Friday, July 30, 2010

The Power of No

Back in March, when First Lady Michelle Obama decided on childhood obesity as her "cause" (a generally good prerogative of all the first ladies), I gave her credit for tackling something of importance (before going off on my own tangent).

Of course my expectation was that the way you approach this is through education, and parental responsibility.  However, in the helicopter parent era, as well as the health Nazi era, we've abandoned responsibility for demands that our various governments "do something" to stop these terrible risks.

Some examples:

California towns ban toys in Crappy Meals.  In short, the idea is that by banning the toys in McDonalds Happy Meals, parents won't feel compelled to take their kids to eat shit food to get the cheap-assed toy.

Cartoon characters make foods "taste better."  Apparently, kids taste buds are affected by the packaging.  The obvious government solution?  Probably some kind of ban or giant label to tell parents they shouldn't buy this.

And as the all-encompassing monolith of Obamascare begins to dig its claws into our lives, I'm sure that, in an effort to save money going into the new burgeoning new entitlement (to pay for boob jobs for congressional secretaries?), the government will have every reason and justification to deal with the worst foods, either through bans or taxes.

Doubt me?  Take a look at the history of taxing and banning cigarettes and trans fat, and plans to tax soda pop and limit fast food restaurants in poorer areas.

Whatever happened to the use of the word NO?

Strangely I've never had a problem with that.  Walking by the fruit snacks with my kids, the ones with all the characters on them, I've never been forced to buy something because I answer with "No, we're not buying that shit."  And when we are passing by McDonalds, I never feel the compulsion to give in to unrelenting mass marketing.  Instead, I respond firmly, "I don't want ass-flavored food, we're eating somewhere else."  As you notice, I simply tell my kids no.  Okay, not so simply, but you get the idea.

Seriously, I could probably make a fortune selling porta-spines to these parents who can't exercise the simple ability to tell their children no.

It applies to everything in life, really.  We increasingly live in a society based on people not being capable of being responsible, whether that be the helicopter parent or the paternalistic government.  Some people can't take care of themselves, so we need a government program.  And since the more obedient subjects they have, the more powerful politicians become, politicians who want to make "public 'service'" *gagging sound* a career have no reason to say no the the spoiled children that vote them into office.

So sadly, we'll continue to see government intrude to make the right decisions for us and our children rather that having the sense to exercise moderation, or in the absence of that ability, take steps to force limits upon ourselves.

As for my kids, they'll continue to hear, "You can want in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first."  Then we'll go out for fast food, with all the toys and trimmings.  Just not too much.

I swear, trying to explain this common sense is almost pointless.  So let's make a comedian do it:


11 comments:

soapster said...

Much much better Patrick. Spot on u are. Funny...politicians always talk about sacrifice and tough choices but saying yes to tax increases and spending doesn't sound tough to me. Saying no does. Course I'm like you in that it's not so tough to say these days.

Beth said...

I actually was thinking about doing a post about personal responsibility, same wavelength!

Pamela D. Hart said...

Patrick: Hey it's DIFFICULT to say NO; parenting is HARD work! That's why there are so many brats running around!

That comedian is right--kids don't have money or access to McDonald's, so how are they getting so fat? The parents are responsible. No matter what, it's not up to big brother to tell anyone what the heck to eat or to tax the heck out of it in the effort to "discourage" it. Where there's a will, there's a way and it won't stop the behavior. Bootlegging anyone?

Toad734 said...

I would just like them to take the step of no longer subsidizing harmful products like Corn, Sugar and tobacco...And of course oil and coal.

The government subsidizing corn is the main reason we have such an obesity problem now. If you look at the graph of when the government started corn subsidies, the amount they subsidize directly correlates with the rise in obesity. Sure, Atari had something to do with that as well but when Coke, and McDonalds got access to cheap HFCS, they used it in everything and half the time parents didn't even know that they were feeding this shit to their kids so yes, the government should make people aware and do something about it because the federal government is already the largest provider of health coverage in this country and when we have fat kids with diabetes, the government has to flip the bill for it along with tax payers.

Toad734 said...

Since comments are disabled on the post above I need to correct something; Abortion is not about "snuffing babies". There is a huge difference between a baby and an embryo. If you need descriptions, pictures or biological assessments of the two, I would be happy to provide you with that. For instance, a baby is a person with feelings and developed organs, a heart beat, brain activity,nervous system, etc...An embryo is a clump of cells with none of that.

Sure, after about 10 weeks that all starts becoming a gray area and then that's when you have the discussion over the rights of the mother, etc...Which is precisely why I like the morning after pill and feel it should be easier to get. No one can possibly claim that it's a "baby" the day after...Well, they could, but they would probably also be the same people who say the Bible contains scientific information about the formation of the universe.

dmarks said...

Toad: Much of the so-called "subsidies" to the corn industry are tax breaks. And a tax break is actually a $0 subsidy. None at all. It is not a gift when someone steals less from you.

And yes, Toad, abortion is all about "snuffing babies", and making a lot of money from it.

There is no difference between an embryo and a baby. The second is a subset of the first. However, there is a difference between embro, fetus, infant, etc. All being different life stages of a human being.

That's one thing I've noticed about the pro-abortion side. They have no knowledge of basic human reproduction and biology, and used words with no regards to meaning.

Toad734 said...

No, most ag subsidies are not in the form of tax breaks, that is 100% false. My uncle, who used to grow tobacco, got a check from the government after he sold his tobacco and now gets checks from the government to no longer grow tobacco. So he is even getting subsidized for not growing tobacco. Corn is the exact same way. Corn sells on the open market for like $4 per bushel yet a Corn grower like ADM will actually get paid $6 per bushel...I am pulling the actual numbers out of my ass but they most certainly get checks from the government. I am from Indiana and live in Illinois and my Mom grew up on a farm, I think I know a thing or two about corn.

http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

And here is how these corn subsidies directly result in legal and illegal immigration from Mexico and even Mexicos drug war:
http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/

Apparently you don't have google.

And speaking of google, why don't you google, "zygote", "blastocyst", "embryo", etc, and tell me how any of those are any more human than a sperm cell.

So what you are saying is that every time I blow a load I am "snuffing out babies"...Aside from you saying there are no corn subsidies, that's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard you say.

dmarks said...

"And speaking of google, why don't you google, "zygote", "blastocyst", "embryo", etc, and tell me how any of those are any more human than a sperm cell."

Why don't you look it up first and tell me? I can find it in 10 seconds. It's your willful ignorance of biology: stop being lazy and go learn something. Hint: Check human reproduction as a topic.

Then when you are through, please tell me how many abortions are performed each year on zygotes, blastocytes, and embryos. (once you do you will find the total: none, which makes these types of human beings irrelevant to any abortion discussion.

"So what you are saying is that every time I blow a load I am "snuffing out babies".

No, I never said anything like that. You might be responding to a comment by another post. Or even hallucinating.

As for tax breaks (which means less money swiped from someone), check out this line from an LA Times article:

"The Obama administration on Tuesday proposed renewable-fuel standards that could reduce the $3 billion a year in federal tax breaks given to producers of corn-based ethanol"

That's $3 billion in tax breaks. None of which is a subsidy or gives even a cent to a corn producer.

$3 billion a year is a MAJORITY of the money in your chart for each year from 2005 to 2009. Thanks for the numbers in your chart that show that most of the so-called subsidy money is actually tax breaks.

These are pretty smart things I said, because I checked the facts first. I suggest you try it, and stop being so lazy.

You struck out twice, with only two times at bat.

Toad734 said...

No I didn't:

A. There is $5-6 Billion in actual subsidies every year for corn alone, not to mention tobacco (theres even a direct payment subsidy to not grow tobacco) sugar, etc...As well as tax breaks. So when you said "it was ALL in the form of tax breaks" you were 120% wrong and I was still right.

I would still be against tax breaks for anyone growing corn, tobacco or sugar, none of which are a necessity and all of which are killing us. If you want to give blueberry farmers tax breaks I have no problem with that.

B. The anti-choice movement is also against the morning after pill which can prohibit implantation of a blastocyst.

THere are even morons who don't want embryonic stem cell research at this stage.

The majority of abortions occur during the embryonic stage. It's not even until the 2nd trimester when the embryo becomes a fetus that it develops a normal heart beat and has no heartbeat until about 10 weeks.

Not only that, 90% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester of a pregnancy and the majority of those in the embryonic stage, which is the same time period most miscarriages happen....So again, nor anyone else, knows for sure that the embryo or fetus was going to become a person at all. Up to 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage and most miscarriages take place in the first trimester. My Mom for instance was 1 out of 3. For the first 2/3 of the first trimester it is still called an embryo as opposed to a fetus and there is a huge reason for that.

If you want to make the statement that there is life there once there is a heart beat and brain activity and fully formed organs I wont dispute that but a clump of cells that are no more developed than the last parasite you contracted are called "Babies", that's just plain wrong.

dmarks said...

"I would still be against tax breaks..."

Not surprising, as you are generally in favor of over-taxation. More power to the rulers (fascism), and the people get further impoverished as the greedy ruling class plunders just because it has the power to.

Parasites are not human beings. Babies are, including the very young ones who are a target of your bloodlust.

dmarks said...

Also:

"The anti-choice movement..."

Actually, you are lying with this description. The anti-abortion movement is not against choice. They are against an action. One specific action: that of killing an unborn child.

The "anti-choice" title is one of the more ludicrous terms the abortion industry has come up with to desparage those who threaten their profits.