NIBBLING AWAY OUR FREEDOM  

GOVERNMENT SEEKS ANOTHER LAYER OF CONTROL  

By: Frederick Meekins  

In traditional American thought, the government plays a limited role, 
confining itself to activities such as military defense and the punishment 
of crimes such as theft and murder.  

Popular mythology holds this to be a key principle embraced by the 
Republican Party since freedom dictates that the individual be allowed 
to pursue their interests unimpeded within the boundaries of reason and 
natural law. One would think such rights extended to the simple things 
of life like what we eat as well.  

Over the years, one has come to expect the abridgement of these 
fundamental liberties from the likes of Democrats and Liberals since it is 
in their nature to assume they know how to run our lives better than we 
do. One is less accustomed when it is Republicans and so-called 
Conservatives issuing such autocratic pronouncements.  

It is normally assumed that, apart from perhaps overseeing the overall 
public safety of the food supply against disease, the government should 
avoid interfering in the free expression of culinary preferences. However, 
one prominent member of the Bush Administration possesses a 
considerably different conception regarding the operation of the 
gastronomical economy.  

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson addressed a 
gathering of fast food executives, chastising them for not offering 
healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables and for daring to offer 
super-size specials. Thompson is reported in the Washington Post as 
saying, "I want more choices and healthier choices on their menus, and 
advertising campaigns to eat healthy. We are too fat and don't exercise."  

Politicians are renowned for being notoriously out of touch with reality. 
Remember the first President Bush's befuddlement upon seeing his first 
bar-code scanner in a supermarket way back in 1991?  

No one goes to MacDonald's for a healthy snack or to imbibe those 
forms of nourishment that will win them favor with the government. If 
people really have a hankering to eat as they are told, they can always 
bypass the fast food establishments in pursuit of the of the more 
nutritional offerings available from more reputable victuallers. After all, 
often shopping establishments have these eateries and grocery stores 
accessible by the same parking lot. If someone really wants to make a 
scene out of getting their fiber, why don't they just drive out to the 
countryside and tussle in a meadow with a sheep or goat for some 
straw or hay?  

Just as disturbing is Thompson's conclusion that Americans have grown 
"too fat" and for these franchises to "rethink their
supersize portions". In 
other words, it ought to be the government's role to tell us what to eat 
and how much. The last time I checked, Thompson doesn't look like 
he's missed too many meals.  

Before too long, we'll probably be told it's our patriotic duty to lose 
weight in the name of the war on terror; after all, other things not even 
remotely related to this national security concern have been reined in 
under this umbrella. Contrary to what FreedomCorps propagandists 
would tell us, not that many terrorists are suffering from a bout of 
illiteracy.  

If Secretary Thompson is so concerned about overindulgence, perhaps 
he could spend time lecturing the Kennedy's about their propensity 
towards alcohol or rebuke the various Bush offspring regarding their 
cravings for intoxicating substances instead of harassing the American 
people about the innocent pleasures of a Big Mac and fries. Most of the 
time, overeaters aren't known for driving cars off of bridges or forging 
phony prescriptions.  

These concerns are more than mere conspiracy mongering. 
CNSNews.com reported that the World Health Organization in the 
World Health Report 2002 is urging governments around the globe to 
enact legislation regulating the consumption of fats, sugars, and salt.  

Some think they will continue to eat what they want regardless of these 
pompous policy proclamations. They might be in for a bit of surprise.  

Drawing much of their inspiration from the anti-smoking pogrom, these 
food fascists plan to impose a number of measures on what people eat 
similar to the increased taxes currently levied against tobacco products. 
But with expanding technology, excessive taxation might be the least of 
the snacking population's concerns.  

Over the past decade or so, the grocery-going public has grown 
accustomed to so-called customer loyalty cards that allow 
supermarkets to collect purchasing information on participants in 
exchange for discounts, sales, and coupons.  

Sounds innocuous as a means of clarifying the variables of the 
economic relationship between supplier and customer, but that all 
depends in whose hands this information ends up.  

For example, a story posted on the Fox News website back in August 
revealed that one grocery chain eagerly handed its customer database 
over to the government after the September 11th attack. Somehow I 
don't think Muhammad Atta was all that concerned with pork rebates or 
discounts on shell fish, and even if he was, it ought not be of concern to 
the government.  

Thus, since the government seeks to exercise yet another layer of 
control over the lives of the American people as suggested by Secretary 
Thompson's comments, this kind of technology could be adapted to a 
program of unprecedented dietary surveillance. For example, a Bureau 
of Nutritional Enforcement could compel access to all existing preferred 
shopper accounts or even require anyone wanting to acquire provisions 
to obtain one of these cards.  

Since such information would be electronically catalogued, it would be a 
simple matter of imposing a fine or inflicting a punishment upon any 
soul brash enough to ingest nourishment transcending the limits of 
federally mandated parameters. Overeaters could be denied insurance, 
desirable employment, or even the right to purchase additional rations of 
their choice.  

A popular pro-abortion bumper-sticker sneers, "My body, my choice." If 
the Bush Administration is only going to mount a hear-hearted effort at 
curbing this contemporary holocaust, they certainly do not possess the 
moral clout to condemn the individual for simply enjoying provisions that 
bring little harm to those consuming them and none whatsoever to those 
choosing not to partake of them.  

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this 
notice and hyperlink intact."  

Frederick Meekins is a free lance writer and a regular columnist for 
Ether Zone.  

                          --

Source: Ether Zone - http://etherzone.com/2002/meek111502.shtml


Cheers, Steve..

---