[L.A City Council] Panels OKs One-year Ban On New Fast-Food Eateries (PC Food Nazis Alert)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 7/23/2008 | Molly Henessey-Fiske

[goldstategop]

Not content with banning plastic grocery bags, Los Angeles liberals opened a new page in politically correct idiocy: banning fast food restaurants to encourage "healthy eating" habits. The PC Food Nazis want to tell you where you can eat out now. I'm not making this up - the Dog Trainer says so!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[jonrick46]

This is fascism. When are civilized people going to wake up and throw off tyranny?

[goldstategop]

You know - this is just to keep black folks healthy. Folks of a different stroke can still chow down all the burgers, tacos and fried chicken they want. And no watermelon jokes, please. Its not politically correct!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Coffee200am]

Lets put more people out of a job...and discourage business!

[tlb]

>>>the law would prevent fast-food chains from opening new restaurants in a 32-square-mile area,

Eliminating new competition and enhancing the profitability of the sites already in place. If there is a fast-food trade association in this area I’d be interested in seeing where their lobbying money and political contributions had been going in the year or so before this vote.

[goldstategop]

Its unconstitutional. Restraint of lawful trade and impairment of contracts. But that never stopped the Dems before.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nathanbedford]

"It's important to offer incentives to bring restaurants into an area, especially an area that has suffered prejudices and stereotypes,"

Perhaps it is also suffered devastating statistics such as crime, fires, vacant buildings, failing school systems, and high unemployment.

Speaking of statistics, perhaps the city fathers have the wrong end of the telescope to their eyes. Maybe, the area has high obesity and diabetes rates because the population in these areas is self-selected. In other words, fat people go to live in poor areas because that's where they can afford to live. Perhaps fat people are disproportionately poor because they can't get their lives together and obesity is merely one more a symptom of personal breakdown.

My point is not to be indifferent to sufferers of diabetes which can be a horrible disease but to question whether officials should make sweeping policy based on unproven assumptions.

[goldstategop]

And the entire notion is paternalistic. Liberals assume black people are incapable of being in good health and the government needs to mind it for them. Since when in a free country, is our government allowed to run people's personal lives? Obesity may be a problem but its up to the individual to take care of his health and the last thing the government should do is manage his dining choices.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[jonrick46]

Tyranny is an equal opportunity destroyer of people’s freedom.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Welcome to France!

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Nanny state would be the definition of what you’re describing and thats exactly what California has become.

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

This is not about healthy eating, it about keeping the labor force (indentured servants/slaves) healthy enough to work thereby maintaining the tax base/national product.

[nathanbedford]

For a college seminar course we were all assigned to write a review and analysis of John Kenneth Galbraith's book, The Affluent Society. Galbraith's thesis was that Americans are missallocating their resources by spending money on cars which in those days had massive fins on the tail end rather than spending their money on medical research or higher education. His solution? Tax and subsidize, of course.

I caught hell as the only student who attacked the underlying thesis of Galbraith's book and defended both the right of the individual to make poor choices and the more collective benefit to society in the capitalist system which brings the greater good to the greater number from the accumulation of individual choices. In other words, we have the right to be wrong and the capitalist system works.

I was a naïve college sophomore in 1962 so I did not anticipate the verbal drubbing I would receive for my impertinence. From all I have witnessed since 1962, the left has never abandoned its paternalism.

[goldstategop]

Various people fear freedom and want to protect you from its corrosive effects. The Left wants to protect your body. The Right wants to protect your soul. And they meet in the middle by telling you certain things you can't do for your own good, of course. Because someone else knows what's best for you better than you do yourself.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nathanbedford]

Look at what pops up to the surface just a few posts upstream: state prohibits smoking in rehab

Not content with forbidding smoking inside the treatment facility, the article says that the authorities will forbid smoking outside the facility or even associating with smokers in automobiles. Regrettably, the article cited by neverdem does not tell us whether the regulations purport to affect only state institutions.

[goldstategop]

Its not just government by any means. Your employer can tell you you can't smoke and you can't eat fatty foods - at home, not just at work. They can justify it by the need to retain a productive employee and to eliminate unnecessary health costs. So our freedom to do what we want gets narrower and narrower because any busybody can come up with a good reason why its too dangerous for you to exercise it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[yankeedame]

Lets put more people out of a job...and discourage business!

...and competition.

[yankeedame]

...If there is a fast-food trade association in this area I’d be interested in seeing where their lobbying money and political contributions had been going in the year or so before this vote.

Excellent point! A tip o' my hat to you.

[sergeantdave]

We need to stop the euphemisms in describing the totalitarianism sweeping across this country. This is NOT nanny statism.

This is naked fascism implementing one of the primary tenets of that anti-freedom philosophy - government control of private property for the Marxist common good, as defined by state.

I’d bet no one on the city council ran on a platform to ban new fast food restaurants. These fascist pigs get into office and then set about to implement their fascist agenda.

And where are the prissy journalists to alert the citizens of what’s going on?

It’s time....

[A Navy Vet]

"Its unconstitutional. Restraint of lawful trade and impairment of contracts. But that never stopped the Dems before."

Not positive, but I believe the USSC long ago ruled that zoning laws are Constitutional within States rights.

That said, what a bunch of idiots who apparently have no life beyond controlling their constiguents. Got torch and pitchfork?