Most liberals, including those who control the Democratic Party embrace a concept of what I call "Benevolent Totalitarianism". In their world, the ruling elite would live in their gated communities and establish their views on us plebe's, dictating where we live, what we drive, what we eat and how much we're allowed to make (the latter accomplished through oppressive tax policy). They came very close to this during the Carter Administration and I contend that the "America's best days are behind her" speech was a deliberate attempt to establish the mind set that we needed these people to take over and watch over our lives.
Reagan rejected this idea and most of America agreed with him, throwing Carter (but not enough Senators and Congressmen) out of office and spurring perhaps the greatest gains in American progress since the onset of the industrial age. This sent the liberals scattering, but they did not go away, they just watched and waited.
Now they're back with a vengence. Pro-choice only counts in abortion, but everything else should be dictated. This is why it is so important to have a constructionist Supreme Court.
Read on:
From Investors Business Daily:
Posted 12/13/2005
Civil Justice: We've been warning for years that the busybodies and trial lawyers would find a new target after they smoked the tobacco companies for billions. It looks like it's going to be soft-drink companies.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest plans to file a lawsuit in the near future that, if successful, would ban sales of sugary beverages in schools. Stephen Gardner, a staff lawyer for the CSPI, believes that soft drinks and other drinks heavy on the sugar are a health problem for students. When schools sell soft drinks to students, Gardner believes they're saying it's OK to regularly consume them.
The CSPI has issued a report that claims soft drinks can be blamed for a number of health issues. In "Liquid Candy: How Soft Drinks Are Harming America's Health," the CSPI contends that the beverages increase the risk of suffering from heart disease, rotten teeth, osteoporosis, cancer, obesity and poor nutrition.
To say the findings are overblown would be spot on. The CSPI is the largest food police organization in the country and is inclined to engage in hyperbole when food and drink are the subjects. Remember, its executive director is Michael Jacobson, who about this time last year said, "If the old (Hardee's) Thickburger was food porn, the new Monster Thickburger is the fast-food equivalent of a snuff film."
Before that, the militant vegetarian Jacobson said the CSPI "could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses (and) meat," with the revenues earmarked for government-sponsored exercise programs.
So there's no surprise that the CSPI is targeting soft drinks in schools. This is a fellow who Matt Marshall of the Chicago Sun-Times writes has "a mission in life . . . to take the joy out of America's favorite munchies, from burgers to pasta to popcorn."
Who are these people to think they have the moral authority to control what children other than their own consume? Too many soft drinks — too much of anything — can have negative consequences. There's nothing wrong with moderate consumption, yet the CSPI wants to impose its idea of a proper diet on others.
Personal choice and parental wisdom won't be the only victims if the self-righteous nannies get their way. There are corporate trophies at stake. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and their local bottlers, the likely defendants, will have to face at least three of the lawyers who were part of the 1998 legal shakedown of the tobacco companies.
The CSPI has reportedly not decided if it is going to seek financial damages in the suit. But the presence of lawyers from the $246 billion tobacco settlement takes away any suspense; Gardner says damages could be in the billions, and these lawyers can smell it.
If selling soft drinks at schools were a real problem, parents would pressure school systems to handle it at the local level. In fact, the American Beverage Association said in August it would stop selling soft drinks and other drinks with added sugar in elementary schools and limit the sales of those items in middle schools.
There is no compelling reason for the CSPI or trial lawyers to get involved. They simply need an easy mark for the next shakedown, and soft drink companies fit the role. Then it's on to the next target — unless the case ends up on the docket of a judge who will see it for what it is and throw it out of court.
No comments:
Post a Comment