Why Are There Not Mass Protests Regarding Government Overreach in American Consumption of Food, Soda’s?
I know that I am not the only one asking the question but I will talk about it anyway. It is my right as an American citizen guaranteed by the Constitution just as it is your right to read or not or to agree or disagree with what I am writing.
The real question is why American citizen’s of NYC are not protesting en masse at NYC city hall with a 32 oz. coke in their hand? I’m bothered by this. According to one Rasmussen poll, only 11% of Americans surveyed had no stance on the ban; 63% opposed it, and 23% were in support. OK so we by-and-large are opposed, 11% are clueless and 23% are fascist. Showing opposition through a poll, while useful, is not the same as en masse protesting. The protest need not be one organized by a central organizing committee (central organizing committee! how Soviet thinking) of sorts but could be as simple as folks carrying a 32 oz plastic gulp cup from their local convenience store at commute time or lunch. Heck even the Wall Street folks could join in. Gee the gulp plastic cups need not have coke or pepsi in them but ones favorite coffee drink, Starbucks perhaps! After all Venti Lattes may be the next target. Where does it end?
It does seem that the debate is intense, mostly by academics, comedians, some conservatives and perhaps among friends. From a Los Angeles Times article and I quote “So the debate remains intense, with good reason: The proposed soda ban strikes at the root of a fundamental political disagreement about the role of government — over whether officials should protect Americans’ health at the expense of a little freedom.” This is the meat of the debate “government protection of Americans’ health at the expense of a little freedom”.
OK let’s go over it one more time, read it carefully “government protection of Americans’ health at the expense of a little freedom”. Now that we have read one more time can we agree that its not ‘a little freedom’ we are turning over to government it is a hell of a lot. The questions we should be asking is “where will it stop?”, “are there hidden motives” and “is this government overreach?” The answers are no it will not stop, hidden motives well I think yes and finally it is an affirmative to the last question.
An aside. Around 1967, I was at the time commuting to San Francisco to work, well the city ‘fathers’ thought it a swell idea to add a commuter tax after all it was a privilege to work in SF never mind that commuters were already supporting their economy through supporting local business especially restaurants at lunch time. There was outrage by the commuter. How did they protest the so-called commuter tax idea? Well most commuter’s brown-bagged their lunch each day. It had an effect and those enlightened city ‘fathers’ backed off on the idea, Protest works.
This Bloomberg thing will turn into a contagious wart. ObamaCare comes down on cigarette smokers legislating that those who continue to smoke will pay out of pocket costs for care. Where does it stop? Those who have Diabetes and sneak a Snickers and their sugar spikes perhaps resulting in a visit to the hospital they could become the next target i.e. dollars out-of-pocket for insulin. Where does government overreach stop? Is the answer to ban Snickers? I love Snickers. Where will it end?
This contagion will become epidemic. The HHS bureaucrats will easily become addicted to writing more regulations and worse Congress will get off on a power grab of nabbing more individual freedoms. Oops forgot Congress already does that.
OK it is true many Americans’ are overweight. Still this is not an issue for government to solve and certainly control through legislation. When do you ever recall the Federal legislating that there will be no, absolutely none, homeless or emaciated person from hunger in America? They throw money at the problem of homelessness and hunger yet it exist big time. What if the government decides you are too skinny and you will be force fed? Or the sick minded person who eats their hair and the result is a big hairball that needs surgical removal and the government legislates that this troubled persons head must be forcibly shaved and kept that way. Where does government so-called protection end?
I recently caught a little of a David Letterman show and the guest was Bloomberg. The 32 oz restriction came up and the audience booed. To me this was a missed Mussolini moment, the audience should have tied him up by his toes and dragged him down Broadway.
I do not poo poo the fact that citizens that fail to take steps to remain healthy is costly to our economy. It is, it is to themselves and their families as well. Raising kids to become diabetics is well cruel. But again is it government’s role to become the parent? Where will it end?
What about government telling you what your child is allowed to eat for school lunch or worse outrights ban a kid being sent to school, by the parent, with their own lunch? Well the Chicago thugs tried this one article in the Chicago Tribune. Chicago thugs have no problem closing public schools but they are quick to adopt school lunch controls although debate was intense.
Note that the closing of the schools were in so called ‘ disadvantaged areas’. Government cares, sure it does. See the arrogance . And what about Michelle Obama’s two-cents in all of this? The food that is provided by government for free lunches must be healthy. There is arrogance in all of this by government. What government is saying is poor, mostly black, are incapable of making the right choices for their kids, they are stupid. The sad result from this is, I contend, adds more to the racial divide. Liberals/Progressives in their actions keep the racial divide alive, Now I have no problem buying locally grown food for that keeps the small farmer in business but here is the rub that decision should be an individual choice not a government mandate. Freedom and liberty includes the right of free choice by the individual. Where does it end?
Government sobbs about the drug addict, poor addict, money is handed out by box cars to solve the problem. Crime committed due to illegal drugs cost government billions. Laws by the tons exist. Has it stopped the problem? Well no. What’s next for the drug addict, you get treatment one time and if you offend again well we will kill you, problem solved. Where does it end?
What about the folks who stop at the local pub after work and swig’s down a 32 oz beer? Will government take it unto themselves to save you from yourself and impose a glass size for beer? Where does it end?
So what is the real motive lurking under the bed sheets of government? Its control. It is how far can I push citizens to do as government says. Simple as that. Social engineering folks government style. Its fascism. Is government trying to produce a master race? Perhaps not a blonde blue eyed one. Where does it end?
My question “Where will it end?” is valid. While 32 oz restrictions on soda drinks may seem a joke at best its implication is huge. I contend that no matter what the issue is when government takes unto itself to decide what is best for us freedom is flushed down the toilet. Its that simple of a concept.
Progressives will say that we have collective obligation as citizens to do what is right and pure (right and pure of course defined by them) for the broader good. If a citizen fails well the answer is to create legislation, problem solved. Well not exactly. Where does it end? Freedom flushed down the toilet, the progressive doesn’t care.
Protest my fellow Patriots. Gulp your 32 oz pop if you want. Swig that 32 oz of beer if you want. Make three passes at the buffet table if you want. Eat salt. It is your right to destroy your health if you so choose and as well it is your right to eat healthy. It is not governments right to make the choice for you using legislation or forms of punishment.
Where does it end? It is ended by you dear Patriots when we stand for preserving liberty, freedom and the now lost right to privacy. Remember you have a voice. Stay tuned into liberty busting legislation, then act.