Glad to be of service. I got so used to being shut down long ago when I'd try to explain why I think things like this that it's a tendency to rant and be aggressive when I get to anymore, which is not often good. When I was young I took long-winded politicians and academics and such for granted and wondered, what's the point of repeating something different ways? But after 20 years of sound bites that tell you little of meaning, now I understand why consistency and long explanations are sometimes necessary (when they're not gobbledygook).
That soda thing is ridiculous. Plus, it's not a meaningful change - it won't be illegal to buy 32 ounces of soda, it just can't be in one container - so what's the real point of it from Bloomburg's POV? (I wonder if he realizes how many people don't even finish drinks that big; my sister frequently throws out close to half after a few hours - or take all day to drink it.) There has to be some financial incentive to cut the size of drink containers for restaurants, to him - I just don't know what it is ...
I'm not for more government regulations on individuals; a lot of liberals I know aren't. In fact, the ones I know feel the point of regulation is really to curb the disproportionate power that comes with earning/having a lot more more money than those who don't ... which is why there should be things like food inspections and pollution standards. A sizable corporation or wealthy individual with a business interest (like, Rupert Murdoch of Fox) has the connections to try to make lawmakers look the other way, for example, if they want to buy up all the media outlets in half the country in order to have a less diluted means of influencing public opinion. I'm picking this one because it happened during Reagan's time - he and his got rid of media antitrust laws that FDR had set up. Used to, the same company couldn't own more than so many papers and radio/TV licenses in a given area - the idea was to preserve multiple POVs in news and opinion coverage and discourage the means of propaganda, plus create local production jobs (remember how TV stations used to make local programs instead of just buying them all from a national source? It gave more writers and actors and producers something to do).
Anyway - I think govt. regulation should protect individual rights from undue influence the more powerful can exert in society which has shown can lead to some kind of harm (polluted air from emissions, poor food processing, rampant one-POV propaganda, etc.). Choosing your own soda size isn't really on that list for me. ;-)
But, I know some conservatives don't realize that, maybe because the extreme left can be as shrill and unwilling to be reasonable or clear as the extreme right. I detest most extremism, period; it leaves no room to fix stuff. Some really DO want to regulate everything and everyone, which is as shortsighted as the extreme opposite that opposes any regs. (I know a few conservatives who are really convinced NO limits are needed on private enterprise. One has told me in all seriousness that pollution standards aren't necessary, because why would factory and vehicle manuf. owners want to make their customer base sick or kill them off? I replied that as long as there's a steady stream of purchasing, what do they care if it's the same people or their descendants, or if they're at 100% health? This leads into a big rant about trying to outlaw sex ed, abortion, and birth control and cut down on public education funding that I won't go into here - but I promise it'd be a doozy, LOL.)
no subject
That soda thing is ridiculous. Plus, it's not a meaningful change - it won't be illegal to buy 32 ounces of soda, it just can't be in one container - so what's the real point of it from Bloomburg's POV? (I wonder if he realizes how many people don't even finish drinks that big; my sister frequently throws out close to half after a few hours - or take all day to drink it.) There has to be some financial incentive to cut the size of drink containers for restaurants, to him - I just don't know what it is ...
I'm not for more government regulations on individuals; a lot of liberals I know aren't. In fact, the ones I know feel the point of regulation is really to curb the disproportionate power that comes with earning/having a lot more more money than those who don't ... which is why there should be things like food inspections and pollution standards. A sizable corporation or wealthy individual with a business interest (like, Rupert Murdoch of Fox) has the connections to try to make lawmakers look the other way, for example, if they want to buy up all the media outlets in half the country in order to have a less diluted means of influencing public opinion. I'm picking this one because it happened during Reagan's time - he and his got rid of media antitrust laws that FDR had set up. Used to, the same company couldn't own more than so many papers and radio/TV licenses in a given area - the idea was to preserve multiple POVs in news and opinion coverage and discourage the means of propaganda, plus create local production jobs (remember how TV stations used to make local programs instead of just buying them all from a national source? It gave more writers and actors and producers something to do).
Anyway - I think govt. regulation should protect individual rights from undue influence the more powerful can exert in society which has shown can lead to some kind of harm (polluted air from emissions, poor food processing, rampant one-POV propaganda, etc.). Choosing your own soda size isn't really on that list for me. ;-)
But, I know some conservatives don't realize that, maybe because the extreme left can be as shrill and unwilling to be reasonable or clear as the extreme right. I detest most extremism, period; it leaves no room to fix stuff. Some really DO want to regulate everything and everyone, which is as shortsighted as the extreme opposite that opposes any regs. (I know a few conservatives who are really convinced NO limits are needed on private enterprise. One has told me in all seriousness that pollution standards aren't necessary, because why would factory and vehicle manuf. owners want to make their customer base sick or kill them off? I replied that as long as there's a steady stream of purchasing, what do they care if it's the same people or their descendants, or if they're at 100% health? This leads into a big rant about trying to outlaw sex ed, abortion, and birth control and cut down on public education funding that I won't go into here - but I promise it'd be a doozy, LOL.)