Friday, June 1, 2012

On Slopes and Stupid Nannies

On reflection Mr. A said something else familiar yesterday.

He pulled the line of Of First World nations only the US doesn't take care of its people's health.

Nice to see all the Medicaid, Medicare, and other gov spending doesn't count.

Now note, that he is saying this in reference to Bloomberg banning beverages greater than 16 ounces, for your own good. The other First World Nations, even with the most socialized healthcare systsms, don't do that.

But who cares about a detail like that, his argument ad peer pressure justifies it! It's a healthcare crisis!

He also goes on to demand that maybe the US shouldn't count as a First World nation because people are too fat. Nevermind that having such an abundance of cheap food to the point where the poor can afford to be overweight is the definition of a "First World Problem".

This is using the modern usage of "First World".

Under the old usage the US and the West was the First World, the USSR and its allies was the Second World, and the rest were the Third World.

One would think a champagne socialist would like the US to longer be a First World Nation. Though the Second World failed, and that's why you don't hear that term much anymore.

Then he notes the UK also has very high levels of obesity.

Huh. So much for the US being unique among First World nations... Oh and then he stated that Mexico came in 2nd after the US. I didn't check his values or try to refute him for one important reason.

Unlike Mr. A I don't think having too many "fatties" means that the government gets to treat the public like a bunch of children. Our rights are not contingent on having a certain BMI. One wonders what obesity rate it'll take to start disenfranchising citizens.

Now he also used the exact same peer pressure argument to demand the US get Socialized Healthcare, and housing and everything else to "ensure all in the US have a First World Life."

Complete with "All the other nations do it" and "If the US doesn't then it shouldn't be First World."

Remember the old definition of First World Nation? Savor the delicous irony of the demand that entry to the First World club requires more socialism and vast command control and nationalization of entire industries. Of course much of Western Europe was very command control and socialzied, even (perhaps especially) after the War.

Also take note that his "First World Peer Pressure" doesn't count with the RTKBA. Because, well, he wants a gun.

Just for home defense you see. He thinks that carrying a gun is an unessicary gamble, because "You can always move to neighborhood safe enough to where the odds of needing it are vanishingly small."

(And this is the same man that'd take the idea that somoene should save up for their medical costs in a rainy day fund as being hopelessly out of touch and doesn't even cover sudden emergencies.)

But Healthcare is different!

But back to the peer pressure point. He wants a gun (partially because he fears societal collapse), and while he doesn't see the need to carry he doesn't mind peolpe carrying guns (and thinks he might need to some day).

But wait! Isn't the US unique among First World Nations in having permissive shall issue carry and other such RTKBA laws in the vast majority of the country?

But hey, just because the goverment doesn't want to trust the public with bottles of sugar water above a certian size doesn't mean that they're a mass of wanna-be aristocrats that dream of manor-houses, servants, and harnessing the good and noble peasantry.

I'm sure such mandarins would be okay with you having a gun.

I'm also reminded of this bit Roger L Simon said today:
The thing about modern liberalism that most liberals don’t see is that it is so unbelievably square and conventional, so hopelessly old-fashioned. It is the most unexamined of unexamined wisdom. It’s not even an ideology. It’s a pose.

Consider Mr. A's reflexive defense of proposed policies from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. How square. He had to be the "Parent" and lecture on about how such bans were for your own good young man.

Ah yes, the head of a massive gun control organization telling us what the "Founding Fathers fought for" Clearly the Founders fought for a country where a Mayor can tell the proles what size cups they can use.

And yes the Founders had no stances vis a vis state control of beverages. Nope none at all.
You'd think a man that reflexivly blames the Tea Party for every terrorist threat in his city would be a bit quicker on the uptake.

Though not all in the Baron's court are pleased with the action their mayor-for-life is taking.

Yes, this is a big deal. The City Council can’t kill the ban — when it comes to controlling what you eat, NYC is no democracy — but Quinn’s opposition carries political significance. She’s president of the Council and a Democrat and a Bloomberg ally and usually a supporter of his little health crusades and a very strong contender to succeed him as mayor. If she’s abandoning ship, it can only be because she’s not confident that the ban is being well received even in the deep blue utopia of NYC."

A tactical retreat eh? Well clearly folk like Mr. A and Bloomberg are simply ahead of the curve. Just too far ahead for Quinn's tastes.

And here's more on Bloomberg's Donut Day That shows a sinful hat-trick:
To celebrate the historical milestone, Entenmann’s will present a donation check for $25,000 to The Salvation Army, unveil the largest box of Entenmann’s Donuts ever created along with custom-made donuts 1-foot in diameter, and share a Proclamation Letter from Mayor Bloomberg.

So we have (1) a giant donut, (2) a record breakinly large box of donughts, and (3) Big Sugar giving blood money to "The Poor".
Via WeaselZippers

But don't worry, in a previous Proclamation the Baron of Manhattan has, in his infitint grace and generosity, declared that donuts are not a sin, if you meet his consumption in moderation guides. So enjoy your donut proles and rejoice!

Meanwhile the math of his donuts are okay, soda is bad doesn't even add up:
Bloomberg uses the 32-ounce serving size as a comparison, though, not the 20-ounce size. Assuming that a 32-ounce serving of Coke would equal 384 calories at 12 calories per ounce, how do donuts stack up? Four donuts on the Dunkin’ Donuts list exceed that calorie count — Apple Crumb, Blueberry Crumb, Apple Fritter (which was my favorite when I could still eat them), and Glazed Fritter. Three more come in at almost the same calorie count, at 380 calories – Maple Frosted Coffee Roll, Vanilla Frosted Coffee Roll, and Chocolate Frosted Coffee Roll.

While we’re at it, have a peek at the other breakfast options, too. Try the sausage, egg, and cheese sandwich on either bagel and croissant and you’ll ingest almost twice as many calories in that 32-ounce Coke: 640 calories. None of the breakfast sandwiches listed fall below that 20-ounce level of calories. And also note that these are the basic units of consumption for all of these choices; there is no smaller quantity available, as there are with beverage sizes.

Clearly, celebrating donuts while attacking a serving size choice in liquid beverages is not just hypocritical, but absurd. It’s a demonstration of the basic stupidity inherent in a nanny-state regime, and in the nanny-state martinets themselves.

This is my shocked face.

You mean that the ineffective, pointlessly infringing and intrusive law shows an arbitrary and unfair bias?

I'm sure Bloomberg will fix it by putting in some size restrictions for donuts next.

No comments: