The Rant and Vent about the LEFT Wing thread...

[Lightnin' Rod]

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I'm fed up with Gavin Newsome trying to legislate SF into some sort of utopian ideal.  Totalitarianism begins with the phrase, "It's for your own good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL

[RGMike]

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I'm fed up with Gavin Newsome trying to legislate SF into some sort of utopian ideal.  Totalitarianism begins with the phrase, "It's for your own good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL

yeah, it's def "nanny-state-ism", tho' if SF were flush with cash, it probably wouldn't be happening.

[Tinka Cat]

No truth to the rumor Newsom is calling this the No Fat Chicks initiative, in case you were wondering about that.

[ggould]

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I'm fed up with Gavin Newsome trying to legislate SF into some sort of utopian ideal.  Totalitarianism begins with the phrase, "It's for your own good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL

yeah, it's def "nanny-state-ism", tho' if SF were flush with cash, it probably wouldn't be happening.

it does seem unlikely this will fly, but as someone who's become very conscious in the last year and a half about body weight, sugary sodas are indeed a health hazard.  I have always felt if there was some way to quantify the damage a product caused, a 'make-good' tax would be appropriate to offset the costs to society that are taken on.  Just my crazy idea.

[urth]

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I'm fed up with Gavin Newsome trying to legislate SF into some sort of utopian ideal.  Totalitarianism begins with the phrase, "It's for your own good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL

yeah, it's def "nanny-state-ism", tho' if SF were flush with cash, it probably wouldn't be happening.

Ridiculous. Why should the city be allowed to dictate what is essentially a personal choice? And why isn't he proposing a tax on beer and fortified wines? Alcoholism certainly costs SF and the state a huge sum. Heading further down the slippery slope here.

[ggould]

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I'm fed up with Gavin Newsome trying to legislate SF into some sort of utopian ideal.  Totalitarianism begins with the phrase, "It's for your own good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL

yeah, it's def "nanny-state-ism", tho' if SF were flush with cash, it probably wouldn't be happening.

Ridiculous. Why should the city be allowed to dictate what is essentially a personal choice? And why isn't he proposing a tax on beer and fortified wines? Alcoholism certainly costs SF and the state a huge sum. Heading further down the slippery slope here.

I agree.  The societal costs of alcohol are huge.

[Tinka Cat]

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I'm fed up with Gavin Newsome trying to legislate SF into some sort of utopian ideal.  Totalitarianism begins with the phrase, "It's for your own good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/MNF619OSF4.DTL

yeah, it's def "nanny-state-ism", tho' if SF were flush with cash, it probably wouldn't be happening.

Ridiculous. Why should the city be allowed to dictate what is essentially a personal choice? And why isn't he proposing a tax on beer and fortified wines? Alcoholism certainly costs SF and the state a huge sum. Heading further down the slippery slope here.

I agree.  The societal costs of alcohol are huge.

I hardly drink soft drinks, so I say go for it.    Since it's a personal choice I choose not to drink them and I will avoid the tax if it passes.   Alcohol and tobacco are already taxed at the State level, so why wouldn't the progressive City of SF start levying vice taxes on this second tier "vice" known as empty calories/junk food?   

 Ok, I'm only half-serious here.  SF is one tax happy city.  But I hear the stats of how the average caloric intake has increased over the years, dietary habits have moved from whole food to processed foods, the evils of High Fructose Corn Syrup, the tax on our health system from obesity, diabetes, etc.  A  lot of kids are overweight and I'm sure the correlation b/w their weight and he prevalence of sody-pop is close.

[mshray]

I hardly drink soft drinks, so I say go for it.    Since it s a personal choice I choose not to drink them and I will avoid the tax if it passes.   Alcohol and tobbaco are already taxed at the State level, so why wouldn't the progressive City of SF start levying vice taxes on this second tier "vice" known as empty calories/junk food?   

 Ok, I'm only half-serious here.  SF is one tax happy city.  But I hear the stats of how the average caloric intake has increased over the years, dietary habits have moved from whole food to processed foods, the evils of High Fructose Corn Syrup, the tax on our health system from obesity, diabetes, etc.  A  lot of kids are overweight and I'm sure the correlation b/w their weight and he prevalence of sody-pop is close.

Have to agree with TC here. 

As long as it's a tax issue I say why not? I would equally welcome a tax on marijuana products, which unlike HFCS, is a vice that A) is voluntarily entered into.  HFCS is slipped into my childrens' lives without parent or child being easily made aware, (can you imagine the furor if C₂H₅OH, THC or PCP were found in our kids' state-funded school lunches? and B) Compared to cannabis, there are apparently zero ancillary health benefits to HFCS. I would gladly pay to indulge the vice of cannabis,...even more than alcohol.

I think every vice should be legal, regulated & taxed.  And the benchmark should be the "victimless" social costs of alcohol & tobacco.  Anything with less impact should be allowed, and the rest of humanity can enjoy them legally and explore any spiritual paths that may stem from them.

Poets could drink to excess, philosophers and musicians could get stoned, theater types and salesmen could get coked & methed up, and the politicans could visit any type of kinky brothel they desired.  It would all be legal, AND clearly indicated in your tax records if you were audited. 

At the 'Darwin Awards' level, this is all to the good. In a few dozen generations we will have weeded out the genetic markers for those who can't handle their vices & one can assume medical advances would ameliorate the pesonal health impacts on those who can 'handle' them from the socio-economic angles.

ETA: For the same reason I am in favor of much higher gasoline taxes, in line with Europe & the developed countries in East Asia.  I know it would modify my driving behavior, because it already has.

[mshray]

btw, anyone up to speed on the latest ACORN expose?  they've been on the Right wing hit list for a long time, and apparently from what the talking heads were saying over the weekend, they got busted pretty good.

In personal experience, ACORN was the proverbial thorn in the side of the exclusively Democratic political machine in St. Louis for decades.  So my folks & I could never fathom the attacks on them being such a 'left wing' group.  But I've been wrong before.

[RGMike]

btw, anyone up to speed on the latest ACORN expose?  they've been on the Right wing hit list for a long time, and apparently from what the talking heads were saying over the weekend, they got busted pretty good.

In personal experience, ACORN was the proverbial thorn in the side of the exclusively Democratic political machine in St. Louis for decades.  So my folks & I could never fathom the attacks on them being such a 'left wing' group.  But I've been wrong before.

They're an easy target, and anything that can be even remotely connected to Obama is fodder for ClusterFOX and Friends. And they're apparently not exactly run by the brightest folks, so the "expose" (done by a couple of enterprising right-wingers, who had no trouble selling their handiwork to FauxNews) isn't entirely surprising. Obama should throw them under the bus, IMHO.

[Gazoo]

I hardly drink soft drinks, so I say go for it.    Since it s a personal choice I choose not to drink them and I will avoid the tax if it passes.   Alcohol and tobbaco are already taxed at the State level, so why wouldn't the progressive City of SF start levying vice taxes on this second tier "vice" known as empty calories/junk food?   

 Ok, I'm only half-serious here.  SF is one tax happy city.  But I hear the stats of how the average caloric intake has increased over the years, dietary habits have moved from whole food to processed foods, the evils of High Fructose Corn Syrup, the tax on our health system from obesity, diabetes, etc.  A  lot of kids are overweight and I'm sure the correlation b/w their weight and he prevalence of sody-pop is close.

Have to agree with TC here. 

As long as it's a tax issue I say why not? I would equally welcome a tax on marijuana products, which unlike HFCS, is a vice that A) is voluntarily entered into.  HFCS is slipped into my childrens' lives without parent or child being easily made aware, (can you imagine the furor if C₂H₅OH, THC or PCP were found in our kids' state-funded school lunches? and B) Compared to cannabis, there are apparently zero ancillary health benefits to HFCS. I would gladly pay to indulge the vice of cannabis,...even more than alcohol.

I think every vice should be legal, regulated & taxed.  And the benchmark should be the "victimless" social costs of alcohol & tobacco.  Anything with less impact should be allowed, and the rest of humanity can enjoy them legally and explore any spiritual paths that may stem from them.

Poets could drink to excess, philosophers and musicians could get stoned, theater types and salesmen could get coked & methed up, and the politicans could visit any type of kinky brothel they desired.  It would all be legal, AND clearly indicated in your tax records if you were audited. 

At the 'Darwin Awards' level, this is all to the good. In a few dozen generations we will have weeded out the genetic markers for those who can't handle their vices & one can assume medical advances would ameliorate the pesonal health impacts on those who can 'handle' them from the socio-economic angles.

ETA: For the same reason I am in favor of much higher gasoline taxes, in line with Europe & the developed countries in East Asia.  I know it would modify my driving behavior, because it already has.

You've said this perfectly.  I'm in 100% agreement.  It's libertarian socialism in action.

[Lightnin' Rod]

You've said this perfectly.  I'm in 100% agreement.  It's libertarian socialism in action.

Okay, I take it back, I'm not as liberal as the next guy(s).

ETA:  commie basterds 

[mshray]

Okay, I take it back, I'm not as liberal as the next guy(s).

ETA:  commie basterds 

ROTFL!!!

[RGMike]

Couldn't decide where to put this, but pretty big news: Gavin Newsom has pulled out of the Governor's race, leaving Jerry Brown the only Dem  -- even if he hasn't officially declared himself. (Jerry'd better do so soon; Whitman's spending tons of $$$.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/30/BAI91AD538.DTL&tsp=1

[mshray]

Couldn't decide where to put this, but pretty big news: Gavin Newsom has pulled out of the Governor's race, leaving Jerry Brown the only Dem  -- even if he hasn't officially declared himself. (Jerry'd better do so soon; Whitman's spending tons of $$$.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/30/BAI91AD538.DTL&tsp=1

Crap.

Maybe it's better for him if he becomes Lt. Governor, and when Jerry's ready to step aside the whole Gay Marriage issue will be a done deal & not a liability for him.  In fact by then it will make him seem prophetic.