-
Conscripts in a Ponzi Scheme
June 13, 2011 | 127 comments
-
Social Security and the Ghost of Ephram Nestor
April 6, 2011 | 21 comments
-
Dracon for President?
February 22, 2011 | 48 comments
-
Mitch Daniels and the CPAC Moment
February 14, 2011 | 78 comments
-
The New America Firsters
February 7, 2011 | 43 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Freedom Worth Its Salt
What will Big Brother outlaw next? Salt shakers?
The Food and Drug Administration has announced that it will soon require the manufacturers of many food products to use less salt. They assure us that the changes will be calibrated so that consumers will barely notice them. That raises the question: Is there anything (other than sex) that the government can’t regulate?
If people want less salt in their food, manufacturers will respond to their desires. As in fact they have already done. Stroll down your supermarket aisles and look at the number of products that come in a low-sodium variety. Soups. Juices. Peanuts. Crackers. Soda water. Cereals. Snacks. Cheese. Unsalted tops on Saltines! Frozen chicken Parmesan, cheese ravioli, chicken picatta. Chili. Vegetable enchiladas. Even sodium-free salt!
Why so many? Because consumers — the market — demanded them, and manufacturers responded.
But that’s not good enough for Big Brother. He wants everybody to use low-sodium products, and he wants more of them. BB says it’s healthy.
Maybe it is. But whose choice is it to be healthy? The individual citizen’s or nanny government’s? Ah, says BB, but some people are … well, you know, too stupid to realize that less sodium may be better for them.
The result is that we will all have to live in a society regulated for the stupidest among us. Is that really what America is all about?
And of course, requiring manufacturers to use less salt has to be just the beginning. The resulting product will be so easy to alter. Just — add salt! What will Big Brother do then?
He will outlaw salt, that’s what he’ll do. Perhaps not in the home, but in restaurants. You laugh? In New York City, Big Brother Bloomberg (the mayor) outlawed trans fats in restaurants in 2006. Two years later, California banned trans fats in all restaurants in the state. And this spring Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democratic from Brooklyn, introduced a bill into the New York State legislature banning any and all salt in public eating places in the state.
You say you will bring your own? Please. Big Brothers Bloomberg and Ortiz will be waiting for you. It will be a misdemeanor to bring salt into a restaurant, as it is, even now, illegal in many places to take an open bottle of wine out of a restaurant. That was easy.
But what about private eating places — assuming the concept continues to exist in Big Brother’s world? How will BB keep you from eating salt at home? Easy again. He will tax it. Look what BB did to cigarettes. Would $10 a pound cut into your salt habit? How about $20? Maybe $30?
The rationale is easy to understand — if you put yourself in the shoes of a bright young Harvard man who knows much more about everything than someone like us will ever know. He will look out for me and you. As a McDonald’s jingle of the 1970s went, “We do it all for you-ou-ou.”
Why does the government want to regulate our behavior? There are at least two reasons, one stated, the other not.
The stated reason will be that since the government is paying for our health care, it has the right to make us behave in ways that are healthy in order to keep our medical bills down. It isn’t fair for us to burden our fellow taxpaying citizens because we don’t behave properly — because we eat too much salt.
The other, and the real, reason is power: big-government types, like President Obama and his crowd, exist to control other people.
They have two goals: making the citizens utterly dependent on government (them), and managing every aspect of the citizens’ lives. That is the leftist, progressive dream. And it is rapidly becoming a reality. In the land of the free.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (113) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Oliver
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/28/freedom-worth-its-salt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- Public Nuisances
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
gran torino| 4.28.10 @ 7:14AM
Gandhi started with salt--look where that led: to the independence of India. It can be done.
Alan Brooks| 4.28.10 @ 8:44PM
But sex is good for us-- even if the incidences of STDs are very high considering the prevention available?
There is freedom, but no virtue-- why deny it anymore? everyone knows it deep down.
donserge| 4.28.10 @ 8:45AM
History has shown that there will be a point when people will say..."enough". The founders of our country reached it. Have we? I don't believe so because we are still losing a little bit of our freedoms every day. I pray that there will be something that will trigger the people to say.."STOP". The healthcare boondoggle you say? Don't bet on it.
Quartermaster| 4.28.10 @ 9:11AM
I've got high blood pressure and serious heart disease, but let me tell you right now that I'll eat all the goddamn salt I want.
The goverment is not gonna tell me what I can or cannot eat. I say stay out of my kitchen cabinets goddamint!
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 9:36AM
Way to go Quartermaster!
My doc told me that if I didn't cut down on salt it would kill me. But I ain't listening to my doc and I sure ain't going to listen to the federal government telling me anything about my health.
I'm going down to Burger King, order me a Quarter-Pounder with fries, and I am gonna load them fries down with four or five packs of salt.
Salt! I want it. Gimme more! Gimme all I want! And give it to me now.
Retired Marine| 4.28.10 @ 9:39AM
I'm with you all.
I like to stick out my tongue, grab the shaker, and salt it down, and I've got serious kidney problems. Love my salt! Gotta have it!
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 9:42AM
I don't think Jesus watched is salt intake, did he? Does the Bible say anything about us limiting our intake of sodium. I don't think so.
Pass the salt shaker, please. I like to put it in my coffee of a morning.
Ken (old Texican)| 4.28.10 @ 9:52AM
Well there's that part in the bible about Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt. So it seems to me that salt might be a good thing. I mean if God turned her into salt, what else is there to think?
But Lot was a homo, wasn't he?
I like to sprinkle my toast with salt, Margie. Ever tried that. Nothing makes food tastier than a generous--and I mean generous--heaping of salt. Good old salt. We conservatives aren't conservative about salt, are we? But those sissy liberals are always carrying on about health issues. Faggots and liberals. Whiners.
Tatiana Goldenberg| 4.28.10 @ 10:00AM
Good God! What foolish, reckless people are the above commenters!
Quatermaster, Nick, Retired Marine, Margie, Ken (Old Texican)-- You are the biggest fools I've ever encountered on the printed page.
You all deserve whatever health ailments you have, and you are most certainly a drain on our health system. Idiots! All of you.
2Anglico| 4.28.10 @ 10:31AM
Another tolerant leftist. After the ad hominin attack, what is your MAIN point?
Stevie| 4.28.10 @ 2:04PM
Soon...all you leftists will be under Obama's control as well. Morons.
txvet| 4.29.10 @ 9:48AM
It's their business and none of yours. Or the government's.
shempest| 4.30.10 @ 12:38PM
Yo T,ana. Take a pill, then a deep breath. And add some salt to your food, voluntarily, of course. A lot of it please. Libtard miscreant. Oops, sorry about that slip.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.28.10 @ 11:01AM
Well folks, I have ARRIVED! A Soros communist, (pardon the shorthand), below has forged my name to a false post.
OK, folks, from now on we know the code to stop that don't we all? good.
Obviously though, this squirrell doesn't write with near the flair I possess, so you won't even have to check the code.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.28.10 @ 11:07AM
Well Folks, I have arrived. The Soros troll below has forged my name.
Please chuckle as he/she tries to mimic my flowing prose. heh
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 11:21AM
The above post at 9:42 isn't mine, either.
Ha! I could tell that wasn't you, too.
They say imitation is the "sincerest" form of flattery, but in the case of a troll? Not so sure.
Al Adab| 4.28.10 @ 3:58PM
Margie:
There is actually an old testament injunction in the Law that reads, "With all your offerings, offer salt." Many Orthodox have salt on their tables always in response.
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 4:56PM
Al Adab, Is that really you? LOL.
Yes, and we are the "salt of the earth." Mt. 5:13.
And how about this one~ "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer every one." Col 4:6.
~Seems I could do a lot better with that one, for sure.
Speaking of salt though, I use sea salt. It has all the great minerals in it that God intended and it's good for you. The stuff you get in the shaker thingy in the market is messed with. Sea salt tastes fabulous too. Then you can go all out and get sea salt from other countries all over the world. The gourmet cooks are really into it.
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 5:06PM
p.s. Forgot to say~ I like that O.T. injunction about having salt on the table. I am going to speculate as to why it was a law. I betcha it had something to do with the fact that in those days, the salt was used to preserve the food, to keep it fresh longer, (no refrigeration), not to mention He gave it to us as a real treat and that it contains vital minerals to keep us alive!... well, God always knows best, doesn't He?
Al Adab| 4.28.10 @ 10:45PM
Yep, really me. I don't know Purp but while he makes life interesting, he has way too much time on his hands. Most everyone on Food Network uses Kosher salt. Interesting?
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 7:59PM
Dizzy dame - Jesus only lived to 33 yrs old.
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 8:37PM
Is that what you think?
You're making a BIG MISTAKE!
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 8:43PM
Wow - that told me!
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 9:11PM
Do you care where you end up after you die, little person?
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:50PM
And, are you going to tell me? I'm very curious...
Margie| 5.2.10 @ 8:38PM
You already know. I asked you if you cared.
Froggie| 4.28.10 @ 12:40PM
Mr. Retired Marine Sir,
There is a BIG difference between enjoying one's freedoms and cutting your renal function to spite Big Brother's face. If you have kidney problems and your MD suggests you lay off the salt, you might want to listen. But, don't worry--Medicaid will pay for your eventual dialysis.
Miss Alabama| 4.28.10 @ 12:51PM
Medicaid? You got that right, Froggie. In my opinion, most of the posters here are old men and women (mostly old men). And if they're not on Medicaid (socialist program), they're on Medicare (socialist program).
And they obviously believe they have to tow the extreme right wing view, no matter what the subject.
The sensible thing for all of us to do is limit the amount of sodium we consume--any idiot would know this.
I am all for the government taking action on this issue. The huge amount of sodium in our food is killing us.
John Navratil| 4.28.10 @ 5:06PM
Miss Alabama,
If the government can cut CO2 emissions, perhaps it can cut the oxygen from your air. Just a thought about the untrammelled power of the tyrant.
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 8:02PM
Well, now isn't that taking it to an absurd conclusion?
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 8:00PM
Well said!
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 7:57PM
Great! And, you'll be first in line for the free health clinic... that's showin' 'em.
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 7:55PM
Poor baby .. stamp your feet, hold your breath - that'll teach 'em. Didn't you learn the lesson when you were, like, 7, that a temper tantrum doesn't work? I couldn't care less if you mainline salt, but the FDA is partially responsible for public health, and this won't hurt anyone. Stop the hysteria and be glad someone gives a shit about your sorry ass.
Ne| 4.28.10 @ 9:23AM
I live about 150 miles from Utah's Great Salt Lake. If these clowns really follow through with this salt control and ban I will grab a bed sheet, shave my head, don a pair of sandals, a salt making kit, walking stick, and head out on foot for the lake. I love salt.
On another note, Walmarts had light bulbs, the real ones, on sale for 50 cents a four pack a few days ago. I bought four or five and added them to the top shelf in my pantry. They even came in the 100 and 60 watt variety.
Franklin| 4.28.10 @ 8:03PM
Waaa, Waaa
PecosPete| 4.28.10 @ 9:27AM
And there is food labeling. Like front of container. From the FDA: "The FDA soon will propose guidance regarding calorie and nutrient labeling on the front of food packages and plans to work collaboratively with the food industry to design and implement innovative approaches to front-of-package labeling that can help consumers choose healthy diets."
Since reading about this improvement I have had to wonder how the FDA will regulate round packaging, like canned food, oatmeal, etc.
From some really stimulating government regulation reading, try:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/Labeli.....202726.htm
Ned| 4.28.10 @ 9:29AM
The above moniker should read Ned. I am committing the irresponsible act of writing without glasses or maybe I am sub-consciously worried about being identified as a future salt maker and user.
Matt Morehouse| 4.28.10 @ 10:20AM
They came for my transfats, I did nothing, they came for my lightbulbs I did nothing, they came for my high flush toilets I did nothing, they came for my low mileage hot rod I did nothing, they came for my guns I did nothing, they came for my salt I did nothing...
Anthony| 4.28.10 @ 10:43AM
Hilarious. And too true. My wife worked with people in public health for years. A more humorless groups of zealots you never did see. At her workplace, when they had birthday "celebrations," everyone brought salads. Cakes were verboten. The temps hid their pop in brown paper bags.
Pretty soon this will be the way for all! Meanwhile, the things that really keep people healthy--jobs and hope-- are in short supply.
Natrium| 4.28.10 @ 10:50AM
It's like the story about the frogs - one placed in a pot of boiling water - jumps out immediately - ouch! The other has the heat turned up very slowly and is boiled to death. Because the change is incremental it never occurs to the dumb animal to jump out. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's probably a good time to start throwing dead frogs.
Louis Jenkins| 4.28.10 @ 11:18AM
For each person his own. If you like salt then so be it. If you don't like like salt then so be it. The bottom line is that BigGovCo is delving into areas it doesn't belong. "I did nothing..." about sums it up.
Ed| 4.28.10 @ 12:00PM
If you have high blood pressure, edema (swelling of your hands, feet, or face), or heart failure, you should probably cut down on your salt intake. Otherwise, normal people do not have to worry about it.
In 2010, take back our country!!
Don't tread on me!!
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 8:09PM
Thank you for a responsible conservative response. I was beginning to think this site was loaded with cry-babies, self-denial, and genuine nut jobs.
SPO101 | 4.28.10 @ 12:49PM
DO YOU PEOPLE really WANT Republicans back in power? I regularly have to ask Republicans/Conservatives what is IT they WANT!
1) You do not like big government but government grows under Republican rule.
2) You do not want government in your lives but you like the “show me your papers” law in AZ.
3) You do not like Wall St. but you want to keep them unregulated so they can FINISH the job of ruining our economy.
4) You chant “Drill Baby Drill” but think Oil Companies should NOT be responsible for SPILLS and let the government take care of the environmental disasters.
5) Conservatives despise illegal aliens but hire them on a regular basis.
6) Right-wing chicken hawks get off on WAR but you let your children/grandchildren PAY FOR IT.
6 and a half, lol) You people demonize gays but Larry Craig’s men’s room was the most popular attraction of the 2008 Republican National Convention and gay porn sells best in Red States.
7) You hate taxes but love Reagan even though Reagan/Bush RAISED taxes. On & on & on…
What the #*~/? Can you blame Progressives for thinking Republicans/Conservatives are corrupt, mental deficient hypocrites?
Not since the WWII has a population been so damn messed up. The Germans and Italians had an excuse for embracing corporate, police state Fascism. They didn’t have any history of such political abominations to learn from. However the Republicans/Conservatives have the examples of Mussolini/Hitler to examine. SO TELL ME PLEASE WHY you’d put SO much wealth and power in a Corporate owned police state?
(Ask John McCain why the Energy Department is involved with so many military projects in AZ instead of working on new tech and alternative sources)
Funny how the news media jumped on this Arizona immigration law story but completely IGNORED the following: John McCain and the Republicans seem to be leading the charge toward a police state:
S.3081 - Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010 proposed by Senators Lieberman and McCain “…removes the right to trial for American Citizens and gives government the AUTHORITY to detain Americans INDEFINITELY for SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITY…”
WHAT?
The really IMPORTANT thing about this Act is just WHO defines SUSPECTED ACTIVITY? I’m sure the CRIMINALS and CONS who oversaw the recent economic meltdown (or what I like to call greatest looting of a nation’s wealth and resources in the history of mankind) FEEL THREATENED by the ACTIVITY involved with calls for JUSTICE.
Republicans know DEMANDS for ethics, responsibility and accountability are going to come down HARD on them. Especially McCain/Lieberman who’ve been covering up Banking/Financial/Wall St SCANDALS since the 80’s. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what comes next…
consciousmc.blogspot.com
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
“THE Devil knew not what he did when he made man politic…”
Shakespeare
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 1:14PM
This Communist is posting his manifesto all over the blogosphere~ you can see that by doing a google search of his site. I'm going to reposte my own response to him again here:
Spoken like a true Progressive. Bash the Republican party in order to try and sell your Communist manifesto. Your only problem is? That we're too smart to be fooled.
In case you haven't noticed~ conservatives (the sleeping Giant) are awake and we're voting in droves for... wait for it now.... conservative Republicans! And contrary to what you may think, we aren't going away, no matter what type of intimidation or militant tactics you may use.
A quote from this Communist's site says this:
"Honestly, every decade or so, more Progressive Americans have to put the crazy rednecks in their place."
Nice try, but YOU lose.
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 8:18PM
Sorry, honey, but you already lost this war. You win a battle now and then, but the majority of Americans don't fall for bumper sticker fear mongering. Take that away, and your Party has nothing to offer. I always find it strange that people that want smaller Government are always appealing to the Government to control something. Luckily, the Progressive Entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in this country and we will still pull y'all kicking and screaming into the future with liberty and justice for all - tempered by laws to promote the general welfare in a 300 million + growing America.
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 8:32PM
First of all I'm not your "honey" so buzz off.
"Most Americans" you say? Don't want what?
Haven't you learned yet that just because you SAY something it doesn't make it true?
MOST Americans are AGAINST Communism. Thanks to your Dear Leader, the sleeping Giant has awakened! Guess he tried doing a little too much too fast, didn't he? Tsk, tsk!
You can post your lies as often as you want but MOST Americans aren't buying. But I guess YOU haven't noticed!
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 8:42PM
Okay, baby, have it your way. I'd say all Americans are against Communism, but y'all love to live in the past. While you were musing the past, your country has moved on .. right past your stale, Republican talking points. Continue to listen to Faux News, Glenn "Bush was Progressive" Beck, Rush Loudmouth, Sean Insanity and Sarah "I can see my house from Russia" Palin ... I'm all for it. And, kiss your Republican ass good bye. You been in a Lesbian Bondage Bar lately? "Giant" - 20% of the voters - oh would that be the Grand Old Pedophile Party?
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 9:13PM
Ya know little guy, you make so much sense I can't even believe it.
Remind me the next time I need advice on all things life and politics, to ask you first.
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:47PM
Why, thank you, my dear... this could be the start of a beautiful relationship... how sweet.
Margie| 5.2.10 @ 8:37PM
Listen Pookie toot, little purple turdly, little communist freakazoid, there IS no "relationship" except the one where I tell you how despicable you are, ok little pervert?
Dean| 4.28.10 @ 1:39PM
The salt issue reminds me of the prescience of the 1993 film "Demolition Man" starring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes. In a future, antiseptic San Angeles (an amalgamation of Los Angeles and San Diego), all of the "fun" things in life---salt, sugar, red meat, alcohol, tobacco, guns, contact sports, to name a few---have been banned because "they are bad for you!" The film might have been a satire of the politically correct social engineers who want to forge a brave new world, but we are very close to such a tyranny.
Froggie| 4.28.10 @ 4:02PM
Satire? I watched it because of Sandra Bullock in those tight pants.
zac sher| 4.28.10 @ 2:19PM
I bet the workers in the West Virginia mine would have loved a bit more government regulation.
No one in America knows jack about what its like to live under a tyrannical power so quit pretending that lowering salt content in food is the equivalent of Stalin rounding up millions of people with opposing viewpoints and having them executed.
Bydand76| 4.28.10 @ 4:24PM
Oh and you do right Zac?
Please enlighten us here on this forum about what its like to live under an tyrannical goverment?
I am really curious about your vast experiance?
It is funny about the WV mine because after the accidents happen when George Bush was president every single Liberal douche-bag under the sun in America screamed bloody murder for Bush's head and more regulation. So what happened?
So how come all of the liberal douche-bags arent screaming for Obama's head right now?
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y ??????
I will not wait for the government to get more and more oppresive. Enough of the nanny state limosine liberal progessive scum telling me what I can and cannot do? Be it tobacco, salt, lightbubs, taxes, or what I can do with my own land!
I thought Liberals advocated choice?
Now I suppose I am going to get called a racist right?
Pro Libertate!
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 8:21PM
You forgot "Latte drinking" dittohead. Don't like your salt reduced - fine - start sucking on paint chips - that'll teach them damn Gbment men ! Waaa, waaa
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.29.10 @ 5:53AM
Maybe YOU need the government to regulate your life but I'm capable of making my own decisions. You're a moron, go phuck yourself while it's still legal.
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:46PM
Look all around you... from the time you rise in the morning until you lie back down to sleep, your life is regulated. Your freedom is an illusion, that ship sailed long ago. Picking a battle over salt is stupid- it's a very dangerous, life threatening and also life giving (used properly) chemical. Like I said, you can down salt to your heart's content. No one is taking YOUR salt, just reducing the unintended consequences inherent in industry's use of salt in EVERYTHING. I suppose you think that AIDS patients should be free to have sex with anyone, without a care in the world - freedom... or you should be free to drive 40 miles an hour in a school zone - freedom; or perhaps yell "Fire" in a theater because you feel like it... If the Government actually was intending to take salt right out of your hands - i'd be with you... but just like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act has cleaned up the water and air for all of us, this will be good for us too. You don't have to be against EVERYTHING the government does, do you? Some good will come out of this, hypertension, kidney failure, etc. will be reduced and in the long run can help us all be healthier. THINK... get out of the echo cham
John Navratil| 4.28.10 @ 5:12PM
No one knows? My father is a refugee from the Communists whose brother was a political prisoner for years. All family wealth was confiscated. I visited behind the iron curtain in 1973 and was held-up (robbed) by the state police leaving the country.
Lowering the salt ones food is indeed not the same a being executed, but a government which can do one can certainly do the other.
We live in the one and only, single country of the entire world which is founded on the principle that the people are sovereign and the government exists to serve them. I'd like to keep it that way.
Purpleguy| 4.28.10 @ 8:24PM
Then please do not elect those that endorse the suspension of habeas corpus, promoted torture, and ignored the rule of law - which the Bush/Cheney twins made happen.
John Navratil| 4.29.10 @ 6:39AM
I'll take any example of an American citizen being denied habeas corpus (which isn't a get out of jail free card) or a combatant being granted it during a war.
Same thing for torture and rule of law. Just because you and McCain think that waterboarding is torture doesn't make it fact.
You need a new set of talking points or some specific examples, please.
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:35PM
You never heard of Jose Padilla, American citizen, picked up in Florida and not given his right to a lawyer, face his accuser, etc. ? The entire civilized world says waterboarding is torture, so wtf are you talking about? International Treaty on Torture specifically forbids waterboarding, and we tried Japanese military for employing in during WWII. What more do you want, dittohead? As far as McCain is concerned - the man gave years of his life and limb to this country, and he knows torture up close and personal. How can you compare your cozy civilized world around you that could even begin to teach you anything about torture. Maybe when you practice tearing the wings of off flies might come close, or beating your cat. Have I broken through that thick skull yet? Hmmm? Go learn something and then come back and play with the adults.
John Navratil| 4.30.10 @ 6:05AM
Yes I have heard of Jose Padilla and the writ of habeus corpus he filed in the Southern District of New York which was denied. As I said, habeus corpus is not a "get out of jail free" card, but your facts are (typically) WRONG!
The entire civilized world may say anything, and that does not make it true (Islam is a religion of peace, the earth is warming, Obama is a saint). By "International Treaty on Torture", I presume you refer to the U.N. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE which makes no mention of waterboarding. I look forward to the text which (your words) "specifically forbids waterboarding". Similarly, I reject the Japanese convictions for torture as an example of the technique called "waterboarding", a term which didn't exist until recently. The Japanese poured gallons of water into the nose and mouth causing the prisoner to inhale water and ultimately pass out. The current technique does not.
Indeed McCain knows torture and he also considers waterboarding torture. I'm sure this means you agree with everything he says. I agree with McCain on some things and disagree with him on many others.
You know nothing of my cozy life, but for you that it enough to make broad assertions (a dittohead?) Adult indeed. I'd be happy if you simply had a hard fact to present. Do you?
John Navratil| 4.30.10 @ 6:07AM
And, by the way, Padilla was arrested in Chicago, not Florida, but you knew that didn't you?
Purpleguy| 4.30.10 @ 10:28AM
If that be true, I stand corrected.
Purpleguy| 4.30.10 @ 10:27AM
"I'll take any example of an American citizen being denied habeas corpus (which isn't a get out of jail free card) or a combatant being granted it during a war. " I gave you an example of the first, but Al Qaeda does not have the status of the second.
Read it and weep, my friend:
"The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Geneva Convention III, adopted Aug. 12, 1949, prohibits mistreatment of prisoners of war, and Geneva Convention IV, also adopted Aug. 12, 1949, protects civilian populations in times of war.
So you're either civilian or military - unless you're not human, I guess?
"In 1994, the U.S. also adopted the U.N. Convention against Torture, which defines torture as "any act by which severe pain, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted" to gain information, extract a confession, or as punishment. In addition, it requires state signatories to prevent acts of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture." "
Hmmm, no specific torture technique is mentioned, but are you that thick, you can't tell what this means?
Why has the U.S. determined Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not covered under Geneva?
The Bush administration had an intense internal battle in January and February 2002 over how to handle Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The most famous memo on the subject was written on Jan. 25 by Alberto Gonzales, the chief counsel to President Bush. He reiterated arguments expressed in an earlier memo by Assistant Attorney General John Yoo that the Geneva Conventions should not apply to Al Qaeda because it is a non-state actor and therefore not a party to international treaties of war. Yoo and Gonzales argued that the Taliban should be denied Geneva protections because Afghanistan was a "failed state" with no functioning government and because, in Yoo's words, the Taliban had become "so intertwined with al Qaeda as to be functionally indistinguishable from it."
Describing the war on terror as a "new paradigm," Gonzales laid out for the president the costs and benefits of applying Geneva, and concluded the costs outweighed the benefits. He wrote:
As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. It is not the traditional clash between nations adhering to the laws of war that formed the backdrop for [Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War]. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.
These arguments set off a furious response from the State Department and the military's uniformed lawyers, known as Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs). They argued that not applying Geneva protections could harm U.S. troops in this and future conflicts. Secretary Powell also argued in a memo to Gonzales and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice that applying Geneva would allow the U.S. to take the moral high ground and would "present a positive international posture."
Oh, but you don't agree with Secretary Powell, do you? He's a RINO, right?
On Feb. 7, the president announced his decision: The Geneva Conventions would apply to the conflict, but neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban would be entitled to prisoner-of-war status under Geneva Convention III. However, he wrote, the U.S. would treat detainees humanely, and in the spirit of the Geneva principles "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." Critics, including some of the military's uniformed lawyers, have argued that the latter part of the president's statement provides a loophole allowing the administration to sidestep its pledge to treat detainees humanely.
If you care to read more:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...../faqs.html
Can you honestly say you don't understand that torture is wrong and there is a clear and definitive definition of torture, albeit not a specific technique? Some would say marriage is torture - do you agree with that? Careful, wifey maybe watching! Have a nice day!
John Navratil| 4.30.10 @ 3:45PM
Jose Padilla was not an example of anyone being denied habeus corpus. I refuted that. You can, however, provide another if you like.
The U.S. is in fact a signatory to the Geneva convention; a convention which does not apply here because in order to be covered, the combatants must (among other requirements) fight in uniform (an armband or neckerchief will do as long as combatants are distinguishable from civilians), not commit atrocities like burning Halliburton contractors, beheading Daniel Pearl, or Nick Berg or killing 3,000 civilians in the 9/11 attack, or fight from civilian positions (like mosques). This convention does not apply. Weep, yourself.
You have conveniently define "any act by which severe pain, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted" to mean just what you want it to mean. Any interrogation of an unwilling prisoner is, by definition, coercive. At what point does coercion become severe pain, or torture? This is a "slippery slope" argument, the bright line is provided by the rules of engagement. You may not like what you see, but the decision was not and is not left to the operatives in the field. No, I am not thick, or being obtuse to come to the conclusion that a technique can be harsh without being torture. I can also suggest that any interrogation techniques we put our own service members through as part of their training is not so dangerous to their mental or physical health as to be torture.
Despite the fact that the Bush administration rejected "Geneva" it agreed as a matter of policy to treat prisoners according to Geneva. You and I will have to disagree on how well the met that self-imposed obligation.
Powell's argument that the U.S. should accord "Geneva" protections to those who flouted its provisions was vigorously opposed by those who argued that by doing so "Geneva" was made impotent (What's the point of according benefits without requiring the obligations?). It is an argument I support in disagreement with Sec. Powell with whom, only incendentally to this argument, I found myself in disagreement on other issues.
Finally, I can honestly say that I understand that torture is wrong. I have seen no clear objective definition of torture, merely subjective. That you would suggest that marriage is torture indicates to me that you aren't really serious about creating such a definition.
abuse| 4.28.10 @ 4:39PM
INPEACH OBAMA THE COMMUNIST ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist OBAMA. This latter must not occur; even if we are small, we are a force. A well-organized group can conquer a strong enemy. If you stick close together and keep bringing in new people, we will be victorious over the communist obama.======obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led."
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it."
"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."pelosi don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of ^%@##$@& ...obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it's half /"[-^%, and the other half ^%#@!. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries... Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit… The media's justification is apparently “because it's out there”, THE COMMANDER
Franklin| 4.28.10 @ 8:28PM
Wow - and I suppose you think you love America? I think you should move to Somalia - we don't need you here.
"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it." - you do realize you are paraphrasing Adolf Hitler, Chuckie? Goodbye
Mike| 4.28.10 @ 5:12PM
zac sher
First, many in America know exactly what it is like to live under a tyrannical power. That is the reason they escaped to America. The refugee flow from Florida to Cuba is a little light these days.
You make the erroneous assumption that more government regulation would have prevented the mine explosion. The investigation of the cause of that disaster is ongoing so at this time it is hard to tell. I could make a similar assertion that those killed there would have liked less government regulation so they could have concentrated on the job at hand and safety instead of jumping through bureaucratic hoops that many times do nothing to enhance safety.
Although no one that I have read has asserted that banning salt is the equivalent of Stalin murdering tens of millions who opposed him it is tyranny none the less. Salt is bad for you, so says the government, and you have no option in this debate. The government does not own me and so should have no say in how I conduct my life except as it harms others. As we progress along the slippery slope of tyranny just how soon do you think salt will be a black market item just like other "undesirable " things that the government "protects" us from. I wonder how many grams of salt I will be allowed before I am prosecuted as a distributor?
If you think I am over the top with all this do a little history research and see just how important salt has been. There have been wars over this mineral.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Franklin| 4.28.10 @ 8:34PM
You can't be serious. No one is banning salt, so stop the stupid hysteria. Reducing salt to healthier levels doesn't stop you from adding a whole salt shaker to your morning egg. As far as the mine disaster - the people that work in the mines are under the control of the management - unless government regulators or unions protect them. This mine had no union, so who's left? And, if you are that much in denial you think the employees can dictate to the management on what should be done for safety at the cost of $$$, you really ought to check what your smoking! It would help if you read what the actual miners have said. Sad, very sad.
John Navratil| 4.29.10 @ 6:54AM
Frankin,
What do you call it when the government says to the manufacturer that salt must not be put into prepared foods? I call it a ban. Because SOME have a salt sensitivity, we are saying that ALL must be restricted in the interest of health (safety's twin brother).
Compare this to peanuts. No one banned peanuts, merely added labelling so that those with allergies could avoid them. Same thing should happen here. The grams of sodium present should be labelled. Oh, wait! That's already being done! So what, exactly, is the point other than to compel a reduction in sodium intake?
As to the mine disaster, do you think the miners voluntarily entered the mine knowing they were going to their deaths? Were they compelled? What is the advantage to the management of dead miners? Of course the miners can dictate the expenditure of safety dollars by withholding their labor. They don't need a union to do that.
Finally on safety. All the "safety at all costs" crowd can take a lesson from the recent flight delays caused by the volcano. After three days no one was saying "safety first", they were saying "get me home". "Safety at all costs" really means "Safety at someone else's cost". It's the same sentiment which fuels the left in all matters.
Pete| 4.28.10 @ 10:35PM
Watermelon gives me loose stool. I hope the Federal government steps in.
Marc Jeric| 4.29.10 @ 3:34AM
Abu Hussein al-Nairobi and his 36 komissars in the White House know what is best for us - a true communist state with them in perpetual and absolute power. Get ready, Americans, for Obama's gulag!
Richard Baker| 4.29.10 @ 12:29PM
Purpleguy is among the legion in the US who think that ridiculous doggerel passes for intellectual activity. Ignore him as we've ignored Liberal Reader and Stoddard. Notice that we've not heard much from them lately?
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:29PM
You can ignore me... if I scare you, or you can't debate me, I understand - it can be very hard facing facts. I think it's healthy for you to hear another side - I enjoy hearing your side of the issues, a little less rude would be better, but that's not the nature of politics, so that's okay. But it's your choice to ignore me or engage. Ideas are powerful, whether ignored or not.
John Navratil| 4.30.10 @ 6:33AM
Quoting you from this comment section...
Dizzy dame - Jesus only lived to 33 yrs old.
Wow - that told me!
And, are you going to tell me? I'm very curious...
Well, now isn't that taking it to an absurd conclusion?
Great! And, you'll be first in line for the free health clinic... that's showin' 'em.
Poor baby .. stamp your feet, hold your breath - that'll teach 'em. Didn't you learn the lesson when you were, like, 7, that a temper tantrum doesn't work? I couldn't care less if you mainline salt, but the FDA is partially responsible for public health, and this won't hurt anyone. Stop the hysteria and be glad someone gives a shit about your sorry ass.
Thank you for a responsible conservative response. I was beginning to think this site was loaded with cry-babies, self-denial, and genuine nut jobs.
"...Maybe when you practice tearing the wings of off flies might come close, or beating your cat. Have I broken through that thick skull yet? Hmmm? Go learn something and then come back and play with the adults."
(... and on and on ...)
And you want to talk about rudeness or debate? That's Chutzpah!
Purpleguy| 4.30.10 @ 10:12AM
Typically, I start with a cogent, lucid argument to debate the issue - but then I get purple- "add what you will" crude name calling back. So, being human, I respond in kind. If the rudeness of everyone would be toned down, so would mine. I simply cannot ignore epithets thrown at me without response. I am no lefty, wimpy, sissy that is just gonna take it. I have to admit it is hard to stay above the school yard antics on display from some of the members of this site. Stop dishing it, and so will I.
John Navratil| 4.30.10 @ 10:24AM
Once again, an unsubstantiated assertion. Show me please where I "dished" anything to you. I've certainly criticized what I consider to be fallacies. It's clear that I don't agree with you and consider your arguments to be weak.
As to your starting with a "congent, lucid argument", may I call to your attention that your first words in the commenary are "Dizzy Dame". Pardon me if I find your definition of cogent and lucid somewhat lacking. If fact, I would refer to your words as an epithet rather than an argument, at all.
In fact, I will assert that if anyone is doing the "dishing", it is you. Can you refute that?
Purpleguy| 4.30.10 @ 8:07PM
You don't need my pardon, but you haven't read enough of my posts. Let me know when you can debate a cogent, lucid argument, and we'll have one. Since this is the salt debate, you missed some very pithy arguments. But, you only picked out those posts that fit your diatribe. Your choice, debate, or criticize. Have a nice day!
Margie| 5.2.10 @ 8:34PM
Purplecommunist is just that. He doesn't debate honestly.
Good going, John. But now you know that there IS no debating this loser.
Toni| 4.29.10 @ 1:06PM
Isn't it funny. Under Obamanazis, illegal immigrants have rights to do whatever they want, but we mere piddling citizens may not use salt. Can I get a SeigHeilObama?
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 6:52PM
The Way To Financial Freedom | Robert Patton links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 12:25AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Freedom Worth Its Salt [spectator.or links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 1:52AM
Telephone Interview Questions | Interview For A Job links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 1:53AM
Telephone Interview Questions | Interview For A Job links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 4.30.10 @ 7:50AM
Navratil:
Are you one of these dead-headed Europeans who believes that more government intervention in our lives is good or an American who desires Liberty and Freedom and that the government leave us the Hell alone? Which side of the fence are you on?
John Navratil| 4.30.10 @ 8:08AM
The latter - unequivocally. What gives you cause to think otherwise?
Pingback| 5.3.10 @ 4:07AM
RedPlanetCartoons » The For-Your-Own-Good Police Strike Again links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fjsdkj| 7.1.10 @ 2:13AM
beijing massage
shanghai girl