In Which Red Is A Responsible Member Of A Democracy
I just heard that there is a vote coming up which offers a chance to repeal an increased tax on, basically, junk food. And I was really unsure about which way I would vote for a bit because I have really mixed feeling about what we should do regarding increased obesity in the US. (A huge part of which is cultural; otherwise we would not be leading the waistline expansion. However, I also believe that people have the right to eat as badly as they choose and since I'm completely addicted to diet soda, this directly effects me and my pocketbook.) So I was very confused about which way to vote, until I did some research and realized that:
a.) the money is going to budget deficients
b.) it is an incredibly ill written law, in which Snickers are taxed higher than Twix bars
c.) it was really shoe-horned through the legislature.
Write me a consistent law where the money goes to libraries and/or schools and then we'll talk.
I am voting No on 1100 as hard as I possibly can, though. 1100 would privatize hard liquor sales which would most likely increase the ease for minors to get alcohol and (this is why I'm voting no) eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for schools. Basically, it would be benefiting costco and other major groceries over Washington's school kids.
a.) the money is going to budget deficients
b.) it is an incredibly ill written law, in which Snickers are taxed higher than Twix bars
c.) it was really shoe-horned through the legislature.
Write me a consistent law where the money goes to libraries and/or schools and then we'll talk.
I am voting No on 1100 as hard as I possibly can, though. 1100 would privatize hard liquor sales which would most likely increase the ease for minors to get alcohol and (this is why I'm voting no) eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for schools. Basically, it would be benefiting costco and other major groceries over Washington's school kids.
no subject
-- make healthy food cheaper and more easily available
-- decrease the economic influence of fast-food chains (McDo was the sponsor of the last Olympic Winter Games and there was a 24/7 free venue in the Olympic Village. I know that from a reliable source who was there as a sports psychologist. Talk about irony.)
-- stop demonizing people who enjoy junk food and admit to the classist element in many a criticism
-- help workers and employees to have easier access to healthy food (e.g. it would be a nice office perk to have decent sandwiches and fresh fruits delivered for lunch break in exchange for a slightly lower salary, provided you can opt out of that programme)
-- stop hating on fat people and making them ashamed of their body -- this only leads to eschwing med exams and being afraid of exercising in public, which kind of defeats the purpose
-- stop mentioning weight at all
no subject
So much this. I hate how (especially when I need something quick) the healthier I get the more expensive my food is.
-- stop hating on fat people and making them ashamed of their body -- this only leads to eschwing med exams and being afraid of exercising in public, which kind of defeats the purpose
Word.
-- decrease the economic influence of fast-food chains (McDo was the sponsor of the last Olympic Winter Games and there was a 24/7 free venue in the Olympic Village. I know that from a reliable source who was there as a sports psychologist. Talk about irony.)
So ironic. And I was just reading an article about the top ten healthiest fast-food chains... none of which are anywhere near me. It was like, 'thanks for nothing, article.'