George Will article in Newsweek re:UIGEA

[Kevmath]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15265338/site/newsweek/

[kidpokeher]

Prohibition II - nice ring to it.

[Eponymous]

Great article. My favorite line:

[ QUOTE ]
But who wants to live in a society that protects the weak-willed by criminalizing cheeseburgers?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Burno]

Great find.

This is good news. George Will is a legitimate heavyweight in the punditocracy.

Will, for the woefully uninformed, is a fairly staunch conservative who is both well known and enjoys broad appeal.

[JPFisher55]

The new law starting this supposed Prohibition II is so weak and full of holes that it does not deserve the title. Also, it is a law not a constitution amendment. It won't effectively prohibit anything.

[Miamipuck]

Yes that was a great article. I just wish people like him had more of a say in the Republican Party. It is too bad they have to pander to their right wing moral majority nutballs.

[sandycove]

Most of us already do…

Southwest Airlines penalizes obese travellers.

New York City seeks to outlaw trans fats.

Many more regulations, restrictions in the queue.

Standard.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of us already do…

Southwest Airlines penalizes obese travellers.

New York City seeks to outlaw trans fats.

Many more regulations, restrictions in the queue.

Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a stretch, obese travellers require more space & fuel. Why should other people subsidize their size. Also, it is not criminal, just a business decision.
The trans fat issue is on point, I just don't have a problem with SW Airlines charging more for patrons that cost them more. If I need to ship a 200 pounds package by air, I can expect to pay more than a 50 pound package, because of fuel costs. My neighbor's SUV gets 11MPG, so his fuel cost is higher than my sub compact, but then he has more room and likely more safety so he is willing to pay the extra fuel cost. If you think SW policy is unfair, fly another airline.

The NYC thing is just nanny state silly.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of us already do…

Southwest Airlines penalizes obese travellers.

New York City seeks to outlaw trans fats.

Many more regulations, restrictions in the queue.

Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a stretch, obese travellers require more space & fuel. Why should other people subsidize their size. Also, it is not criminal, just a business decision.
The trans fat issue is on point, I just don't have a problem with SW Airlines charging more for patrons that cost them more. If I need to ship a 200 pounds package by air, I can expect to pay more than a 50 pound package, because of fuel costs. My neighbor's SUV gets 11MPG, so his fuel cost is higher than my sub compact, but then he has more room and likely more safety so he is willing to pay the extra fuel cost. If you think SW policy is unfair, fly another airline.

The NYC thing is just nanny state silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea a private organization doing that is fine.

[poiuytrewq]

Very Interesting. I had already sent a letter to Sen. Bill Frist, copying both of my Colorado Senators, stating that this is exactly like Prohibition. True, Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, and this is just legislation, but however Politian's do it, trying to control the population's behavior is doomed from the beginning when it pertains to this type of entertainment.

I would suggest anyone interested to read this article:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tb052198.html
Strange, this was Congressional Testimony back in 1998, when President Clinton was in office.

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]
Very Interesting. I had already sent a letter to Sen. Bill Frist, copying both of my Colorado Senators, stating that this is exactly like Prohibition. True, Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, and this is just legislation, but however Politian's do it, trying to control the population's behavior is doomed from the beginning when it pertains to this type of entertainment.

I would suggest anyone interested to read this article:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tb052198.html
Strange, this was Congressional Testimony back in 1998, when President Clinton was in office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice Sen. Kyl being quoted as the voice of opposition in that article? Guess even then he had a hard on against gambling. He must've lost his ass on the dice tables.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
Great find.

This is good news. George Will is a legitimate heavyweight in the punditocracy.

Will, for the woefully uninformed, is a fairly staunch conservative who is both well known and enjoys broad appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]who is he?

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great find.

This is good news. George Will is a legitimate heavyweight in the punditocracy.

Will, for the woefully uninformed, is a fairly staunch conservative who is both well known and enjoys broad appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]who is he?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some aristocratic guy the broads like for his conservatory.

[Tuff_Fish]

One of my favorite writers.

I wish I could speak and write like George Will.

Tony

[buglemouth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great find.

This is good news. George Will is a legitimate heavyweight in the punditocracy.

Will, for the woefully uninformed, is a fairly staunch conservative who is both well known and enjoys broad appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]who is he?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some aristocratic guy the broads like for his conservatory.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably has a massive conservatory.

[j2zooted]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great find.

This is good news. George Will is a legitimate heavyweight in the punditocracy.

Will, for the woefully uninformed, is a fairly staunch conservative who is both well known and enjoys broad appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]who is he?

[/ QUOTE ]

he is a traditional conservative pundit, he writes for newsweek and sports illustrated. he gives commentary on abc's this week with george stephonopulus (sp?). he is a good guy to have on our side. this article makes me happy

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
It won't effectively prohibit anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go play on Party then.

[AlexM]

Completely ignoring the real Prohibition II (the War on Drugs) severely weakens this article.

[acesfall]

[ QUOTE ]
Completely ignoring the real Prohibition II (the War on Drugs) severely weakens this article.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT! Pot + Poker = A great world /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great find.

This is good news. George Will is a legitimate heavyweight in the punditocracy.

Will, for the woefully uninformed, is a fairly staunch conservative who is both well known and enjoys broad appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]who is he?

[/ QUOTE ]

Host of George F. Will's Sports Machine (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/89/89qsportsmachine.phtml).

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Completely ignoring the real Prohibition II (the War on Drugs) severely weakens this article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it does the exact opposite. The type of people that support this ban in the first place are exactly the type of people that are convinced the War on Drugs is working. Drug prohibition is kind of a sacred cow with those people so if you start to talk about drug legalization they're just going to tune you out.

Take one crusade at a time.

[prodonkey]

Have you never sat next to someone that should have paid for 2 seats? I sure have.. pisses me off. My and other passengers comfort shouldn't have to be compromised because someone is too fat.

[NapoleonDolemite]

Excellent piece and right on the money.

[SwordFish]

[ QUOTE ]
The NYC thing is just nanny state silly

[/ QUOTE ]

This one is actually a law: Chicago Bans Foie Gras (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/national/main1550028.shtml)

At least Mayor Daley has some sense:

[ QUOTE ]
Mayor Richard Daley opposed the measure.

"We have children getting killed by gang leaders and dope dealers. We have real issues here in this city," said Daley, "Let's get some priorities."


[/ QUOTE ]


SF

[spartaninpr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great find.

This is good news. George Will is a legitimate heavyweight in the punditocracy.

Will, for the woefully uninformed, is a fairly staunch conservative who is both well known and enjoys broad appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]who is he?

[/ QUOTE ]Dude,you never saw George Will Hunting?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The NYC thing is just nanny state silly

[/ QUOTE ]

This one is actually a law: Chicago Bans Foie Gras (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/national/main1550028.shtml)

At least Mayor Daley has some sense:

[ QUOTE ]
Mayor Richard Daley opposed the measure.

"We have children getting killed by gang leaders and dope dealers. We have real issues here in this city," said Daley, "Let's get some priorities."


[/ QUOTE ]


SF

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, this is not even close to the same thing. It's not a protecting people from themselves issue, it's an animal cruelty issue. If you don't see a problem with supposed cruelty to animals that's fine, but they're not the same issue.

As to the Mayor's comment, if shooting kids isn't already illegal remind me never to go to your city.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It won't effectively prohibit anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go play on Party then.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH SIR.

[SwordFish]

Xhad-

My original post quoted and was referring to something being "nanny state silly".

[ QUOTE ]
Nanny State From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
.
The term nanny state......... Its usage varies by political context, but in general it is used in reference to policies where the state is characterized as being excessive in its desire to protect ("nanny"), govern or control particular aspects of society. Which particular aspects are considered or claimed to be excessively protected depends on usage.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that the Chicago law is dealing with animal cruelty, it certainly falls into the category of excessively governing and controlling society. They are not banning the cruelty, they are just trying to control the people who eat foie gras.

As you pointed out, there are laws against shooting kids. There are also already laws in place against animal cruelty. Unfortunately in the food industry, certain types of animal cruelty are commonplace and legal (ex. veal).

If people do not like the way a food is legally produced, they should not eat it. It is not the job of the Chicago City Council to be our "nanny" and ban legal food.

Note: I do not even like foie gras.


SF

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great find.

This is good news. George Will is a legitimate heavyweight in the punditocracy.

Will, for the woefully uninformed, is a fairly staunch conservative who is both well known and enjoys broad appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]who is he?

[/ QUOTE ]Dude,you never saw George Will Hunting?

[/ QUOTE ]

i lol'd.

[rando]

His nickname is actually George "Dog Will Hunt."

[whitepotatoe]

[ QUOTE ]
But who wants to live in a society that protects the weak-willed by criminalizing cheeseburgers?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of us already do…

Southwest Airlines penalizes obese travellers.

New York City seeks to outlaw trans fats.

Many more regulations, restrictions in the queue.

Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself. Most of us do not want to ban cheeseburgers. SW penalizing fat people is not relevant to this discussion, since Congress did not make a law requiring them to do so. And have you ever sat next a fat guy who's sweaty belly hung over the arm rest all over you for 3 grueling hours, which then caused a rash all over your forearm and bicep area. I doubt you have, because if you did you would stand up and applaud the airlines that make fat people get two seats, instead of associate it with legislative attempts to ban poker, trans fats, etc.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
Prohibition II - nice ring to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree -- it gets to the point quickly and effectively, which is important in this world of 30" sound bites and information overload. Everyone already knows about Prohibtion and has a negative opinion of it.
Also, refering to this new law as Prohibition II has force since Will is a highly respected conservative. Everytime time we use this term we will be invoking his endorsement of our position. Remember,"Vodoo economics". Democrats refered to Reagon's economic plan in the 80s with this term,in part, because it was George Bush, his Vice-President, that first used that term against Reagon's proposed policies in a Republican primary.

REPEAL PROHIBITION II !!

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It won't effectively prohibit anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go play on Party then.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH SIR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party prohibited Party.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree that the Chicago law is dealing with animal cruelty, it certainly falls into the category of excessively governing and controlling society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, read the entire thing:

[ QUOTE ]
Which particular aspects are considered or claimed to be excessively protected depends on usage. Political usage of the term confines itself in accordance with scope, referring to:

* national economic and social policies (regulation and intervention) that affect large and state-favored businesses, or
* international trade policies that favor native corporate industries (protectionism).

For example U.S. conservatives (especially paleoconservatives that support the free market and capitalism) have used the term in objection to what it claims is excessive in their desire to protect consumers, through state regulations of business, or otherwise social aspects which have an impact upon business, and have appeal as populist causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If "nanny state" is refering to regulating certain spheres of society, it's a loaded term, but it still means something. If it means, "governments that try to regulate things I don't like" then it's just a buzzword for anarchists.

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree that the Chicago law is dealing with animal cruelty, it certainly falls into the category of excessively governing and controlling society. They are not banning the cruelty, they are just trying to control the people who eat foie gras.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no, they want to stop the production of foie gras but since they can't they figure they'll cut off the demand. Much like Frist wants to stop us from gambling but he can't, so he attempted to cut off the supply.

[Self Made]

Do some good: digg (http://digg.com/political_opinion/Prohibition_II_Good_Grief_George_Will_on_recent_on line_gambling_law) this article on Digg.com rather than discussing it here. Digg is one of the most popular sites on the net, and if enough of us digg it the article will get promoted to the front page where a lot of people will see it.