A top public health expert is calling for a health tax on butter, saying it's "pure, natural poison" and as bad as cigarettes.
New Zealanders eat more butter per head than any other nationality and Auckland University epidemiologist Professor Rod Jackson says that's why our cholesterol levels are also among the world's highest.
"We have a health tax on alcohol and cigarettes and there should be a health tax on butter. It's the most poisonous commonly consumed food in New Zealand. It's about the purest form of saturated fat you can eat and it has no protein and no calcium. Butter has had all the good things taken out and just left the poison."
That's right...the new cigarette in New Zealand is butter. Fortunately, not everyone is quite as far Left:
Jim Mann, professor in human nutrition at Otago University, said while a health tax on butter was a brilliant idea "it ain't going to happen - even a Labour government is never going to go there so it's not worth wasting emotional energy on."
Associate Health Minister Damien O'Connor said a health tax on butter would be naive and impractical, but said butter should be eaten in moderation.
This is how it should be handled: don't waste your time with this effort, just be reasonable in your eating habits (this is a vanishing concept called individual responsibility). Still, do you now understand what I'm talking about with the smoking ban? It won't stop with smoking. Remember trans-fats? How about eggs, coffee, oatmeal, carrots, Nutri-sweet, and any of the other things that Leftists have declared to be horrendously dangerous? It's ridiculous!
But, this is precisely what I was warning you about. It's all about control. The liberal Left thirsts for control and power, and any way they can dictate what you do, say, buy, think, or feel is something they will pursue. They want an all-powerful nanny state that provides all things to all people, because then they can control everyone.
Pay attention when anything is banned. Even if you're a non-smoker, chances are good that you consume eggs and Nutri-sweetened coffee in the morning, or many things with trans-fats in them, right? Just because it's not your thing that's being banned today doesn't mean it won't be your thing tomorrow. Pay attention and take action...
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
I really find it hard to follow your logic (based on many of your posts). You often say "Liberals just resort to name-calling...shame on them, they can't win on the facts" (or something like that). BUT, you then post things labeling left-leaning people "Leftist" "nanny-state"-wanting "nutballs." And you've done it in multiple posts.
Why is name-calling ok for you, but such a travesty for someone else?
And FYI, I don't think this article proves your point...this is ONE professor in NEW ZEALAND calling for a tax on butter. It's not like there was some government action involved.
Also, what evidence do you have for the guy's political leanings? He could just be a health nut (who I believe come from both sides of the aisle). Did you just assume? Did you forget to read past the part "calling for a health tax on butter"? You know what they say happens when you assume, right?
So, just to get this straight:
1. You assumed this guy was a "Leftist" with no evidence, other than the fact that he advocated a tax on butter.
2. You called him a "Nutball" even though name-calling is generally (according to you) an indication that a debate can't be won on the facts.
3. You applied ONE epidemiology professor's view on butter in NEW ZEALAND to predict a liberal desire for sweeping, all-consuming control of the totality of food health decisions in AMERICA.
If that's your two cents worth, I want some change.
Anonymous - I don't know if you're the same 'Anonymous' who commented on my conservative policy discussion earlier this week, but you sound very similar. Some of that conversation could easily apply to this one, too.
Regarding the name-calling...I'm poking fun in order to get a rise out of liberals, and I do it whether I'm winning an argument or not. As a relative nobody, I have the luxury of using that tactic. But, if you look at prominent liberals on TV shows and other national forums, there is a consistent pattern of behavior when they get boxed into a discussion of facts, history, and policies: attack your adversary by assassinating their character or calling them names. This is an observation that many conservatives have noticed (as have I personally), and I stand by it. My little fun-poking is simply a reference to this phenomenon.
And, I'm sorry, I just can't help pointing out that you seem to be repulsed by the suggestion that left-leaning people are "Leftists". How exactly is that wrong? And how is socialism not a nanny state? Liberals clearly want socialism, so that must mean they want a nanny state. Again, how is that wrong? You're correct that 'nutballs' is my word, but I think I can make a pretty good argument for that. ;)
Another fun fact I've noticed about liberals is that they have a tendency to parse words into meanings that are wholly different. It might make one wonder why they have to twist things into meaning something other than what they actually mean... Why is it that conservatives brag about being 'more' conservative, but liberals get offended at being called 'liberal'? What are they hiding?
Anyway, yes, this is one professor in New Zealand with a crackpot idea. But, you have to look at these things in a larger scope. Today's laughable idea is tomorrow's policy. Remember how people scoffed at the notion that prayer could ever be outlawed in schools? How about the fact that abortion would ever be made legal? Gay marriage? When such an idea is first offered, it comes with significant shock value, and usually gets shot down. Then the idea will come up again, and it's a little less shocking. If it keeps coming up, pretty soon people aren't so shocked by it, and eventually it gets ignored to the point that it becomes policy. All it takes is a sustained, determined effort to continue battering down the defenses of those who oppose it.
Today the big thing is smoking, but we've already seen proposals to 'ban' things like foie gras, trans-fats, and any number of other foods that have been deemed unhealthy. There's also light bulbs, gas guzzling cars, trimming back natural underbrush, and any number of other things we can't do (or are on the way to not doing) because of liberals. Now we can add consuming butter to the list.
The problem is that if you look at the larger scope, there is no logical end point of these proposals. The farther down this road we go in the name of legislating 'healthy' behaviors, the more difficult it will be to stop it in the future. This is a very bad thing because we will end up with the government dictating literally what we can and can't eat. When we get to that sad state of affairs, we are not free!
If you can't see the endgame, stop playing with the introduction.
Sorry, I'm all out of pennies, so no change for you!
Post a Comment