We the people...

Before you read this entry, you need to read this first.

I’ll wait.


What the hell? Why is the federal government deciding it has to play big brother when it comes to our eating habits?

Yes, yes…it’s all "in our best interests". The same as with other invasions of our privacy like the so-called “Patriot” Act. Tap our phones – regulate what foods we can buy and eat – it all infringes on our individual right to do what we please without other people butting into our business.

I stand by the notion that the government who governs best is the one who governs least. Am I not over eighteen? That makes me an adult who is supposed to be allowed to make decisions concerning my own business without interference from others.

The health police have gone too far already with city wide smoking bans. The individual owners of businesses should have the right to decide whether their establishments are smoking or not and patrons should have the right to choose whether to frequent establishments that allow smoking. If non-smokers choose not to frequent an establishment because of the owner’s policy, that’s natural selection. The success or failure of the business would be in the hands of the owner, not in the hand of the government.

Now, how long before the government decides that we, as adults, needs to have our hands held when it comes to our eating habits? Are they going to regulate what we eat? One city has already banned foie gras. The views of a few individuals are now making government policy for the many. That is wrong. That infringes on my right to pursuit of happiness. If you don’t like foie gras, if you don’t like how it is produced – simple solution: don’t eat it. That is your right as an individual – but don’t you dare tell me what I can and can’t do.

All I can say is: Commies! Actually, this is more socialistic behavior – but if we are a socialist country, we are piss poor at it. The government wants to tell us how to run our lives, yet we have excessively expensive private health insurance and retirement benefits.

So my message to the government: Stay out of my business! I am an adult and I will make the decisions here! If I choose to eat fatty foods and smoke like a stack, if I choose to disregard your “advise” – then so be it. There isn’t a damn thing you can do. You ain’t my mama.

I am now off my soap box.

Thank you for your support.


sher said...

Oh, it will never fly! There will be rioting in the streets if restaurants are forced to reduce portions. And how do you enforce that anyway? Snort! Good rant, by the way!

Gail said...

Great rant, great thought, well put and Here Here. Seems most of the USA agrees, now; How do we do it? Raspberries to the gov't telling me what to do. I love ya rosie. Gail

baasheep said...

Hmmm while I agree with you on most points, the two I would have to take issue with are the smoking ban and the foie gras. Over this side of the pond in Ireland the smoking ban was issued at the start of last year. At first there was wide spread resistance. Some pubs where even forced to close. However I still believe this is a good thing. The people who work in these establishments deserve to be able to breathe clean air and work in a safe enviroment. Of course Ive heard the whole "well if want to breathe clean air get a job outdoors". Problem is jobs are hard to come by over here even if it is just casual bar work. On the bright side some establishements have thrived as a result of the ban. Certain pubs have designed covered beer gardens with patio heaters etc etc which are hugely popular with the smokers who flock to these places.

On the foie gras issue its not the eating it that I have anything against rather the way it is made. I read a pretty horrifying description on urban vegans blog whereby the goose is held in a tiny cage and a tube is put down their throat and they are force fed until their liver swells 2 or 3 times its normal size. Although I am a proud meat eater I am also a meat eater with a concsience. I cannot justify eating foie gras if this is the way the animal in question is treated. I cannot justify eating veal when the calf is bound so it cant move which makes the muscles tender. I buy organic free range meat where possible. Its more expensive so I dont eat meat as often but I guess eating more veg is probably good for me!

Sorry to get all soap boxy but I feel pretty strongly about the above.

REB 84 said...

It seems that throughout history, executive and/or royal authority has been gained via a ruthless determination to reach out and take as much power as people allow.

Idealogs have risen to power in large part because too many people are too easily led. A "bandwagon effect" leads to almost a cult like following of "true believers." These true believers have two main rolls (besides being cheer-leaders). They recruit new members or intimidate the opposition. Still, this dedication is not enough to maintain long-term power.

Totalitarian movements grow because far too many citizens are uninvolved with politics and don’t ask questions. These citizens are the disconnected, silent majority. The key to positive change in America lies not with divisive partisan politics. The key is tapping into the pent-up hopes and dreams of the disaffected, uneducated, and uninformed Americans who don't even bother to vote.

On a positive note, I recently found a very interesting website LearnToQuestion.com. This site is one way silent majority can learn how to question.

It's Propaganda Lessons section is good complementary reading to OhioDem1's How to Sell a War I’m glad I found this site while Googling "question." It is encouraging to find fellow Americans who are taking positive actions to help wake up America.

Defend America
ask questions

Rosie said...

baasheep -

My biggest problem with the smoking ban is that it infringes on personal rights. It infringes on the right of the business owner to decide if he wants to run his business smoke free or not. If people voted with their dollars instead of being passive/aggressive about the whole deal, then there would be no need to legislate. Those owners who chose to make their establishments non-smoking would be reward financially for their decision. And those who chose to only patronize establishments who permitted smoking would reward those owners for their choice - and everyone would be happy. Except that non-smokers have to get their panties in a bunch when patronizing smoking establishments. If you don't like it - leave. Vote with your wallet. Don't force your views on others.

Likewise, don't work in a place that allows smoking if it bothers you. True, choices for employment here in the US are probably a little more varied than where you live, but when I waited tables and tended bar, I knew that it was part of the job. Even though I don't smoke and have never smoked, I chose to work there knowing all about the dangers of secondhand smoke. It was a risk that I chose to take. I was allowed to make a choice regarding my personal well being and that is how it should be.

There were people whose business went under here because of the smoking ban. What about those people? I think government handouts are crap - but let's just play the game for a minute. Shouldn't those people be compensated by the government for driving them out of business? Why should they be punished because the government decided to negate personal choice on the part of the owner?

True, a lot of my views have to do with my interpretation of the US constitution. I feel that quite a few of the laws being passed “for the public good” or “to fight terrorism” are really for the good of a few and not the many. Once you relinquish your rights, it is hard to regain those rights.

I think that if you choose to forgo eating foie gras for personal reasons, then that is your choice. Good for you, you are voting with your wallet. If a restaurateur chooses not to serve that item in his restaurant, then he is voting with his wallet. If enough people choose not to serve that dish in their restaurants, then the producers would choose to move on to more lucrative products. Passing a law forbidding persons from making their own choice in the matter is wrong and immoral. Once again, it infringes on freedom of choice. Maybe that will make me unpopular, but that’s the great thing – I am still allowed freedom of speech. At least – that is - for the moment.