Thursday, June 14, 2012

How Many Times Must We See This Happen Before We Learn This About Liberals?

First there is a ban on something that can be argued as loosely plausible from a warm-fuzzy factor, if not exactly iron-clad or established in its evidence and effect on reality:

New York City's top health official shot back on Thursday at critics who have blasted the city's plan to limit the sale of oversized sugary drinks such as soda, calling beverage industry opposition ridiculous.

The proposed ban, which caps most sugar-sweetened beverages at 16 ounces (half a liter) and carries a $200 fine for vendors that do not comply, met immediate backlash from beverage companies and others who argue it is government overreach, but was lauded by public health experts.

Get this as the logic behind the ban:

"It's not saying 'no' to people. It's saying, 'Are you sure? Do you really want that?'" Thomas Farley, New York City's health commissioner, said. "It's sending people a message while giving people the freedom to drink as much as they want."

Nice logic.  If you want to drink 'sugary' drinks you can...but they're going to impose a size tax on you, so if you want to drink the equivalent of a large you'll have to pay double or triple the price to get two or three smalls.  And, by the way, it's supposed to save 500 lives by attacking the small percentage of the obesity problem that is 'sugary' drinks.  Right.  It would be interesting to see exactly how they got to that number...

Anyway, opponents warned that if bans such as this go through it will open the floodgates to ban-happy liberals.  And voila!  Not a week later, we see this:

The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.

The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens.  They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.

At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.

Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

And on and on, ad nauseum.  It's totally predictable.  But tell me...where is the sense of personal responsibility here?  So what if people want to buy large 'sugary' drinks?  Why should they not be allowed to?  It's their choice to spend the money on something that self-righteous liberals clearly feel is a murderous product, and they engage in it willingly and with full knowledge.  They're the ones who have to live with the consequences, aren't they?

And now we should explore the Obamacare bunny trail.

If Obamacare gets fully implemented, then the government can legitimately and logically ban any product it wants like this because it can rightly argue that obesity is a problem affecting all Americans because we all pay into (or draw benefits from) the government-run health care system.  Thus, anything that affects any aspect of health care can and should be controlled by the government.  Any food or drink, any cosmetic product, any exercise equipment, any vehicle, any household cleaner, any tool, any anything can be said to affect people's health in some way.  Thus, under the full implementation of Obamacare, anything can be regulated, banned, or forced on you.  Doesn't matter what you think, doesn't matter what you like or don't like, doesn't matter if you have the means to pay for it.  It's the government's call, period.  Can you see how destructive this policy is going to become in the hands of control-obsessed ban-happy liberals?  Anyone who can't see this logical endpoint is either too stupid to be allowed to vote or unwilling to acknowledge reality.  We can see this rapid creep of control in the New York ban described above.  That's why the door to far-reaching and controlling legislation like Obamacare shouldn't ever be opened in the first place.

But there's another learning opportunity here, too.  Rush Limbaugh went on an epic rant a few days ago that I may capture and post in its entirety at some point.  For the moment, though, I'll try to capture the essence from memory.  He was illustrating one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives, and the drink ban is another perfect example.  A conservative will look at the choice of buying large 'sugary' drinks and say, "I don't think that's healthy, so I'm not going to do it."  And that's it.  The conservative goes merrily on his way, buying Diet drinks for himself.  A liberal will look at that same choice and say, "I don't think that's healthy, so no one should do it."  Then, since the liberal is clearly more enlightened and intelligent than anyone else, he will gin up angst and anger to build support, petition the government for intervention on behalf of the health of everyone everywhere, and get a new regulation or law crammed into place that forces everyone to adhere to what he thinks is correct.

The conservative values independent thought and judgment, the liberal values mindless group-think.  The conservative values freedom of choice, the liberal values control and dictation from above.  The conservative sees the individual as the best judge of preference and lifestyle choices, the liberal sees the government as the right and proper source for those choices.  The conservative simply makes his choice and moves on, not enforcing his views on anyone else; the liberal determines that he knows best for everyone and seeks to force his views into prominence.

We see this over and over on a daily basis - health care, environmental regulations on dirt/air/water, gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, light bulbs, the Ten Commandments in public places, food restrictions, political correctness in speech, etc.  The list is virtually endless, and it will never stop.  As long as there are choices, a liberal will always -- ALWAYS -- seek to force what he feels is the best choice on everyone else.  You can bank on it.

This drink ban is just the latest in a perpetual string of examples.  The key question for us is: how long will it be until the majority of Americans (who are not hardcore liberals, by the way) rise up and refuse to accept the liberal creep?  The evidence is overwhelming, if one simply chooses to look at it.

No comments:

Post a Comment