Liberals want to police our food, but not our streets

by Optimistic Patriot

A couple of days ago my wife and I went shopping early in the morning. We left before eating breakfast so we grabbed a quick sandwich at Dunkin Donuts. As we ordered, I noticed a metal tree full of bananas next to the cash register. Care to guess how many slots were missing bananas? Yes, it’s not shocking that bananas aren’t real popular at Dunkin Donuts whose customers really want coffee, donuts, and other treats full of “evil” trans fats.

So has Dunkin Donuts taken leave of its senses by including foods its customers largely ignore? Our friend the banana is an attempt to stave off the food police who are making their latest protests for greater control over our diets. Liberals of all stripes believe that any cause shown to be a marginal good is reason enough to intrude upon your freedom. But the most interesting thing about the trans fat crusade is what it says about liberal priorities. The same people who aren’t inclined to protect us from hardened criminals have no problem using the power of government to control what you eat. Criminals have rights; law abiding taxpayers need the government to criminalize and police what they eat. It’s an interesting dichotomy to say the least.

Archived in: Liberals, Protests

October 24, 2006 at 10:43 am | Trackback

10 comments

1 Gayle Miller { 10.24.06 at 2:12 pm }: If I want to indulge in a Dunkin Donut or Krispy Kreme, that is MY business entirely. I’m 64 doggone years old and in good health and yes, I could lose 20-30 pounds and sure I should quit my 3-pack/week smoking habit - but my lungs are clear, my blood pressure is fine and I enjoy my life so if the food police don’t like it, they can go talk to someone who gives a rip!
2 Rhod { 10.24.06 at 6:42 pm }: How many cartoon characters or silent film actors have been hurt in a slip-and-fall involving a Dunkin Donut? None. Therefore the banana is more lethal than a Dunkin Donut.
3 Hooks { 10.24.06 at 8:33 pm }: As you blather away about those evil liberals, pay no attention to the fact that Allied Domecq’s (the parent company of Dunkin Donuts) political donations favor Republicans by a margin of 3 to 1.

http://www.buyblue.org/node/3120/view/summary
4 Optimistic Patriot { 10.24.06 at 9:48 pm }: Ok, Hooks. What their political donations have to do with the liberal food police is beyond me? I guess you have a point in their somewhere although it escapes me.
5 Rhod { 10.25.06 at 6:26 am }: OP, don’t you see it? Hooks’ point is that businesses which contribute to Republicans must have their product choices criminalized. Thanks, Hooks. AT least your’re an honest authoritarian.
6 Optimistic Patriot { 10.25.06 at 11:29 am }: Rhod, I think you have that nailed. He really meant they should go after Republican donors although the food industry seems like an odd place to start. You’d think they’d be targeting Fox News.
7 Rhod { 10.25.06 at 3:11 pm }: OP:

Hooks was inadvertently honest, or more likely he didn’t consider the implications of what he said (liberals don’t). The Hooks Principle is very flexible. I’m applying it to my push for tax penalties for all businesses owned or operated by people with foreign accents. They remind me of George Soros, dammit, or Ted Kennedy, and the lash is just too good for them.
8 Rhod { 10.25.06 at 3:13 pm }: One more thing OP. Fox News? That Napolitano guy has a funny hairline. He’s gotta go. The Hooks Principle, you know.
9 Nico { 12.07.06 at 2:25 pm }: You think liberals are the only ones “intruding upon your freedom?”

Why don’t you check out which side voted to ban online poker.
10 Optimistic Patriot { 12.08.06 at 12:50 am }: I agree. I have no problem with people gambling. However, I suspect restrictive gambling laws are driven by revenue fears more than anything else. Casinos and other forms of legal gambling would put a big dent in lottery and scratch ticket sales. Why share gambling dollars with a casino when state governments can keep 100% for themselves?