Nibbling
Away At Our Freedoms
Frederick
Meekins
In traditional
American thought, the government plays a limited role, confining itself to
activities such as military defense and the punishment of crimes such as
theft and murder. Popular mythology holds this to be a key principle
embraced by the Republican Party since freedom dictates that the individual
be allowed to pursue their interests unimpeded within the boundaries of
reason and natural law. One would think such rights extended to the simple
things of life like what we eat as well.
Over the years,
one has come to expect the abridgement of these fundamental liberties from
the likes of Democrats and Liberals since it is in their nature to assume
they know how to run our lives better than we do. One is less accustomed
when it is Republicans and so-called Conservatives issuing such autocratic
pronouncements.
It is normally
assumed that, apart from perhaps overseeing the overall public safety of
the food supply against disease, the government should avoid interfering in
the free expression of culinary preferences. However, one prominent member
of the Bush Administration possesses a considerably different conception
regarding the operation of the gastronomical economy.
Health and
Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson addressed a gathering of fast food
executives, chastising them for not offering healthier foods such as fruits
and vegetables and for daring to offer super-size specials. Thompson is
reported in the Washington Post as saying, "I want more choices
and healthier choices on their menus, and advertising campaigns to eat
healthy. We are too fat and don’t exercise. "
Politicians are
renowned for being notoriously out of touch with reality. Remember the
first President Bush’s befuddlement upon seeing his first bar-code
scanner in a supermarket way back in 1991?
No one goes to
McDonalds for a healthy snack or to imbibe those forms of nourishment that
will win them favor with the government. If people really have a hankering
to eat as they are told, they can always bypass the fast food
establishments in pursuit of the more nutritional offerings available from
more reputable victuals. After all, often, shopping establishments have
these eateries and grocery stores accessible by the same parking lot. If
someone really wants to make a scene out of getting their fiber, why
don’t they just drive out to the countryside and tussle in a meadow with
a sheep or goat for some straw or hay?
Just as
disturbing is Thompson’s conclusion that Americans have grown "too
fat" and for these franchises to "rethink their super-sized
portions". In other words, it ought to be the government’s role to
tell us what to eat and how much. The last time I checked, Thompson
doesn’t look like he’s missed too many meals.
Before too
long, we’ll probably be told it’s our patriotic duty to lose weight in
the name of the war on terror; after all, other things not even remotely
related to this national security concern have been reined in under this
umbrella. Contrary to what FreedomCorps propagandists would tell us, not
that many terrorists are suffering from a bout of illiteracy.
If Secretary
Thompson is so concerned about overindulgence, perhaps he could spend time
lecturing the Kennedy’s about their propensity towards alcohol or rebuke
the various Bush offspring regarding their cravings for intoxicating
substances instead of harassing the American people about the innocent
pleasures of a Big Mac and fries. Most of the time, overeaters aren’t
known for driving cars off of bridges or forging phony prescriptions.
These concerns
are more than mere conspiracy mongering. CNSNews.com reported that the
World Health Organization in the World Health Report 2002 is urging
governments around the globe to enact legislation regulating the
consumption of fats, sugars, and salt.
Some think they
will continue to eat what they want regardless of these pompous policy
proclamations. They might be in for a bit of surprise.
Drawing much of
their inspiration from the anti-smoking pogrom, these food fascists plan to
impose a number of measures on what people eat similar to the increased
taxes currently levied against tobacco products. But with expanding
technology, excessive taxation might be the least of the snacking
population’s concerns.
Over the past
decade or so, the grocery-going public has grown accustomed to so-called
customer loyalty cards that allow supermarkets to collect purchasing
information on participants in exchange for discounts, sales, and coupons.
Sounds innocuous as a means of clarifying the variables of the economic
relationship between supplier and customer, but that all depends in whose
hands this information ends up.
For example, a
story posted on the Fox News website back in August revealed that one
grocery chain eagerly handed its customer database over to the government
after the September 11th attack. Somehow I don’t think Muhammad Atta was
all that concerned with pork rebates or discounts on shell fish, and even
if he was, it ought not to be of concern to the government.
Thus, since the
government seeks to exercise yet another layer of control over the lives of
the American people as suggested by Secretary Thompson’s comments, this
kind of technology could be adapted to a program of unprecedented dietary
surveillance. For example, a Bureau of Nutritional Enforcement could compel
access to all existing preferred shopper accounts or even require anyone
wanting to acquire provisions to obtain one of these cards.
Since such
information would be electronically catalogued, it would be a simple matter
of imposing a fine or inflicting a punishment upon any soul brash enough to
ingest nourishment transcending the limits of federally mandated
parameters. Overeaters could be denied insurance, desirable employment, or
even the right to purchase additional rations of their choice.
A popular
pro-abortion bumper sticker sneers, "My body, my choice." If the
Bush Administration is only going to mount a half-hearted effort at curbing
this contemporary holocaust, they certainly do not possess the moral clout
to condemn the individual for simply enjoying provisions that bring little
harm to those consuming them and none whatsoever to those choosing not to
partake of them.
Copyright 2002
by Frederick Meekins
Biography
Join Junto
Society Adults
fm_naaf_111002.html
