Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

Jon Fleischman

Today’s Commentary: Arnold Opposes The Freedom To Be Unhealthy

I’m starting to wonder how much Austrian is in the "Austrian Oak"  — apparently Arnold Schwarzenegger actually believes that Californians no longer should have the freedom to choose whether they want to be healthy, or unhealthy in what they eat.
 
I was shocked and dismayed when last Friday he actually signed legislation "banning" trans fats in the preparation of food in restaurants. 
 
It is hard for me to fathom what changes have come over this man, who once introduced libertarian economist Milton Freedman on a video, that he would think that the government should be regulating the food options (and ingredients) available to us.
 
Using the very same logic that the Governor used in signing this terrible bill, it would appear that if Democrats in the legislature put a bill banning the serving of ice cream — or maybe just desserts as an entire catagory — that he would sign it.
 
The bill that he signed, AB 97, was passed out of the State Senate with NO Republican votes at all.  In the State Assembly, two Republicans voted for it.  Bonnie Garcia, of course, who embraced this kind of big-government bill a couple of years back (don’t ask me why she doesn’t believe that people have a right to be unhealthy).  The other Republican who voted for AB 93 was, oddly, Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian.  This is very confusing.  Aghazarian is in a competitive race for the State Senate this year, and voting for a bill like this muddies the water as he tries to make the case that he supports a smaller role for government, and his opponent doesn’t.  It is very odd that he doesn’t support the right of Californians to eat what they want to eat.

**There is more – click the link**

View Full Commentary

6 Responses to “Today’s Commentary: Arnold Opposes The Freedom To Be Unhealthy”

  1. bobe@winfirst.com Says:

    There you go again, Jon, sailing off the rails to the far right. But to follow your logic, how about we abolish all food and drug laws. According to your logic, the public has a right to ingest or use any and all that anyone proffers to them – poisons, adulterated ice cream, you name it and according to your logic you will eat or use it.

  2. kenc@psyber.com Says:

    Jon…
    Bob is right again. Just like driving with a hands free device… we need government to tell us what to do so we can be safe. And as I remember you were eating ice cream… ice cream has lots of fat in it, evidently you need government to tell you that and to put a carrot in your hand instead of ice cream.

    What we really need is a government employee assigned to each one of us to tell us what is safe and what is not… right Bob? How in the world are we expected to be able to tell the difference between rat poison and “adulterated ice cream?”

    Bob has it right!

  3. jon@flashreport.org Says:

    Ken, I think Bob is just for anything that Arnold does, period.

  4. bobe@winfirst.com Says:

    Ah, it’s the Ken and Jon show flying off the rails to the far right again. So go for it guys. Abolish all the pure food and drug laws. You have my permission to do what you want in your alternative universe. But for me, I want the government looking over the shoulder of every purveyor of food and drink in this land. And when an ingredient is found that is poison, I want that ingredient baned pronto. But you guys go right ahead and consume whatever you want.

  5. kenc@psyber.com Says:

    “Abolish all the pure food and drug laws.”

    That is interesting Bob. Why limit it to food and drug laws? Get rid of traffic signals and any kind of traffic laws. Get rid of the FAA so there will be no separation of airplanes. Get rid of banking laws so banks can make whatever rules they want. Is this the type of things you are advocating Bob?

    That is ridiculous Bob because in a civil society we need to keep law and order. We need traffic signals to keep the traffic flowing in an orderly fashion. We need the FAA to keep air traffic separated and orderly… so aircraft are not hitting each other in the air.

    What most people of common sense object to is to constantly have an idiot bureaucrat or know-it-all politician looking over our shoulder telling us not to reach under the kitchen sink and guzzle the Draino. Believe it or not Bob, most people can tell the difference between Draino under the sink and a glass of milk in the refrigerator…. and we don’t need to pay more in taxes for a larger and larger nanny government to tell us common sense things that everyone already understands.

  6. bobe@winfirst.com Says:

    Ah yes, there you go Ken, straight off the rails to the far right and into outer space. You do know what trans fats are, don’t you? Tell us all, Ken, how you can tell, by looking at your plate of fried potatoes in that greasy spoon you frequent for lunch ever day, if the said potatoes had been fried in oil adulterated by trans fats or not. We’d all like to know. But to carry the “logic” of Jon’s post to it’s conclusion, he (and you) would like to abolish the ability of government to regulate what manufactures put in food and drugs. Sorry, Ken, but I think the government has a legitimate right to protect health by making sure manufactures produce unadulterated food.