Speaking Truth to Power... about drink sizes?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And here's Sarah Palin at CPAC, demonstrating the childish reactionism that we've come to expect.

Bonus facts:
1) The NYC drink ban didn't include Big Gulps
2) It was struck down by a judge anyway
3) The lovely people of facebook have christened Sarah Palin as "Bible Spice"

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Palin gets a lot more of the unhinged crazy toward her than most

It's a simple principle called reciprocity.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

See, I would agree in this case that the soda law was a flawed means to an end. And I say the exact same thing about North Dakota's new 'fetal heartbeat' law, yet another attempt to circumvent federal protections of the right to abortion.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I don't see why it requires nonsense to get there.

She courted this one.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

My chief response is that Palin, like many of the CPAC speakers, is a grifter who has exploited gullible conservatives for millions of dollars and they still don't care.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Considering the social costs of lung cancers, fiscally conservative people should be cheering wildly.

[weswilson]

Betcha never saw THAT comin' didya?

[weswilson]

"I sense a C that has upset you... is there a C that you feel is in danger? Is it a car... I mean... is it the Constitution?!?! I'm getting a reading from the Constitution... it says that it's worried you haven't been a good patriot... Oh dear, give me a hug... We all know that hurt.... But she says there's something you forgot... is there something you forgot about that the Constitution would warn you about? You haven't forgotten anything? Could it be something with an H? No? Maybe it's a G... Do you own anything that begins with a G? OH! a gun! Is there something about your gun you forgot? What, you haven't touched it in a while? Maybe it's in bad shape... maybe the Constitution is telling you that you need a new gun!"

She's like a cold reader for conservative simpletons.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Rachel Maddow had a piece last week talking about how the tobacco industry really tried to make ordinances restricting smoking in bars, airports, planes, anywhere else, etc as "smoker's rights" and an encroachment on personal liberty. Now she was applying that to the NRA and doing exactly the same thing with gun rights, no matter the greater cost to our society. I can't help but wonder if the same thing is going on with corn producers, soda companies and their take on being suddenly so concerned with the rights of inner city poor, and the hardships such soda bans would create. The New England Journal of Medicine (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr0905723) has suggested stiff soda taxes instead of bans, but the soda industry, corn lobby, etc are all against that.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think the ban is a good thing personally. I think a lot of people miss that it's stopping people *selling* big drinks, not stopping people from consuming a lot of sugary drinks. Post mix soft drink costs cents, so drinks have been getting bigger for years to make it seem like there is more value. There are commercial reasons why the drinks have gotten bigger, and it isn't demand, it's perception. Unfortunately this has massive negative public health consequences; things that everyone has to pay for, even if you don't have universal health insurance. Therefore it is right that the state should be able to sanction it for the greater good.

The nanny state wouldn't have to exist if people didn't make such bad choices, the consequences of which are felt by other people. But people make bad choices, irrational choices all the time (this is why Austrian economics is wrong). At least this slows it down a little, and hey, it doesn't stop you from drinking all the soft drink you want, it just stops *too much* soft drink being the best deal.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Taxes would work much better.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

We could also work at eliminating a large amount of farm subsidies that in reality are corporate welfare, given how few family farms are left to receive them. Corn is a major culprit and then the cheap HFCS is dumped into the food supply.

[trog.livejournal.com]

What is it going to take for the internet to forget about Palin? Between her and Honey Boo Boo, the internet is becoming unsurfable.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

The problem is that every now and then, some drunken teenagers decide to play the game where they look into a mirror and say "Sarah Palin" three times and then, bam, she's back!

/or she gets invited to speak at CPAC, basically a troll convention
//she should have been forgotten about 48 hours after the 2008 election but we're unlucky that way

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Doesn't sound like the best excuse.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How so?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. It's not their place.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The nanny state wouldn't have to exist if people didn't make such bad choices

"It's for your own good" is a terrible reason to act, as is "if you only made the decisions I wanted you to make..." People are fully capable of handling the results of their actions on their own, and to pretend that everyone needs to be impacted by a policy because a select few might be adversely impacted by their own choices is pretty dumb. It's the same logic behind marijuana prohibition, and that's gone swimmingly.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

"The social costs of lung cancer" against the social costs of a government lacking limits? Not sure why I should be cheering that exchange.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You actually think Palin struck first?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If I buy a soda from down the street, I haven't crossed state lines. You also cannot guarantee that the soda I bought was not created or distributed over state lines. Wickard wasn't a good ruling.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Based on what?

Based on basic good government principles of leaving people alone if they're not harming someone else.

[cinnamontoast.livejournal.com]

Not for miles and miles.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

welcome to the world of Jeff.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Yeah, arguing that government doesn't have a vested interest in a healthy population is pretty dumb in my book, considering how much government pays for the health care of those who can't afford it. And of course, by "government" I mean "the tax-payers".

Someone should post that article about how the food companies deliberately conspired to addict consumers to cheap, unhealthy food.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

those who would argue with you, however, refuse to accept this portion of the argument:

the consequences of which are felt by other people

To them, ever man is an island. Wacky, no?