It's been a bad week for personal freedom out there, yo.
There is battle now raging (and has been for a while) out there between two groups on opposite sides of the spectrum who share one thing in common. They believe something and simply having that is not enough. You and I MUST agree and believe it as well. To further their cause they use the media and when they can legislation in case you still rebel against their will.
One would probably guess that the religious, conservative right was a part of the equation. That is correct. The other? The activist, liberal left or as they now choose to call themselves since "liberal" is these days, a bad word, "progressive" left. Eegads.
Both of these extreme sides attack the rest of us in the middle on a constant basis. The Conservatives these days and their attack dogs are pretty tied up keeping the evil and obviously gay Spongebob at bay. Now see, I didn't think him gay, I thought he was a contraceptive device! But either way, obviously evil. eegads again.
Our first atrocity of the week is the jury award of over 100 million to the family of a little girl paralyzed by a drunk driver after a football game, against not the driver but the concession company who sold the beer. On the surface one feels for the family and the little girl. BUT, that cannot blind one to the fact that reposibility is with the driver who is serving a meager 5 year prison term. You cannot have freedom without personal responsibility for your actions. You cannot. It is not the guy who sold him the beers fault. He is not on the spot judge and jury of who is deserving of a beer. You drink the beer, you get in a car, you are reponsible for what happens. Absolving the idiot driver of total repsonibility here and socking it to the evil corporation smacks of liberalism, but it is the devils own drink, beer, we are talking about so it could be a conservative point of view too. Tossup who is to blame here for this verdict.
The next one is easy. The day after the new food pyramid was released by the almighty government, I saw a story with a title from the San Franciso Chronicle "Weak links in the food chain" and I said to myself "San Fran? Oh this oughta piss me off" and off I went. The story did not dissapoint. Here is a gem from it:
>Emphasizing weight loss conveniently puts the onus for dietary change on the individual and avoids talk of reining in the food industry's multibillion- dollar marketing budget for unhealthy foods. "It's just common sense," explained outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. "Eat less, exercise more," he cheerfully instructed Americans.<
Are you kidding me? You can't expect the stupid, idiotic public to change their diet! You must FORCE them to do so!
And then she mocks the advice of "eat less, eat exercise more". Of course, we can't ever have common sense being told to the American people!
Listen Miss "bowl full of twigs and a $50 bottle of pure water", let me tell you a little secret. THEY KNOW AND THEY DONT CARE. There is no one who believes eating a Big Mac every day is good for you. And if there is a person like that then really, does someone that dumb need to continue in our midst? You can take every ad off TV and even make McDonalds take down the arches and any sign out front and people will still find them and go there. Dummass.
Again, "freedom" is freedom to do things that are not good for you.
And what's more people like this activist are as reponsible for obesity as the evil food giants.
Remember the 90's. Fat, fat, fat. fat is bad. zero fat of any kind ever. Okay. People buy "No Fat" products by the millions. People get even fatter. Because of a little fact. A calorie is a calorie pretty much and no fat foods still have calories. And when there is no fat in foods then your body has no "trigger" to say "hey we're full".
So then it was "no carb" and then that passed. Every day contradictary info comes out about this food or that. So what is wrong with moderation and eating less and excercising as a guideline?
Because people like this writer will not rest until their beliefs are force fed down all our throats. Not content to live their own "enlightened" lifestyle high above the rest of us, they must have their choices "validated" by making every one else agree with their incredible enlightened view.
I know, aren't I taking the views of one little column and blowing it out of proportion?
Maybe. But this is how it starts. In Europe the EU is pushing to have advertising to children of "junk food" banned by law. Now who could oppose that? It's for the children! Well, first of all the Europeans have never much cared for freedom of the working classes anyway. Freedom is not a biggie.
But who defines what is junk food? Is banning the food itself the next step? What about parental control over what a child eats? Is the EU a better judge of that than the parent?
There are many who think this is a great idea. But my, what a slippery slope for freedom of choice you are on at that point.
So this government? The one in Washington? This is the one who both conservatives and liberals alike think should have more power over our lives and our choices?
When I see a government worthy of such power by action or example, I'll get back to you. Until then, no thanks.

last - next