The Daily Cannibal |
| Posted: 01 Jun 2012 03:44 AM PDT  I know you are, but what am I? There was a delightful coincidence today in the gay world of gay law. Just as the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was declaring the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, a New York appeals court came along with a ruling that calling someone gay can no longer be slander because saying someone is a homosexual is no longer defamatory. As society is now constructed, it’s no longer an insult to call someone gay. As the DOMA ruling is a federal case expected to end up in the Supreme Court, and as it concerns the very hot issue of same-sex marriage, it’s naturally getting most of the attention, with (as of this writing) nearly ten times as many Google News listings as the New York case. But DOMA hangs on the thorny but boring old question of states’ rights. The defamation ruling is a heckuva lot more interesting. The long-established idea that it’s defamatory to falsely call someone homosexual, the NY court said, is no longer valid, being “based on a false premise that it is shameful and disgraceful to be described as lesbian, gay or bisexual.” Commenting on the ruling, a Senior Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal noted that it “is not an insult. Being identified as gay is neither bad nor shameful – not in our society, and not under the law.” He’s not just speaking aspirationally. Today the law is actually with him, at least in some quarters. Whereas back on the DOMA front, the unconstitutionality ruling won’t even be enforced pending an expected appeal to the Supremes. And look at the states the First Circuit covers, anyway: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. How gay can you get? (So sue me.)  |
| Posted: 01 Jun 2012 12:19 AM PDT
 How many Dr. Peppers did these two drink today? New York City’s mayor Bloomberg announced today that he would seek to ban all sales of “sugary sodas” in containers of more than 16 ounces as part of an effort to curb the national obesity epidemic. The ban would affect all sales at points of consumption, such as restaurants and snack bars, food stands, newsstands, theaters, sports arenas and so forth. The only stores permitted to sell these sodas in larger containers would effectively be grocery stores, bodegas and the like. Critics on both sides of the fence have several complaints: they see the ban as an unwarranted intrusion on individual rights and choices, as more symbolic than effective, and as another example of Bloomberg’s increasing bent toward nannyism. Nonsense. We have to start somewhere, and Bloomberg is to be commended for his courage, not criticized for his presumption. It is entirely fitting that the government, which is, after all, the people, finally take some responsibility for curbing the future costs to the people that this epidemic will entail. Skyrocketing diabetes rates, heart disease and a host of other ailments all stem from obesity, and sugary sodas are estimated by experts to be a major contributor to excess caloric consumption. Treating the damage inflicted by obesity will run taxpayers tens, if not hundreds billions of dollars a year — dollars that can be saved if we attack the problem aggressively. In addition, surely the government has a long-accepted mandate to act in defense of those who cannot help themselves. Obesity afflicts our social classes disproportionately: chiefly, it is the poor and the young who suffer. Both of these populations tend to be poor decision-makers and undereducated in healthy choices. It is therefore incumbent on the state to rise to their defense. The best evidence to support a program like Bloomberg’s lies in the results it gets. I am confident that, if the availability of these poison pops is reduced substantially we will see corresponding declines in obesity rates in the city that will be measurable. This should go a long way to persuade pseudo-libertarians and the usual claque of anti-big government psychos that Bloomberg’s action is not only not “too much,” but in fact, far too little. A government that is charged with maintaining public safety cannot in good conscience ignore the smoking guns we point at our own bodies, like sugar, trans-fats, smoking, lack of exercise, stress, excess caffeine, immoderate drinking and — well, the list goes on. We need to tackle these problems one at a time or in bunches, if we can, to assure our citizens that they will preserve their most important right — and that is the right to a long, healthy life.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Daily Cannibal To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment