Soda?

Arrgghh....  I just hit a lousy mood.  No, it's not the rotten-tasting mouthwash my DDS prescribed.  It's not even the prospects of finishing/grading 100+ essays/papers.  I was reminded of the NYC ban on sodas larger than 16 oz.  Grrrrr.....

What business is it of the government of NYC to tell private business owners what size sodas to sell?  And, if owners want to sell me a 32-oz soda, what business is it of NYC's government to say I can't buy one?  Where do they get the authority, outside of people being more concerned with the upcoming NFL season (has it already started?) or the return of American Idol?

I've gone down this road before, but it bears repeating--again and again--until we say, "Enough!"  That is, unless we like having others tell us what to do.  And, once we let others tell us one thing, then one thing becomes a second, which becomes a third, which becomes a fourth....

So, now gov't tells us what kind of televisions we must have.  Light bulbs are also dictated to us.  How about what toilets to flush?  Of course, as noted above, we can't drink the sodas we want (more below).  And I no longer buy McD's fries or KFC since gov't said they can't be cooked in transfats--they don't taste nearly as good.  Look around; you'll find lots more.  Even check back about 70 years, when the gov't told an Ohio farmer he couldn't grow corn on his own farm, corn that would stay on his own farm, to feed pigs raised on his own farm!  As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."

But if Mayor Bloomberg and his minions are so concerned about obesity, why do they stop at 16-oz sodas?  Why don't they ban video games, at least for kids under 18?  Or, for that matter, legislate minimal hours of watching the boob tube, for everyone?  How about mandating some physical activity each day or at least several times a week, to be monitored at a YMCA or Boys/Girls Club, an organized team or league, etc.?  Here's one--why not compel the schools to require daily physical education instead of, for instance, the insistence of bowing to the latest educational god, "Technology?"  Yeah, why not a gym class, required for graducation, every year?  It could be waived if one was on a school team or in an activity like marching band (if it was active every day).  BTW, that's what was required at Amherst.  To graduate, we not only had to pass our classes, but had to demonstrate we could swim 100 yards, which could be done any time during our four years.  (Alas, that requirement has since been dropped, I think spurred by a drowning--which, if one thinks about it, makes the requirement more compelling!).  We also, our first two years, had to participate in gym classes, a variety from which to choose, except in the seasons we were on teams--football, swimming, squash, baseball, etc.  (ASICS:  "A healthy soul in a healthy body.")  Yes, there are a lot of other things NYC could do to prevent obesity. 

Two other things to consider.  Paul Tough has written a book contending that, in education, the current trend/obsession with testing will not produce successful graduates, that is, future citizens.  Teaching them to be "gritty," "tough" if you will, will make them successful, at least improve the chances of success better than testing.  (What was it Wellington said after defeating Napoleon, "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.")  Thanks, Carrie.  I maintain to this day that, as thankful of my Amherst education as I am (it was a great influence), I learned as much about life and success (failure, too) playing sports in my lifetime.  Success, failure, hard work, plans and goals, determination, teamwork and cooperation, individual accountability--what isn't stressed in athletics?   (OK, maybe I overdid the sports thing.  But, for me, they were a very important part of my life, very formative.  They might not be for everyone.  But some sort of activity can be.)

And, as NYC has noted, if I want 32 oz of soda, I can still have them--but I have to buy two 16 ozers.  So, instead of $1 (all drinks at McD's), NYC compels me to double my costs.  Oh, and is it any coincidence that the taxes also double, to 20 cents (or whatever outlandish rate it is in NYC)?

If people want to be fat, even obese, that's their choice.  We certainly have educated them enough about obesity, how to prevent it, it's debilitating effects, everything.  There are no surprises.  How about trying this one?  Let insurance companies (life insurers, health insurers) charge far higher rates for obese people than those who aren't!  After all, fat people die at younger ages.  They have more health conditions that require treatment.  They cost more.  Why should the rest of us pay for other people's bad choices?  Let that happen, NYC--let insurers charge floating premiums.  (And, of course, we might also include smokers, drug users, drinkers--oops!--and others who engage in poor behaviors.) 

Bloomberg and those other NY folks behind this are typically arrogant and elitist--typical of the Progressive movement that began a little over 100 years ago.  Government, that is, when the Progressives run the gov't, knows what's better for us than we know ourselves.  I would certainly take exception to that, but even granting it, that's not what "the last best hope" of mankind is all about, is it?

They are our lives; let us live them.