Has anybody out there asked themselves what First Lady Michelle Obama's directive about eating healthier is all about? Yes, I am sure she is concerned with American children's poor eating habits, what with all that ice cream she has been eating in Spain. I know she knows (as do I and most every other American) that eating vegetables and fruits is better than french fries and candy, and being First Lady, Mrs. Obama feels it is her obligation to share such remarkable information to the public. I know all this, and so do you. But why her? Why now? What of these food regulations that seem to be coming down the river? Why is this all happening no? Healthcare, of course.
Because the Federal Government will soon be footing the bill for much of the nation's medical care (and eventually all of it), they are going to run into some real financial problems awfully quick. Americans are unhealthy and overweight, in large part because of the terrible food we eat. (I have nothing against this by the way, it is America after all, and if you want to eat potatoes fried in lard, covered with salt and drenched in fake cheese and greasy chili, all I ask is that you give me a bite). In order to counteract the insane amount of future costs America's obesity problem will cost the government, they feel they must limit the food choices of Americans now in order to limit the damage. I can't help but agree with the logic, it actually makes perfect sense. If I were a parent, and I had to pay for my child's braces, I would think it a good idea to limit candy consumption and take the money saved by not buying candy and put it towards the braces' cost. Children can't cry for their "right to have candy," because they have no right to candy. But don't Americans have a right to food choices?
It isn't written in the Constitution, there is no amendment that reads, even in part: The right to eat shitty food and drink carbonated, sugary drinks shall not be abridged. (Trust me, I read the entire document, it isn't there). In fact, we don't even have a real right to privacy.
The First Amendment does say this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This gives us a right to freedom of beliefs (and adherence to a diet of dubious health benefit would certainly quality as a belief in my estimation.)
Amendment Three states: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." And Amendment Four says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." We have a right to privacy in our home, and the items in our home (food included too, right?) and the items we have in our possession (which would include a hotdog, I contest). That seems fairly open and shut, right?
But to top it off, here is Amendment Nine: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So, just because it doesn't say specifically we have a right to eat shitty food and damn the consequences, doesn't mean we don't have a right to do that. Oh great, I feel better...oh wait, what's that you say? The Federal Government is going to attempt to stop you from doing it anyway? How is that? It is going to follow the Tobacco Model? What's the Tobacco Model? Oh, glad you asked.
The Cigarette Model is the exact model the Federal Government imposed on the tobacco industry, Phillip Morris and the rest of them. You see, the tobacco industries made products which everyone loved (at least, everyone became increasingly addicted to them). They pumped the products (the cigarettes) with chemicals to make them taste better and become more addictive (and also become more dangerously unhealthy). They did this for years and years and years and years. Generations became addicted, generations were killed because it. State taxes on every pack sold did nothing to stop those addicted to the products from buying more, the only thing it helped was the balance sheet for governments. While the cigarette smokers were being extorted over their addiction by the government, the government was also leveling ungodly amounts of fines and penalties against the tobacco companies. And I haven't even mentioned yet the class-action lawsuits against the victims of addiction (who mostly had lung cancer). In the end, I don't feel the least bit sorry for Phillip Morris and the others who got what was coming to them.
When you replace tobacco with food, Phillip Morris with Nabisco, cigarette with Oreo, lung cancer with heart disease (brought on not by smoking cigarettes but by being addicted to food, leading to obesity, leading to all those terrible physical problems which result) you see the plan the Administration is hatching. They don't want you to stop eating the bad stuff, because they know you won't be able to. They are counting on the fact we as Americans can't put the fork down, because the more bad stuff they eat, the more in value-added taxes (sales taxes) they can add to the "bad stuff" (french fries, cookies, potato chips) and the more money they will make off the backs of the American people. And when a huge penalty hits McDonald's somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 Billion for killing generations of peole, don't say you didn't know it was coming!
No comments:
Post a Comment