Watch out: Tubby New Yorkers may be heading our way
We're trying to empower people by giving them choices. Do you want to live under this stupid set of laws or under that stupid set of laws?
It’s amazing how easily distracted human monkeys are. We were having a recession, an election and a war or two just a few minutes ago. Then some fool nobody ever heard of posts a video on YouTube ridiculing Muhammad and it’s all anyone can talk about.
Or, Kansas state officials seriously consider instigating a constitutional crisis that could land the whole state in contempt of federal courts by taking it upon themselves to disqualify a major party presidential candidate — who is already president.
Let’s bring things back to normal and talk about something that really matters. Let’s talk about the fact that Michael Bloomberg got his way, and New York City is banning 17-ounce sodas. Unlike many of my friends, I have always been in favor of banning 17-ounce sodas in New York City. I’ve been to New York City, and I can tell you from experience that nobody likes a fat New Yorker.
It’s like the law we passed here prohibiting Seattleites from smoking within 25 feet of doorways. A lot of people don’t know this, but the real purpose of that law was to get Seattleites away from doorways. They couldn’t just ban Seattleites per se from doorways, for practical reasons (they work here, pay taxes, yadda yadda), so they banned smokers, which got rid of about half of them.
Likewise, the New York law is clearly intended to get at least the fat New Yorkers to move to New Jersey. That will still leave a lot of skinny and medium-width New Yorkers in the city, but it’s a start.
It’s a long-awaited, humane start. They could have rounded the fat New Yorkers up and airlifted them to Kansas. But that would have frightened them and cost too much and been unduly cruel. This way they can leave at their own speed and pay their own way, giving them a feeling of independence. Sure, they won’t get as far under their own power, but the important thing is they don’t come back.
It’s similar to the tried and true way of dealing with homeless people by means of government edicts said to be for their own good. Say you don’t want any homeless people cluttering up your city. It would be cruel and inhumane, as I say, to round them up and fly them to Kansas. The method preferred by all liberal, enlightened governments is to declare that it is unhealthy to be homeless (which it is!) and therefore to pass laws against sleeping outside of homes.
That way, homeless people can get the idea into their own heads that hanging around your city is no fun, and they can have that wonderful sense of self-empowerment and independence you get when you can tell people to shove it and go elsewhere. Unless, of course, going elsewhere is not an option at their disposal. Like, if they have no money for transportation, or they are disabled and they need to stay near services, or they have families to attend to, or any of the other circumstances that the government in its ignorance neglected to take into consideration.
Not to mention it would actually be pointless for homeless people to go to Kansas to escape anti-homeless laws here, because Kansas has its own anti-homeless laws. Also, Kansas would fly them back.
Still, I get it. We’re trying to empower people by giving them choices. Do you want to live under this stupid set of laws or under that stupid set of laws? People should consult with their lawyers and find the city that allows their particular lifestyle and move there.
In the event there is no such city, whose fault is that? Maybe they should move to the sunward side of the timber line of the Cascades or the Rockies or the Himalayas and build their own cities, if they don’t like our laws.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.