HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 3, 2003 Back in April, I compared the new crusaders’ drive for gun control with the Crusades of old. Over the past few weeks, it has dawned on me that there is another big difference between the two brands of crusaders (other than the fact that the original guys didn’t know about cotton and had to wear wool in the desert): the new crusaders will never be satisfied. The old crusaders, had they been successful in their endeavor, would have eventually said to themselves, “Hey, we did it! We freed the Holy Land! Now what? I reckon we should go back home and celebrate with some mutton and mead?” (Or something to that effect.) Not so the new crusaders: each victory only spawns the need for more action. These folks derive such immense senses of self worth from the feeling that they “helped” some group or another that they always need a cause. Indeed, the beast must be fed. Consider the now very serious campaign against fatty foods. Nobody would have given such drivel so much as a second thought five years ago. But back when “Big Tobacco” was the target (and a ready-made villain whose past deceptions prevented any sympathy), many people warned that brewers, distillers, and gun manufacturers would be next on the hit list. Unfortunately, we were right, if only partly so: it went gun makers (which, thankfully, hasn’t gotten much traction) then fattening food. What began as a handful of lawsuits that was little more than fodder for the late-night opening monologues is now an all-out war. Sensing a “Big Tobacco”-style assault, “Big Food” is circling the wagons and making pre-emptive changes to head off legislation and limit the inevitable, crippling litigation. Kraft Foods has announced that it will limit portion sizes and eliminate marketing in schools, as well as address nutritional content. Fast food giants McDonald’s and Burger King quickly expanded their salad lines (only to get criticized for their high fat and calorie content), while Hershey Foods is making sugar-free versions of its most popular U.S. candies. The list goes on and on. If this tomfoolery (love that word) isn’t enough to make your head spin, consider that many municipalities are mulling over a “fat tax.” Similar to the “sin tax” concept that has put the cost of a pack of smokes through the roof in the last ten years, the “fat tax” would penalize you for making what the government deems to be poor decisions - and serve as an easy way to pad the coffers. Maybe it’s just me, but the thought Uncle Sam taking an extra clip out of my occasional Snickers bar or Bomb Pop (hey, it’s summer) gets my swim trunks in a bunch. It’s a case of the new crusaders, spearheaded again by trial lawyers, gone amuck. And it will not end. A “sugar tax?” A “salt tax?” Heck, why not? How about a “sloth tax” on TV’s and video game systems, or maybe on couches that are too comfy? Doesn’t idleness contribute to obesity? How long before some health official-turned-crusader states that idleness among children is a national emergency of “epidemic” proportions? Silly, you say? Remember that that’s what everyone would have thought five years ago about the current assault on snack food. Like I said, the new crusaders will always need a cause and will not be deterred. The self-worth of the crusaders, as well as the huge settlements for the trial lawyers, is at stake. So, sit back and watch the silliness unfold, everybody. Oh, and mead: “n., an alcoholic beverage made from fermented honey and water.” I guess we had better tax that honey too. ------------ About Matthew Bastian: Recovering socialst, part-time drummer, long-suffering Brewers fan, and all-around beach hound, Mr. Bastian lives in central New Jersey. Email Matthew Bastian: mbastian19@hotmail.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
