Mississippi may be low on educational and employment studies, but it is number one in a recent survey of the most unhealthy states with the surprising record of having each citizen on average buying 82 gallons of soft drinks annually.
The findings are in the medical journal Lancet and look at the average of BMI (Body Mass Index) — finding “[i]n 2008, 9.8 percent of the world’s male population were obese, as were 13.8 percent of women. In 1980, these rates were 4.8 percent and 7.9 percent.” Here are the states taking the prize in the U.S.:
10. New Mexico
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.26 (23rd)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $737 (8th most)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 58 (12th least)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 111 (13th least)
9. Arizona
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.17 (47th)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $761 (4th most)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 60 (21st least)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 109 (11th least)
8. Ohio
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.18 (45th)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $622 (20th least)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 70 (11th most)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 122 (10th most)f over 10%, which is the 11th-worst rate in the country.
7. South Dakota
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.5 (4th)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $547 (9th least)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 64 (23rd least)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 122 (8th most)
6. Nevada
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.23 (29th)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $939 (most)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 58 (10th least)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 114 (19th least)
5. Oklahoma
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.25 (24th)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $676 (15th most)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 69.8 (8th most)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 103.2 (3rd least)
4. Kansas
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.35 (7th)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $610 (19th least)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 64 (23rd most)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 121 (12th most)
3. Missouri
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.26 (22nd)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $623 (21st least)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 65 (18th highest)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 121 (17th most)
2. Alabama
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.21 (37th)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $649 (23rd most)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 77 (4th most)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 113 (16th least)
1. Mississippi
Grocery Stores Per 1,000 Residents: 0.21 (34th)
Amount Spent on Fast Food Per Capita: $588 (17th least)
Gallons of Soft Drinks Purchased Per Capita: 82 (most)
Pounds of Sweet Snacks Purchased Per Capita: 113 (17th least)
Source: Yahoo
Buddha:
And if you don’t answer me immediately, I’m going to assume the cat’s got YOUR tongue.
Buddha?
What are your frothing about? Did you have a point?
Christophobic? I thought that was the artist who hangs giant orange sheets across Central Park.
Come on.
What’s the matter, Tootles?
Facts got your tongue?
Tootie 1, May 5, 2010 at 11:17 am
Christopher Flourney
I’d wish to emulate you.
Therefore I wish you would stop your hate speech against people who believe homosexuality is a sin. And if you cannot say anything nice about people who say homosexuality is a sin, then you shouldn’t say anything nice at all and your post would not exist.
Thank you for your cooperation.
vlf2112 1, May 5, 2010 at 11:27 am
Free speech for all – even those who spout such ignorant nonsense as “homosexuality is a sin.”
Tootie 1, May 5, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Skip the last “nice”.
Tootie 1, May 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm
vlf: what if we find out if violence is determined biologically (I’m convinced that some of it is). What then?
Another line of thinking goes like this. What do we do for those who are blind? Not look for ways to help them see? Or do we let them be because that is the way they were born?
How about those with sickle cell anemia? Do we discourage fighting against it because people were born (nature made them) that way?
You may not like what Christians (and many other groups) say about homosexuality, but there is an internal logic to it that applies to other areas of the human condition.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, May 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Internal logics, like any other logic not properly proofed, can be inconsistent and wrong. You demonstrate that fact about logic on a regular basis, Tootie.
I’m all verklempt! Here’s a topic for you. Reconcile a compassionate and infinitely loving God with a God that excludes people based on a trait that in no way affects your life unless a member of the same sex asks you to dance.
We could all use a good laugh.
______
#
Tootie 1, December 20, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Go for it.
The more impeachment the better. Sooner rather than later.
It is an extra-legal tool given TO THE PEOPLE to remove judges they strongly disapprove of (but have not committed crimes, etc.) Corrupt individuals in the justice system and academe have intentionally kept the people in the dark about impeachment in order to increase their own abusive powers over the people.
If our court system is to be saved from the corrupt individuals who run it, more impeachment, not less, will be necessary.
Same-sex marriage is under the authority of state governments. There is NO power whatsoever given anywhere in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate marriage. Therefore that power falls to the states and or the people (i.e. 10th Amendment).
Impeach the dangerous, extremist, seditious judges who know no bounds to their corrupt usurpation.
#
21 Queer Eye 1, December 20, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Tootie:
why? Why do you want to denie me my self as I am?
#
22 Tony Sidaway 1, December 20, 2010 at 11:02 pm
“There is NO power whatsoever given anywhere in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate marriage.”
Am I to understand that you’re expressing opposition to Federal DOMA? If so, Kudos!
#
23 Tootie 1, December 20, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Queer Eye
I’m sure Hitler or Jeffrey Dahlmer didn’t want to be denied their feelings either. I believe they went to their graves not wanting to be denied. And I believe their feelings where natural to some, if not many, members of the human race.
I am not saying homosexuals are Hitler. What I am saying is that, clearly, even evil people have some sort of feeling similar to not wanting to be denied what they can or cannot do. “Denial” is not necessarily the appropriate argument for determining what is right or wrong, just or unjust.
I am certain of this: murder is just as natural and normal to the human race as are the stars to heaven. There is no evidence whatsoever in the 6,000 year written record of the human race that it has ever been otherwise. None. Murder is totally natural to the humans species. Why then should we deny this to those who express their natural murderous urges? Who are we to deny them what is a natural human behavior?
Clearly, murder is a human trait. It is not expressed among all its members, but as a species, it is distinctly human. It has been with us ever since we wrote down who we were as a species. It is one of our most profound and prominent traits. The urge for it is clearly irresistible.
Therefore, you and I (people who do not possess this trait like some of our fellow humans do) can easily establish that some of the most distinctive natural human behaviors are not only outright wrong, but absolutely evil.
We are thus forced to admit that some human conduct, though totally natural, may be utterly wrong and evil. Therefore, because certain conduct is natural to the human species it doesn’t automatically mean that it is good. If so we would need to open all the prison doors because theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, and rape are all exceedingly common and naturally occurring behaviors among humans.
If we let nature take its natural course, we would we not deny the thief, the violent, or the brute.
But those of us without such pronounced evil traits banned together to deny those with more natural “evil” traits like murder their urges. We decided long ago (and this is a natural and distinct human trait) to punish or limit other natural human traits. This is the core of the debate between you and I: which natural traits are we to discourage.
Here and only here is the debate most likely to find its real meaning. It will not be about the the rabbit trail of “denial”. Or “choice”. It will be about that which has a negative impact on civilization on the order of other negative human traits we have customarily discouraged or even punished.
Does homosexuality have a similar negative impact? That is question. The question is not about “denial”.
You have to base your argument on something else otherwise it can be easily ripped apart. But, frankly, I don’t think there are any solid arguments for it.
______
The persistence of data is also a harsh mistress, homophobe.
And to be clear on the “Christophobic” thingy?
I think Christ was a wise teacher and those who follow his direct teachings (which as Gyges pointed out are a very small part of the Bible) are alright with me.
It’s the asshats who use him as a rationale for being socially divisive and hateful that I have a problem with.
You know.
People like you.
Awwwww.
The troll doth protest too much, methinks.
When you back institutional discrimination, even under the guise of freedom of association, that makes YOU the bigot. What’s even worse? You backed discriminating against a child based on her parents lives. We don’t discriminate against you because your parents choose to raise zealot nitwits! We let you play here all you like. Sure, we call out your nonsense, but that’s what happens when you spout the ridiculous to a room full of critical thinkers. If you don’t like being taken to task? You are in the wrong place.
You forget there are too many people here familiar with your history of posting for you to back peddle now, simp. All your previous posts against gay rights make an impression. Unlike you, many of here not only have memory, but persistence of memory. You can disagree with me all you like, theocrat. Just don’t expect me to buy your bullshit, honey.
Buddha: See how stupid you are?
You assume I hate homosexuals because I believe a private school has a right to freedom of association.
I’m not homophobic, but you are indeed Christophobic. And a bigot to boot.
If you were not a bigot, you would agree that a private school has the right to keep out whomever they wish. I’ve known of Christian schools that dismiss families because of heterosexual adultery by the parents. All of this has nothing to do with hate. But you conflate such things to hate, and by your own standard of conflating this to hate, I can only conclude you do so because you hate Christians, are a bigot who refuses to allow they have the right to their opinions, and are as intolerant as you accuse them of being.
A bigot is not merely a person who disagrees with me. He is one who believes I have no right to disagree with him.
Thus, you are the bigot as you feel I don’t have a right to disagree with you. I, on the other hand, know you have the right to believe what you wish and I don’t hate you for it. You, on the other hand cannot seem to survive without your hatred of Christians.
You might eventually figure all this out.
No, Tootles.
I know you’re homophobic because of your past rants and saying shit like “It’s wonderful” when a child is discriminated against for having homosexual parents.
And don’t kiss me.
I don’t know, nor do I care to know, the totality of where that mouth of yours has been, but I know enough to make me want to shower and take a round of antibiotics.
buddha:
If you were so smart you would not assume I’d hate someone just because they were homosexual.
xoxoxoxox
Awwww. Look who’s got the Valentine spirit! It’s a good thing I’m not gay then. I’d hate for you to feel conflicted, Tootles. As a technical point? Since I’m actually smarter than your entire bloodline combined, I’m going to assume your infatuation is with my lovely green complexion.
Vicious? Yep.
Smartass? You betcha!
Stupid? Not in the slightest.
“A man’s got to know his limitations.” – Harry Callahan
Buddha: You are stupid, but I still love you.
Loving the neighbor is first from the Old Testament. Leviticus 19:17-18.
17Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Tootles,
“Henman:
You are a liar. I love my neighbors.”
Unless they are homosexuals or don’t want to live by your distorted dogma. Isn’t that right, Tootles?
Gyges,
As a connoisseur of things BBQ, I’ll have to try that.
A natural long shelf life always intrigues me in food products.
Henman:
You are a liar. I love my neighbors.
Henman,
For fun sometime you should look up the word “Christian” in a few dictionaries. Most of them say absolutely nothing about actually following Christ’s teaching.
Only about a seventh of the New Testament is about Jesus. The rest is about what people decided Jesus REALLY meant.
Gyges-
Point well taken and agreed to. If I could, I would delete “your old friend” and change the sentence to read, “As Ayn Rand used to say, ‘Check your premises’.”
Tootie-
I am not a Christian and never claimed to be one. I do know enough about Christianity to know that you have rejected the prime directive of what you claim to be your own religion: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Whoever you read on the right who gave you permission to bring your racism out into the open for all to see failed to tell you that you would be condemned for doing it. Civilized people detest bigotry.
You can be a Christian or you can be a bigot. You can’t be both. Calling me a bigot doesn’t cure your unresolved inner conflict.
As an atheist, I find “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” to be an excellent philosophy. You should try it. You might like it.
Henman,
Tootie may be many things, but she’s not an Objectivist. Clumping everyone who disagrees with you into one group may make your life easier, but it makes your arguments a lot less accurate.
HenMan:
I don’t have to ask you any questions to know that you are a racist, a bigot, and certainly not a Christian.
Obviously.