Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Fat Chances?

Brilliance.

People eat too much of that which harms them, the only logical response is to take away the option altogether, right?

That's the leap that New York City has made concerning the use of trans-fatty acids in restaurants, and it looks like several other cities are following suit.

While I'd like to complain that this is just another silly example of people rudely being presumed by their servants (i.e. elected representatives) incompetent to make their own decisions; that they coopt the decisions that said people make as their best choices given available options; that the unseen costs and benefits are completely ignored; ...

I won't go on at all. I'm going to just ask people to punish their elected bitches by electing new ones to replace them for the vote of no-confidence in their bosses the present ones filed.

Will it happen? Hell no, it's comfy when someone else is taking care of your problems. The psychological stresses we can avoid by just taking the government happy-pill whenever a crisis (manufactured or reasonable though it may be) arises must truly be great, for I know many people that would applaud this decision.

But as I've recently blogged, our legislators have their hands filled with other worthy endeavors such as establishing official state muffins. This can't possibly be the place to look for output resembling sensibility.

I suggest all of our NYC readers (I'll indulge myself with the notion that we actually have one or more - but judging by the hit-meter, it's not likely) go bake a margarine-laden Apple Muffin and send it to city hall.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's fair to compare this to smoking. I've never heard of "second-hand transfat". Tobacco smoke doesn't stay with the smoker. It floats about the room and becomes a health hazard to non-smokers.

How about comparing it to booze? Both are things people consume of their own free will and neither directly affects anyone else.

Tim said...

SmoothB, that's certainly a fair passing-on of blame. Ultimately it IS the voters that call for this sort of nonsense at some level.

But I can't help but feel if the politicians themselves didn't rhetorically position the issue as a problem needing solving, and themselves as holding the answer. In short, I'm not sure how many individuals are saying "Ban that which I like not" - I don't hear much of it, per se.

Legislators definitely have a special opportunity to collaborate with the media and discover crises - it's just a matter of pushing the right buttons. Who's to blame, the vultures or the carrion? I don't know, but they're both pretty stinky.

When I hear complaints, it's usually about competing liberty - my right to enjoy a meal in a restaurant without breathing smoke vs. your right to smoke - and couched as a safety, health issue.

Given that framing, most people don't even give thought to the rights of the owner of the restaurant, and if it comes up, it usually doesn't get the attention that a percieved danger to health and "freedom" does.

...