Solomon and the Republican mentalityTwo women came before Solomon, both claiming to be the mother of a certain baby.
Solomon proposed cutting the baby in half and giving each woman half of a dead baby.
Woman 1 said, “That works.”
Woman 2 said, “No, don’t hurt the baby. Give it to her.”
Solomon ordered that the baby be given to woman 1, obviously the rightful mother.
Woman 1 had shown a devotion to principle. She had shown a willingness to make the tough choices. She understood that rigidity, even to absurd extremes, is the proof of virtue. She knew you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. She knew that when you think you are in the right, you never back down, even if the whole world burns. She understood that cutting your baby in half is a small price to pay to prevent anyone, anywhere, from getting a hand out. And she understood that if she did not get her way that it really doesn’t matter what happens to some damn baby … getting your way is the only thing that matters.
Obviously a good woman.
The wrong messageI am disturbed about the American Apparel ad on the back page of the May 24 Reporter. It’s disturbing for several reasons: first of all, it is plainly pornography; and secondly, it shows a very young-looking woman in the pornographic pose. In looking on the American Apparel website, I see similar poses. These ads show just how far pornography and sex have pervaded our culture. You recently had an article about pornography and teenagers, and here you are now promoting it — making it seem normal, OK. What message are you sending young men and women? Are young girls being taught that they have to dress in a sexually provocative way to be accepted and successful? By putting the American Apparel ads in your newspaper, you are selling out to the sex industry and you are doing great harm to young people. I’ve always enjoyed reading your publication, but this is offensive to me and I am reluctant to continue reading it.
Taxing what hurt us
New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s decision to ban supersized sugary sodas has resurrected the age-old debate over the role of the state in protecting the public health. In recent years, this debate involved bicycle helmets, car seat belts, tobacco, trans fats, saturated fats in meat and dairy products, and sugar (or more aptly, high-fructose corn syrup). Public subsidies for tobacco, meat and dairy, and corn production added fuel to the debate.
I would argue that society has a right to regulate activities that impose a heavy burden on the public treasury. National medical costs of dealing with our obesity epidemic, associated with consumption of meat, dairy and sugars, are estimated at $190 billion. Eliminating subsidies for these products, as well as judicious taxation to reduce their use and recoup public costs, should be supported by health advocates and fiscal conservatives alike.
Benjamin Franklin claimed that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Ironically, death can be deferred substantially by taxing products that make us sick.