An article from yesterday’s New York Post on-line, by Brad Hamilton and Susan Edelman, via Drudge, is along the lines of gun control legislation. It regards, NYC “Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.”
I believe it’s in the same vein as gun control because this is another case where sugary drinks don’t harm people, people do the harm to themselves. And if the mayor, or anyone else, thinks this legislation is going to have any effect on folks calories intake via this kind of ban, he’s babbling to himself.
It also hits drinkers right in the pocketbook for no reason at all, while helping those selling the stuff significantly, as evidenced by the following example from the article: “Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.”
And it was after reading the preceding that a light went on and I realized the gun control parallel to this case, whereas it’s simply ridiculous ineffective legislation, and also came up with another question about politicians in general.
What I began to wonder about was, if politicians are born with a need to meddle in other’s lives despite lacking the capability or rationality called for, or is overbearing arrogance combined with shortsightedness and ineptitude something that develops once in office?
As a practical matter, I guess it really doesn’t matter which of the preceding cases is true, because the result’s the same either way. If you want to find the best examples of how not to do almost anything you can think of, ask any politician what they’d do.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment