Why liberals piss me off (Part 4)

From June of this year: KFC Sued Over Trans Fats: Watchdog Group Says Partially Hydrogenated Oils Take Years Off Life

Today, KFC announces ich kapitulieren!: KFC to eliminate trans fats from food

Thank you Mr. Center for Science in the Public Interest. I am so glad you are looking out for me. I’ll be sure to obey what you say ’cause you know better than I do. I’m just a stupid, uneducated taxpaying American that needs to be looked after like a new-born puppy. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Damn it people, wake up! Is this America or some kind kind of new socialist wimpatorium?

29 thoughts on “Why liberals piss me off (Part 4)”

  1. george, i know what you disagree with is the method – i disagree with it too. People can suggest restaurants to take a healthier stance, but legal should not come into this. Regulating trans fat? does the government have nothing better to do?

  2. The libs are only “pro-choice” when it’s their choice you can make. God forbid you ingest trans fats, but killing unborn babies, that’s OK. They make me sick.

  3. im more or less quoting from a book, the armchair economist, by steven landesburg, there is a section where he discusses the family leave act, and a debate between gore and quayle, and gore asks quayle why he didnt make the leave act mandatory, this was right after they discussed the right to choose/ abortion.. as long as you make their choice, everything will be alright..

  4. Pardon me for being naive but how is this a liberal or conservative issue? Trans fat adds nothing to the flavor or taste of these foods and is more damaging than other cooking oils.

    There choice here is between cooking oil that will lead to heart issues much quicker than the other type of cooking oil.

    This doesn’t take any choices away from anybody. You would still be able to get your Original Recipe chicken and have it taste the exact same way.

    In terms of limiting choices, I live in Arizona where there are trying to ban smoking in all public places and that is being led by Republicans. So I don’t think any of this is a clear liberal vs. conservative debate.

  5. Conservatives — real ones — detest any intrusion into what INDIVIDUALS choose to do, unless it is illegal.

    (This is one of the reasons I want Roe v. Wade overturned; while they are the law of the land all we can do is yell and scream about it.)

    Nobody has any business forcing a legal business, through the machanism of legal extortion, to change what it chooses to sell that consumers want to buy. Period. I warned everybody when they did it to cigarettes that it would be used with ANY product the libs feel is just not good. And here we are a mere ten years later.

    I will never buy from KFC again simply because the capitulated like cowards to the CSPC.

  6. George,

    You lost me on this one. “Conservatives . . . detest any intrusion into what INDIVIDUALS choose to do, unless it is illegal.” Isn’t that a circular argument.

    Isn’t it just a matter of what each “team” considers “illegal.” Liberals would pass laws declaring politically incorrect speech, school prayer, sale of certain foods, etc. “illegal.” Conservatives would seek to enforce the same type of prohibitions on possession of drugs, nude sun bathing, same sex marriages, dirty magazines, etc. and call these activities “illegal.” (just to quickly name a few areas).

    By doing this, aren’t conservatives intruding into the private lives of individuals as much as liberals? The only difference I see is that one side deems certain things offensive, and the other side has a different laundry list of “dirty deeds” that ought to be proscribed. But, they both seek to control the private conduct of adult human beings. How am I wrong here?

  7. Actually, liberals intrude more with very subtle laws. Their willing accomplices in the press have turned the argument into one of “religious zealotry” and how conservatives want to run the lives of Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    There are issues I believe in deeply that I will not waver on — abortion is one — where it appears that I am interfering with someone’s rights. However, since the end result of that is the murder of an unborn child, I have no problem making it as illegal as murder.

    The other issues I believe in as a conservative — low taxation, minimal regulation, a strong defense, pre-emptive war, etc. — have nothing to do with social engineering. In fact, low taxation and minimal regulation get the government out of our lives, not put them in.

    By and large, though, the libs are the ones that pass laws to further a social engineering agenda. These issues, the ones they care about are the ones that, in the end, intrude on our rights as individuals and property owners.

    Now, if you are asking whether all Republicans today are “conservative” or not, that’s another Pandora’s box I don’t have time to answer today…

  8. “Conservatives — real ones — detest any intrusion into what INDIVIDUALS choose to do, unless it is illegal.”

    Well, the Republican-led Congress passed a law which was signed last week to make the transfer of money to online gaming sites illegal. So basically they made online poker illegal. The worst part is that this bill was added on to a port security bill at the last minute by Republicans and it would have made it political suicide for anyone to vote against it.

    So Republicans reached into my computer and told me how I can spend my hard-earned money. That sure seems to be intrusion to me. Where is the outrage?

  9. Just thought I’d point out that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is not the government. They do advocate for government legislation on this issue, but in this particular instance this is a nonprofit group suing one company to get it to change and the company changing of its own volition. So it’s not government regulation. I don’t think pressure from interest groups is necessarily a bad thing — groups on the right do the same thing. I wouldn’t equate it with government regulation like the proposed bans in NYC and NJ.

    The funny thing is that the main reason trans fats have become so common in restaurants is because these same health advocates offered partially hydrogenated oils as healthier alternatives to saturated fat. So restaurants switched, thinking they were providing healthier options for their customers.

    I really hope that the next restaurant company sued actually takes this to court. I can’t imagine a judge not ruling in the company’s favor. If I’m not mistaken, in the cigarette lawsuit, tobacco companies had actually increased nicotine contents in order to really hook their customers. I mean, you can’t prove a bit of malice in this instance; restaurants thought they were offering a healthier option.

    Maybe the National Restaurant Association should sue whoever it was who pressured them to switch to partially hydrogenated oils in the first place.

  10. George,

    You are right whether Republicans today are “conservative” or not is an interesting issue, and would make for lengthy discussion.

    But, I’m not sure that I agree with you about who intrudes the most into our everyday lives. I have a sense (no data, just a sense) that in the South, social conservatives, whether Republican or Democrat, intrude most into the private lives of the citizens than individuals with liberal agendas. You can pick your poison (Republican or Democrat) both try to control private behavior through legislation to suit their world views.

    That might be different for Republicans in the West who derive their political philosophy from the Goldwater line. They tend to leave religion out of it, and are, IMHO, closer to true conservatism (I think Ray/Hemeterio might enthusiastically agree with me on this).

    Anyway, to be clear, I am referring here only to national/local issues affecting individual liberty. I’m not sure which party to fear more. When it comes to national security issues, and the cause of Cuba, that is a different matter.

  11. (1) Carolina, the CPSC recieves grant dollars from us, the taxpayer, so in essence, they are doing the dirty work of the social engineers. What is pathetic is the response from KFC; I’d tell them to stick a chicken drummette where the moon don’t shine and butt out of my business.

    (2) Angel, I disagree with the gambling law they passed. As a (real) conservative, I have no problems whatsoever with someone losing their home or their hard earned salary doing what they want to do — as long as it does not impact me. That is called “personal responsibility.”

    (3) LittleGator, I am in agreement with William F. Buckley on the issue of the War on Drugs. As for the others you mentioned (“nude sun bathing, same-sex marriages, dirty magazines”), are you implying that “anything goes” is OK? Liberty doesn’t imply that everything should be allowed; there has to be order for a society to survive, and there have to be individuals willing to be responsible for their actions, without someone legislating or extorting a desired end-result.

  12. George,

    I am not suggesting that “anything goes.” As my father likes to say “Existe una diferencia entre Libertad y Libertinaje.”

    But for the most part, government should stay out of transactions between consenting adults that do not harm others. That goes for both liberals and conservatives. Don’t tell me I can’t buy an extra crispy chicken leg from KFC, and don’t tell me I can’t buy a beer on Sundays.

  13. LittleGator;

    What about the seat belt laws? I would rather not have the government tell me weather or not to buckle up in the car. If I died today…they would be making lots of money on me(via social security) they would pay out for my son for a couple of years and then…since I’m single…they would keep the rest of the money that I’ve paid in since I was 16 years old.

  14. Mavi,

    Seat belts do save lives. There is no doubt about this. I always wear mine, and my car does not start until my kids are securely buckled in.

    I don’t mind a law that requires babies to be in fastened in car seats, and children under 16 to be belted, or the responsible adult gets a ticket.

    But, if informed adults choose an unwise course, that is their business.

    A related issue, which troubles me, is the cost to taxpayers for these adults’ foolish and unsafe choices. It an uninsured adult fails to use a seatbelt (or as a motorcyclist fails to wear a helmet), and they end up with severe brain injuries in the trauma unit of the local public hospital, you and I pay the cost. How do you suggest that be addressed?

  15. I wear my seat-belt because it’s the law. I don’t have a choice in the matter. Don’t you think I should decide, as an adult, whether I wear one or not? I don’t smoke in a restaurant because it’s the law, not because I agree with the stupid laws banning cigarettes and cigars even where patrons want to smoke. These are the little social engineering laws I wrote about earlier. The difference between now and then is that we are more than willing to impose a control on a behavior for “the greater good” now than in the past. Personal reponsibility is dead thanks to six decades of government saying we are not responsible, we are victims. It’s socialist BULLSHIT disguised as “compassion” and “caring.”

  16. 33139,

    I don’t think adults should be compelled to wear a seat belt. I think children should be belted in. I wear muy seat belt so that I don’t get a ticket.

    It has also been shown that eating vegetables is good for you and that too much meat is unhealthy and that it’s not a bad idea to drink a glass of wine each day…should these things be legislated as well? Where does it stop?

  17. Wearing your seatbelt in the front seats makes no difference if the backseat passengers arent belted as well.

    George I disagree with you on the seatbelt issue. It took me three years to get my husband to wear one. He has a personal responsibility to his family as well, not just to himself. Not wearing it b/c he doesn’t want to would be a selfish act towards his family.

    As far as the trans fat issue goes, I don’t give a fuck if KFC changes or not their oil. If they make it healthier, better. It used to be on regular oil before it was on transfat. It’s the same reason why we always ate butter instead of margarine.

    However, passing a law requiring restaurants to not serve any food with transfat is the most asinine thing i’ve heard of in my life. Restaurants buy a lot of stuff premade. this will not only affect restaurants of all sized, but all the producers and suppliers of their food items as well.

    Again I ask, does the government of the state of NY have nothing better to do?

  18. Venti, the issue here is that unpopular issues are being shifted to NGOs to do what they know government would never be allowed by their constituency. So here we have the CSPI suing KFC (among many others) to accomplish this rather rancid piece of social engineering. And nobody is upset about it! What’s next? Will we be lemmings going over the cliff on the next issue that comes up?

  19. BTW, I do wear my seatbelt and I insist my son wear his. My beef is that it’s legislated. I started wearing mine after my third ticket many moons ago, when Florida changed its laws to mandatory seat-belt use.

  20. I don’t want the government telling me what to do period. There are so many rules now it’s disgusting. Where will it end? They tell us how to raise our children, no spanking, and teachers can no longer hug crying children. No smoking, mandatory motorcycle helmuts which takes away the thrill of the ride, etc etc etc. Now they are telling restaurants how to prepare their food, think about that– your kitchen is next, don’t think it can’t happen- there are areas where homeowners can no longer smoke in their own backyard. No outdoor grilling allowed !It’s infuriating!

  21. George,
    You know I mostly agree with you. On the one hand I despise the government telling me what I am allowed to eat or do is despicable, on the other hand stuff like cigarettes and trans-fatty acids almost certainly bring up my insurance rates, fill up hospital beds, causes grief to families and raises medical costs. I used to smoke and felt exactly like you did (and would defend your right to smoke!)

    But think of the burden of increased costs smoking and unneccesary fats in foods costs us in terms of insurance, overall medical costs and even unnecessary deaths? If the removal of stuff like the fats, especially if it makes no difference in the quality or taste of food keeps my loved ones around a little longer along with lowering my insurance costs it might be something I would be interested in.

    To me, the fats removal might be like the removal of asbestos, DDT, etc.
    Again, I must be convinced that the removal of the fats causes NO reduction of quality or taste – or bring about other illnesses. Remember Olestra?

  22. Well, my problem with this is that KFC would rather comply with what CSPI has demanded rather than take it to court. If people, companies, and businesses begin to become unwilling to defend their rights in court, then others will step in and our individual rights will be overlooked.
    Now, being more specific, all companies are required to show the amount of trans fats and saturated fats and cholesterol in the food labels of their products, so consumers can choose whether they want to eat a certain food or not and the CSPI cannot demand KFC to change its way of cooking, all they can demand is that KFC abides to having truthful Food Labels, that is all.
    I am taking a nutrition class and according to the Dietary Reference Intakes(DRI) in order to have a nutritious healthy diet:
    20-35% of total daily kcals consumed should come fat
    45-65% of kcals should come from carbohydrates
    10-35% of kcals should come from proteins

    The DRI also recommends to consume less than 10% of the total daily kcals from saturated fats.
    SO for all of the Lefty Veggie freaks, you DO need a balance of fats to have a healthy diet.

Comments are closed.