Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Big Government vs. Big Mac
There's a serious effort in the New York city council to enact new laws limiting the amount of fast food restaurants that can serve certain zones. But the council's made an influential foe in Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, who attacks the plan in the New York Sun.
While Big Government was enormously successful in combating infectious diseases with regulatory interventions - such as mandating water chlorination and vaccinations to prevent diseases like polio, diphtheria, and typhoid - in 2006 the greatest threats to the health of New Yorkers are chronic diseases, most of them lifestyle-related and not easily altered by laws.
"Mayor Bloomberg, M.D." and his colleagues on the City Council will not be successful in preventing obesity by restricting burger joints, taxing "junk food," and banning food advertising - all measures that are currently being considered here and in other parts of our fat land.
Taktix|6.27.06 @ 12:44PM|#
Look on the bright side: We can all start opening up Cheeseburger speakeasies and make a killing on the black market.
Captain Holly|6.27.06 @ 12:51PM|#
Look on the bright side: We can all start opening up
Cheeseburger speakeasies and make a killing on the black
market.
Using real butter with real sucrose with real cheese. And
well-marbled beef.
Man, I want a BBQ sandwich right now....
|6.27.06 @ 1:02PM|#
First they try to ban the Luther Burger, now this. Next thing you know, they are going to declare Manhattan an HFCS-free zone.
|6.27.06 @ 1:06PM|#
Q: "what are you in here for?"
A: "A double quarter pounder with cheese and extra onions."
|6.27.06 @ 1:07PM|#
In 1978 F. Paul Wilson wrote about this.
The title of the story is Lipidleggin'
It was considered SciFi.
|6.27.06 @ 1:08PM|#
Guess the times really are a-changing. this whole hysteria brings to mind a report I read in the Daily News some 40 years ago. One of their reporters had just returned from Moscow and wrote how those Godless Communists were abusing the civil rights of their people in most personal matters. One thing that got him really mad -- THOSE INHUMANE OPRESSORS DID NOT LET THEIR PEOPLE SMOKE IN MOVIE THEATERS. Enough to get ANY Republican mad. Now we seem to be following them, and praising ourselves for it.
|6.27.06 @ 1:13PM|#
And in related news....NYC Council members are now forming a committe to explore the possibility of making daily exercise a requirement.
|6.27.06 @ 1:13PM|#
Reasons why I absolutely hate liberals. They are a real threat to freedoms. Which is a bigger threat to your freedom, some bureaucrat at NSA listening to a few of the billions of phone calls made everyday or these clowns who are determined to use the full force of government to control what you can eat. That is really the ultimate goal of this; to control what we can eat. These people scare the hell out of me.
|6.27.06 @ 1:15PM|#
John, I'd like you to meet my friend, False Dichotomy.
False, John. John, False.
|6.27.06 @ 1:16PM|#
Yeah, the argument over whether there is any part of life inappropriate for a govt nanny to nose in is over. Now what's left is arguments between rightwing nannystaters and leftwing nannystaters. They'll wax and wane in power depending on the TV charisma of their politicians. Sometimes they'll be coming for your birth control and porn. Other times they'll want your ciggies and cheeseburgers.
|6.27.06 @ 1:18PM|#
I saw an episode of The Glen Beck Show a week or so ago
where he was in Pittsburgh and he ate a Primanti's Sandwich. I
guess this place is pretty well known in Pittsburgh...but it had
Pastrami, Cheese, Coleslaw, French Fries, Tomatoes, and I think a
fried egg. It probably weighed about five pounds.
Man, I gotta get to Pittsburgh...
|6.27.06 @ 1:20PM|#
Now that I've stopped drooling on the keyboard, my point was that there will probably be a no-knock raid on Primanti's any day now.
|6.27.06 @ 1:21PM|#
I wonder how this will affect other foods popular with
New Yorkers (and usually eaten in a similar manner to "fast food"
such as:
- New York-style pizza
- Coney Island hot dogs
- Bagels (usually full of fat) loaded with cream cheese - though
smoked salmon has Omega-3
- Potato Knishes & Blintzes (not exactly diet fare)
- almost anything eaten in Chinatown
You see where I'm going here. The article was short on details but
seemed to indicate the targets were almost exclusively burger &
fries establishments.
I don't see this actually happening...the contitutional issues -
and the potential for lawsuits - are astounding.
Have any of these ass clowns been to a fast food place
lately? Mickey Ds is pushing salads and bottled water and Arby's is
pushing cold cuts. The only one going in the opposite direction is
Hardees - though Burger King does get points or the Smokehouse
watchjobber with the onion rings and BBQ sauce.
|6.27.06 @ 1:24PM|#
Why is it a false dichotomy? The bitch around here about Repbublicans among many seems to be the NSA anti-terrorism "wiretaps". I don't see any Republicans other than Bloomburg who support this kind of crap. I am just rather live with the NSA than having people tell me what I can and cannot eat.
|6.27.06 @ 1:26PM|#
Reasons why I absolutely hate liberals. They are a real
threat to freedoms.
Yeah...good thing conservatives aren't trying to outlaw stuff and
tell people how to live while gutting contitutional protections. Oh
wait...they are.
|6.27.06 @ 1:26PM|#
Madpad,
This is mostly a cultural thing. A way for liberal elites to
instruct their inferiors in the ways of the world. Notice they
never complain about the fat content of high end restaurants or Ben
and Jerry's Ice Cream. Only places like McDonalds and other places
where poor (read inferior) people go.
|6.27.06 @ 1:28PM|#
i've only had the "luck" to live in leftwing nannystateland
(tm).
let's recap - WA state.
democrats criminalized online poker to make it a felony, the same
as auto theft. yet, there are casinos on every block. hypocrisy
much? they made it illegal to even LINK to a online poker site, as
"facilitating" it. most pundits think the latter provision is
unconstitututional btw. blatant violation of free speech. only a
democrat could pass such a law.
democrats made it illegal to smoke in ANY private business and
WITHIN 25 ft of the business. i detest smoking with every fiber of
my soul, but this is still bogus legislation. choice? of course
not. you have no CHOICE
democrats passed the Critical Areas Ordinance (google it) which is
like Kelo on Steroids. frankly, it's worse than Kelo, which is hard
to imagine. all in the name of the 'environment'
in seattle, the city council now makes it a CRIME to dispose of
recyclables in your trash. they also authorize trash workers to
"search" your trash for recyclables. note that the WA supreme court
doesn't even let cops investigating CRIMES (real ones) search trash
w.o a warrant.
seattle city council also prohibits their cops from asking ANYBODY
their residency status. even somebody under arrest for a
felony.
during an illegal immigrant march in seattle recently, the seattle
police took in 3 males for "questioning" WITHOUT probable cause -
because they were carrying firearms. LAWFULLY. with concealed
weapons permits. but somebody tipped off the cops that these guys
were "packing" (WA is a shall issue state btw due to its
constitution - although dems try to strip this right every chance
they get), and they were carrying anti-illegal immigration signs,
at a frigging illegal immigration rights march, so that justified a
mandatory ride to the precinct and detention that the cops claimed
was not an arrest, but done to check them out for any safety
concerns?!?!?!?
when you add on the orwellian speech codes favored by the left,
hate crime statutes (thoughtcrime anyone?), their attempts to ban
military recruiters from all public campuses (choice again does not
matter when it's a choice to join the "homophobic
militaryindustrial complex (tm)"), etc. etc.
i'll take rightwing nannystate over a leftwing nannystate anyday,
although i would prefer neither.
|6.27.06 @ 1:29PM|#
Madpad,
I didn't necessarily endorse Republicans. My point is that I think
these types of things along with crap like DUI check points (in
fairness favored by politicians of both parties it seems) infringes
on my freedom a hell of a lot more than what the Republicans are
doing. I doubt my phone will be tapped anytime soon or that I will
want to have a gay marriage, but I very well may want to have a big
mac someday.
Taktix|6.27.06 @ 1:30PM|#
And in related news....NYC Council members are now forming a
committe to explore the possibility of making daily exercise a
requirement.
First of all: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Secondly, how are they to enforce this requirement? They'll either
have to test everybody on some regular basis (which will cost
riduculous sums of $$$) or, what? I don't know, install monitoring
devices?
When I was working for a paper outside of Pittsburgh, the borough
council was given a presentation by these guys who install
borough-wide WiFi.
The men's selling point?
"It allows the borough to put wireless cameras anywhere you want.
Installs in seconds."
|6.27.06 @ 1:44PM|#
Look Whit, we all know that Democrats and the people who vote
for them are totalitarian, racist, and vicious.
But Democrats and Republicans are really the same party. The
Republicans support a certain type of facism, like NSA wiretaps,
while the Democrats support other types of facism, like the nannie
state totalitarianism.
There is no "right-wing" or "left-wing" facism. Both the left wing
and the right wing are apparatus of the same political machine. The
left-right tug of war is an illusion designed to keep you so
blinded by your hatred of the Democrats that you are willing to
support the Republicans (who are really one and the same as the
Democrats).
The whole Dem/Repub left/right tug of war is just another version
of "tastes great/less filling".
|6.27.06 @ 1:48PM|#
I'd be content to say that cracking down on fast food won't
solve any problems if people don't make good choices. You don't
need to be a medical researcher to realize that overindulgence will
cause health problems, regardless of whether that overindulgence
happens in a burger joint, an upscale restaurant, or the privacy of
your own kitchen. I don't see that we need to turn this into a
battle over which party is worse.
Those who wish to score partisan points are, of course, free to do
so.
|6.27.06 @ 1:52PM|#
Whit does have some good examples and well worth considering.
None of this, of course, make conservatives "good" in my
book.
As an aside, regarding the police arresting the fellow for
"packing", I don't think you can put that one all on liberals.
While I don't admire the liberal stance of trying to take away my
gun rights, I have never met a police officer that wasn't for gun
control - usually the heavier the better.
It is not unusual for me to hear of police officers hassling
honest, law-abiding gun owners for the sin of merely doing what
their permits allow them to do.
I know there are exceptions, of course, and I'm not trying to
indict cops as whole of anti-contitutional behavior. But it's an
open secret that police in general would just rather noone else but
them be able to possess, let alone carry, a gun.
I've I had to hold me breath every time I walked up to a car or
knocked on a door, I might feel the same way.
|6.27.06 @ 1:57PM|#
" I have never met a police officer that wasn't for gun control
- usually the heavier the better. "
really? i know several dozen cops. almost exclusively, they are
against gun control. i live in a right to carry state, though.
maybe all the pro gun control police only work in the gun control
states. i do KNOW that statisically speaking the majority of cops
do NOT support gun control. iirc, i read that in the FBI law
enforcement journal. i also know that the IACP does support gun
control, which suprises me not since police chiefs are politicians,
not cops
i also dispute the question begging above that NSA wiretapping is
"fascism".
sorry. nice rhetoric though
|6.27.06 @ 1:58PM|#
making daily exercise a requirement
They used to have that at my high school.
They called it "gym" class.
How quaint.
dhex|6.27.06 @ 1:59PM|#
"Which is a bigger threat to your freedom, some bureaucrat at
NSA listening to a few of the billions of phone calls made everyday
or these clowns who are determined to use the full force of
government to control what you can eat."
can't we agree that both should choke on a deep-fried liberty
patty?
fyodor|6.27.06 @ 1:59PM|#
There's a serious effort in the New York city council to
enact new laws limiting the amount of fast food restaurants
that can serve certain zones.
This isn't really a crackdown on fast food or the amount of it you
can eat per se. It's more like protectionism for whatever joints
get left standing after they try to use zoning to limit fast food
restaurant "concentration". Oughtta be some long lines!
|6.27.06 @ 2:01PM|#
where do u live madpad? i am in liberal seattle, and most cops i know TOTALLY think gun control is fascist and retarded
|6.27.06 @ 2:08PM|#
Taktix - I was being facetious with my exercise requirement. It
is scary that we live in an era that something like that can be
believable.
Anyway, regulating 'fast food' is a done deal in a decade�s time. I
was naive a decade ago about banning smoking in private places, but
the smoking bans have gone through very easily. This is not that
big of a leap (a leap yes, but not a big one).
Wait until they get Universal Health Care - then they will start to
regulate the hell out of anything considered harmful. And yes,
daily exercise could be a requirement. I can see the logic
now....Hey, if I�m directly paying for that guy�s health care, I
better vote to make sure his fat ass jogs every now and then.
|6.27.06 @ 2:08PM|#
Taktix - I was being facetious with my exercise requirement. It
is scary that we live in an era that something like that can be
believable.
Anyway, regulating 'fast food' is a done deal in a decade�s time. I
was naive a decade ago about banning smoking in private places, but
the smoking bans have gone through very easily. This is not that
big of a leap (a leap yes, but not a big one).
Wait until they get Universal Health Care - then they will start to
regulate the hell out of anything considered harmful. And yes,
daily exercise could be a requirement. I can see the logic
now....Hey, if I�m directly paying for that guy�s health care, I
better vote to make sure his fat ass jogs every now and then.
|6.27.06 @ 2:09PM|#
Taktix - I was being facetious with my exercise requirement. It
is scary that we live in an era that something like that can be
believable.
Anyway, regulating 'fast food' is a done deal in a decade's time. I
was naive a decade ago about attempts to ban smoking in private
places, but the smoking bans have gone through very easily. This is
not that big of a leap (a leap yes, but not a big one).
Wait until they get Universal Health Care - then they will start to
regulate the hell out of anything considered harmful. And yes,
daily exercise could be a requirement. I can see the logic
now....Hey, if I'm directly paying for that guy's health care, I
better vote to make sure his fat ass jogs every now and then.
Robert|6.27.06 @ 2:27PM|#
Beth Whelan's all wet if she thinks education would make a
significant impact on obesity. I fuckin' teach Nutrition (college
course) and I'm obese! It's about desire, not knowledge. Even after
my recent heart attack I've lost some weight but now my appetite
has rebounded.
As to the relative proclivities of "left" and "right" (at least in
the USA in this area), the "right", and frequently populists, want
to restrict behaviors of minorities, usually relatively small ones,
but not the things that most people or large enough minorities want
to do. The "left" wants to restrict the things that the majority or
large enough minorities want to do, and to restrict them for their
own ostensible benefit. Also, the "right" is willing to apply
widespread criminal sanctions to both the behavers and their
facilitators, while the "left" is usually content to criminalize
the facilitators of the target behavior, applying only civil
sanctions against the behavers themselves.
|6.27.06 @ 2:32PM|#
i disagree
imo, the right is more prone to want to protect people from others,
whereas the left wants to protect people from themselves. either
tendency can (and does) sometimes result in restrictions of civil
liberties
more importantly, imo, the left is far more prone to criminalizing
thoughtcrimes (tm)
|6.27.06 @ 2:36PM|#
i am in liberal seattle, and most cops i know TOTALLY think
gun control is fascist and retarded
Then why did they arrest the law-abiding citizesn for carrying guns
with permits?
This was your example, not mine. I sincerely doubt they picked them
up because "liberals" on the street corner goaded them into
it.
As for your example of police being anti-gun control, what about
all the police organizations that rallied behind the Brady bill and
the assault weapons bans.
Maybe we're in a game of semantics. To most gun rights types, gun
control means any restriction - even permitting. To others, such as
myself, permitting is generally acceptable as long as a law-abiding
citizen is allowed free and unfettered access. But it's still gun
control.
It's possible I over-stated police sentiments on the issue. But I
imagine most police officers probably fall into the same camp I do
as they have a vested interest in limiting the availability of guns
to criminals. Doesn't that translate into gun control?
|6.27.06 @ 2:47PM|#
they took the guy in...
wait for it...
because their SUPERVISORS told them to do it.
they took the men in under orders from a supervisor. this is the
same type of supervisor who told the cops not to act when kris kime
was being beaten to death during a race riot. political correctness
run amok
this is already documented...
it was on supervisor's orders
and again, you miss the point
the IACP rallied behind the brady bill
the IACP does not represent COPS
it represents POLICE CHIEFS - e.g. copocrat politicians
please note that i already made that distinction
|6.27.06 @ 2:50PM|#
washington state btw. does not require a permit to carry - only
to carry concealed
open carry does not require a permit
limiting criminals gun access may or may not fall under "gun
control" depending on how much of a semantical wank you want to
employ
fwiw, most cops i know support the right of non-felons to carry
firearms on their persons
by most reasonable metrics, this would place them firmly in the gun
rights camp, not the gun control camp
fwiw, i have also never heard of a cop being shot by somebody who
was legally carrying a firearm
this is not to say it doesn't happen, but in all the cases i am
aware of (i work in the court system, and am very up on case law
and incidents) - cops are shot by felons (guys who are ALREADY
felons) with guns.
|6.27.06 @ 2:52PM|#
imo, the right is more prone to want to protect people from
others, whereas the left wants to protect people from themselves.
either tendency can (and does) sometimes result in restrictions of
civil liberties
I've never seen a liberty that a right-winger wouldn't want banned
if they thought they could get away with it..especially the
religious ones.
Trust me, if some kook could make it a religious issue, the right
would be trying to ban fatty food just like they try to ban books,
booze and dancing.
|6.27.06 @ 2:56PM|#
Alright whit...you've convinced me. I'll, of course do some
checking, but you have successfully challenged my assumptions
regarding police attitude toward gun control.
How's that for a thread on fatty food, eh?
|6.27.06 @ 3:05PM|#
sweet, madpad. trust me on the cop thang. my n=many. cops are disgusted that people think IACP positions represent THEIR positions. they do not. i totally disagree with you on the relative threats of the left vs. right but i can't win em all :)
|6.27.06 @ 3:11PM|#
i totally disagree with you on the relative threats of the
left vs. right but i can't win em all
I guess the northwestern right winger is a bit tamer than the
southeastern variety. Don't get me wrong...I'll take a moderate
repulican over just about any other candidate.
But IMHO, while Left wingers are no picnic, Religious Conservatives
downright dangerous. They are far more ruthless and self-oriented
than any other kind of political animal.
|6.27.06 @ 3:11PM|#
"Why is it a false dichotomy?"
Because you offered a choice. You asked the following:
"Which is a bigger threat to your freedom, some bureaucrat at
NSA listening to a few of the billions of phone calls made everyday
or these clowns who are determined to use the full force of
government to control what you can eat."
From where I sit, they're equally odious. Only a contemptible
do-gooding fascist would attempt to regulate what the content of
one's meal is.
Likewise, only an uber-paranoid, tinfoil hat statist would believe
it necessary to spy on the communications of the citizens of a
supposedly free nation.
|6.27.06 @ 3:21PM|#
no, mediageek
they are not just spying on the communications of free
citizens.
they are spying on those who are making phone calls to known al
qaeda contacts outside the US boundaries. that's a GOOD thing
yout post is either disingenuous or a bold faced lie depending on
how generous one is
|6.27.06 @ 3:22PM|#
the right is more prone to want to protect people from
others
For some reason, I don't think we'll ever run out of
"others".
Is it safe yet?
|6.27.06 @ 3:22PM|#
Mediageek,
So if someone comes over here from Afghanistan and calls back to a
known Al Quada contact in Saudi Arabia, you are a tinfoil hat
statist if you think maybe the government ought to be listening
into that conversation? Moreover, only a tinfoil hat statist would
think that the government ought to use computer algorythym to run
through the billions of phone calls made every day in hopes of
locating that call and others like it so that they can listen to
it?
|6.27.06 @ 3:24PM|#
"Why is it a false dichotomy?"
Because you offered a choice.
Is it a false dichotomy whenever a choice is offered?
I can see it now....."Would you like paper or plastic, mam?" "Hey
now, there you go again with your false dichotomies...how do
youexpect me to answer that?"
|6.27.06 @ 3:35PM|#
It's not a false dichotomy when a choice is offered, nor is it a
false dichotomy when the two thing differ to the degree they do in
the original example - the fact that the two choices were BOTH
reprehensible to mediageek doesn't make it a false dichotomy.
It's a false dichotomy when two things that should be mutually
exclusive aren't. For example:
Dichotomy: Would you like paper OR plastic?
False Dichotomy: Would you like paper OR would you like to ride a
bike?
|6.27.06 @ 3:40PM|#
Oops..I'm wrong. Glad I checked.
False dichotomy is when anly 2 choices are offered and more choices
are actually available.
Paper OR plastic is a false dichotomy if say, wicker baskets are
also offered.
|6.27.06 @ 3:42PM|#
regardless of what everyone else says, you really are a pretty
good guy, madpad. Its just a shame you are so damn liberal.
(jokes)
|6.27.06 @ 3:43PM|#
"they are not just spying on the communications of free
citizens."
Um. DUH.
"they are spying on those who are making phone calls to known
al qaeda contacts outside the US boundaries. that's a GOOD
thing"
Yes, but what isn't a good thing is that they feel the need to spy
on people who have nothing whatsoever to do with any form of
terrorism. For reference please see the recent stories about the
NSA tapping into and sorting through all of the internet traffic
that travels through a central hub on, iirc, the west coast.
"yout post is either disingenuous or a bold faced lie depending
on how generous one is"
Oooooh. Yet another false dichotomy.
|6.27.06 @ 3:47PM|#
"So if someone comes over here from Afghanistan and calls
back to a known Al Quada contact in Saudi Arabia, you are a tinfoil
hat statist if you think maybe the government ought to be listening
into that conversation? Moreover, only a tinfoil hat statist would
think that the government ought to use computer algorythym to run
through the billions of phone calls made every day in hopes of
locating that call and others like it so that they can listen to
it?"
The bottom line is that the government should not be spying on the
citizens of the USA unless they have reasonable suspicion and a
warrant. The NSA sifting through all manner of
cell/landline/internet communications in hopes of maybe finding
something should be utterly offensive to anyone who cherishes
liberty.
But I guess you and whit will continue to make thinly-veiled
accusations that I somehow support terrorists.
|6.27.06 @ 3:48PM|#
As relates to John's post...it's not a false dichotomy because
he specifically asks which of 2 are worse. He doesn't infer that
another option can't be worse. Nor does he infer that
there are only 2 bad things. He just posits that one has a greater
impact on his freedoms and that's merely a matter of opinion.
In general, mediageek just plain didn't like either one. But it's
not - as I read it anyway - a false dichotomy.
|6.27.06 @ 3:52PM|#
What is with all this Right vs. Left bullshit? They are fucking nannystater facists regardless if they are Dems or Repubs (Ron Paul excluded). I don't care if they want to restrict my right to carry a gun or restrict what I eat/drink/smoke. Either one is inexcusable!
|6.27.06 @ 3:56PM|#
Want proof, let's look at the Brady Bill shall we?
Senate Votes
House
Votes
If the Republicans had all voted to uphold the citizen's right to
the 2nd amendment this bill would have gone down in flames. But
that, as they say, is history.
|6.27.06 @ 3:57PM|#
thanks gramma. Backhanded compliments are my favorite
kind.
Sadly, I suffer from a malady common to free-thinking individuals
everywhere. My liberal friends all call me conservative and my
conservative friends all call me a liberal. That I have friends at
all in these partisan times often strikes me as miraculous. I
suspect I'm kept around largely for entertainment value. And a make
a mean margarita.
My wife and kids seem to genuinely like me though. And the dog. The
dog's cool to me, too.
|6.27.06 @ 4:03PM|#
I'm plenty against this sort of regulation, though I'm fine with
imposing labelling and informational requirements on larger chain
operations. But gee, what a surprise that the mesure is vocally
opposed by an organization that specializes in defending the likes
of large oil, chemical, pharma and processed-food companies against
public-health-related charges and gets its
funding largely from the likes of...
the oil, chemical, pharma and processed-food industries.
For a magazine and foundation that purport to occupy a
phiosophically-based high ground, you folks certainly do pass along
quite a bit of astroturfing without questioning it. A rightside
from the New York Sun, no less.
|6.27.06 @ 4:08PM|#
Regarding police officers and gun control:
Several magazines published specifically for police offers have
surveyed their readership on gun control. The trend was that most
police officers who actually walked a beat on the street (the
majority) tended to oppose gun control. However, higher-ranking
officers such as police chiefs and commissioners were more likely
to support gun control. (It has been noted that the latter tend to
be more "political" and had incentives to publicly align themselves
with their city mayors, who in big cities are more likely to be
liberal Democrats.)
I originally looked this info up some years ago and posted it on
the now-defunct forum intellectualoutcastscafe.com. Right now I am
having a hard time finding the info. So far I've turned up that
Law Enforcement Technology did a survey of its readership
(mostly cops) in 1991 and found that 75% opposed gun control. And
every year some national association of police chiefs does a survey
every year and the 2006 survey found that 90%+ of police chiefs
"favor individual gun rights" but that's a little vague for me.
Another publication that did a survey was Southern
something-or-other-related-to-police, but it might be culturally
(because regionally) more biased against gun control than the
country as a whole. That's all I can find or remember right
now.
If I have time later, I'll try to post some links. Although I am
also handicapped by Reason's "one link per post" rule.
|6.27.06 @ 4:17PM|#
they took the guy in...
wait for it...
because their SUPERVISORS told them to do it.
Just following orders, civilian, nothing wrong with that, now is
there?
|6.27.06 @ 4:28PM|#
Yeah, seriously! I've got two blond-haired blue eyed kids to
feed! You expect me to NOT "just follow orders"?
Now where are my flash grenades...
|6.27.06 @ 4:34PM|#
stevo, great post. especially since it confirmed my memory and
posting. :)
you are right. it was not FBI Law Enforcement Journal that the
article was in. It was Law Enforcement Technology.
the results are also very common sense. *real* cops are against gun
control - iow those who actually DO police work (and who also
happen not to be spineless political appointees) realize that gun
control hurts law abiding citizens, justice, and cops for that
matter
also note that this has zero to do with selfish interests so to
speak, since cops can carry even in the most restrictive states
pretty much anywhere "on their badge", yet they support the right
of the 'average joe' to carry a gun too.
i think this is an underreported (and as seen in this thread) a
misunderstood phenomenon. if there is ever a good piece of evidence
that gun rights are good for law abiding citizens and bad for
criminals, it is the fact that those that know the most about crime
and criminals are NOT pro gun control
it also belies the anti-gun leftists' claims as being somehow for
"power to the people". there is nothing more disempowering to a
citizen than taking away his ability to defend himself.
not to mention that gun control disproportionately negatively
affects - women (since they are physically weaker), blacks (since
they are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime),
etc.
i also think the poster who had claimed that those against gay
marriage "hate" gays might want to use that same "logic" against
the left cause the left does not support the right of gays (or
straights) to carry guns in self defense
few things offer more of a deterrent to a gay basher, than a
centerpunched .40 S&W jacketed hollowpoint (except maybe a .45
acp :)
|6.27.06 @ 4:35PM|#
What is with all this Right vs. Left bullshit? They are
fucking nannystater facists regardless if they are Dems or
Repubs
Agreed. "Power" seems to be a more reliable indicator of
nanny-state tendencies than Left or Right. Proof: all my liberal
friends here in NYC are more conservative than the average Democrat
on city council. Is it any surprise that the desire to run the city
correlates with the desire to run people's lives?
|6.27.06 @ 4:39PM|#
whit...you had me up to the gay bit. Then the ice started to
crack around your hyperbole.
In the end, the whole liberal-bashing plain doesn't hold up to the
similar - or equally bad - offenses on the right.
Interesting attempt, though.
|6.27.06 @ 4:40PM|#
John, the reason you're taking heat is because you are inconsistent. You hate liberals for the same thing GOPers do. Most of us around here hate invasions of our privacy and government-knows-best attitudes, and we don't see a whole lot of difference between Dems and GOPers. If Bill Clinton was behind the wiretapping, would you think it OK? Your posts seem to classify invasions of privacy and nanny-statism as acceptable as long as those promoting your particular point of view are the one's doing it. That isn't a belief system, that's partisan hackery.
|6.27.06 @ 4:42PM|#
i also think the poster who had claimed that those against
gay marriage "hate" gays might want to use that same "logic"
against the left cause the left does not support the right of gays
(or straights) to carry guns in self defense
At least "the left" (who are neither universal nor the only
supporters of gun control) apply their desire to control guns to
everyone equally. Unlike your discriminatory desire to control
marriage.
|6.27.06 @ 4:55PM|#
hey rhywun, try some READING COMPREHENSION
i never said i didn't support gay marriage.
i said that many who did do not HATE gays
duh
and of course marriage discriminates. it discriminates also against
polygamists, and people who want to marry their sister.
the question is
1) is it a legal discrimination (iow, is it constitutional to do
so)
2) is it good as a policy issue to do so (discriminate against
incestuous marriages, gay marriages, polygamous/polyandrous
marriages)
those are legitimate questions.
saying people who think marriage should be limited to monogamist
"opposite sex" (i don't believe men and women are "opposite)
couples = "hate" is where the rhetoric gets stupid
and the left does nto discriminate against everyon e equally vis a
vis gun control
for example, the rallying cry against "saturday night specials" was
a rallying cry against INEXPENSIVE guns which clearly does not
affect everyone equal. it singles out poor people, whom the left
SUPPOSEDLY want to help
and despite what somebody claimed above, i don't think either the
left/right or liberals/conservatives are blameless.
i think they BOTH SUCK
i just think that liberals, on average, tend to suck more - when it
comes to civil liberties, rights, and freedoms.
that is not just supported by the case law i have read, but by my
personal experiences.
"all politics is local"
here in WA state
1) internet gambling a felony
2) smoking prohibited in all private businesses and 25 ft from
same
3) lap dances prohibited
4) private property confiscated without compensation (at least kelo
gives compensation) by the CAO
5) unconstitutional "no free speech zones" during WTO
6) hate crime laws
7) criminalization of recycling laws
are all LOCAL laws that affect me (potentially) and all were passed
by liberals who want to control people's personal lives.
the nannystate sux.
|6.27.06 @ 5:43PM|#
i never said i didn't support gay marriage.
Sorry if I inferred otherwise from your words. However, your
continual insistence on equating gays with those who practice
incest and polygamy speaks volumes.
|6.27.06 @ 6:07PM|#
I suppose it could be true that not everyone that supports a ban on gay marriage hates gays. In much the same way that supporters of laws banning blacks from eating at the same restaurants and attending the same schools as whites did not hate black people. Just like the segregationists of the past, gay marriage ban supporters are only interested in protecting their beloved institutions from the ravages that will inevitably be inflicted upon them by a certain undesirable group of people. But it has nothing to do with hate, just a reasonable belief that not everyone deserves equal rights and equal treatment under the law.
|6.27.06 @ 6:10PM|#
Whit & Rhywun,
This whole marriage thing is pretty damn simple. Eliminate the
government sponsorship of any form of marriage. Allow only civil
unions, and then allow those for as many people as want to be
involved. If your church rejects gay polygamous marriage the
government has it covered. If my church enforces
gay/mixed/polygamous marriage then the governemnent has me covered
as well. No church, no problem, Uncle Sam will cover that civil
union too! If you get married to more than one person at a time,
maybe a discount for paperwork filing is in order but other than
that the government should have ZERO say in any consentual
relationship or transaction.
|6.27.06 @ 6:38PM|#
whit,
"in seattle, the city council now makes it a CRIME to dispose of
recyclables in your trash. they also authorize trash workers to
"search" your trash for recyclables. note that the WA supreme court
doesn't even let cops investigating CRIMES (real ones) search trash
w.o a warrant."
I've been waiting for this to happen in San Francisco. I sure hope
it doesn't happen across the bay in Alameda County. The day someone
is authorized to search my garbage on a weekly basis will be the
day I say "enough" and get busy with a lawsuit against my local
government.
Well, I hope I'd have the gumption to do it...
Jennifer|6.27.06 @ 6:40PM|#
My point is that I think these types of things along with
crap like DUI check points (in fairness favored by politicians of
both parties it seems) infringes on my freedom a hell of a lot more
than what the Republicans are doing. I doubt my phone will be
tapped anytime soon or that I will want to have a gay
marriage
And I'm not black, so it's no skin off my nose if the darkies can't
vote. Such laws didn't infringe upon my freedom at
all.
|6.27.06 @ 6:45PM|#
madpad,
"Trust me, if some kook could make it a religious issue, the right
would be trying to ban fatty food just like they try to ban books,
booze and dancing."
You bet they would. Isn't gluttony a sin, after all?
Probably what has stopped them so far is that if you take away
drink, tobacco, dancing, and sex, there ain't a whole lot remaining
but food and general sloth to indulge yourself in...and most still
need an outlet of some kind.
|6.27.06 @ 7:28PM|#
This whole marriage thing is pretty damn simple. Eliminate
the government sponsorship of any form of marriage.
I've seen that point many times here, and it's an attractive idea -
but I don't think it's at all plausible. We all know that getting
the state OUT of some business is a lot harder than getting it in.
Therefore, this argument is still worth having.
|6.27.06 @ 7:33PM|#
true, van. Those Southern Baptist conservatives do like their
barbecue & sweet tea.
BTW whit, regarding your feelings that liberals are better than
conservatives on some nannystate issues you care about. Your list
of issues included smoking & smokers rights.
If you haven't already seen it, check out Jacob Sollum's latest
post regarding today's Surgeon General's report. That's the current
surgeon general...appointed by a conservative. Seems he wants
smoking outlawed where politically feasable.
Personally, I could care less about smokers as long as they smoke
at least 25 feet away from me (the 25 ft thing is a joke so laugh,
dammit) and don't give their welfare brats emphesema.
But it helps me maintain my assertion that in their heart of
hearts, conservatives are no better than liberals.
|6.27.06 @ 8:30PM|#
the smoking thing is a matter of PRIVATE business. assume for
the sake of argument that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous . SO WHAT? in
a private business, if u don't want the exposure - don't go there,
and don't work there.
a *real* libertarian respects the right of private business owners,
and patrons to make their OWN decisions about these risks. a
nannystate proponent does not
a free market means that any business owner can CHOOSE to ban
smoking, but the state won't MAKE them do it. that's the
difference
i don't care if the surgeon general is repub or dem. that's not the
point. i said that repubs, IN general, are better with civil rights
and liberties imo. i have also said they BOTH suck.
"However, your continual insistence on equating gays with those who
practice incest and polygamy speaks volumes."
you are lying. i never equated anybody. this is not about equting
people, it's about marraige. furthermore, do *you* have something
AGAINST polygamy. why shouldn't polygamists have "equal rights' to
marry? there is far more biological and historical basis for
polygamy than there is for gay marriage, and at least as much
EPClause claim.
i never EQUATED anybody. gay marriage is not about how much gays
are or aren't like polygamists, or people who do incest
(pwdi)
but marriage discrimination discriminates against ALL 3
groups.
so, it is instructive, especially if one is making an equal
protection clause argument to determine which, if ANY of the
marriage prohibitions is
1) constitutional
2) good policy
*if* one accepts an EPC argument, then *clearly* polygamy is at
least as legally required, if not MORE so, than gay marriage
the primary difference is that polyamists don't have a strong lobby
and political advocacy
on a historical and practical basis, there is clearly far mor
precendent for polygAmy than gay marriage.
as for incest, apart from the birth defects argument (which would
be irrelevant among same sex couples or those with infertile
members), similar arguments could be made
i get very tired of those who SUPPOSEDLY view gay marriage as a
right, and those who are against gay marriage as being
'discriminatory' against gays - then FAIL to apply similar
standardds to polygamists and those who are pro incest
it also amazes me the lack of reading comprehension.
just because i am pro-chocie doesn't mean i have personally had an
abortion.
similarly, just because i argue that many (most) anti-gay marriage
folks are not "haters' does not mean i am anti-gay marriage.
|6.27.06 @ 8:35PM|#
oh btw. what makes you think the current surgeon general was
appointed "by a conservative"
if he was appointed by bush, he clearly was NOT appointed by a
conservative.
bush is not a conservative.
he's a right moderate with authoritarian tendencies.
|6.27.06 @ 8:54PM|#
bush is not a conservative
I hear that argument a lot...from conservatives. I see some merit
in it. But since he ran as a conservative and millions of
conservatives put him there (twice) AND most of his cabinet, staff
and court picks are conservatives from my view all we're arguing
are points of style. Some of his decisions are plainly NOT
conservative but in general, if it walks like a duck...
In any case, you and I appear to agree they both suck so I say,
let's go get a beer. I'm drinking Fosters...how 'bout you?
|6.28.06 @ 12:36AM|#
Police opinions on gun control, links...
Links are getting harder to find, I think because the surveys are
now around 15 years old. But here are some:
(Having trouble posting a post with multiple links ... remove
spaces after the W's.)
www. io.com/~velte/cop-poll.htm
www.
ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_kb&Itemid=57&page=articles&articleid=23
mensnewsdaily.com/blog/kouri/2006/03/2006-police-chiefs-poll-terrorism-gun_02.html
Site no longer available, but the Google cache is.
|6.28.06 @ 9:52AM|#
i don't care how he marketed himself.
he is NOT a conservative
reagan could claim that mantle.
bush - i couldn't veto a spending bill if my life depended on it -
cannot.
sure conservatives, in the large part voted for him. and liberals
didn't. that's kind of irrelevant.
conservatives will tend to vote for any candidate right of center,
over one that is left of center. bush is most definitely right of
center - he's just not a conservative.
similarly, clinton was left of center - but not a liberal.
clinton was a left moderate (prodeath penalty, etc.)
Kerry can certainly claim the mantle of liberal, although he ran
from the label.
i consider myself a right moderate, but i have a libertarian
tendency, whereas bush has an authoritarian tendency. and he spends
like a second wife with a platinum card.
i am drinking a redhook ESB
good on ya mate
|6.28.06 @ 10:06AM|#
If you think Smoking bans are of the left wing creation, I offer
this.
NYC smoking ban was first brought to light by a Republican mayor.
That was in effect until a Republican govenor signed a state wide
smoking ban.
In the state of Arkansas the new smoking ban was signed by a
Republican govenor.
Arkansas is attempting to ban smoking in your CAR!!! This is
supported by their Republican govener.
Neither side has a monopoly on creating laws that replaces your
freedom to choose with government
dictation.
When we, as a society start arguing which side of government is
restricing best, we are screwed and freedom becomes something we no
longer defend.
|6.28.06 @ 10:18AM|#
nobody said either side has a monopoly
here we go with the strawmen again.
i said, fwiw, that imo and ime, the left is worse.
but they both suck
again, and i have seen this time and again (living in dem run
states), dems TEND to want to 'protect us from ourselves' whereas
repubs spend more time with external enemies (real or
contrived).
in practical effect, ime, this makes the dems worse on a relative
level of suckitude scale.
sure, there are some republicans who support smoking bans. some
also support gun control *(guiliani and ahnold come to mind),
however it's still primarily a left wing problem in the same way
that despite the fact that SOME dems support gun rights, the
oppositions to gun rights PRIMARILY come from the left
|6.28.06 @ 10:35AM|#
i am drinking a redhook ESB
Redhook...haven't had one of those in a while.
BTW, I see your TEND and raise you a TREND...as in conservatives
have TENDed to be less 'save us from ourselves" but now are
TRENDing to become just as big a pain in the ass as the liberals.
Saddest of all is that most self-identified conservatives have
drifted along with the increasingly rationalized positions to the
point that most don't resemble a conservative of even 5 years
ago.
But as the drift to nannydom is by no means complete, I'll enjoy
the admittedly still modest differences...for the short time
they're likely to last.
And I'll pray. That makes me feel better. That and beer. And
margaritas. Did I mention martinis? And kosher hotdogs. Which,
interestingly enough, is pretty close to where I got on this bus
yesterday.
|6.28.06 @ 11:12AM|#
if u want to read about some truly chilling pc-nannystate
thought control caselaw
check out...
www.thefire.org
great case law cites
|6.28.06 @ 11:50AM|#
i get very tired of those who SUPPOSEDLY view gay marriage
as a right, and those who are against gay marriage as being
'discriminatory' against gays - then FAIL to apply similar
standardds to polygamists and those who are pro incest
You see anything that's not monogomous and hetero as part of some
'other' category that has to be dealt with all at once. The world
ain't that simple.
|6.28.06 @ 1:18PM|#
no, *i* don't see it that way
society does.
see, there is this pesky little reality that the centuries old
human created institution of marriage *has* previously previously
included incestuous and polygamous marriages.
those are not fundamental redefinitions of same. gay marriage *is*.
that's factual, not even debatable.
so, at a minimum, *if* some are pushing gay marriage as an
EPC/Rights issue, then we don't deny those same rights to those who
are discriminated against, but don't happen to have the same Rosie
odonnell friendly pressure groups.
to paraphrase - apparently some are more equal than others (rolls
eyes)
|6.28.06 @ 1:21PM|#
oh also...
by the op's (moronic) "logic" that all who oppose gay marriage
(like the democratic party platform does, but i digress) are
"hateful", then i hope same OP includes all those GAY PEOPLE who
for many many years have argued in the advocate, the Village Voice,
etc. that gays shouldn't get married, nor should there be such a
thing as "gay marriage" (one argument runs that marriage is a
heteronormative institution that gays should not buy into). maybe
those are "self hating gays" (rolls eyes... again)
oh, the irony
|6.28.06 @ 2:02PM|#
(rolls eyes) ... (rolls eyes... again)
Guess what? Random writers in The Advocate and The Village Voice
don't speak for all gays.
But anyway, I give up - have it your way. From now on, when two of
my gay friends tell me that they want the same recognition, rights,
and responsibilities that man/woman unions have always enjoyed,
I'll tell them that their fight is meaningless unless it includes
incest and polygamy. All or nothing!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245