database – Knows Everything About Everyone
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873:BlogPost:2535931&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
They are going to be gathering every email, text message, phone call, etc that you send and using it to justify jailing you for "public safety" reasons.
“Every hour of TV that people watch, presumably while sitting, cuts about 22 minutes from their life span, the study’s authors calculated. By contrast, it’s estimated that smokers shorten their lives by about 11 minutes per cigarette.”
That may be, but many people smoke 4 or more cigarettes an hour.
Now, if sitting is so bad for you, what about laying down? Does this mean sleeping is bad for you too?
More "Chicken Little Libtard Hysterics" at work.
I am okay with sitting down all-day, but I don't believe in cigarettes. Disgusting: doesn't mean I believe in banning them out-right, but it sure does drive me nuts when I have to scoot past people on street, especially by the bus-stop.
I hope I am not offending anyone.
And yes, good poiint: why is there no rule against sleeping? It's because liberals want only what they want, to be the way they want it to be: they don't truly believe what they spew: it's a show, it's all hypocrisy - a stage. If they TRULY believed this, they would ban sleeping, but they don't. It is proof that they just want CONTROL. But isn't control bad too? Why is there no law against that? Why no law against exercising: you could accidentally get a hernia. What about defecating? You could accidentally get hemorroides. What about school? Couldn't and aren't kids being bullied, sure they are, definitely something to stop, doesn't give a reason to a cockamamy idea, of banning an education: it's practically identical in comparison. where does it stop? Will it stop? It won't, because voters don't learn, liberals never stop taking, and food stamp abusers don't stop mooching and get a job.
I've seen food stamps signs ALL over college today - it disgusts me! It's the desktop image on the computers, there are banners on windows! WHAT THE FREAK?!! Is THIS what we're spending our money on?!!! Chances are: if they can afford a college education, they can afford food...
And another reason for it to be privatized, the whole education system - there's always fluff everywhere - employment of unnecessary positions. It always seems as though we have a Whatchamacallit tecnician here, and 50 information technology specialists there, and mega-crap analysts way over there. It's over-bloated use of resources that taxpayers are paying for, and half of these jobs mean absolutely nothing. I've been trash management businesses managed better (actually, technically, I haven't; was mainly and only to make a point, really. But REGARDLESS, my point STILL STANDS).
The story goes that smoking cuts 11 mins from your life, per cigarette. As Hisham points out - many people smoke 4 cigarettes per hour. That's 44 minutes lost per hour of life. Or 73.3333...% of life lost. For a person who WOULD live to 75, that means they would lose 54 years. Or they would die at age 21. Which they would pass well before they smoked enough to lose that time.
Even if you consider that people sleep part of the time, and maybe knock it down to 50% of lost life - they would die at 37.5. That's a rarity. Maybe smokers do die, on average, a bit younger than non-smokers. Maybe my 97 year old grandmother might have made it to 100 if she hadn't smoked. But who can say? If we put this in reverse - say she smoked a pack a day for 60 years... *making calculator buzzing and beeping noises here*.... OK, it's early so my math may not be exact, but as far as I can tell, had she NOT smoked and had not lost those 11 minutes per cigarette, she would have lived to 170. Daaaaaaaaaaaaaang!
So, why the hell don't they just say "smoking is bad for you"? Why make up phoney, BS statistics? Because it WORKS - that's why! Dems have been doing this for YEARS. Bernard Nathanson, one of the most vocal abortion activists in the Roe v. Wade era, explained years later, how the activists has simply MADE UP numbers. No one ever questioned them. Nice suburban housewives heard about how hundreds of thousands of women were dying in back-alley clinics from rusty coat-hangers, and they shuddered, and voted with sympathy and compassion. Had they known that it was a big fat LIE, and that babies were being killed because they were inconvenient, would they have felt the same way?
It's the same with so many lefty ideas. Green energy, affirmative action - you name it. Make crap up to try and make people feel bad, and then go for the jugular.
Like the old expression goes, liberals hate to be told the truth and conservatives hate to be told a lie.
Or maybe it is
"liberals love to be told a lie and conservatives love to be told the truth."
Either way, we are all being told lies.
Some of us believe them. Those are what we call liberals.
I remember being told, as a kid in middle school, (now this was in the mid to late sixties) that smokers took an average of 4 minutes a cigarette off of their lives. The idea that smoking is bad for you has been around a lot longer than that study, probably back to the mid to late forties. And like all such studies, the date is often skewed and or outright flawed, but still, all in all, smoking is unhealthy any way you look at it. That doesn't mean that tobacco has no redeeming value, it's just not PC right now to even think about that.
"Every hour of TV that people watch, presumably while sitting, cuts about 22 minutes from their life span, the study's authors calculated. By contrast, it's estimated that smokers shorten their lives by about 11 minutes per cigarette."
Cool. Camels are better for you than Gilligan's Island.
These people are full of crap. Statistics do not tell a story - they only show relative values. I am so sick of this tendency to just throw out numbers without ever considering cause and effect.
I remember a "study" a few years back that showed that babies who slept in rooms with a nightlight on were more likely to need glasses later. Mothers everywhere ran, in a panic, to turn off the lights. I remember thinking - well. I have a baby and I keep the light on so I can see in the middle of the night with no contacts or glasses on. Sure enough, a few years later, the study was disproved for exactly that reason. Parents with bad vision were more likely to leave a light on, and also more likely to pass on bad eyesight to their kids. Derrrrrrrr.
That study made no difference in thebig picture - but how about things like "eating margarine is healthier than butter" only to find out that margarine is killing people? The earth is cooling... no, warming... no, cooling - lets just say it's "changing"... and so on.
We can chart things as they happen, but we pretty much stink at knowing what the cause is, what the effects are, and what it means in the scheme of things. But everyone needs their government grant, so they have to study SOMETHING, right?
‘The chair is out to kill us,’
The ONLY chair that will kill us is "The Empty Chair"!!!
This screams liberal idiocy.
I was okay I suppose with Bloomberg when he had rightfully put down the OWS movement in NY, but all of this crap makes him a Democrat, not an Independent. He puts a new meaning on being "off your rocker" (yes, that was my "sitting" joke)
Also, sorry everyone that I haven't been on that often anymore - been busy myself with college mostly and new games I'm now addicted to, that I've discovered.
Sitting, smoking, AND wolfing down a box of Hot & Spicy Cheez-Its. Life doesn't get any better.
I had to plop my crowley on my lazy-boy to read this....wait, was that redundant?
The only "plopping crowley" I do while sitting, is on a porcelain chair that has water in it.
And the biggest offenders? Why it's the 47% of the lazy entitled voters who re-elected Quagmire. The rest of us get plenty of exercise working 3 jobs to pay for their sorry asses.
More bull sit and a bum steer... no ifs, ands, or butts.
And furthermore...we're going to need sweeping new legislation to protect us from the menace of military-style assault chairs like those used by The Spanish Inquisition.
Nobody needs an ottoman.