2006's Bill of Wrongs 605
Jamie continued the never ending flow of year-end recap stories, this one is the Bill of Wrongs which lists the 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of the year, according to Slate. Several of these aren't news to Slashdot readers, but it's still worth a read.
What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering how many of the people in the states of New York and Washinton have their health care paid for by the state, typically the elderly and infirm who are receiving expensive treatments for the effects of trans-fats and smoking, these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me.
It's like state seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws; it's not the state saying "These things are good for you" so much as "Ambulance rides are expensive and our emergency rooms are full."
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that a troll or do you actually have a reference to show that the ACLU was actively supporting such bans?
Would you be against a ban of mercury in food as a seasoning?
Misleading article title (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:2, Insightful)
it bans ban you from selling me that crap (because it is 0.001% cheaper than healthier stuff), and it bans you from polluting the air I breath.
your liberties stop were they start hurting others.
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for "these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me"...
Now that is a liberal. Bitch at the Republicans accusing them of "trading liberty for security" but if it saves money, why not!?
My responses to the Slate article. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, "the government" tried to execute someone. Everyone in the entire government was in on it. They all wanted to slay him mercilessly. But wait.. The jury decided against it. Hrmm. And the jury is technically part of "the government". Remember, the three parts of the US government? Yeah, one of them being judicial? Apparently "the government" decided not to execute him after all. Because once you are selected for a jury you are in the government, being paid by the government, performing a government role. So, let's get a little more specific, shall we Slate? It wasn't "The Government" that tried to execute him. It was overzealous prosecutors riding a power-trip straight to hell.
Way to misrepresent the facts. The prisoners were deemed potentially to be the so-called vicious killers. Given the attacks on the USA, can you really expect us not to be at least a little sensitive to the possibility? So we found out many of them weren't. That is why we released them. And, what do you expect, we should yell at the top of our lungs that they were innocent? Nobody really cares. The USA is out for blood after 9/11. If we find people to be innocent we release them. There's really no reason to go out of our way to release them any way *but* quietly.
This point at least has some reasonable balance to it. There's no doubt the Bush administration is having serious trouble with their information intelligence. Whether their motives are pure or not we cannot say. Do you have proof they are injuring civil liberties out of mere selfish political drive? I don't see it anywhere if you do.
Re:Misleading article title (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from that, please name the serious wrongs missing from the list and the petty wrongs that are added to it. Which "wrongs" do you feel on that list are petty (and why), and which serious wrongs do you feel are not on that list?
Re:I love #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
The stance that the liberties asserted in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights somehow only apply to citizens is flatly at-odds with those documents. Nowhere does it say anything to the effect of "for US Citizens only". Furthermore, these documents go so far as to say that our rights are inherent, by virtue of us being human - not because some government authority (US or otherwise) grants us those rights. Try going back to Civics class, and leave your xenophobia at the door this time.
How did the song go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, some people in Washington may need a reminder [wikipedia.org] of what they claim the USA is about:
O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Re:I love #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the alleged terrorists, huh?
Yes.
Re:I love #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, yes, that is the point, and the fact that so many Americans don't understand this is precisely why they will eventually have no civil liberties at all. Because the moment you decide that it's "some men are created equal" rather than "all men are created equal," the only thing left is to decide who the privileged "some" will be... and history tells us that it will always end up being the richest and most powerful, who invariably get that way by being the most despotic.
Human rights for one requires the value of human rights for all. Otherwise, all rights are just granted by whatever dictator happens to be in charge at the moment.
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the state is to be exptected to pay for a steady stream of oxygen tanks, heart stints and bypasses and the like, then the state is justified in reducing the costs to the taxpayers by reducing their frequency.
I would also be more than willing to accept a designation on your driver's license, similar to the markings for organ donors, that marks you as a (e. g.) smoker, thereby exempting you from both state-funded medical care or from the responsibility of any group healthcare programs you may be a part of, requiring you to pay for everything out-of-pocket as well as lowering your priority in gaining access to treatment for your self-inflicted ailments. But the hue and cry against such a measure from indignant smokers (et al) would keep it from ever being enacted.
I don't particularly mind people doing stupid things that kill them where they stand (unless the local morgue is particularly overtaxed), but in the case of activities that place an undue burden on public health resoures, resoures that must be shared between all citizens of the state, then the rest of the people have the right to take action, in their own self-interest, to prevent that burden. Whether they treat the demand side of the problem (by segregating off abusers into their own "separate but equal" healthcare system) or the supply side (by banning the materials in question) is up to them, but one way or the other, your right to smoke ends where it effects the livlihood of others.
Re:What about bans? (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's the link to the Adam Carolla blog on that day: http://adamradio.wordpress.com/2006/03/21/adam-wi
I don't have the audio or a transcript.
Re:What about bans? (Score:2, Insightful)
The anti-smoking propaganda is so thick in the last few years that it's hard to separate the bullshit from the fact. My favorite ad is the one that says, non-chalantly and without reference to any scientific publication, that second-hand smoke causes asthma in children. The hell!?
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is the ACLU actively against the ban? (Score:2, Insightful)
Missing from the list... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I am more for a vastly smaller government, and that they stay the hell out of people's private lives... I'm also against the current system of socialized medicine.. how about a government sponsored non-profit insurance company... or even one that isn't govt sponsored? Reduce the tax burden on people to something below the 50% or so most people pay now (between income, fica, utility, and taxes on goods at more local level that's a lot of f-ing tax burden), then people could actually *pay* for their health care... also, if people were directly responsible for health care, they'd be more likely to shop around, instead of bowing to whatever the local hospital wants to charge...
I live in a more rural community, and the local hospital charges more than 2x what a hospital in phoenix charges in most cases... this is with an overhead that is actually *lower*... Also, if the federal (and state) government wasn't so wasteful to begin with, it wouldn't matter so much. As for smoking affecting others, do like GB, and put smokers at the bottom of any list for aid when it comes to smoking-related illness (at least as far as govt sponsored health issues)
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh right, I forgot that everyone always has the choice to have a different job than they currently have. No one ever gets stuck, unable to find a better job and unable to quit and live with no job.
Re:What about bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is the best argument I've heard all day as to why the state should not be in the business of providing health care at taxpayer expense. Period.
Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
How in the world does your "civil liberty" to eat trans-fats or stick a cancer stick in your puss compare with being tortured or having habeas corpus revoked? If this ranks as one of the more serious problems you have with the ACLU, then they must be a remarkable group.
I'm sorry, I just don't see these as civil liberty issues. Of course, there are things the ACLU fights for that I also think don't qualify, but still, to claim silence on such petty issues is the same as support, is like saying that you obviously supported Kenneth Kaunda [wikipedia.org] since you never spoke against him.
Re:What about bans? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow! that is mindblowing. Apparently civil rights are great except when allowing them is more costly, right??
Now consider this fact, blacks have a higher incidence of heart disease, does that mean they'll get treated to "separate but equal" again with federal healthcare? Forget that!!!
My position is this: If the feds want nationalized health care, then suck up the costs no matter what we do. If they want to pay for our health care fine, but its in for a penny in for a pound.
How about this small change to a very famous quote:
"Those would would trade a little liberty for a free lunch deserve neither." - Me
Re:Missing from the list... (Score:1, Insightful)
For only $10 I'll sell you this rock that keeps tigers away.
Not an attack on civil liberties (Score:2, Insightful)
The appearance is now real, but that doesn't make the Duke lacross players who were charged victims of an attack on civil liberties. They are victims of what a false accusation of a sex crime. Such accusations are serious, not particularly uncommon, and often hinge on "she said, he said" evidence rather than the testimony of third parties. Actually, if you take out the unfortunate press coverage, which transformed what should have been a quiet investigation into the death of a Lacross program, the firing of a coach, and the transformation of an entire team of lacross players into persona non grata in the schools they tried to transfer to, the system actually worked pretty close to the way it should. At this point the only problem is that the prosecution has been taken too far (something that is not all that uncommon).
It must be admitted, however, that there is one huge difference here from other cases. Paying strippers to perform at a party created an impression of wanton sexuality and out of control behavior that made the accusations extremely plausible. Unless you feel that bringing strippers to parties is a "civil liberty", this case comes closer to being a candidate for the Darwin awards than anything else.
At this point, there is just about nobody associated with the case that one can't feel bad for. I think that's particularly true of the prosecutor who, having been stuck between a rock and a hard place the entire time, now faces disbarment. For what its worth, the Tawana Brawley case wound up in about the same place, with the prosecutor in that case ultimately accused of being a racist and rapist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley [wikipedia.org]).
Look at number three on the list for an attack on civil liberties that makes the Duke case look like a little blip on the radar.
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get rid of the state sponsored crap, let people choose their own insurance providers, let people deal with the consequences of their choices, and let people live their own lives.
Re:Missing from the list... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a true patriot you'd be looking for ways to improve your country, not waving the flag and shouting 'BUT WE'RE STILL BEATING CUBA, YEEEEAHHHH!'
Re:Freedom of Association (Score:2, Insightful)
But how do you know if a restaurant serves transfats?
This is a good point. I think the government's role should be the unbiased publication of factual research data (I support government funded research for everyone's quality of life), in simple layman's terms, of what impact a given activity can have on your health. Then you decide. If you decide to participate in an activity that is harmful, then along with all the claimed rights you have, you also have to accept the responsibilities.
Of course we have to ensure the government reports get as much (or more) press as the corporate advertising trying to convince you otherwise, similar to how the tobacco industry has to run ads showing details of the harmfulness of smoking.
No level of government should be deciding that legal products be banned due to health issues that may arise. They should provide facts. By the same token, people should not be able to live totally destructive lifestyles and expect the taxpayers to come in later and pick up the bill.
Too bad the founding fathers didn't add a Bill of Responsibilities along with the Bill of Rights.
Re:What about bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
What really changes for your arguement? People who get sick before normal retirement age don't pay into social security as much, so 'your right to smoke' (eat trans-fats, sit on the couch and watch the Springer show, etc.), still ends where it affects the livelyhood of others. People who become couch potatos are less valuable assets for the armed forces if a draft is needed, so 'your right not to exercise' ends where it affects the livelyhood of others. People who don't invest in their own retirement..., People who don't vote, or vote while unfamiliar with the issues... People who get pregnant too early, or too late in life, or not with an approved genetic match...
For years, people argued that ulcers were a stress related disease, and some people quite seriously argued for public health refusing to treat the condition unless the sufferers first made lifestyle changes. Ulcers turned out to have a bacterial cause. Right now, there's a huge arguement in social government and insurance circles for requiring diabetics to make lifestyle changes so they put less burden on the public health system, and some researchers suggesting that there may be a viral or bacteriological factor in diabetes, other research showing that eating habits don't really affect diabetes in the ways medical science just assumed, and so on. What happens if we limit public funding to treat this desease because it's really just a result of peoples own actions, and it turns out it isn't?
Every single action you ever take has some chance of affecting the livelyhood of others. In some cases, a clear, calculable risk/benefit ratio is available - In a great many it isn't. Governments are generally not skilled at assigning reward and punishment based on how much something really adversely impacts others, or how much uncertainty there may still be in an assessment of the risks. At least mine isn't - would we have the war on (some) drugs, massive dependance on foreign oil, and a 3,000+ page tax code if it was?
Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my country, the majority of people do not smoke. Smoking is known to cause many health problems, and we've long since debunked the myth that passive smoking is harmless. So is banning smoking in a public place -- something that directly prevents harm to the health of the majority, at the expense of some convenience for the minority -- really an infringement of freedom?
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
There are lots of rights and freedoms, and by default we should defend them all for everyone. But sometimes they come into conflict. Sometimes resolving that conflict is difficult, particularly when it involves an important principle (such as a right to privacy) clashing with a very practical need (such as the right to travel safely, even if it means your fellow passengers have to be searched/background checked/whatever).
But sometimes, the decision is very easy for most people. Should the freedom of movement of a tried and convicted murderer outweigh the right of his neighbours not to be killed, or should we throw him in prison until he's no longer a danger to others? I believe the decision in that case would be near unanimous anywhere.
There are no right answers on these ethical issues, no black and white, always shades of grey. But you're wrong that the argument can be used to ban anything, at least if you mean used effectively. Some things are worth spending money on, even though it means compelling everyone to contribute. If a strong majority really did not agree with this (rather than just whinging about paying taxes, while at the same time being happy to use facilities funded through taxation) then chances are that we would long since have reverted to a completely private, insurance-based, very multi-class society.
For an argument about cost-saving to be effective, there has to be a clear moral case that the consequences are justified. In the case of smokers, as long as they were genuinely aware of the consequences and capable of making a reasoned decision independently, I don't see that there's much moral argument for putting their interests ahead of others who are given no choice about the smoker's actions, yet who suffer in health and potentially financial terms as a consequence.
If you want a more difficult argument with smokers, try the case of an older person, who smoked in their youth before the dangers were fully understood, but who has long since given up and who now gets lung cancer. But for current smokers, it seems to me that banning them from doing so (at least when non-smokers are nearby) can be easily justified in health grounds, and the financial argument is compelling (given that the public money you aren't spending treating smokers can then be spent on helping others who may not have had any choice about their misfortune).
(Footnote: The financial argument here assumes, of course, that the net cost of smoking to the health service is positive. This may or may not be a valid assumption, given that smokers tend to die younger and therefore not need increasing amounts of more expensive treatment in their old age. I've seen good arguments, backed by real statistics, on both sides of this argument. I'm not going to get into it again here, since my point is that the financial argument cannot be used automatically to justify arbitrary bans as the parent claimed, and smoking merely serves as a convenient example for discussion.)
Re:What about bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Emphasis added. Your own link undercuts your claim that the ACLU supports draconian bans on private actions in one's own house.
Also, a google on "seattle smoking ban" and "ACLU" shows that the ACLU is fighting the ban, not supporting it as you claimed. Get your facts straight.
You have also failed to state a case that the New York ban on hydrogenated oils in restaurants is a civil liberties issue. You have furthermore failed to state a case that this ban is a greater violation of civil liberties than kidnapping people and torturing them, listening in on other peoples' private telephone calls without a warrant, or trying to undermine the justice system itself. That was your original argument.
So far you have done nothing but draw extreme conclusions without sufficient or accurate information, lie when pressed to support your conclusions, and irrationally condemn the ACLU for things they have not done.
Final grade in logic: F. You are either trolling or stupid. I suspect stupid.
Second hand smoking (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you even bothered looking at the evidence? Try this factsheet on passive smoking [ash.org.uk] for example -- yours for the price of Googling "second hand smoking evidence" and reading the second hit. (For those who are curious but can't be bothered to follow the link: it's by an anti-smoking lobby group, but cites numerous scientific papers from diverse sources to back up its specific criticisms.) If you don't buy that one, go ahead and follow a few more links from the same Google search. There's no shortage of studies, and no shortage of campaign groups happy to highlight them for you.
In contrast, the only link I found among the first few hits that actually sided (somewhat) with the smoking lobby groups argued that one specific study (which wasn't really a new study, but rather an attempt to combine data from existing research in a new way -- a warning sign of something on dubious scientific/statistical ground anyway) could be interpreted at best to find a level of damage that was only slightly above noise. That same web page then suggests that we should ignore statistics, and that only a rise of 100% or more in the damage observed is significant enough to concern us because... well, because. Not exactly as compelling as "We conducted a formal study, and in households where both parents smoked, there was a >70% increase in childhood respiratory problems", is it? (That's one of the results in the factsheet I mentioned earlier.)
Seriously, this isn't rocket science: the often-devastating effects of smoking to the smoker are well-documented, and at best those around the smoker are still breathing in most of the same stuff after the smoker exhales it, just at a lower concentration (though possibly not much lower, depending on where you are). How can anyone with the slightest shred of understanding of basic science possibly assume that passive smoking is harmless?
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My responses to the Slate article. (Score:3, Insightful)
The number one civil liberties problem this entire year was... hubris ?!? My God, the Administration is claiming to be doing the right thing, even though their critics don't think they are? Batten down the hatches, ethnic cleansing can't be far behind!
Seriously, though, look at this list: Only two items are concrete people (Jose Padilla and Zacarias Moussaoui), and only one can I really agree with: One way or another, Jose Padilla should have been dealt with more rapidly. Moussaoui is hardly the only victim of overzealous prosecution, and he wasn't even convicted of the over-zealous charge. Who knows how many other people weren't that lucky this year?
Three of the list are basically redundant. "Slagging the X" hardly seems like a civil liberties problem; if anything I submit that insisting the Administration is somehow obligated to love the press and the courts no matter what sort of opposition they provide is an attempt to limit the civil liberties of the Administration. "Hubris" (again, the #1 problem of the year!) also fits in here.
The remainder are a laundry list of things that are admittedly concerning, but are just vague promises of threats to someday, possibly, maybe come down the pike. Only for Extraordinary Rendition can even one actual instance be named. For the rest, we are to take the fact that despite the extraordinary scrutiny this government's every move seems to come under, and despite the supposed flaming incompetence it exhibits at every turn, it has managed to hide all of its supposed wild abuses of power.
Right. Sure. Kinda convenient, don't you think?
I can't help but think that if even a tenth of the supposed Civil Liberties crises that I'm supposed to believe in actually existed, that we might be able to do better than come up with three names (none of which come even close to unambiguously innocent), a list of mostly-unspecified evils in passed laws, and the fact that the Administration has the unmitigated gall to think they are doing the right thing, and say so.
Remember that time the protesters were all locked up for six months despite doing nothing illegal? Remember that time anti-war meetings in ten cities were "mysteriously" firebombed, killing some of the biggest names in the peace movement? Remember when the Government banned the anti-war films? Remember when the Daily Kos was shut down and confiscated for sedition? Remember the Great Slashdot Roundup where everybody who has ever posted anything bad about the government on Slashdot was brought in for "questioning" and "released", with no charges but clearly implied threats?
Yeah, me neither.
Have some bad things happened? Yeah. Does the goverment have some questionable powers? Yeah. But do I believe this is some sort of unique crisis? Hell no. I think it's a case of looking at the world with blinders on. The very fact you have to look at the whole character of the United States through the window of such a mind-blowingly small set of evidence in order to support your entire worldview ought to be telling you something. My rhetorical questions is the portrait of a nation in trouble. This list of "ten most outrageous violations" is a portrait of someone stretching very scanty evidence to make a very dubious point.
Re:What about bans? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I don't suppose you would trust the U.S. Surgeon General [surgeongeneral.gov] that secondhand smoke causes asthma in children.
And I suppose the International Journal of Epidemiology is in on the Vast Conspiracy about secondhand smoke: Non-smoker lung cancer deaths attributable to exposure to spouse's environmental tobacco smoke [oxfordjournals.org]
Not to mention the American Lung Association. "Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year." (Source [lungusa.org])
Or any of the other 74 citations on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Seriously, arguing about the negative effects of secondhand smoke is like arguing about evolution. The fact there is even an argument is solely due to misinformation spread by huge enterprises that have a lot to lose.
Re:What about bans? (Score:2, Insightful)
The ability for you Americans to oversimplify complex issues for idealist reasons is absolutely incredible (and frightening).
Re:What about bans? (Score:1, Insightful)
Your plan sounds good, but you didn't go far enough:
Should be "let people decide how to pay for their own health care".
Insurance only exists as an industry because it has government support. Think about it: if you were the only insured, you would be paying in more than the benefits you're receiving (the insurance company has to charge more than it pays out, otherwise it would go out of business).
Insurance only begins to look like a good idea when it is government-mandated, and when the pool of insured is large enough that far more healthy people are paying in than sick people pulling funds out.
As the average age in the US continues to climb, insurance premiums for the young-and-healthy will skyrocket in order to provide for the needs of the elderly. The young-and-healthy will at some point rebel; the "boiling a frog" analogy only works up to a point (and doesn't work, [uga.edu] with a frog).
And, there is also physical evidence that insurance is a vastly profitable endeavor: the two tallest buildings in Boston are the John Hancock and the Prudential (both insurance companies). For them to be that profitable means that there are likely some unrealized efficiencies (i.e., the money could have stayed in customers' pockets).
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reductio ad absurdum. The GP was speaking about removing the government from a mainstream market that is already filled by the private sector. You are speaking of a government service I cannot "purchase" from Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
In my opinion, the CDC is the perfect example of where the government should get involved. And, I would suspect that people opposed to direct government competition with the private sector would mostly agree.
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
Re:What about bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Smoking in public places I might understand. (Though I'd be inclined to disagree, since I don't smoke cigarettes.) But you lost your civil liberty to sell me trans fats in New York? Find me a violin.
People specifically want to buy cigarettes, because they are addicted to nicotine. There is no reason why anyone would specifically want to buy trans fats instead of cis fats. We buy trans fats only because the market is loaded with them, since corporations specifically want to sell them. They're associated with slightly lower manufacturing costs, because you can make them with a platinum catalyst at high heat, they present few FDA labeling requirements (the health impact was only discovered after Bush was in office), and there are enough people out there who don't know cis/trans/hole-in-the-ground for the cost savings to completely overwhelm the yuck factor, so that this crap ends up dominating the market; it doesn't taste better or anything.
To say "well what if I want to buy trans fats" is not a credible argument. Nobody wants to buy trans fats. The most that can be said about them is that some of us will tolerate them in our food to avoid the cost increase, but the same can be said of antifreeze or anything that is toxic and has a pleasant taste. There are legitimate reasons for governments to pass laws that govern the quality of food that is put up for sale. In fact, some countries do have problems with people selling foods and medicines laced with antifreeze (ethylene glycol) because it is a cheap sweet-tasting alternative to propylene glycol. It damages the liver, kidneys, and nervous system, which is more of a problem from the buyer's perspective, not necessarily the seller's. Would you rather live in a place like that, or New York?
And lets be realistic. Except in an abstract sense, nobody's personal liberties are going to be affected in the slightest by a curb on the ability to legally sell trans fats to New Yorkers. Anyone trying to get you excited about a trans fats ban is a corporate whore. Period.
Re:What about bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
And since the Europeans aren't individually responsible for their own health care costs, the overall cost of health care should be much higher there, and people life shorter, right? Except just the opposite is true; they live longer and their overall health care cost is about half of ours per capita. Why?
It's not enough to say "socialized medicine will never work because we all know communism never works"... I look at the statistics and it seems to me that it is working. I'm sure it's not optimal but costs in our system are simply out of control. And for all the resentment of taxes people have, for my family of 6 my health insurance premiums are more than my federal+state income taxes, and I supposedly receive a comparatively generous health care plan through my job.
Re:I love #2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Not invariably - a lot of rich people are rich because their parents were rich, not because they're self-made. It doesn't really change the point, though, as generally speaking people tend to look out for themselves and their own, and so if in a position to influence or even buy a law, will generally do so in such a way as to best suit themselves. They may not even do so consciously, perhaps believing that they're doing all that they can to help everyone, blind to the fact that they're mostly helping themselves.
Human rights for one requires the value of human rights for all. Otherwise, all rights are just granted by whatever dictator happens to be in charge at the moment.
I couldn't agree more, with the comment that it's not only dictators who strip away rights, or decide that they should apply selectively; both Blair and Bush are doing a fine job of that too. The real problem though is that the majority allows it to happen, as they believe their own rights to be being protected or even enhanced (eg "the right to be safe from terrorist attack")
the Death Penalty in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, I find the whole concept of the death penalty as it happens in the USA about the stupidest thing there is. We say that it will stop ppl from committing crimes, yet it make very easy and not so scary (a "humane" way of doing so), we do not publish it, and then expect that it will influence criminals to stop their behavior. Whatever idiot that came up with this logic should be shot.
I too find it stupid that we, the US, has the death penalty, but not for your reasoning. Like Thomas Jefferson did, I believe it's better to let ten guilty go free than to falsely punish one innocent. If an innocent is sent to prison for life there's still a change s/he can be cleared and set free but they can't be brought back to life once executed. As for the death penalty being a deterrent, if it really worked nobody would commit capital murder. And as for me if I knew that if I were to kill and be sentenced to death I wouldn't have a problem in killing many more to avoid getting caught, say any and all witnesses. I also find it ironic that we kill people to show killing people is bad.
Re:What about bans? (Score:3, Insightful)
To my knowledge, few people aside from the likes of John Howard Griffin woke up one morning and said "I want to be black!" But the various ailments people face from (e. g.) smoking, especially if they picked up the habit after the mandatory health warnings were placed on the packaging, were brought upon themselves voluntarily. It is wholly by their actions, not their nature that they have emphysema, and as such they alone bear the responsibility.
"My position is this: If the feds want nationalized health care, then suck up the costs no matter what we do."
"The feds" (or more properly in this case, the state) are not separate agents here. We live in republics, and if you are going to accept other peoples money (i. e. my money), then you should learn to abide by the restrictions on it, or don't accept it at all.
Not Suprising..... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is more of a very slanted editorial than news. I do admit that the Bush Administation has made some big mistakes, but it is curious to note that every single item is Bush-related.
Re:No fair. Wrong on many levels. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I took note of that respect during the Clinton years. Good job.
Re:CDC (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you imagine for a second the crap that would be put in our food and mislabeled or deceptively labeled? It's already pretty bad WITH the FDA stopping much of it, and without them, it would be a field day of cost-cutting at the expense of the health and safety of the consumer.
Don't think for a second that your freedom of choice will protect you, because your freedom of choice doesn't mean anything if there is no agency enforcing the availability of accurate and detailed information so you can make an informed choice.
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
Ah but nothing is stopping you from patronizing a place that bans smoking, or of starting one yourself. What I find ironic is that you say this at the same tyme you use your sig, "Throughout human history, the greatest threat to life and liberty has been not terrorism, but the power of the state." Smoking bans in public or mandated by the government represents one of those government powers.
FalconRe:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless it is owned by the govt, it is private property - not a public place.
Re:well said (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's easy to get bogged down on defining when a fertilized ovum becomes a person. What I find interesting is that the closer you look at the right-to-life movement, you start seeing trends. People in this movement are the same ones giving alarmist, erroneous "information" that condoms don't protect against disease, and so on. The abortion thing is the biggest item, but it is still one item on a continuum, and the continuum is their agenda. They oppose sex-ed, condom availability, and so on. They don't mix messages, and you won't see this in an anti-abortion spot, but if you look at both movements you see that they are the same movement.
They want a world where sex outside of marriage is outright dangerous because they think that "sin" is dangerous and should have consequences. This is why right-wing groups (not all of them, to be fair) object to the Day After pill and the HPV vaccine--they want "Jezebels" to pay for their sins, so other women won't be Jezebels. They don't want a world where women can have casual sex with no consequences. The abortion crusade is only the most marketable element of this larger agenda.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope your New Years resolution is to stop lying. The negative effects of second hand smoke have been very, very, very well documented.
PETA (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait, PETA's not a Terrorist group? Since when?