This Is Beyond Ridiculous. Why The Hell Do I Still Live Here?

by Andrew Roman

______________

Popcorn May Be Next

If oversized cups of sugary drinks (those larger than 16 ounces) really are a scourge to the health and well-being of a gluttonous, overweight citizenry (as defined by the soft-tyrannical powers-that-be) – I mean, if they are really contributing in such an adverse way to the overall condition of the population to the point that the confiscation of liberties has become necessary (again, as defined by the soft-tyrannical powers-that-be) - then wouldn’t it be prudent, nay imperative,  to simply make them  illegal?

This is a legitimate question, not incendiary finger-snapping blog rhetoric.

Seriously, what would be the rationale for not making them illegal, based on the objective from on high? That soda is only bad for us in big cups as opposed to multiple smaller-sized cups? Or bottles? Or cans? 

If our lives are really at stake here, how can these overseers of all that is good and righteous not ban these immoral body-bloating concoctions?

As it stands right now, should the City of New York bend over, grab its ankles and accept His Royal Highness Michael Bloomberg’s big-cup ban, we the people will still be able to recklessly poison ourselves by cleverly purchasing two sixteen ounce cups of sugar-filled beverages (which, as a product of the New York City Public School System, brings me to a grand total of thirty-two total ounces of sugary drinks, if I’m not mistaken) …or even three cups (forty-eight ounces of sugary drinks) …or ten cups (one hundred sixty ounces).

Why then do it at all (if our well-being is really the issue)? Surely, Blunderberg’s health minions have considered this calamitous  reality, troubled as they obviously are with the health of New Yorkers.

How serious can the New York City Politburo really be about our collective physical states if it is still within our power to legally pour as many ounces of Dr. Pepper into our gobs as we like, albeit somewhat inconveniently in several containers as opposed to one?

Indeed, the Big Apple – or better yet, the Controlled-Portion-Apple – has, out of whole cloth, given itself the power to care about us so much - to do that which is for our own collective good - that it can literally tell a privately-owned entity that it is no longer allowed to sell a perfectly legal item in a perfectly legal manner to law-abiding Americans.  And they do so based on the deadly marriage of dimwitted emotion-based logic and big government liberalism.

Spare me the hackneyed, knee-jerk, ridiculous claims that overweight people are such a burden to the health system that it has become obligatory to curb our liberties.  Is it really the contention of big-government, soft-tyrannical types that skinnier people would bring down costs of health care for everyone across the board in such a way as to legitimize such an unheralded power-grab?

How does that work exactly?

Do people who are not obese and live longer visit their doctors less and require less medication over the course of their lives? Really? Skinny people don’t suffer from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pneumonia, ulcerative colitis, migraines and Parkinson’s as much as Pepsi drinkers? So, the majority of people in hospitals, emergency rooms, rehabilitation centers and clinics are undisciplined Slurpee guzzlers?

Doesn’t it stand to reason that if someone lives to be 95 instead of 75, he or she will have twenty more years on this earth to suffer illnesses, require medical attention and break down like everyone else? Do skinnier people simply keel over dead when their time is up, out of the blue, from a perfectly healthy state? Don’t most people deteriorate toward the end of their lives, requiring doctor care, medicine and extensive tests regardless of how old they are when the end comes? 

Let's for a moment, look at the zealotry of the anti-smoking crusaders.

If, for example, 50,000 people die annually, as is the contention from anti-smoking warriors, due to second-hand smoke, why would these nanny-staters complain about rising costs? These people are dying, aren’t they? They can’t be a drain on the health care system if they’re dead, can they? And if more people are dying annually from simply being around smokers than die in auto accidents, isn’t it obvious that smoking, too, must be banned outright?  (Maybe autos should be banned as well, no? Maybe breathing.)

I'm not pro-smoking, by the way. I'm pro-liberty.

Personally, I haven't had a regular soda of any kind for years and haven't smoked a cigarette since 1998. These are my choices, not Mayor Bloomberg's choices. 

If the freedom to choose the Big Gulp is really contributing to the escalating costs of health care and the deteriorating quality of life in the City of New York as claimed, then isn’t it incumbent of the East Coast Kremlin to banish all sugary drinks, period? How can something so important and so critical be instituted conditionally? Do they not care enough?

And what of those people who are thin and healthy who wish to have a 64-ounce Coke at a venue like Yankee Stadium? Setting aside the immediate benefit to the state of being able to collect more tax money from the guy forced to buy three sixteen-ounce sodas instead of one, is the New York Politburo going to assert that this infringement on choice – which libs are always championing when it comes to being able to scrape away inconvenient embryonic tissue in the womb – is still for his own good? Does King Bloomberg know better what is better for this man's body than the man himself?

Obviously he does, because as expected, the Apple Health Police are now looking to expand their reach into our private lives by targeting such society-crippling pleasures as popcorn, milkshakes and specialty coffee drinks.

From MYFOX.com:

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.

Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city.  It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills.

Did you catch that? The government would "allow" refills. How sporting of them. How generous.

Who the hell are these people to tell us what we can and cannot choose? And under what authority do they claim to be able to do it? Whim?

Seriously, I dare them to try and take away my wife's daily 32-ounce Iced Mocha Latte. I double-dare them.

It’s funny, tragic and sad at the same time….

The Occupy Wall Street types spent months on end living like unkempt hobos in the park, defecating on police cars, disrupting businesses, screaming and yelling about the tyranny of corporations and free markets. They marched, protested, attacked and broke laws to rail against the oppressions and injustices of capitalism. Yet, there isn’t a single corporation in all of America with the power to come to your home and take away your liberties. No bank, retailer, investment firm, restaurant chain, automobile manufacturer or oil company can show up on your doorstep and make you less free.

Not one.

Only government can do that.

-

Color Coded Threat Level Consigned to the Dustbin of History

A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 53% support the elimination of the old color coded threat level system. It was just about two months ago that Proof Positive introduced the TSA Liberty Meter:



Knowing how notoriously thin skinned they are in the Obama administration, it was speculated that this bit of satire was the final straw that broke the Camel (smoker)'s back.

Robert Fibbs could not be reached for comment.

The Next Step - Where Do We Go From Here?

One commenter asked: what do we do now? The short answer was:

We get active. We take note of the names of those who voted for this travesty and give of our time, our talent and our treasure to elect someone who will uphold the Constitution.

And we don't let set backs discourage us, because even though we lose the skirmishes, the battle and the war are too important to sit by and merely feel sorry for ourselves.

Once upon a time, there was a group of men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for liberty, over 230 years ago. Their victory did not come without sacrifice. Some of them gave up everything they had to establish this great nation.

Will you be called upon to make the same sacrifices to preserve it? One would hope not, but it should put into perspective the small sacrifices we will make in the coming decade.

We sat at home and let others carry the standard. Oh, sure! We voted. We put up signs. Some of us canvassed neighborhoods and manned booths and phones and some of us contributed to candidates we thought were worthy. We jawboned, too, every chance we got. And looking back, if you had to do it all again, might you have done just a little more? Given a little more? Investigated your candidate as to what he stood for, what your party was standing for and how much was "eye wash"?

Complacency has to be the first casualty. You can't trust your party leaders to "get it right". You can't trust that "someone else" is going to carry the burden across the finish line. You can't sit idly by and watch the inheritance your fathers and your father's fathers gave to you be squandered so that there is nothing for your children or your children's children.

G. Gordon Liddy wrote a book, "When I was a kid, this was a free country." A lot of us can identify with that.
Ronald Reagan said,

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

Perhaps, some of us thought he was exaggerating. After the first day after the vernal equinox of 2010, I don't think we'll make that same mistake.

Our time, our talent and our treasure. That's what we've got. T cubed. Maybe in time, we can boast of own "sacred honor".

Cross posted at Say Anything

Separation of Home Church and State

Over at the Blog Prof, he had a story about a local home church that held Bible studies in residential areas since most of the residents live in residential areas!

The city of Gilbert, Ariz., has ordered a group of seven adults to stop gathering for Bible studies in a private home because such meetings are forbidden by the city's zoning codes.

The issue was brought to a head when city officials wrote a letter to a pastor and his wife informing them they had 10 days to quit having the meetings in their private home.

...There had been no complaints about the meetings, which had been rotating among members' homes before the officer wrote the letter and ordered the group to "terminate all religious meetings … regardless of their size, nature or frequency," because he noticed signs about the meetings.

The town interprets its law so that "churches within its borders cannot have any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings and potluck dinners," ADF said.

First of all, having hosted a home church before, I am quite sympathetic to those who wish to do the same.
It is not solely a Constitutional question, but one of the degree to which local ordinances come into conflict with the Constitution.

In my case, we probably had twenty to thirty members on a weekly basis. Many of these were married, but figure one car per couple or family and a few single people who may or may not "carpool" and you have a potential parking and congestion problem typically not found in residential neighborhoods.
We tried to be courteous and not intrude on the neighbors any more than possible, but on Sunday mornings, there were a dearth of parking spots around my house.
When I lived in Ohio, some of the neighbors would throw a big bash two or three times a year, that would consume virtually every on street parking space. So long as they didn't block my driveway, I didn't mind, but had I been expecting company or if this occurred on a weekly basis, I might not have been so understanding.

We have freedom of speech protected by our Constitution, too. But would you want one of your neighbors out on his lawn exercising his free speech at three in the morning? Every morning? With a bullhorn?

Noise ordinances along with parking and zoning ordinances sometimes conflict with the absolute exercise of the First Amendment. I get apoplectic when a Home Owner's Association tells a veteran he can't fly a flag in front of his own home (or because it violates some color scheme by not being "earth toned"). And I am extremely sympathetic to home churches and Bible studies. Rotating the meetings among various members homes was the path we took as well.


And while there seems to be little doubt that Gilbert, AZ. has gone far beyond what the Constitution,common sense, and reason would allow, still there is a basis for some restrictions. But if there is a "separation of church and state", should the "state" be singling out the church for religious activities, while not restricting secular activities in the same community? Sounds like you'd need a permit for a Tupperware party in Gilbert, AZ! Cub Scouts and Brownies could be an endangered species as well!

Update: Reasonable accommodations should be set for all activities, not merely religious ones. If someone were to host a Fantasy Football league in the same home on a weekly basis (because Joe has the 60" plasma!) reasonable restrictions can be made for parking, public safety, etc. Singling out religion here, makes the Gilbert, AZ rulings clearly un-Constitutional.

If you need me, I'll be out on my front lawn. With my bullhorn!

Cross posted at Say Anything

No Secret Ballots, No Votes - We're "Democrats"!

Thomas Sowell on the "Special Interests" That Shall Not Be Named among the Democrats:

We take it for granted that a vote means a secret ballot, but it was not always that way. Moreover, it will not remain that way for workers who vote on whether or not they want a labor union, if legislation sponsored by congressional Democrats and endorsed by Senator Barack Obama becomes law.

Having a secret ballot means that you are free to vote your conscience without fear of reprisals or retaliation. Scratch that freedom!

...This legislation passed the House of Representatives last year but did not make it through the Senate. “I will make it the law of the land when I’m President of the United States,” Barack Obama has said to the AFL-CIO.

Senator Obama has also said many times that he is against “special interests.” But, like most politicians who say that, he means that he is against other politicians’ special interests. His own special interests are never called special interests.

No. I think they're called "Bread and butter" to the Democrats!

Neither are the environmental extremists who support the Democrats called special interests. But the green zealots who have for decades blocked the country from using oil within our own borders — more oil than in Saudi Arabia, by the way — are also among the special interests with a big voice in the Democratic party.

They are also a major factor in shutting down the democratic voting process — in this case, in the House of Representatives, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow a vote on drilling for oil in places where the green zealots don’t want drilling.

Who's in the pocket of "special interests"? Give me a "B"! Give me an "A"! Give me an "R-A-C-K"! Ooooooooooooooooooooobama!

Cross Posted at Say Anything