Yesterday, the Deseret News Editorial Board recommended that the state
micro-manage how restaurants can display liquor. Today, they editorialize
against New York City's ban on extra-large sugar drinks. Can the Editorial
Board decide if they do or do not support the Nanny State?
I think Mayor Bloomberg has done his part in bringing the issue to the attention
of the general public. Certainly others have been working hard to do the same.
But it seems to me that the judge did the right thing in striking down the law.
People should be able, and willing, to make those choices on their own without
coersion from the government. But hopefully Mayor Bloombergs's campiagn
will make us all more aware of the dangers that exist in what some
manufacturer's are passing off as "food."Likewise, I
think the legislation currently under consideration in the Mississippi
Legislature is just as wrong headed. That legislature wants to pass a law
prohibiting a requirement to print nutritional values of products sold in
grocery stores or restaurants, such as what Mayor Bloomberg required of New York
City restaurants. In my opinion that law would be equally as harmful as the law
just struck down in New York. If local municipalities want to make it a
requirements to print nutritional information on the food sold in their
communities, they should have the right to do that without "the
government" telling them they can't. It works both ways.
"Arbitrary and capricious." That is how most people describe the
"Zion Curtain" that the Deseret News was defending just yesterday.While I'm glad this soda law failed, this is more of the
pot/kettle/black from the Deseret News. Of course, its also because you can be
guaranteed that the Deseret News would shut down over night if their
tea/coffee/alchohol/nicotine-abstaining workforce couldn't plow through a
gallon of soda in the morning.They'd have to go back to being
an afternoon edition, at the very least.Everybody loves their own
Some elected officials seem to think that "rights" are bestowed on the
people by the government. They seem to think that being elected means that they
become our "mamas" and our "papas". They seem to think that
they have the right to force us to do right.That plan was soundly
defeated long before they were elected. Even though the concept of Kings having
all authority and all power is part of human history, that concept does not
belong in any government office in America. Here, the people have all rights
and the government is limited to doing only what the people allow it to do -
everything else is to be left to the people.Determining what we eat
and what we drink is not a duty that we have authorized the government to
handle. What happened in New York was a warning that if we are not vigilant,
elected officials will seize power and authority and then rule and reign as
though they had the right to tell us what is right and what is wrong - with
The government already has solved many of our health problems, by mandating that
certain foods be fortified with vitamins and minerals.Also by
helping to educate people of the dangers of cigarette smoking.This
is why people in general are living longer lives.
"They seem to think that being elected means that they become our
"mamas" and our "papas". They seem to think that they have the
right to force us to do right."But Mike. Isn't all really
a matter of degrees or issues?Do you think alcohol and drugs should
be unregulated? Do you think the govt should get out of the gay marriage issue?
How about prostitution and pornography?My experience is that people
want govt out of our lives unless we like what they are regulating.
DesNews, 3/11/13: "Legislators should not be embarrassed by innovative
state policies that place a minor burden on purveyors while protecting
vulnerable populations from exploitation. We trust the Utah Senate understands
the importance of this vital public health concern and will act appropriately to
preserve, and perhaps expand, Utah's sensible restrictions on the display
and dispensing of intoxicating beverages in restaurants."DesNews, 3/12/13: "He might have added, 'condescending, intrusive
and entirely ineffective.'"In both cases, the editorial
board opined on government intervention in the free market regarding sales of
lawful beverages with the intent of restricting consumption. In both cases the
laws were flawed in being inconsistently applied (not all restaurants have to
have a Zion Curtain, not all vendors must limit soda size) and without
documented effect.Apparently, the only thing condescending,
intrusive and entirely ineffective is the paper's editorial board's
opinion of its readers memory from one day to the next.
A recurring theme in these comments is for the right-wingers to almost never
discuss the issue at hand. Instead what we usually get are these grand
pontifications full of words like “liberty” and “rights”
and “tyranny” etc, etc, etc…It all reminds me of
the centuries long (and now completely lost) battle between the Catholic Church
and science. Whenever a scientific discovery was made that appeared to threaten
the orthodoxy, it was attacked in precisely the same manner – substitute
liberty, rights, and tyranny with scripture, church doctrine, and the state of
our souls. So here’s some advice – argue the merits of
the issue without reference to “scripture” (or any other abstract
buzz word). Not doing so just demonstrates the weakness of your own position.
Or keep doing what you’re doing and end up being about as
relevant as the Catholic Church is today regarding discussion on science (in
your case, politics).
"Apparently, the only thing condescending, intrusive and entirely
ineffective is the paper's editorial board's opinion of its readers
memory from one day to the next."Couldn't agree more. Any law I like is good and protects us from ourselves....except any law I don't like, and therefor is an intrusion and
The object goal of the business of farming, food processing, distribution and
sale of food is business profits. The most dependable way to increase profits
in any business is to increase the demand for the product. In the food
business, improving the taste and suppressing the “full” response
may be used. Fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. So
food producers use sugar to make people fat.
Get over these Anti-government rants and raves already.The FDA (Food
and Drug Admististration - a big bad Government entity) decides and dictates
what is/is not appropriate and allowed each and everyday.For me
personally? -- I LIKE having the Government over-seeing the shoddy,
anything for a buck, who cares if it kills you - midset of greedy
businessmen.The role of Governemnt is to defend and PROTECT
Aren't the liberals the ones who keep telling us that a woman has a right
to do with her body as she pleases. Why the hypocrisy. If a woman wants to put
32 oz of soft drinks into her body every day they have a problem with that?To "JoeBlow" it isn't about degrees of the issues. If I 2
gallons of Coke every day, does that effect anybody around me? Now if I smoke
cigaretts or drugs around you all day, will you be effected?To
"Open Minded Mormon" if the purpose of government is to defend and
protect its citizens, then why does your ilk support legalized Marijuana? Why
is it that your ilk is not enacting laws to make cigaretts and alchohol illegal?
Those are more destructive to people than obesity.
re: AggieScientist 5:48 a.m. March 12Agreed. Morality is subjective
& this is what happens when anyone (Bloomberg, the Utah legislature, etc,...
) start legislating morality.
Ilk is a funny word...
Just a couple of thoughts for Redshirt1701 - Mayor David Bloomberg is not a
liberal. He was a Republican and is now an Independent. Ron Paul, a
Libertarian who still wears the Republican ID Patch, and was a candidate for
President, suggested that heroin should be legalized. But as your letter seems
to point out, government intervention is opposed by whoever's issues are
being impacted. Both Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats and
almost everyone in between, supports government intervention in our lives when
it serves our interests. But when it doesn't, or when it works against our
interests, we are strongly opposed to it. We could all use a 32 oz. glass of
humility and come to terms with that fact.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "Open Minded Mormon" if
the purpose of government is to defend and protect its citizens, then why does
your ilk support legalized Marijuana?11:27 a.m. March 12, 2013 ============ Because, marijuana is safer than cigarettes or
alcohol.Remember that old ultra-con battle cry? --
"liberals" have no problem with Government action.We
"liberals" banned cigarette advertisements, and indoor smoking
[remember, that whole Government taking away FREEDOM thing?]We
"liberals" banned alcohol comsumption to pregnant women - much to the
corringe of the pro-Freedom at all costs factions.We
"liberals" have already passed laws banning cigarettes in vehicles with
children laws - [Utah is still playing the 20 year behiond catch-up on that
one]. For the record - as a whatever floats your boat
"liberal", I think banning softdrink sizes is a stupid idea.But, if I were a $27 Billion businessman turned mayor of New York City,
charging $1.89 per 12 ounce softdrink seems like a "Captialist" idea and
thing to promote the business bottom line.FYI - banning "cotton
mouth" quenching "munchie sized" drinks will reduce marijuana use in
and of itself ;-)
To "Open Minded Mormon" you say that marijuana is safer than cigaretts
or alcohol, but that itself says that marijuana is dangerous.You
point out that your ilk has banned things related to smoking and drinking, but
you have not outlawed smoking and drinking. Since you admit they are bad, why
has your ilk continued to allow them to harm US Citizens?
RedI believe that the large drink law was also stupid and an
overreach. I guess I am not the ILK you are referring to.It is very refreshing to be a moderate. One can criticize the stupid laws put
forth by both the left and the right.And, to be sure, they both do.
Just stop subsidizing inedible feed corn that gets turned into sugar. If welfare
queen farmers insist on the handouts, subsidize broccoli and carrots.
ECR 12:45 "Mayor David Bloomberg is not ..."His name is
Micheal, not David. Pay attention ECR!
@Redshirt1701 – “If I 2 gallons of Coke every day, does that effect
anybody around me?... Those are more destructive to people than
obesity.”Unless an obese person has a fatal heart attack or
gets hit by a bus, their actions will almost certainly affect the rest of us.
Since obesity is the #1 cause of health problems, they will likely incur medical
costs far in excess of any premiums (or taxes) they will pay… which means
WE will pay for their actions.Now before you shout
“Obamacare” realize that the president who signed into law the
mandate that society must provide care regardless of ability to pay was in fact
St. Reagan. If the government is going to force the rest of us to
pay for healthcare, then as far as I’m concerned Bloomberg didn’t go
far enough. We should ban all sorts of junk that passes for “food”
(including quantities sold) until we either repeal the Reagan mandate or
individuals post large bonds to cover all future medical expenses.Or
does freedom to you just mean “do what I want to, irresponsibly?”
Alcohol and other mind altering substances need to regulated because the users
of such things have an impact on society directly caused by the use of said
substance. They lose their judgement and drive, or steal to pay for the
addiction, become abusive, etc. The public's interest in
obesity is because of choices we have made to assume liabilities from it. We
would need no restrictions on the size of soft drinks if the government (the
public) was not paying for anyone's healthcare and if we had no regulations
requiring businesses (airlines, etc) to have seats big enough to accommodate
people over the largest healthy size. These are man made reasons to regulate
another person's fat content. Obesity does not impair driving, and is not
contagious. There are no natural second hand effects of obesity.The
public should give back all the consequences to individuals who choose to be
obese. It is an incentive to eat properly, if people know they are responsible
for their own life, medical care, etc. and we, the public, wouldn't feel
any need to regulate the size of soft drink cups. It's called
personal responsibility, AKA liberty.
"There are no natural second hand effects of obesity."Nor
are there second hand effects of gay marriageOrShopping
on SundayOrGolf courses and swimming pools being open on
What's with the people that want to punish others before a crime is
committed? Would they like to have their driver's license revoked because
their "profile" showed a good possibility that they might cause a crash
sometime in the future? Would they like to have their speech limited because
they might someday say something that bothered someone else?We have
laws to punished those who have been tried and found guilty of committing a
crime. When the government gets in the businees of punishing us because there
is a chance that something that we might do might be harmful to ourselves or to
others, then government has crossed a line that must never be crossed.We are agents unto ourselves. AFTER we cause harm, we can (and should) be
punished. Allowing the government to force us to be good is
something that no America should allow. We, the people, hold all rights. The
government has no authority to pretend that they have authority to parcel out
rights.If passing a law prevented crime, then let the President sign
a law prohibiting harming the President - and then let him fire all of those who
Re:RedshirtIf you are drinking 2 gallons of Coke a day and, as a
result, obese and diabetic and on Medicare it affects taxpayers. You do care
about taxpayers supporting supporting those who don't take responsibility
for their bad choices don't you? That said, it would be nice
if the fast food industry would take the lead on this issue and devise a way to
encourage people to make healthier choices--such as reducing cup size or offer
more calorie-free choices? U.S. fast food establishments outside the U.S. have
smaller portions for their drinks.
at Mike R almost above this post...A few salient thoughts... 1) an
ounce prevention is worth a pond of cure & 2) Thou shalt not...
Hank Pym,One's BMI is not subjective. Obesity and its consequences
are not a moral issue.
to Hemlock...BMI is very subjective. It all depends on what an
individual subjects their body to.
BMI is not an objective measure of health. It is a height:weight ratio, nothing
more. It does not take into account the size of bone structure, percent body
fat, or percent muscle mass. I know someone who is very fit, who
hikes Mt. Olympus, jogs miles a week, does sprints, and who is classified as
obese by their BMI. Yet there are a whole lot of people of the same age range
who have BMI's in the healthy range, but couldn't make it halfway up
Olympus.BMI numbers are concrete, but the interpretation is totally
To "ECR" I hate to break this to you, but Bloomberg is a progressive,
which is a form of liberalism. Like all liberals, he believes that the
government is the solution for our problems.To "Tyler D" you
have wandered off the reservation. If I drink 2 gallons of Coke every day while
sitting next to you (regardless of insurance status), how does that effect
you?To "Truthseeker" that is a great argument for getting
rid of Medicare that I have heard in a long time. Wouldn't it be better
for the nation if we told people that when they make bad decisions they will
have to pay the consequence for it, rather than telling them that the government
will protect them from the consequences?
@Redshirt1701 – “To "Tyler D" you have wandered off the
reservation. If I drink 2 gallons of Coke every day while sitting next to you
(regardless of insurance status), how does that effect you?”First, please review the proper use of the words “effect” and
“affect.” Not sure what you’re missing in my
example and am unsure how I could have made it more clear. So for you, only
immediate and direct effects matter? The fact that the government will someday
confiscate the fruits of my labors to help mitigate the effects on someone
else’s body of drinking 2 gallons of Coke per day, has no relevance for
you?I think you might be asked at your next Tea Party rally to turn
in your “redshirt” card.@Mike Richards –
“We, the people, hold all rights. The government has no authority to
pretend that they have authority to parcel out rights.”Thanks
for confirming what I said (and predicted) in my first comment.
To "Tyler D" you keep dancing around my question, why won't you
answer it?Could it be that if sat next to you drinking 2 gallons of
Coke every day that my indulgence will do nothing to you? Since I am not doing
anything to you, other than maybe annoying you with an occasional burp, what
does it matter?Your freedoms have not been infringed on in any way.
Even in you example of insurance rates rising, you still have the freedom to
change insurance policies.You have shown in the past that you
believe many liberal philosophies, yet you now have a problem with the
government confiscating money from you because of somebody else's bad
decisions? Do you also have a problem with welfare and entitlement programs?
For the most part they are confiscating your money to pay for the mistakes of
By reading the comments -- It appears Mike Richards and RedShirt are
now all FOR allowing gay marriage, smoking pot, and drinking as much soda as we
want.We wouldn't want the government telling us what we can or
can't do now, would we?Selective reasoning is not reasoning at
@Redshirt – “Your freedoms have not been infringed on in any way.
Even in you example of insurance rates rising, you still have the freedom to
change insurance policies.”I do?So if I have a
large group policy through work, you’re saying I am “free” to
decline that policy and go get a much more expensive policy (this is a fact) in
the individual insurance market? Sorry, but your “Sophie’s
Choice” example is hardly indicative of freedom. But
you’re right… perhaps we both have shown inconsistencies in our
political views as freedom for you does not seem to apply to things like gay
marriage. Putting aside all the gobbledygook about the “institution of
marriage” or “tradition,” how does it affect you?As far as entitlements, if I vote for the program I don’t see it as an
infringement on my liberty. And the same goes for anyone else if the majority of
citizens in a democracy votes for it as well, provided it is not clearly
unconstitutional (e.g., Social Security passes this test).Reached my
Forget banning the large drinks, if you think they help cause health problems
that lead to higher health costs then sin tax them.
To "Tyler D" you are correct in that you do not have to buy your health
insurance through your company. It may cost more, or it may cost less depending
on your age, health, and if you have dependants.I have shown no
inconsistancies. You are full of inconsistancies. You complain about having to
pay for the mistakes of others when it comes to their health, but have no
problems paying for people's mistakes with respect to money.
Redshirt...How in the world did this become a liberal versus
conservative issue. Isn't Utah, a conservative state, trying to tell
people they cant even see alcohal in a reataurant less it tempt them just too
much? I don't get it...Oh wait... your branding Bloomberg a
liberal... right? He is yet another one of those free loaders looking for
everything free...? But waite, he is one of the most wealthy people in the
country.This is a great example how people do not fit nicely into
one box, or the other. Utah conservatives think they have the right to tell you
that you can't "see" wine or beer... but you can pack your loaded
revolver or ak-47 on the kiddies field trip to the zoo. And whle on the way to
the zoo... don't smoke in your car, that is far too dangerous... There is irony enough to go around for all. And no, people are not just a or
b... but fall between a and z.
To "UtahBlueDevil"read the comments. It was a liberal vs. conservative
issue long before I commented.As for Bloomberg, he is part of the
liberal elite. While not looking to free load off the system, he is using the
system to further his personal adgenda of increased control. Afterall, he knows
better than you do how you should live your life.He is a
progressive. Yes is was once a Republican, but not all Republicans are
conservative, just like not all Democrats are socialists. yes there is the
spectrum, but there is a point where you go from conservative to democrat. Just
like numbers, there are infinite negative numbers, infinate positive ones, and
inbetween you have nothing.
"I have shown no inconsistancies. You are full of inconsistancies. "-
RedShirt"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a
great soul has simply nothing to do."- Ralph Waldo Emerson"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative."- Oscar Wilde"If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says
nothing."- Miguel de Unamuno
ask any committed liberal and they will tell you that the government always
knows what is best for you. You just aren't smart enough to take care of
yourself - only BIG BROTHER can make those decisions for you. Yes yes liberals
are all about 'choice' so long as your choice agrees with their
choice... One of the foundational pillars of liberalism is hypocrisy. Some
things never change.
To "mark" How about this:"Liberalism is a mental
disorder" - Dr. Michael Savage"Those with liberal mental
disorder are willing to trade their potential for success through education,
hard work and respect for others for government subsidies funded through
redistribution of wealth which normally accrues to those who earn their money
through hard work." - Dr. Alan Bates, MDTell me where I have
been inconsistant in the postings here.
"ask any committed liberal and they will tell you that the government always
knows what is best for you."- patriotHey, I took your challenge,
and they did not tell me that at all. What's up with that? Are you just
making stuff up? Gee, and to think I trusted you. How about those
RedShirt? Really? Michael Weiner and Alan Bates? Weiner and Bates?! Really?I'll stick with Emerson. "Tell me where I have been
inconsistant in the postings here."Uh. . . I'm kinda
dumbfounded. Clearly you didn't understand the quotes I provided. I
didn't think they were obscure. You see the point they were making. . .
Ahhhh. . . you know what? . . . Never mind.
To "mark" thanks for proving their point.
Quoting Michael Savage?hehe, giggle giggle, snicker snicker...OK RedShirt, that explains it.That actually explains it, ...a LOT!
per Lds lib above...Does it mean, though, Prof Beck has had a really
bad case of laryngitis??