In NYC, The Government Needs To Ban Soda For Adults, But In the Schools, Adults Have Nothing to Teach Children

Compare and contrast: An alarmingly high number of NYC residents want the government actively nannying their soft drink purchases, and the inevitable agitation to ban everything else that's bad for you has begun.

51% of NYC residents oppose this -- which means 49% do not oppose it.

The government seems to be a fine lifelong teacher... of adults, bossing them about and setting up rules and, one day, chores.

In a bizarre inversion, while adults need the supervision of government teachers their whole lives, children don't need government teachers to actually teach them at all. "The Blue School," a "progressive" school set up by The Blue Man group and their wives, is losing teachers and students because, get this, it turns out that maybe children don't know best how to educate themselves.

“It’s all fun and games until you realize your second-grader can’t read,” a parent wrote on Urbanbaby.com.

And parent Marina Brolin added, “I think they don’t push [reading] as much.”

...

School officials say students decide their own curriculum, and have no set arrival time.

...

Some experts said parents who choose progressive schools shouldn’t expect to see the same results as they do from a conventional school.

As Allah notes in the first link, this campaign to ban soda will never target Starbucks' mocha sugarchino's, because upscale white people like those. See, they have the ability to make sound decisions.

They will, however, impose laws restricting the liberty of poorer, less-white folks, though. They must, you know. Those people need their guidance (aka "liberty-stealing laws").

And that same cohort is meanwhile sending its kids to a school without a curriculum -- kids decide themselves what they want to learn, or if they'd rather learn through play (also known as "not learning") -- and not even a scheduled start-time.

So note the massive difference in how this cohort treats rich white children versus poor minority adults: Their children, the white and affluent ones, don't even need teachers in school, while poorer and browner adults need teachers at the movie theaters and McDonald's, and in fact in all facets of their lives.

It's truly repulsive.

While presuming to know so very much about how others should live their lives, they know so very little.

Good advice is not the same as a good law.

I concur with the advice content here: Sugar's bad for you, our bodies were not built to process so much of it. We crave it because it's supposed to be fairly rare. Stunted berries here and there, some sugaring in milk.

It's now abundant, and yet our tastes have not changed. It still tastes wicked-good.

And yes, too much of it leads to diabetes and obesity.

But this is the basis for a ban? Have we learned nothing?

Alcohol destroys a good number of people -- some people are just alcoholics. They can't handle it. They like it far too much.

We banned that too.

It didn't work out.

I'm both incense and shocked by the people who presume to know so much know almost nothing at all.

I'd like to pass a law, myself. It will be beneficial for society. This law shall mandate that the government create liberty schools, to teach the most incorrigible members of the Neo Prohibitionist class that they are destroying liberty in order to feel superior. Anyone expressing a Neo Prohibititionist thought is required to attend Liberty Classes from 8am to 6pm on either Saturday or Sunday, with one night per week, 7pm to 9pm, for extended learning.

This law will mandate that such people attend these classes for one year, or until they demonstrate a likelihood of reform.

How can they object? After all, It's good for them. Anything that's good for someone ought to be enacted into coercive law.

posted by Ace at 05:09 PM

| Access Comments