One of the arguments made by Bloomberg's benign fascist army is that
we've already bowed our heads in submission to all kinds of safety
ordinances, laws, and regulations. For example, regulations covering
seat belts, child seats, motorcycle helmets, texting while driving,
smoking, guns, etc. So what's the problem with limiting soda portions?
Such a small thing...
As an argument, this argument is flawed (tut quo toe, or something
like that). As a persuasive appeal to our logic in a risk averse,
complex regulatory environment, it's pretty good. We can all find
regulations and laws we agree with. Some regulations, like child car
seats, would be difficult to make a case against without sounding
heartless -- yes, but it's my child's risk to take. Helmets save lives,
those who text while driving are idiots, bazookas in town homes are
risky, etc. Most of us accept these limitations to our choices.
So should we accept any regulation or law our State deems for our own
good because most of us buckle up? Of course not. Each proffered
regulatory limitation needs to be judged on its own particular merits.
We need to balance individual and public safety with the ideals of
personal responsibility and individual freedom. We all know this.
Which is why those who've decided they need to rescue us have to ratchet
up their warnings:
“Obesity is one of America’s most deadly problems, and sugary beverages
are a leading cause of it,” Bloomberg said Sept. 4 in Queens,
“To not act would be criminal,” said board member Susan Klitzman, a
professor and director of the Urban Public Health Program at Hunter
College in Manhattan.
One could argue that after tobacco, sodas might just be the biggest killers
via preventable disease in the country. Yet just as 32 ounces seems to
be the new normal, so does death by preventable disease. - Mark Bittman
Again, I chose random, cherry-picked quotes,
sort of like the way our self-selected superiors choose the health threat of
the moment. Why soda and not snack foods? Why soda and not alcohol?
Why soda?? Maybe because it's the kind of people who like to drink huge
sodas. Maybe because our leaders are actually convinced that our greatest
national threat are sugary soft drinks.
What if sugar is really responsible for so many
of our current health problems? Would I be for limitations then?
Probably, if I thought it could actually be enforced. But I'd have to be
pretty convinced that sugar was a health hazard all on its own and that its
restriction outweighed our right to choose to consume it -- like crack.
And all sugary products would have to be included.
What a nightmare trying to enforce a sugar
ban! We could go after the producers straight off, demonize and tax
them. And then we'd have to regulate or ban or tax cocoa, sweet
chocolate, cakes, ice creams, cereals, sweetened teas and coffees, cocktails,
and other sweetened products. Or we could just stick with sodas - simple,
obvious, and self satisfying in a since you can't control your behaviour I'm
going to do it for you kind of way.
Right to Work Wins!
Oh labour unions, Why do we despiseth thee so?
1) Your sour angry faces scrunched up in righteous indignation. Do you sleep with that expression, too?
2) Your inability to tell the present time from the 19th and early 20th century. Time to take off your marxist glasses.
3) Your idiotic linking together of your entrenched monopoly on employer/employee relationships with the rise and fall of the middle class. Trust me, the middle class won't even notice when you finally obsolescent yourselves out of history.
4) Raised fist salute. Translation: Yeah, communism sucks, but I've managed to claw my way to the top of the dung heap. And I intend to stay there, Tovarishch!
5) Coordinating clothes. Red, again?
6) Your associates. Red, again?
7) Your hive-minds. And your pathetic grasp of history.
8) Your "silent" protests. Hive-minders think group displays are awesome!
Posted at 03:04 PM in Current Affairs, Thoughtful Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)
| Reblog (0)