According to the title to a link on Drudge, (someone'd have to pay me to actually click a link....) some southern state is planning on ordering/authorizing? restaurants to refuse to serve food to obese people. Meaning the 'slippery slope' is turning into a cliff to fall off of.
Rock-rib Republicans and Libertarians, not to mention anarchists and nihilists, are opposed to governments playing Nanny with their governed. As I am at least one and a half of the above four food groups, I must stand to oppose to Nanny-ism. If you're in favor of Nanny-ism, I can understand the draw and I have to admit that to some extent Nanny-ism has to exist. Obviously I appreciate the vigor expended by the appropriate governmental agencies to deliver into my home uncontaminated drinking water and to see to the removal of waste and excrement.
But I put forth that while I can tolerate Nanny-ism for the group, I must oppose it for the individual. So I'm against helmet rules for motorcyclists. I admit the safety issue is very valid, so why not mandate that all humans wear crash helmets when in public? If the majority voted such a law into force, I'd be happy to obey it. A whole new fashion industry would spring into being! Safety and new jobs!
Drunk drivers are a menace. It's a good thing for bartenders to cut off obviously intoxicated drinkers, but they're doing it to protect the bar against a very good basis for a law suit, should the drinker injure himself or others. So that's not Nanny-ism in its pure form.
Who decides whether a person is obese? Due to an unfortunate glandular problem, I have one obese leg. Will my one fat leg be enough to get me refused service at the Hee-Haw Home of Grits & Macaroni? Can I sneak in my wife if I be-girdle the bejebus out of her?
Again, this is way more than just a small slide down the slippery slope, this is a step of the cliff that will, in a generation or two, cocooned to the max from everything that makes life fun. Or it just could be a reaction by a chain of all you can eat buffets to increase their profitability. After all, we are a nation of special interests...
Please feel free to hyperbole along with me....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Maybe this isn't some lame politicians attempt at who knows what - but a conspiracy. Maybe the "drive thru" builders are paying these people to lobby for this ridiculous bill so that more and more people will have to go through drive-thru's. Aaah, yes, I think I've discovered something. I'm buying stock in "Drive Thru Co, Inc." right now.
Wow, every restaurant in this town would dry up unless the tweakers suddenly had money they spent on something other than meth and stopped polishing the handlebars on their bicycles for nine hours.
Um, if like 40% of the nation is fat, doesn't that pretty much mean that's the worst business decision they can make?
according to an article I read on some e-news paper, obese people cost less than healthy people and smokers. Smokers die at an average age of 79, obese people die at 80, but cost more medically than smokers, but now those healthy granola crunching treadmill running jerks die at 89 and cost some $4,000 more in medical bills than smokers or fat people. I think that the Hee-Haw Home of Grits & Macaroni should throw out the healthy trim people and allow all the smokers and fats in, because that's how we'll reduce the national debt and why McD's -in cloaked association with the medical association and the FDA are trying to make us all fat. Do your American duty and get fat, and smoke and hurry!!!
Post a Comment