The nannies are out in force once again, and there are a couple of things that desperately need to be controlled. Writing in the journal Nature, some distinguished US scientists from UC-San Francisco raise the alarm about a deadly toxin that is in wide use, but which they believe should be reclassified as a controlled substance. Sugar is so harmful to public health it should be controlled like alcohol and cigarettes, they claim.
It's horrible stuff: people use it to feed yeasts, which they then use in the making of bread, beer, wine, and even doughnuts! You know, you'd be a whole lot better off if you just ate unleavened bread, which can be made with just flour, water, and salt (but not too much salt, now!). And of course you shouldn't drink alcohol in any form - besides, according to these San Franciscans, sugar is just as toxic as alcohol, all by itself.
If you eat cake, you shall not have frosting. If you eat ham, it shall not be glazed. These are vewy, vewy Bad For You and they need to be Wegulated.
No word on how they feel about Splenda.
But just a little to the north, the issue isn't so much about regulating you for your own good - it's about regulating you to Save The Planet™. Since environmeddlists have shut down the logging industry in Oregon, which was a primary source of revenue for counties in the southwestern part of the state, these folks think that what needs to happen is that property taxes in the affected counties should be increased, and taxes assessed to private landowners for harvesting their own trees should be nearly quadrupled.
According to the whackjobs at Oregon Wild, the Sierra Club, Geos Institute, Coast Range Association, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and the Larch Company, that's raise enough cash to keep the counties from bankruptcy. Interestingly, perennial gadfly Andy Kerr is the genius behind that last organization, and he lives in a nice log home in Ashland that reportedly would, if milled, provide enough lumber to build ten standard houses. He's been praised by luminaries such as noted plagiarist Jonathan Nicholas (formerly of The Oregonian) for his "gift of truth".
Clearly, these folks bring together the kind of credibility needed to craft a sustainable plan for the ignorant rubes in the affected counties. There's really no reason why the citizens there, with unemplyment rates of as much as 25%, can't dig a little deeper for the property tax bill. They're just greedy.
Yeah, we are terrible role models for our kids, and bad citizens to boot--or to be booted about.
Posted by: Sam L. | February 02, 2012 at 08:27 PM
"Dr. Laura Schmidt, who was involved in the research, said, "We're not talking prohibition. We're not advocating a major imposition of the government into people's lives."
Really. How about they just put disgusting pictures on sugar boxes, donuts, soft drinks, ...
And of course, all those things that high fructose corn sugar is in (which is, everything).
Naturally, apples, oranges, bananas have to be disgustingly labeled, because they contain that nasty sugar stuff.
We're entering the era of the moronocracy.
"... taxes ... should be nearly quadrupled."
There's no problem so complex that it can't be solved quickly and easily by raising taxes.
Posted by: ZZMike | February 03, 2012 at 08:16 PM
You're not bad citizens - you simply are uneducated, so somebody needs to make decisions on your behalf. It sounds much nicer when put that way, don't you think?
Labels simply aren't sufficient; people are too stupid to read them. So what needs to happen is that sugar must be tightly regulated, and any food containing sugar must be taxed accordingly.
And as for cutting trees on your own property - well, it's time to make you pay dearly for that.
Posted by: Max | February 03, 2012 at 08:56 PM