We all make choices every day. Some are under our control and some are thrust upon us so to speak. What am I going to wear today? What's for breakfast? Should I shower or just spot clean? Should I even get up today as it looks suspiciously like yesterday, and the day before and the day before....sorry quarantine thinking.
Berkley, California recently decreed no tempting, fattening, nutrient-deficient goodies in the checkout lane. Not sure it's needed as everyone is just fiddling with their phones whenever they have a 2-second pause in their lives, including traffic lights. Several years ago New York decreed a "fat" tax on folks purchasing the largest pail of soda they could manage to get their sausage fingers around. Of course, if we go back to "olden" days (my youth) portions were smaller, but then so were the prices. I swear one could order a nickel cherry coke at the local lunch counter. Great for me, as I despise soda and could actually sip a teeny tiny glass with the gang and not look like a total nerd.
Oh the rationale is all above board. A minimum age for tobacco and alcohol makes some sense. Lowering the hunting age to seven not so much. However the prohibition against immoral, illegal and fattening food and drink smacks of the "Nanny State". Yes, larger people have more health issues of which society may bear the burden in some respects, but responsibility for our diet choices has to rest with the eater/eatee. No responsibility, no accountability. I personally know of folks who would rather rely on workers' compensation or disability insurance rather than actually commit to losing the weight and going back to work or using the time and money for education and a better job. Usually these are the same people who complain that illegals or people on welfare are lazy and getting by "on my dime". Look in the mirror.
However social (read individual) welfare pales when compared to major corporations that rely on government handouts as well through tax breaks, tax dodges, refunds and, lately, rescue funding. The same businesses who complain of too much regulation and social pressure to provide, you know, decent wages and health care, were fighting for their spot at the trough. They were the first in line to garner a share of the federal pot that was supposed to help small businesses whose one month loss of business spelled disaster. The crowding frenzy was overrated though as "friends of the administration" got theirs first.
Wearing masks is another mandate that people rail against as government overreach. Closing schools and prohibiting sports so, I don't know, Mom and Grandpa won't die was way too much control.
Digress: why so much emphasis and sniveling about the 10% who actually participate in sports is puzzling until one realizes how much money it generates.
"You can't tell me how to live or impact my freedom." "This is America." So why in the name of all that is satanic and holy is it equitable for society/government to discriminate against one gender? Women and people of color have been denied choices for most of our country's history. Who said that only white men have the brain cells available to make all the decisions for others with no obvious understanding of what those decisions impact? Lip service period.
Amazingly, women and people of color only got the vote in the last century 150 years after the establishment of the country and many were jailed and murdered (read protests) in their efforts for justice. Women were banned from holding property and making financial decisions, etc. well into the 1970's. People of color were sheparded into less desirable neighborhoods and denied loans that would have helped them become independent home owners, attend decent schools and build equity. Why?
Choices and privacy are the right of each individual unless they choose to involve others. Children are separated from their parents at the border, many are homeless, many do not have enough to eat, access to medical care or a stable and safe home, but the "pro-birthers" have no conscience or problem with all of that apparently. What is especially interesting is the same group is against sex education and dedicated to denying funding for contraception. If sex is only for procreation there are a lot of catholics and rich people who are obviously not having sex. Plus there is quick condemnation for the young woman who becomes pregnant out of marriage or the "poor" having a flock of children. Not seeing our culpability in these inevitable results is myopic to unfathomable at best. In checking the facts, there are less abortions under a Democratic administration than a Republican one due to an emphasis on good education and access to birth control. The old Viagra and vasectomies are insured and birth control is not-Men vs. Women discrimination game.
One, it is no one's business what goes on between a doctor and the patient. Two, though physiologically designed to carry a child, a woman risks her health with every pregnancy for a myriad of possible complications up to and including birth. For childless women and men to weigh in with their opinion seems obtrusive and disingenuous. And three, women have been discriminated against in both the military and business world when becoming pregnant thus negatively impacting their military careers, promotions and often their employment. It is not unusual for a woman to be told she gets paid less, is not eligible for promotion or will lose her job permanently if she becomes pregnant. Men are celebrated for "causing" a pregnancy. Women are slut-shamed, discriminated against and judged for the same.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg took on the military when women were being forced to have an abortion or lose their military status. Yes, she fought and won the right of women to "choose" life. Her philosophy never changed. She always stood for the concept that ALL are equal under the law. For choice.
The concept that pseudo christian white politicians have a right to interfere and breach someone's privacy is especially galling when one considers that most Americans do take a more liberal view on a person's right to choose their own destiny. Remember we balk at the "Nanny State" of forcing "so-called acceptable" behavior no matter what the reason.
Digression: An original Star Trek episode explained it this way. An alien race needed humans to revive the agriculture on their planet. They had spent so much time expanding their mental capacities they were no longer physically able to perform the work needed to sustain their own lives. Their mental powers were strong enough to provide an imaginary and idyllic world for the humans who would work for them. However the humans fought back. They summed up their disbelief by saying something like "you humans find captivity, no matter how benevolent, as so abhorrent you would rather die".
I find it interesting that the same group supporting the taking away of a woman's rights to her own destiny also rabidly support everyone having as many guns as they like. Perhaps they consider it an acceptable form of birth control. Rather gives a whole new meaning to the "Don't Tread on Me" flags.
No comments:
Post a Comment