An example of saving lives - liberal vs. right-wing, and the Colonel

[Craig234]

There's a lot to learn about the contest of ideologies, between liberals and the right wing, in the following news story:

NEW YORK - After two years of secret taste tests, KFC said Monday it would stop frying chicken in artery-clogging trans fats...

KFC's announcement, which won praise from consumer advocates, came an hour ahead of a public hearing on a proposal that would make New York the first U.S. city to ban the unhealthy artificial fats.

Industry leaders dished up a plateful of reasons why such a plan shouldn't be adopted in the nation's restaurant capital.

The move would be a "recipe for disaster that could be devastating to New York City's restaurant industry," said E. Charles Hunt, executive vice president of the New York State Restaurant Association.

One, it has the government - the organization accountable to the public - pursuing an agenda in the public interest, saving lives by restricting a very dangerous food.

The right is wrong in many ways on the issue.

The heart of their position can be seen in the quotes from the 'industry', hacks paid to say what they can to put profits ahead of people's lives.

The right has a failed ideology that the private sector should be the only voice on issues like this.

According to their theory, the marketplace all works things out, so that the public will prefer food without trans fat, and the market will respond by offering it, problem solved.

KFC started in the 1950's, as I recall, and has been a pretty huge business nationally for decades. Those highly praised market forces did not work - even though, I'd pretty safely say, if you took polls of the customers whether they preferred the trans fat or to not have it, they'd overwhelmingly vote not to have it. The combination of being attracted to the taste, the price, and lacking much easy way to push change failed to get change.

What did work? The government having some experts identify that this issue was a big enough one to deserve action - and it got action.

It's a positive change in society tht did not occur as the right would say in their ideology that it would; it happened because the liberal ideology did work.

Another error by the right is to make up extreme versions of the liberals - as if every detail will be regulated, if you let any be. But that's not what the liberals want. You can still get plenty of pleasurable food of quetionable healthiness; they pursue a more balanced agenda the right misrepresents.

The liberal agenda is to pursue reasonable policies good for society, with the organization of government representing and accountable to the public balancing selfish interests.

The right wing agenda is to pursue power and to enrich the few, while promising 'freedom' to the many, while actually taking power away from the public, helping the few.

The right has an ideology which says it'll get the right policy and a record of this promise being broken, excuses and rationalizations.

 

[glenn1]

It's a positive change in society tht did not occur as the right would say in their ideology that it would; it happened because the liberal ideology did work.

Another error by the right is to make up extreme versions of the liberals - as if every detail will be regulated, if you let any be. But that's not what the liberals want. You can still get plenty of pleasurable food of quetionable healthiness; they pursue a more balanced agenda the right misrepresents.

So you have here an example of the liberal policies working exactly as designed and saving many Americans' lives, and the right's ideology lying defeated.

But the right doesn't give up its delusions any more easily than KFC gave up its trans fat profitable products - until now, that is.

You sure are being sanctimonious and self-congratulatory over something you had nothing at all to do with.

 

[Craig234]

It's awfully hard for me to be self-congratulatory over something I had nothing to do with.

I'm commenting on two ideologies, one which works and the other which doesn't, not bragging. You're awfully attacking for someone without any ability to discern that.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ummm KFC decided to make this change on their own, not because of some government law. This would be the free market in action and proof that government regulations are not needed. I expect that other fast food chains will follow in an effort to appear more ?healthy? to consumers.

Even you point out that KFC has been working on this for TWO years. How long as NYC been talking about this ban? A few months?

You are giving the government FAR to much credit in the KFC case.

I don?t think the government should be in the business of telling restaurants what they can and can not use to fry their foods. At most they should create a full disclosure policy forcing the restaurants to detail what kind of cooking oil they are using, but if someone still wants to use the ?bad? stuff then that is their choice. And it is the consumers choice to buy from them.

If find it amazing that you guys bitch about all the freedoms that Bush has taken away, and yet think it is good for the government to take away your freedom to eat what you want.

BTW: Remember my "P&N is to the left" thread, what Craig said above is a perfect example of the "government has a solution" to everything statement I made. I wonder how many pages this new rule will entail. And will it stand up in a court of law.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm KFC decided to make this change on their own, not because of some government law. This would be the free market in action and proof that government regulations are not needed. I expect that other fast food chains will follow in an effort to appear more ?healthy? to consumers.

Even you point out that KFC has been working on this for TWO years. How long as NYC been talking about this ban? A few months?

You are giving the government FAR to much credit in the KFC case.

I don?t think the government should be in the business of telling restaurants what they can and can not use to fry their foods. At most they should create a full disclosure policy forcing the restaurants to detail what kind of cooking oil they are using, but if someone still wants to use the ?bad? stuff then that is their choice. And it is the consumers choice to buy from them.

If find it amazing that you guys bitch about all the freedoms that Bush has taken away, and yet think it is good for the government to take away your freedom to eat what you want.

BTW: Remember my "P&N is to the left" thread, what Craig said above is a perfect example of the "government has a solution" to everything statement I made. I wonder how many pages this new rule will entail. And will it stand up in a court of law.

Hehe, you certainly think in a very upside down way. The government is not going to take away the restaurant owners right to use any oil he wants, he is taking away his ability to poison people and cause them an early death. What is being taken is not ones freedom to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the right to take those things from others. It's like taking away your right to shoot a gun in a city or run a red light. There are no rights to harm others. Because you are selfish and sociopathic, like people on the right always are, you see everything through selfish eyes. You think it unfair not to be able to poison people for money because money and your greed are more important to you than other people.

 

[sandorski]

KFC saw the writing on the wall and got a jump on the competition.

 

[Craig234]

Ummm KFC decided to make this change on their own, not because of some government law. This would be the free market in action and proof that government regulations are not needed. I expect that other fast food chains will follow in an effort to appear more ?healthy? to consumers.

Even you point out that KFC has been working on this for TWO years. How long as NYC been talking about this ban? A few months?

You are giving the government FAR to much credit in the KFC case.

I don?t think the government should be in the business of telling restaurants what they can and can not use to fry their foods. At most they should create a full disclosure policy forcing the restaurants to detail what kind of cooking oil they are using, but if someone still wants to use the ?bad? stuff then that is their choice. And it is the consumers choice to buy from them.

If find it amazing that you guys bitch about all the freedoms that Bush has taken away, and yet think it is good for the government to take away your freedom to eat what you want.

BTW: Remember my "P&N is to the left" thread, what Craig said above is a perfect example of the "government has a solution" to everything statement I made. I wonder how many pages this new rule will entail. And will it stand up in a court of law.

I didn't pay John to fulfill my right-wing predictions, but if I had, he earned it. Thanks.

First, we have his flabbergasting silliness that after decades of not doing anything, the change has nothing to do with the government hearing on the issue one hour away. But they'd been researching two years, the apologist says - and doesn't mention that the government has been working on this a while, too, which they knew.

I wrote:

According to (the right wing) theory, the marketplace all works things out, so that the public will prefer food without trans fat, and the market will respond by offering it, problem solved.

ProfJohn helpfully wrote:

This would be the free market in action and proof that government regulations are not needed.

I wrote that the right wing has to misrepresent the liberals with distortions that take their reasonable actions and pretend they'll be done to the extreme:

Another error by the right is to make up extreme versions of the liberals - as if every detail will be regulated, if you let any be.

ProfJohn helpfully wrote:

...what Craig said above is a perfect example of the "government has a solution" to everything statement I made.

See? Take action on one major health issue, and suddenly every single food item is overly regulated by the commies. Just ask the right-wing ideologues.

I think my point is well made.

The liberal agenda is to pursue reasonable policies good for society, with the organization of government representing and accountable to the public balancing selfish interests...

The right has an ideology which says it'll get the right policy and a record of this promise being broken, excuses and rationalizations.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sandorski
KFC saw the writing on the wall and got a jump on the competition.

You're kidding me. PJ says it market forces. Hehe

Hydrogenated oil is a man made product. You take good oil and turn it into bad. It kills people over time. Longer shelf life for the oil, shorter shelf life for you. As I said, a Republican is a person who does not want the government interfere with his attempt to make money killing you.

 

[palehorse]

It's not the business of the Federal Government to regulate or control what foods I choose to eat. they can pass legislation that requires companies and restaurants to list the ingredients and such, but it's MY damn choice as to whether or not I eat the food after reading and/or ignoring the nutritional facts. My eating of said food has little to no impact on anyone else' life.

Unless eating the food endangers someone else' life, then stay the hell out of my way.

This also smacks around our free markets with yet another layer of unnecessary and dangerous beaurocratic interference.

This entire move to make a certain type of food illegal is completely unacceptable.

Talk about Big Brother! Forget wiretaps and water-boarding, these liberal arseholes are trying to take away my rights to EAT FOOD! wtf?!

what nonsense.

 

[Genx87]

Typing on internet msgboards causes an elevated risk of heart attack due to the stress of combating annoying trolls.

Govt regulation to end internet msgboards has been passed to save the lives and hearts of those millions who partake in this past time.

Your nanny state govt hard at work curtailing your freedoms.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's not the business of the Federal Government to regulate or control what foods I choose to eat. they can pass legislation that requires companies and restaurants to list the ingredients and such, but it's MY damn choice as to whether or not I eat the food after reading and/or ignoring the nutritional facts. My eating of said food has little to no impact on anyone else' life.

Unless eating the food endangers someone else' life, then stay the hell out of my way.

This also smacks around our free markets with yet another layer of unnecessary and dangerous beaurocratic interference.

This entire move to make a certain type of food illegal is completely unacceptable.

Talk about Big Brother! Forget wiretaps and water-boarding, these liberal arseholes are trying to take away my rights to EAT FOOD! wtf?!

what nonsense.

LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::roll:

Frankly I think it's good to do away with posionous additives even if it takes government regulations.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The liberal agenda is to pursue reasonable policies good for society, with the organization of government representing and accountable to the public balancing selfish interests.

Conservatives have "1984"...you have "Brave New World."

Quite a spin job there, with your conclusion offering nothing more then a series of generalizations that are not reasonable assertations given the context of KFC's decision.

The right wing agenda is to pursue power and to enrich the few, while promising 'freedom' to the many, while actually taking power away from the public, helping the few. The right has an ideology which says it'll get the right policy and a record of this promise being broken, excuses and rationalizations.

Had you said NeoCon, I might agree with you...the right is not a hive mind entity...there are shades of conservatives...many conservatives, or individuals that lean right, are not that far from center in terms of social policies.

Many conservatives want to pursue agendas that are for the benefit of society...we just don't trust the government to institute said policies...the government should exist to pass laws and regulations that establish a baseline of policies reasonable for the common good...then let market forces dictate how to achieve those standards.

In this case, I don't believe there is a common good...people know that fast food is bad for them...that they fail to seek healthier alternatives, or demand that establishments such as KFC offer alternatives, is not the government's problem. I do not believe in government regulation to protect individuals from themselves.

Then again, I don't think there is a consensus of what is reasonably good for society...what you consider reasonable I might consider a waste of time and effort...and even if I agree with you on the premise, I may not agree on the path for achieving the desired endstate.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::roll:

Frankly I think it's good to do away with posionous additives even if it takes government regulations.

Yes you are so right. And next they should get rid of sugary foods because it leads to obesity. And let's regulate Soda since that also causes obesity, and diabetes.
Any food with high levels of fat should also be illegal.
Organic spinach needs to be outlawed as well, two people dead from eating it two too many.
Basicly, any food that can be considred unhealthy should be outlawed. We should ban all these unhealthy foods from being served in public restaraunts in the name of public health.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Banned Member with a new ISP

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::roll:

Frankly I think it's good to do away with posionous additives even if it takes government regulations.

Yes you are so right. And next they should get rid of sugary foods because it leads to obesity. And let's regulate Soda since that also causes obesity, and diabetes.
Any food with high levels of fat should also be illegal.
Organic spinach needs to be outlawed as well, two people dead from eating it two too many.
Basicly, any food that can be considred unhealthy should be outlawed. We should ban all these unhealthy foods from being served in public restaraunts in the name of public health.

So you believe that we should allow this poison to be added to our foods so the Industry can make more of a profit? I mean it's only used because it's profitable, not because it tastes better.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::roll:

Frankly I think it's good to do away with posionous additives even if it takes government regulations.

Yes you are so right. And next they should get rid of sugary foods because it leads to obesity. And let's regulate Soda since that also causes obesity, and diabetes.
Any food with high levels of fat should also be illegal.
Organic spinach needs to be outlawed as well, two people dead from eating it two too many.
Basicly, any food that can be considred unhealthy should be outlawed. We should ban all these unhealthy foods from being served in public restaraunts in the name of public health.

Funny you should mention the spinach. If it were not for Government Regulation, a bunch of people would have died or got real sick and we'd all be none the wiser. In act the occurance of such things would be so common and widespread no one would bat an eye.

Sometimes the Government has to act in the best interests of Society, this is one of those times.

 

[Craig234]

Wow, the right wingers just can't help themselves. I point out the fallacy they'll commit, and it doesn't stop them, they all rush up to prove me right.

Another error by the right is to make up extreme versions of the liberals - as if every detail will be regulated, if you let any be.

One after another posts the fantasy extreme version as their fallacious argument against this reasonable, life-saving policy.

For example, John agains helps my point:

And next they should get rid of sugary foods because it leads to obesity. And let's regulate Soda since that also causes obesity, and diabetes.
Any food with high levels of fat should also be illegal.
Organic spinach needs to be outlawed as well, two people dead from eating it two too many.
Basicly, any food that can be considred unhealthy should be outlawed. We should ban all these unhealthy foods from being served in public restaraunts in the name of public health.

Right, that's the liberal's plan.

The right-wingers are so ideologically dominated that they are unable to seperate the reasonable good ideas from their nightmarish extreme versions having nothing to do with liberal policy. Their ideologically radical views prevent good policy because of the fear of some fantasy.

Had you said NeoCon, I might agree with you...the right is not a hive mind entity...there are shades of conservatives..

I use right-wing as distinct from 'conservative', in a similar way apparently to how you use 'neocon' as distinct from conservative. Though, I don't think the Neocons have much position on domestic issues like this, but they are a topic for the radical right.

I agree that many real conservatives are less ideologically extreme and able to see the shades of grey on why a policy like this is good.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I do not believe in government regulation to protect individuals from themselves.

QFT. In a case such as this, wherein the only victim of the trans fats is the individual consuming them, there is no justification whatsoever for government interest, let alone regulation and law! If the eating of trans fats somehow endangered others, then we could talk. (example: second-hand smoke, alcohol, and other drugs that endanger others). but, if the worst possible effect on the rest of society is havign to smell bad gas, then get the hell out of my eating habits please!

thankyou very much.

 

[Craig234]

And Palehorse doesn't disappoint, helping to prove my point that the ideological right is just unable to tell the difference between the reasoanble use of the government for the good of society, and some fantasy of widespread oppression; that their loyalty to ideology leaves them paralyzed at actually solving societal problems.

Left-wing policy: healthy balance of freedom and a little government that addresses big problems; right-wing: ideological opposition to government which would leave our society without any addressing of trans fat, and for that matter without social security, medicare, public colleges or pretty much any other government-linked solutions.

Prediction of the right-wing pushing its failed ideology:

The right has a failed ideology that the private sector should be the only voice on issues like this.

According to their theory, the marketplace all works things out, so that the public will prefer food without trans fat, and the market will respond by offering it, problem solved.

KFC started in the 1950's, as I recall, and has been a pretty huge business nationally for decades. Those highly praised market forces did not work - even though, I'd pretty safely say, if you took polls of the customers whether they preferred the trans fat or to not have it, they'd overwhelmingly vote not to have it. The combination of being attracted to the taste, the price, and lacking much easy way to push change failed to get change...

The right has an ideology which says it'll get the right policy and a record of this promise being broken, excuses and rationalizations.

Palehorse helping out, with his position which would kill many people for no reason but ideology:

In a case such as this, wherein the only victim of the trans fats is the individual consuming them, there is no justification whatsoever for government interest, let alone regulation and law! If the eating of trans fats somehow endangered others, then we could talk. (example: second-hand smoke, alcohol, and other drugs that endanger others). but, if the worst possible effect on the rest of society is havign to smell bad gas, then get the hell out of my eating habits please!

thankyou very much.

We're talking here about an issue with no downside to society - negligible cost issue, and consumers can't tell the difference - but while the right's ideology failed for decades to address this, and one government meeting got it changed savng many lives, the right still says 'oh, better to not fix it' or 'the right-wing approach was going to fix it soon, really'.

The choice: liberal policies that work, or right-wing cult-like ideology that fails.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe that we should allow this poison to be added to our foods so the Industry can make more of a profit? I mean it's only used because it's profitable, not because it tastes better.

What I am saying is that people should be allowed to eat what foods they want to eat. Let the public know about the dangers of these fats and then let the people decide what to eat.

Another point those of us on the right have been trying to make in this thread, and everyone else seems to ignore is the point that everyone complains when they hear about the wiretapping and tracking of funds through the banks and claims what a threat to our freedom and way of life those programs are. Yet when the government decids to regulate something as simple as what you can and can't eat you all applaud them for doing such a great deed.

Everything Bush had done since 9-11 has not affected the way I lead my life one bit. But something as simple as the NYC regulation will change what millions of people can or cannot eat.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe that we should allow this poison to be added to our foods so the Industry can make more of a profit? I mean it's only used because it's profitable, not because it tastes better.

What I am saying is that people should be allowed to eat what foods they want to eat. Let the public know about the dangers of these fats and then let the people decide what to eat.

Okay, so why not allow the people to take whatever drug they want? Let the people know the dangers of crack, heroin, etc, and then let the people decide for themselves?

I ask this purely out of honest curiousity. Is your professed desire for a TRULY free choice limited to food only? Or other dangerous and potentially deadly products?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe that we should allow this poison to be added to our foods so the Industry can make more of a profit? I mean it's only used because it's profitable, not because it tastes better.

What I am saying is that people should be allowed to eat what foods they want to eat. Let the public know about the dangers of these fats and then let the people decide what to eat.

And yet I'm sure you'd be against the legalization of marijuana.

 

[theeedude]

I definitely applaud the government for doing this. If KFC put "TransFat" next to their meals when I order, then your argument would hold water and I would be able to decide what to order based on that. As it stands now, there is no way for consumer to know at the point of sale. As such, consumer needs to be protected with regulation, because there is no market mechanism for the consumer to protect himself since the consumer is not given the information to make market based decision.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
There's a lot to learn about the contest of ideologies, between liberals and the right wing, in the following news story:


One, it has the government - the organization accountable to the public - pursuing an agenda in the public interest, saving lives by restricting a very dangerous food.

Geee fvkin Wizz :disgust:

Man, people like you seem so very weird to me. You really need to live in such a freakin "Nanny State" to be happy?

How about growin up and making responsible choices for yourself? Or, maybe you people just think everyone else is incapable of making decisions?

If I wanna consume something that's "dangerous", like whiskey or caffine, it's my damn business not anybody else's. The government can butt the h3ll out of my life.

BTW: It's not just "right wingers" who can't stand this "Nanny State" business. Think Libertarian, spin meister.

Besides, you guys are obviating the "Darwin Effect" you crow about so often.

Fern

 

[Thump553]

Before gushing too much about how wonderful KFC's corporate owners were in voluntarily taking this step, one should make note of the facts that (1) KFC took this action in direct response to a class action brought by the American Medical Association about KFC's failure to disclose the trans fats in its products AMA files suit against KFC and (2) there is much criticism of KFC's new changes as being inadequate Inadequate change .

Personally, I just came back from Popeye's, which tastes 100% better than KFC anyway.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
There's a lot to learn about the contest of ideologies, between liberals and the right wing, in the following news story:


One, it has the government - the organization accountable to the public - pursuing an agenda in the public interest, saving lives by restricting a very dangerous food.

Geee fvkin Wizz :disgust:

Man, people like you seem so very weird to me. You really need to live in such a freakin "Nanny State" to be happy?

How about growin up and making responsible choices for yourself? Or, maybe you people just think everyone else is incapable of making decisions?

If I wanna consume something that's "dangerous", like whiskey or caffine, it's my damn business not anybody else's. The government can butt the h3ll out of my life.

BTW: It's not just "right wingers" who can't stand this "Nanny State" business. Think Libertarian, spin meister.

Besides, you guys are obviating the "Darwin Effect" you crow about so often.

Fern

My policies result in far fewer people being killed than your fantasy-based ideology, without the extreme 'nanny state' that exists only in your little cult.

I include libertarians in the right-wing group I mentioned. No 'spin' there.

Liberals are not out to ban caffeine or whiskey. You, too, prove the point that the right resorts to these fantasy, phony extreme versions of liberals as your main arguments.

In fact, libertarians are especially bad about the fallacy that there's this fantasyland they think would exist without government - a luxury they can have to make the error because of how good elected government is for them, while many around the world who have the 'freedoms' they say they want are powerless peons who are stuck.

Look at the times the US has most implemented the libertarian ideology, such as in the gilded age - in 1900, I understand the average *inflation adjusted* average income for Americans was $10,000 - i.e.l, abject poverty while the robber barons thrived; the only way out of that hole was for the government to force the private sector to let the people organize, and force the private sector to stop shooting them for trying. Libertarianism is one of those utterly bankrupt and dangerous cults that looks nice on the surface.

It's been said that everyone agrees with libertarians in part; that's a far cry from their desires for a radical ideology which would greatly damage our nation.

Pretty much everyone can find parts of the libertarian platform they agree with, from certain 'individual rights' to 'smaller government' (in the areas thay want cut).

The real libertarian platform is a menace to democracy, based on its adherents' fallacious understanding of a vacuum of government power.

Hint: ask a serf in most socities in mankind's history about how much the absence of elected government power meant he got the power instead.

How many societies in human history resembe the fantasyland libertarians describe? None they want to take credit for.