You're too stupid to buy a soda by yourself...
My state of California, in its never-ending quest to control every aspect of every citizen's life, has found a new cause: The "Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Safety Warning Act". This is incredible, even for Californian politicians.
Senator Bill Monning wants every sugar-sweetened bottle of soda to have a health warning. In short, "Drink too much, and you'll get fat." Who woulda known, if the good Senator hadn't brought it to our attention, huh?
You'd think that soda machine vendors were selling live munitions to kids -
Vending machines would also have to display the safety warning, and require businesses to keep invoice records of all sugar-sweetened beverages “distributed, purchased, or sold,” for two years.Seriously? You want to know how many Mr. Pibb's they sell each year?
|Keeping Us Safe From Our Dumb-ass selves since 2008|
Monning’s office said the bill is necessary for California’s “communities of color.”
“The health implications are felt most acutely by California’s communities of color, which are the largest consumers of these sugary drinks,” a press release said. “Unless the obesity epidemic is reversed, one in three children born after 2000—and nearly half of Latino and African American children—will develop Type 2 diabetes in their lifetime.”Hmm. Not for, "All Californians," just those special, "communities of color."
Sounds racist to me.
I've got extra copies of the tenth amendment if you need one...
Still, it's being done in a state - those supposed, "incubators of democracy" we promote. Thank God no one at the federal level is suggesting something similar - in direct conflict with the tenth amendment.
Even the scoreboards in high school gyms will have to advertise only healthy foods under new rules announced Tuesday by the Obama administration.
Promotion of sugary drinks and junk foods around campuses during the school day will be phased out under the rules, intended to ensure that such marketing is brought in line with health standards that already apply to school foods.Hold on, hold on! I am almost sure - I'll double check - that the Constitution didn't include a clause for determining what kind of food and drink kids put in their bodies. And if it isn't there, they can't do it, right?
I'm so confused.
At least Her Highness is keeping busy making sure that we're all thinking the same, teaching the same, acting the same and parenting the same. She certainly knows best what message I want my kids to hear -
“The idea here is simple — our classrooms should be healthy places where kids aren’t bombarded with ads for junk food,” the first lady said. “Because when parents are working hard to teach their kids healthy habits at home, their work shouldn’t be undone by unhealthy messages at school.”Maybe I'm trying to teach them that the world is full of choices and temptations, and that learning how to make the right decision on your own is part of becoming a responsible adult. Maybe I'm trying to teach them that having a soda once in a while isn't such a bad thing. Instead, I get to teach them that their government schools and their government employees think they don't have two gray cells to rub together. I get to teach them how fun it is to prove the bastards wrong.
Now, I'm sure that all this is constitutional, 'cause Congress wouldn't allow the president to just run amok. No siree...
Where have I seen this before?????
Oh yeah, there it is. Number 10 -
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.Well, they can check that one off the list, now can't they?
|'V' is for Victory, comrade!|
Help me! I'm too stupid to be responsible for my own property...
Heh, this guy hits the nail on the head -
California’s nanny state proclivities are no surprise to residents of the state or to outside observers looking in, but the overreach of the state’s Democratic legislature in this bill comes is surprising nonetheless.What are the folks in Sacramento up to now? More gun control? Maybe something to steal more money from us for the Climate Change hoax? Mandatory force fields for all children under the age of 12? Come on, what is it?
Members of the California Assembly have introduced Senate bill 962, which would mandate that “advanced mobile communications devices” — smartphones, tablets and similar personal devices — must “include a technological solution, which may consist of software, hardware, or both software and hardware, that can render (it) inoperable” in the event that it is stolen.
To implement these regulatory requirements, the bill would “prohibit the sale of an advanced mobile communications device in California without the technological solution being enabled.” The move, if successful, would require all mobile devices sold in California to have embedded in them a government-sponsored kill-switch.Uhm, what? You want to force me to have technology on my phone so I can kill it if it's stolen. LOL, way to be ahead of the curve, California Legislature. Jump in your Wayback Machine, and you can watch me installing this type of software.... 5 years ago!
Maybe Sacramento politicians aren't aware of it, but the center of the technology universe..... is in our state! Seriously, no shit! Yeah, it's called, "Silicon Valley" 'cause the chips in compu.... oh never mind.
Hey, at least they're trying to pass a law requiring technology that actually exists. You non-Californians may not be aware, but back in 2007, our state genius' passed a law for guns that required they be fitted with technology that didn't even exist (it's still debated whether the technology exists even now).
Of course, these mouth-breathers are trying to pass this based on safety, and crime reduction and hell, it'll probably cure The Clap and global warming as well. Such a deal.
Saving Livers, One Mimosa At A Time...
Not to be outdone by the Golden State in its depth of nannyism, NYC knows exactly how you should buy your cocktails -
Apparently, bottomless brunches have been illegal all along. A lesser known (and ass backward) New York State Law apparently prohibits “selling, serving, delivering or offering to patrons an unlimited number of drinks during any set period of time for a fixed price”, which is basically the definition of most NYC brunches.Seriously, why? If I'm going to get shit-faced hammered drunk, then go drive while drunk, some prohibition on, 'bottomless cocktails' isn't going to stop me.
Just like gun control, if someone is going to perform a lawless act, a law prohibiting it isn't going to stop them. They're law breakers, you soft-headed morons...
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com