Hmm, well, I suppose artificial trans fats are technically a “type of food”, but AFAICT they seem more like a food additive: a byproduct of processing food (i.e., partially hydrogenating oils) that ends up in the resulting food product.
I mean, arsenic occurs naturally in small quantities in food too, just as trans fats do, but that doesn’t mean that the government has no business regulating it. I have to admit that I don’t really feel oppressed when the government sets limits on how much more arsenic can be added to food by the manufacturers before they sell it for us to eat.
City of LA banning fast food restaurants (through zoning laws in one section of town) in the hope that eateries offering healthier menus will open instead.
Hydrogenated vegetable oil is not a by product of processing food. It is a cheap and convenient ingredient manufactured specifically to make foods more shelf stable. It is not present in foods in any significant level unless the manufacturer wants it there.
Let me get this straight: the government regulating things that could potentially kill people is not okay. But if the material in question causes boners instead of tumors, then you have no problem with the government stepping in and telling people how to live their lives?
How on Earth do you reconcile those two positions?
I hear they’re gonna regulate for only all-natural fish, and when the gov’t raiders question the automated fish processing tool, the innocent doe-eyed cook shouts “it’s not a bonah!”
It’s important to remember that people have very different reasons for disagreeing with the left-wingers. (Same is true both ways, of course, but we’re just talking about one side here.) I know plenty–and some more on this board–who have problems with the means, not the ends. I know plenty of states’ righers who think it’s just plain old not the business of the federal government to step in to some of these topics. This is a strong argument, not one from some kind of faux-moral standpoint on the question, but one about the organization of society overall. (It is curious that this view is usually coupled with other views, but that borders on ad hominim issues, among others.)
For instance, if we think there should be a right to privacy strong enough to guarantee abortion, then the mechanism for this is already available. This is just plain ol’ true.
I, on the other hand, have a huge problem with the Supreme Court granting itself power over every public space in the country. Public buildings, parks, monuments, and so forth exist for the use and enjoyment of the public. If ninety-nine percent of the residents of a city wish to have a cross in their park while one percent do not, then the park serves its purpose better with the cross than without.
You’re entitled to your opinion about what school is for, but that one certainly has nothing in common with the statement of purpose for any school I’ve ever seen. By your standard, we’d have to throw out all classes of literature, art, music, dance, physical education and sports, plus much of history, geography, science, and economics. There’d be nothing much left beyond grammar and mathematics.
It’s actually rather straightforward why most of us want this. We want this so that we can live in a place that’s free from pornography.
To the vast majority of people, Christian displays in a courthouse announce that they can expect fairness and decency. Many see the absence of such displays as an announcement that they can expect an assault on freedom and dignity. This is hardly surprising, given that our rights can be traced back to Christian societies, while societies that militantly oppose religion typically also oppose human freedom and dignity. (Just anyone who fled for their life from China, Cuba, North Korea, the former Soviet block, …)
I think it should be decided that the extremes of both wings should be hereby disregarded. That the center deserves to win the “Culture War” all the way, once and for all.
I want to live in a place that’s free of racists. The difference between thee and me is that I don’t think that the force of the government and the threat of prosecution should be used to make sure my area is how I might want it to be.
Well, that and a belief in the First Amendment, too.
Free from public pornography, or do you want it so that you can control the content of other people’s magazine and video collections that you never see anyway?
I don’t believe this - I don’t believe that an absence of a crucifix behind the judge tells people that they’re now under the law of a totalitarian dictatorship. That’s ludicrous - especially when one considers that the majority of courthouses don’t have and never have had such imagery.
This is probably the most backwards interpretation of “power” I’ve ever heard. The state is not there to encourage any religion. This not about the justices dictating something to the poor oppressed majority. It’s about the friggin’ constitution!
Gay people can have civil unions, but not marry. Black people can ride the bus, but not in the white seating areas. Slavery should be abolished, but slowly and with compensation for the poor slave owners.
The positions of the center vary depending on the time we are talking about. But when it comes to issues regarding other people’s rights, they don’t tend to be very good.
I don’t know about countries, but the state of Alabama is talking about tacking surcharges on the health insurance of state employees who are obese unless they submit to a yearly examination and counseling about their weight and eating habits. That’s Big Brotherish (or maybe Big Nurse-ish) enough to bother me. How about you?
Banning transfats doesn’t seem any more unreasonable to me than banning dangerous preservatives or food colorings, or requiring food processing employees to have clean hands and wear hairnets.
The Supreme Court did not grant *itself *power over every public space in the country. It granted equal power to *all *the taxpayers who pay for those spaces. Even the ones who aren’t Christian.
You already do, assuming that your home is free of pornography.
That’s just… silly, frankly. I interpret religious displays in a courthouse as simply a blatant violation of separation of Church and State. I’m neutral regarding religions. I am not remotely neutral regarding the separation of Church and State, which benefits **all **citizens.
Do you understand that you are protected by these very laws you despise? Would you understand it if Christians were suddenly NOT the majority?
I think the point here is that the absence of a cross or other religious symbol in a court room doesn’t guarantee that you will be treated fairly no matter what your religion is, nor does the presence of one necessarily mean that you will be treated unfairly. There were no crosses in the courts of the Soviet Union, one of the most thoroughly secular governments that ever existed, and yet they persecuted many people for belonging to the wrong religion.