George Will article in Newsweek re:UIGEA

Kevmath · #1 10-15-2006, 09:43 AM

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

kidpokeher · #2 10-15-2006, 09:44 AM

Prohibition II - nice ring to it.

Eponymous · #3 10-15-2006, 09:56 AM

Great article. My favorite line:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Burno · #4 10-15-2006, 10:34 AM

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 · #5 10-15-2006, 10:55 AM

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 · #6 10-15-2006, 11:04 AM

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 · #7 10-15-2006, 11:05 AM

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 · #8 10-15-2006, 11:24 AM

[ 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 · #9 10-15-2006, 11:45 AM

[ 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 · #10 10-15-2006, 11:50 AM

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.