skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Is that donut safe?
The Detroit News is reporting Oakland County Commissioner Marcia Gershenson (D-District 17) introduced a resolution banning trans-fats from county restaurants. Keeping with political stereotypes, Gershensen's nanny-state, or county, won't scold you for eating something that isn't sold at Whole Foods Market, but will instead scold the businessperson that sold it to you. Also stereotypically-consistent, democrats believe citizens are responsible-enough to have sex however and with whomever they want, minors are permitted abortions without their parents' consent, illicit drugs are OK in moderation, but eating donuts is too dangerous a behavior for even these responsible adults to resist.
Nancy Reagan encouraged individual responsibility and to "Just say, no." Marcia Gershenson doesn't trust you to be responsible for your actions and is hiding the scissors.
My issue is not with the intent," said Commissioner Jeff Potter, R-South Lyon. "It's about the role of county government. I look forward to the resolutions about mandatory jogging and (wearing) good shoes."
It's interesting to note (for those of you looking for media bias) that when the Detroit News article mentions Marcia's name it doesn't specify her party affiliation the same way it does that stuffy republican, Jeff Potter.
The humor of this wasn't lost on Hanry Payne, an editorial cartoonist for The Detroit News. Check out his take at Oakland Trans Fat.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that every issue is somehow related to sex and abortion? I don't doubt you would find a dog leash ordinance akin to free love and abortion on demand. Of course, there's always the nanny-state argument. That worked real well with kids and lead paint, or toddler seats in cars, or second hand smoke. I know my tone is tongue-in-cheek but your view is so overreaching it's hard to resist...uh-oh, here comes one of those pesky democrats to ban being tongue-in-cheek.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I compare democrats' policies to sex and abortion is to point out inconsistencies in their concern for our welfare.
ReplyDeleteWhy would they consider criminalizing with the French fries we swallow that /may/ (along with many other factors) lead to heart disease but not criminalize other things we may put into our mouths?
Because the latter is politically correct and the former is not. Political correctness is not a policy, it's a Mccarthyism.
What I see absent from politicians is any resemblance of consistency. If you're worried about what we put into our mouths, and say its for our own health, then are you concerned with everything that goes into my mouth that may harm me or just some things? What makes those thinks bad and other, more harmful, things OK?
When some things are OK and other things are not, but both fall into the category of "something we put into our mouths deliberately that may harm us" then I'm curious what the difference is between the two.
Sex, and politicians' positions on it (literally and figuratively) is a cornucopia of inconsistencies. We warn against selling cigarettes to children but think little of selling them condoms. Condoms don't eliminate sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy, but there exists medical procedures to deal with the outcomes of both. MSG can lead to high-blood pressure but instead of treating it like a controlled substance we simply require warning labels.
Where's the consistency? If our representatives aren't consistent in their policies or lawmaking then how do you know what they're going to do with the votes we gave them?
If neither we or they can't articulate clear policy decisions and explain the difference between why A is good but B is bad, then neither of us has thought out our policy very well. And if she hasn't thought it through then acting on it is irresponsible.