Candy Bars, Cigarettes and Church

This was a full news week. But the story that stood out to me was the "Happy Meal toy ban" issue. We've been going there for a long time now - beginning with the tobacco ban and the vilification of smokers. To have the government legislate personal behavior and morality is beyond offensive. It's tyrannical.

Naturally it was only a matter of time before fast-food was targeted. The "logic" goes like this:

1. We have a huge problem in this society - childhood obesity.
2. Childhood obesity is caused by poor eating habits.
3. Poor eating habits cost us billions in health care each year, making it "everyone's" problem.
4. Since the problem affects every American, the government must do something about it.

Therefore we will legislate eating habits and "force" people to eat more healthily.

It works for smoking, too:

1. We have a huge problem in this society - heart-and lung disease.
2. Many of these illnesses are caused by smoking.
3. Smokers cost billions in health care due to smoking-related illnesses. This impacts every American.
4. Because of the cost to society the government must step in and do something about it.

Therefore we will legislate anti-smoking behavior through bans, high taxes, higher health premiums, etc. and "force" people to quit smoking.

One can go down this road with any number of things that are controlled today by our federal government; including how much water we can use in the shower, what type of light bulbs we need to use, what type of paint we must use in our homes . . . the list goes on and on and on and on.

Can it be denied that every single one of these intrusive initiatives comes from the left? I want you to imagine for a moment what the equivalent right-leaning legislation would look like. And if anyone wishes to challenge the analogy go ahead, but I think it's pretty sound. It goes like this:

1. We have a huge problem in society - crime; theft, fraud, assault, robbery, rape, murder and the like.
2. Crime is caused by immoral behavior.
3. This immoral behavior costs our country billions of dollars each year in damages, law enforcement expenses, soaring insurance costs and so on.
4. Since crime clearly impacts every single one of us, government must step in and do something about it.

Therefore we will legislate moral behavior by forcing every citizen to attend church every Sunday.

I would be the first one in line to oppose the government forcing people by threat of fine or imprisonment to attend church every Sunday. So why are obesity and smoking legislation any less egregious?

I'll go a step further. Arguably (actual not, but I'm being generous) immorality is the "disease" from which all other societal problems come. Theoretically, if every single American followed the ten commandments to a tee, healthcare costs would plummet due to the obsolescence of fraud, malpractice insurance and frivolous lawsuits. Police forces would all but disappear. Employment law would be unnecessary. Affirmative action would go away. In fact, lawyers would become extinct. *sigh*, a person can dream . . .

The argument will be: "Not everyone who was forced to attend church would actually follow the Commandments." EXACTLY RIGHT! Just as not everyone who is denied a Happy Meal will go home and eat Kashi. Government cannot legislate behavior. It not only doesn't work, whenever and wherever it's been tried it has led to more tyranny, cruelty, megalomania and mass murder than all the religions of the world combined.

Has ANYONE read our constitution lately? Our brilliant founding fathers knew that like it or not, human nature seeks power and control. They knew that unharnessed governments inevitably lead to tyranny. That's why the constitution specifically outlines what our government cannot do. It is purely a document of limits. People call Republicans the "party of No". For some reason the Republican establishment defends against that claim as if it were a bad thing. The constitution is a "document of No". Darn right we're the party of No! That should be the party tagline, loud and proud. No more micro-managing our lives. No more legislating behavior. No more choking regulations on the nation's employers. No more crippling taxes.

If you think the constitution is obsolete, that's a different debate. But as long as we are a nation of laws - beginning with those restricting our own government - we must uphold them diligently as they are the hinge upon which our freedoms depend.

I caution my friends on the left to think beyond what they want on any given day. If you give power to this government to dictate what you eat or whether you smoke, you're giving the exact same power to the next administration - who may just want you to go to church.

Hot Topic

I have no special knowledge of science - I think I got a "C" in college Biology. So please don't mistake this blog as some sort of expert commentary on Global Warming. Oops, sorry - Climate Change.

Without any special knowledge of Geology, Astronomy, Meteorology, or any other -ology, here's where my garden variety common sense leads me.

The earth is over 2/3 ocean, right? Of the 1/3 that is land, most is uninhabitable. Of the land that is inhabitable only a fraction of that is actually populated by human beings (most estimates fall between 4 and 10 percent of the earth's surface). 

 

Now of that small number, a tiny minority constitutes "developed countries" - those who consume plastic goods, use hairspray, and drive SUV's. It seems to me that if that itty bitty speck of humanity proactively tried their best to affect the earth's ecosystem - well - I don't understand how that could be possible. Especially in the relatively short time that we've even existed, let alone been consumers of fluorocarbons and gas-guzzling vehicles. How could we possibly offset the power of all the ancient, immense forces of the universe - including the massive star at the center of our solar system that has a surface temperature of about 5,510 °C, which adheres to rhythms and seasons of its own? Again, garden-variety common sense tells me that this massive, fiery ball has a heck of a lot more to say about the temperature trends of our planet than who drives a Ford Escalade or uses Suave hairspray. 

 

I'm not saying it's impossible that we few, tiny creatures are taking on these forces of God and nature and winning; but when something defies common sense to such a staggering degree the burden of proof becomes that much higher, and I'm just not seeing it. In fact it seems that whenever someone raises these questions, rather than receiving an intelligent response they are met with vicious ad hominem attacks and immediate ejection from the public square.

Thinking through this has led me to the epiphany that it's not "saving the planet" that's the agenda of most environmentalists. If it were, reaction to the recent debunking of the global warming data would have been met with celebration in the streets: "This is the best possible news! After all the frightening predictions it turns out that industrialized nations are in fact not destroying the planet!" They'd get to work filling children's heads with hope and inspiration instead of fear and dread. The fact that these groups are willfully ignoring the data and doubling down with religious fervor tells me it's about something else entirely. Whether it's that people need something to believe in and feel pious about, or that Eco-business has just become too big to fail, I don't know. What I do know is that truth nearly always (save quantum mechanics) aligns with good common sense. If it doesn't, the rational response is to question the narrative.

Perhaps Carl Sagan said it best:

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise."

History really does seem to repeat itself, doesn't it?