Category Archives: Culture/Politics

Culture/Politics

Service Isn't About You

Leave a comment

With all the debate in the news about Arizona’s recently-vetoed bill, and the discussion about who can refuse to serve whom, I think we’ve missed something important.

When you serve someone, you put their interests first. You make yourself of use to another. You attend to the needs of another, by furnishing or supplying what that person desires.

Serving others is about the others, not about the servant.

It’s not about my crusade to teach the rest of the world what I think is right or wrong. It’s not a declaration of approval or disapproval of someone’s lifestyle, choices, or activities.

Usually it’s something simple, like making a cake – which is not a tacit approval of same-sex marriage.
Or driving a truck – which is not an expression of acceptance toward something my religion opposes.
Or cutting someone’s hair – which is not agreement with a customer’s political views.

Part of me wants to complain that government protects a truck driver who says “I’m not going to drive that truck” and culture celebrates a hairdresser who says, “I’m not going to cut her hair,” but God help you if you won’t make someone a cake.

But I’m just going to say maybe Americans on all sides of the spectrum need to grow up a bit. If we’re going to throw a fit because people refuse service to whomever they disagree with, then let’s at least be consistent in applying our outrage. It can’t be wrong only whenever I dislike the outcome. It’s wrong no matter who does it.

So I have a solution to the debate:

It’s called “How about you do your job?”

 

Late edit: Found an interesting New York Times op-ed about this issue. The writer considers the peaceful “live and let live” arrangement, which seems less and less likely, and the militant “crush all forms of dissent” option, which seems to be the playbook going forward. It used to be the case that you couldn’t tout some virtue while at the same time condoning the opposite. That was called hypocrisy. But when it comes to the universally-proclaimed virtue of tolerance, I’ve often been told that intolerance toward the intolerant is perfectly justified. Thus, virtues are virtues except when their opposites are virtues. Good luck to all of us navigating the moral minefields of the future. I hope you don’t find yourself on the unpopular side, whichever that happens to be in a given moment.

Culture/Politics, Worship

A Digital Ministry Profile

2 Comments

This morning, at church, I felt vindication.

It’s not a top-of-the-list expected sensation when you walk into a place of worship. But for today, vindication fit.

The pastors preached on wineskins, using Jesus’ words to the Pharisees as a reference.

But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.” (Matthew 9:16, 17 NASB)

The point for the congregation today is that holding onto our old ways of doing things may keep us from experiencing growth in our relationship with God. And relationships are one area where our pastor sees a new wineskin is needed.

In today’s culture, so many of us spend our time connected to the Internet, hands almost surgically attached to our cellphones or mobile devices. I personally was shocked at how quickly my iPad got its dark tentacles wrapped around my habits.

20140209-174906.jpg
Here I am typing this onto my iPad while riding a bike at the gym, using my cellphone hotspot to upload. No, I am not addicted to these devices.

Speaking of modern culture, our pastor declared, “A lot of people have more relationships via the Internet and social media than they have in face-to-face relations.” By unscientific appearances, because I’m too lazy to find data for what seems obvious, this is the case. Everywhere I go, I see people on cell phones, texting, Facebooking, tweeting, Vining, snapchatting, vlogging, and whatever new thing I’m not even aware of yet.

At least I do when I take my eyes off my iPhone.

Ok, so why the vindication?

Because my pastor’s words spoke directly to a form of ministry my wife has labored in for probably over a decade. And his words lent credence and validity to her form of ministry where others rolled eyes, scoffed, patronizingly agreed, or outright walked away.

My wife ministers the light and love of Christ to people online.

A stay-at-home mom by choice and homeschooling teacher by choice of four children ranging from three years old to teenagers, my wife doesn’t get a lot of time to spend volunteering for the church or doing whatever small group activities come up. When she gets time, she usually takes advantage of the chance to rest, because she earns those breaks.

So when the church wants to go door-to-door, or when they’re asking for nursery volunteers, or they want all the women to come out to a midweek Bible study, or to cook up dinners for the family with the new baby, more often than not, my wife isn’t serving there.

And she gets the looks for it! “Well, if you’re dropping your kid off in the nursery, then we need you to volunteer.” I get that. That makes nursery sustainable. So how about if my excited, willing teenage daughter volunteers in my wife’s place? “Not good enough.”

“Well, it’s so neat that you talk to people on your computer, but you know, we really need someone to come do street evangelism.” Because pouncing on people is a proven tactic, right.

My wife may not step foot out the door, but she clicks across the world and types words of love and hope into the hearts of people she’s never met in person. She may not have a foot on the ground, but she has a virtual hand on the shoulder of a grieving woman, of a new divorcee, of a worried parent whose child is in trouble with drugs. She may not be knocking on doors, but God knocks on hearts through the connection my wife makes with friends and strangers.

Years ago, when I’d log into a chatroom on Yahoo or geocities to debate theology, my wife would talk with people one-on-one to find out what they were going through and share her similar experiences.

Later, when I hopped on forums to post rants about politics and religion in our culture, my wife would trade private messages with people who had been emotionally or physically abused, whether by family, by acquaintances, by strangers, or even by their church. She gave hurting people an avenue to open up, to trust again, to connect with someone who had walked in their shoes and survived to tell the tale.

On Facebook, my wife almost always has a chat open with a friend or two, most of the time just staying connected and sharing life across the country or around the world. That constant reliable bond makes it possible to speak into someone’s life when they are in need of a friend. And sometimes it comes back to bless my wife when she needs encouragement.

Even on World of Warcraft and Farmville, she has made connections to strangers that developed into friends.

All the while, she’s ignored or brushed away the silent criticism and derisive looks from people who should have been excited and supportive.

Sure, if you get her going on politics or draw her into an argument, ministry gets lost in the chaos and flame wars. But that’s true of everyone, regardless of how persuasive we all might believe our memes and rants on Facebook to be.

So to those who laughed at my wife and her “so-called ministry,” I’d like to rise above and be the better man. But she’s the better half.

That means I get to laugh back, feel vindicated, and point out that she’s so ahead of the curve, no wonder they couldn’t see her from way back there.

Culture/Politics

Social Media Auditing

Leave a comment

It’s tax season. Imagine you finish your 1040 and send it off, only to learn that your taxes are being audited.

In the initial notification of a tax audit, you find this request:

As part of this audit process, please produce a copy of every 140-character message, commonly referred to as “tweet,” ever posted to your account on the social media website Twitter, as well as a copy of every post ever made to your Facebook profile.

How would you respond to such a request by an agency of the Federal government? How would you feel?

Today on C-SPAN, my wife watched the ongoing House investigation into the IRS scandal. Representative Ted Poe of Texas asked the representative of True the Vote, for confirmation, whether she was asked by the federal government to produce the following as part of her organization’s application for 501 c 4 status:

All tweets ever tweeted.
All Facebook posts, ever.
All the places she’s ever spoken publicly.
Copies of all speeches in those public places.
All the places she would speak in the future.
All the names or groups who heard her speak.
The mailing lists and attendee lists at each location.

Imagine running into that kind of request from the federal government, for just one moment.

I’m trying to think of what it would take to sit at the computer, copy and paste, and put together a Word document containing literally every tweet I have ever posted, every Facebook status update.

Every tweet from my recent road trip. Every status about something my kids did wrong. Every post I made about whatever interested me that day. Every expression of frustration at something political. Every comment I’ve made on anyone else’s status. Every celebration of how beautiful my wife and children are, and how grateful I am for my family.

I can’t imagine compiling and providing that to the federal government, mainly because why do they need to know all of that?

Critics dismiss these proceedings as made-up scandals, a spectacle, theater pandering to opponents of this Administration. On Sunday before the Super Bowl, the President famously commented on the ongoing investigation saying there’s no sign of corruption at the IRS. Much like discussion of misinformation intentionally released by government officials to the public concerning the attack at Benghazi, this IRS business is a non-issue, and the only reason people are still talking about it is because Fox News keeps telling them to. So the President believes.

I’m sorry. I get concerned when I listen to a list of special visits the rep from True the Vote enjoyed – as a supposed natural part of the process and not as any sort of government oppression at all, because clearly there was none.

Picture these folk knocking on your door:
SIX visits from the FBI investigating potential terror ties.
One visit from OSHA.
One from your state branch of the EPA.
One from the ATF.

Does that seem oppressive? Does that seem corrupt? Or does that sound like a made-up scandal?

I stop to think, “Hey, if we have a government that can do that to somebody and never have to answer for it, they will probably do it to anybody they choose.”

And that deeply concerns me.

And that, Mr. President, is why I’m still talking about it. Because it happened, and we’re all still wondering not how but if our government will keep it from happening again.

Culture/Politics

Nuclear Options – Some courses of action should not be on the table.

Leave a comment

It’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made, one I would make again in a heartbeat. But when someone told me he planned to do the same, I almost tried to talk him out of it.

A young man at church told me he plans to enlist in the Air Force.

There was a momentary battle in my mind. Do I tell him how I feel? Do I warn him what he should expect if he ends up making this a 20-year career? Should I let him know that the promises he hears along the way are only as good as the government deems them to be?

I stepped into Basic Training in December of 1994. I heard about “the drawdown” after Desert Shield / Desert Storm. I heard people get mad about changes to retiree medical care, a supposed “breach of trust” with those who served.

But I was a 17 year old two-striper who planned to get out after my six year term.

Funny how plans, and deals, can change without advance notice. “I’m married with a newborn baby… this is job security… I can’t get out now.”

Then “I’m at the 10 year point, I’m already half-way there.”

Later, “What’s five more years? Retirement pay and benefits are really going to help if I can’t get a great job.”

Then Congress decides that over the next 20 years of my life, I can stand to lose about $84K of the money I’ve been promised as an eventual benefit and a carrot motivating continued service. It will be gradual, but if evened out over that timeframe, it’s someone taking about $350 out of every month’s paycheck.

I’m mad, but I can live with that. I’ll grin and bear it, like a few million other servicemembers do every day.

Then I see stuff like this proposal from the Congressional Budget Office.

The article starts by talking about some savings the government could glean by increasing enrollment fees and co-pays on retirees’ medical care. $18.4 billion here, $24.1 billion there. Then they add:

But banning working age retirees from the Pentagon’s HMO-style Prime plan could save $89.6 billion — an amount difficult to ignore, budget experts said

Wow. That amount is difficult to ignore! Well, that makes it perfectly okay then, doesn’t it? Whatever breach of trust, whatever shattering of faith, whatever display of dishonor is necessary, let’s just make sure the numbers justify it.

Less than one percent of the American population has served during America’s longest war ever. So maybe that’s why the public doesn’t seem to comprehend what this feels like.

Everyone’s up in arms over NSA spying on them because it might affect them personally. Well imagine the IRS taking $350 a month from you over the next 20 years. Suck it up. Times are hard, we all have to give a little, right?

Or imagine the medical insurance provider you’ve paid for telling you that – while they are going to keep your money – you can’t use their service until you turn 62. Suck it up… and pay for another medical provider.

You can’t blame them, really. The numbers are difficult to ignore.

Maybe the government can save some money this year by not sending anyone a tax return. When you fill out your 1040 variant and end up with a chunk of money you might get back, consider that a donation to Uncle Sam to keep things running smooth. Come on, suck it up.

My point is, no matter how difficult the numbers are to ignore, some possible courses of action should never be viable options. These are the “nuclear options,” desperate choices whose detrimental effects equal or outweigh hoped-for benefits.

We have less than 1 percent standing up and volunteering to serve during the last 12 years of war. And we rely on the hope that  young men and women will continue to raise their right hands, swear an oath, and join ranks to defend our nation in the future.

Not if our nation can’t be trusted. Not if Uncle Sam’s promises become worthless.

When that happens, and another conflict arises, our choices are imposing a draft, or suffering an unacceptable degree of defeat.

The costs of both those options ought to be difficult to ignore.

Culture/Politics

Verbal Pause

1 Comment

There’s an interesting article on CNN about how “the f-word is everywhere” — interesting to me, at least, but I am a linguist. That’s my job. How we use language is naturally high on the list of things I love to think about.

Writers naturally agree words have power. Nothing is so moving as the perfect word or phrase to communicate a message. Whether it’s the description of a scene or action, or the authentic response of a non-fictional or even fictional character, finding the just-right word is a heady moment.

Consider Mark Twain’s comment: The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

I discussed this with my teenage children (oh yes, this week we now have TWO teenage children in our house, Heaven help us). I naturally fear what they say around me and what they say around friends are different. One of my daughter’s friends accidentally “dropped the f-bomb” at the restaurant table after church (and suffered her mom’s threats of certain doom to follow). My kids often warn me which neighborhood friends are known for profanity.

My wife has drawn the line at “screwed” and “crap” and such. My teenage son gets away with “flippin'” and “dang it” slips past mom’s radar. If we waived the rules and let them say whatever they want, my kids would probably not even use the f-word or other strong profanity.

I chalk that up in the win column.

But I also work in the military, where the word is “everywhere” like the article suggests. Some younger personnel can’t seem to get a sentence out without a form of f— sprinkled in. It is indeed a versatile word, as the author suggests.

And I can’t be sanctimonious here. It has escaped my mouth too.

Traveling with small children through O’Hare airport, moving to a new duty station, I pushed a cart laden down with car seats, booster seats, luggage, carry-on bags and diaper bags. At the end of a moving walkway, everything collapsed. A wall of luggage blocked the exit. People tried to get by. I flew into a rage, flinging luggage off to the side, trying to clear the path, angered that we had so much, frustrated because I knew we needed all of it since we had nothing else to our names until our household shipments arrived (scheduled for a month or more later).

Not my finest moment.

And there have been times on the military aircraft where I do my job, when systems are failing or worse yet when our command and control structures are providing ridiculous input or confusing and arguably stupid direction. Few things get under my skin like technology that fails to deliver what is promised, but nonsense during operational missions can do it.

I’m not excusing the language; I’m admitting failure in an area where I want to do better.

What bothers me most about the f-word being everywhere is that in some circles and especially among the young adults I encounter, f— is the new verbal pause, a new “um” or “uh” included thoughtlessly in sentences, serving no purpose.

“Uh, do you know if – um – Tom is done with the – uhh – review of that – um – training folder? Uhh, Tom is always uhh late getting those – um – things completed.”

That’s as painful to read as it was to type out. But that’s essentially the way many people speak, substituting arguably the strongest profanity for each verbal pause.

Maybe it’s quaint and petty of me, too Ned Flanders “hi-delly-ho, neighbor” to feel this way. But yes… if that’s how someone speaks, I judge their ability to communicate. I note this symptom of either lack of vocabulary or effort to choose better words.

I’m a linguist. Words matter. How we use them says more about us than we might like to admit.

Here’s that CNN article – “The f-word is everywhere.”

What do you think? Do you agree with what the author suggests? How about my assessment? What does the prevalence of that word indicate? Let me know in a comment, please. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Culture/Politics

Sacrifice

3 Comments

My wife’s father Jim passed away about a month ago. Over the last few years, he had long-term health issues and several near-deaths or even instances of resuscitation after heart failure. So this wasn’t exactly a surprise.

A few days ago we had a long conversation with my mother-in-law where she filled us in on some background stories from Jim’s life. Naturally this included some details about other aspects of their family’s history. Jim served in the Navy during Viet Nam (never was sent there), and we learned that his dad served too, during WW II. My wife wondered if her maternal grandfather ever served, and we learned he was for whatever reason medically disqualified from serving, even though the military was accepting men well above the age we currently allow to enlist.

Then my mother-in-law talked about the ways “Grandad” served as a civilian. He raised and kept rabbits, since “all the meat was sent over for the troops, of course.” This led to some other discussions about how everyone pitched in, how so many communities and civilians aided the war effort.

On an unrelated note, we visited my parents for Christmas, and received a surprise present in the form of coins collected over several decades. My 12-year-old loves coins (and rocks), and was fascinated to see so much history. In one book of pennies, we found the 1943 steel penny, a spot of silver in a sea of copper. Naturally my son was curious why. So we talked again about the war effort and the ways that the nation adjusted and adapted in order to ensure that our fighting men had what they needed in order to carry out their missions.

Those moments stuck out in my mind. In the last month, I’ve also witnessed lots of discussion about the Ryan-Murray budget deal, and how it saves $6B over 10 years by changing the retirement deal for many recent military retirees and currently serving members of our Armed Forces – myself included. Some have pointed out that there’s no legal guarantee stipulating exactly how military retirement will work for an individual. There’s no signed contract from the military promising a particular deal forever. But there are multiple briefings and counseling sessions along a 20+ year career explaining the way retirement pay works, and the hundreds of thousands of actively serving military members make their decisions and base their lives around expectations based on what they’re briefed.

“Oh, that budget thing is old news. It’s already been voted on and passed. You’re a month behind, Dave.”

Yeah, I’m still thinking about it, though. It’s funny. Maybe that’s because I’ll be directly impacted by it for about the next 20-24 years, and indirectly impacted for the rest of my life. If you found out you’d be taxed $80K over the next 20 years, you might be a little up in arms over it too. And that’s just the raw numbers, let alone the sense of breach of trust.

Speaking of breach of trust, here are the folks in the Senate who voted yes.  And this link shows the names of Representatives and how they voted.

Maybe vote, not as Republican or Democrat, but as Anti-Incumbent.
Maybe vote, not as Republican or Democrat, but as Anti-Incumbent.

There’s an article on Business Insider talking about the long-term costs of these short-term budgetary gains, and it’s the best piece on this subject that I’ve read thus far. It’s long, but worth a read, because this issue matters.

Think of this as sort of a re-blog. It seems a good way to start off 2014 on this site.

That the nation’s leaders can so blatantly and blithely alter the deal without addressing more significant budgetary issues is disconcerting to say the least. Perhaps some of that stems from how such a small portion of the U.S. population has any real first-hand experience sacrificing or adjusting their lives around the costs of our current 12 year war effort or any other recent military actions.

Instead, we get comedians joking about how Spaghetti-Os are the only food Pearl Harbor survivors can eat. Because, get it? Haha, they’re OLD. Ha. Ha.

What do you think? Are we doing right by those who served? Do we risk losing the faith of those who would volunteer in the future? Or are we gambling that those who were willing to sacrifice so much thus far can suck it up a bit more, while our country (and its populace) continues living beyond its means? Let me know your thoughts in a comment. Agree or disagree, I’d love to hear from you.

Happy New Year.

Culture/Politics

Doubleplus Ungood Thoughtcrime

Leave a comment

For the sake of future celebrities, CEOs, and spokespersons, I have a risk management proposal. I suggest the following application for anyone in a public position:

1)      Do you support same-sex marriage and consider same-sex sexual activity morally acceptable?
Yes? Continue to question 2.
No? Please sign at the bottom and turn in the form.

2)      Do you intend to positively advocate, in the form of advertisements, announcements, or personal interviews, for same-sex marriage and activity as well as the LGBTQ community?
Yes? Continue to question 3.
No? Please sign at the bottom and turn in the form.

3)      Are you free of the influence of any deeply held personal beliefs?
Yes? Congratulations, your application is complete.
No? Please sign at the bottom and turn in the form.

I, the undersigned, accept disapproval for consideration for this position through no fault of the employer based on the above.
Sign: ___________________

Based on recent events, tolerance is not enough. Acceptance is not enough. Only full-fledged outspoken public support will do. Anything else means you’re a homophobic bigot.

If your pasta or fast-food company isn’t making ads for same-sex couples, expect questions. Because pasta, chicken, and every other product on the market is all about the same-sex marriage debate. If you’re a star in an ongoing reality TV show and you express an unapproved but entirely expected opinion, prepare for indefinite suspension.

Corporations are willing to make millions off you in the short term, while cringing on the inside saying, “Lord, please let them not get asked about gay marriage today so we can keep raking in the cash.”

But eventually, the disgusting hypocrisy of such corporations might cost too much, making even huge short-term gain unprofitable. Thus, the litmus test err application I have provided above.

Your tolerance is required. Our tolerance is on back-order.
Your tolerance is required. Our tolerance is on back-order.

The message is clear. There is an unwavering standard. There is no acceptable form of dissent on this issue, no expression of disagreement respectful enough, no divergence from the correct position:

You must not think ill of homosexual activity. You may not speak ill of it. Your mere acceptance only buys you time until you are caught expressing homophobia. Your tolerance is allowed but will not be returned.

Homophobia is thoughtcrime; violators will be prosecuted.

Only in the court of public opinion.

At least, for now.

See what Phil Robertson actually said. Crass, yes. Hateful, no. Homophobic? Not at all, unless we redefine the word.

Culture/Politics

Fat Talk

Leave a comment

Reblogged from my fitness-related blog to reach a wider audience here:

If your Facebook friends are like mine, your feed probably fills up with posts from Upworthy, whose goal it is to post meaningful content into social media. I generally like their offerings, but this one about women got my attention.

It’s probably worth a view, but here’s the short version:

A store is set up to sell clothes, and women are invited to check out the wares. There are signs around the store and tags on the clothes which reprint some of the terrible comments these women have made about themselves, stuff like “I look good from the neck up, #cow” and “you’ll look like a whale in this.” Some of the women appear offended for a moment, but then they realize, “OMG those are things I’ve said about myself!” Everyone talks about how they should think better of themselves, and they all grow as a result of the experience. Down with fat talk!

That’s all well and good. I know this video speaks to an all-too-common experience for many women.

What concerns me is that “fat talk” is pretty much acceptable anywhere in our society – so long as you’re not an average healthy woman making fun of yourself. When the target of the fat talk is an actual overweight person, then it’s open season. There are chuckles, smirks, judging glances, open stares. Some people at least have the decency to cover their mouths and whisper to their neighbor, as if covering a cough or disguising something unpleasant. But the laughter that follows is telling. It’s not unpleasant at all, it’s quite fun for all involved.

Except for the woman or man being made fun of.

“You wouldn’t say this to someone else,” the video declares. But the problem is, many people will say these things about someone else, just not to their faces. I’m not sure how that’s better.

But who cares about the overweight person, right? I mean, they’re already a lost cause. Let’s worry about the healthy women who have self-esteem issues, and let’s get them to stop saying bad things about themselves. Or so goes the implied logic.

I disagree. If shaming oneself is a terrible thing – and I think it is – then tell me: How can it be acceptable to heap shame on someone else?

Yes, let’s end “fat talk.” Let’s start by putting an end to finger-pointing, judgmental giggles, and disdainful looks.

That’s a worthy effort, to this reader.

What do you think? Is our self-inflicted “fat talk” a problem as described in the video? What about when it’s directed at others? Could this be, as my wife believes, a good first step in getting away from shaming others? Let me know how you feel in a comment. And if you agree, share this message with that video.

Culture/Politics

Pasta Politics

6 Comments

So there’s trouble boiling over in the world of noodles.

The chairman of Barilla Group said there’s no plans for the company to have same-sex family pasta ads. His comments are attracting lots of negative attention, and his apology is viewed as hollow and insincere by some.

To which I ask, do we need same-sex family pasta ads? I understand debate on marriage rights, on legal benefits, on laws that discriminate. I understand frustration with how the LGBT community is treated in certain places and certain circles, and outcries against violence. I am outspoken among my Christian friends about the vitriolic and disproportional manner in which the church in general responds to homosexuality. I even argue with folks like the Southern Baptist Convention concerning their policies for chaplains in the military, delineating which service members defending our country can receive ministry and care from a chaplain and which cannot. So while I am probably considered no friend to the homosexual community due to my faith, I still fight for them in several ways.

But this one I just don’t get.

It’s pasta.

It's obviously the ravioli
Can YOU pick out the pasta of hate?

Is there gay pasta and straight pasta? Wait, don’t answer that. Yes, there is straight pasta.

But is pasta the battlefield on which issues concerning homosexuality should be fought?

Is there an activist watching TV somewhere, checking off companies that include a same-sex couple in at least one ad? Is one ad enough? Or do you need two?

In a minute, I’m going to drive my Ford minivan to band practice. I’m going to play a Korg piano. The whole time, I will be paralyzed with fear, because I just don’t know if Ford or Korg have ads that show non-traditional families and same-sex piano playing!

I mean, I look around the room and wonder what other bastions of advertising prejudice I might be supporting. I have a Logitech mouse and I’m typing this on an Alienware laptop. Do they have same-sex ads showing a couple using their Logitech products? Are there ads for homosexuals using Alienware computers?

Do there need to be?

Come on. This is Chik-fil-A all over again. And we know how that turned out: a tidy profit for the “purveyors of hate.”

I’ve eaten at Chik-fil-A. I’ve eaten Barilla pasta. I’ve tried other places and similar products. At no point did I find myself exposed to hatred, nor have I been motivated to look down upon the differences of others.

Sometimes a product is just a product.

Fight the battles worth fighting.

Culture/Politics

Pound of Flesh… or Soda

1 Comment

I chugged the last of my third can of Diet Mountain Dew (or Mtn Dew, as the label now reads), and I listened to the radio news on the way home from work.

Even if it is sugary, as long as it's 16 oz or less, I can have as many as I want.
If it’s not sugary, I can have a billion ounces, right?

“A court in New York struck down the city’s ruling limiting beverage sizes in restaurants to 16 ounces.”

Well good. That was stupid.

Then I hear that somebody or other “vows to appeal and continue this fight.”

Seriously?

New York City must be an absolutely amazing place. If the biggest problem on their plate these days is fighting against a venti or the dreaded 32 oz giant soda from the gas station, then we should all be moving there ASAP. Forget crime, and gun control (or lack thereof). Forget about cities going bankrupt or businesses struggling, or unemployment rates.

Someone out there might drink a 24 oz cup of Coke!

What’s to stop me from getting a 16 oz soda at lunch, and then another one an hour later, and then another one on the way home from work? What prevents me from buying a twelve-pack of deadly sugary Coke to put in the fridge at work?

Like I said, I heard this as I finished my third can in about as many hours. Maybe that’s a sign of a problem. Thankfully they were zero calorie diet versions, because otherwise I would have thirty-six ounces of death in my veins!

Nothing in the current law stops people from drinking as much soda as they want. It just wastes time and effort trying to limit the size of the cup. Will this curb obesity? I don’t know… are we also limiting the size of fast food orders, and are we imposing guidelines on how many calories someone can eat in a given day? Are we enacting junk food taxes on chips and candy? Heck, I used a Starbucks venti as an example, since the 20 oz White Chocolate Mocha I used to enjoy is about the equivalent of drinking a Burger King Whopper. But the law appears to be aimed at sugary soda only.

NOT made of vitamins
Will we see a similar fight against junk food now that Twinkies are back?

This is like saying that in order to reduce traffic violations, any motorcycle exceeding the speed limit will be pulled over. What about all the other vehicles on the road? The law does nothing to really address the problem it’s aimed at. And it’s a stupid law because anyone can easily drink more than 16 oz of soda at any time.

Yet NYC has the resources and time and energy to appeal the appeal of the original decision in order to “continue the fight against this obesity epidemic!” Oh, so very brave! The Big Apple is lucky to have Don Quixote champions like Bloomberg, riding in to rescue the city from terrible imaginary danger.

I’ll raise my 32 oz large theater cup to that lofty goal.