How do you feel about the fact that California can’t raise any tax revenue for their roads and schools, but they can ban foie gras? I think it’s ridiculous. I think their priorities are all wrong. It makes me want to vote libertarian.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
18 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Obviously, the Koch brothers have no foie gras interests.
Kind of surprising, actually.
That was a one-liner, but it was meant to make a point. Liberalism does what it can. It’s been thoroughly prevented from operating in any area where it impinges on the economic interests of billionaires. So it confines itself to social issues and this sort of thing. Nothing else is permitted.
What does this say about Bloomberg’s interest in soft drink sizes? or is that just intended to make everyone hate liberals even more?
And people wonder why our schools are in such bad shape, or why we are fast becoming no better than a third world country.
I’m agnostic on this. I know the horrible things done to our food, but I gather the public was shocked when they learned of it. If they want to ban it, go ahead.
I am confident whether or not anyone spared a thought for foie gras would have 0 effect on California’s tax revenue raising issues.
“Specially fattened” or “shove a pipe down a bird’s throat and pump in as much grain as you can.” Yum – what a delicious gourmet treat after the slaughter!
I’m glad to see any state ban animal cruelty. Florida was terribly mocked for voting to ban pig torture. Fortunately, we never had to endure factory hog farms in our state after that.
So, do libertarians have better schools than non-goose liver eaters?
As goes California…. I hope.
no it’s not a serious question. The inability to raise revenue has nothing to do with priorities and everything to do with a stupid and undemocratic rule that allows the Republicans to obstruct.
It’s more like a priority from thirty-five years ago has become the permanent priority.
Exactly. It takes a 2/3 majority to raise taxes — a rule that was passed as part of the infamous Prop 13.
And yeah, it sucks.
The immediate effects of Prop 13 were bad enough – I watched it begin decimating the public school systems there (I was a teen at the time), and it’s become worse over time. Things clearly got worse from there. Could see it coming a mile away back then. Used to be a nice state to live in and later visit.
If nothing else, we’ve seen the consequences of trying to run a vast and complex state political and economic system when there is no realistic method for raising revenues in hard times and where its minority party members do not believe in society (at least in any modern sense of the term). The last few decades will be a case study in what not to do.
Just speaking as a layperson.
Exactly right. And because the legislature’s rules pretty much make it impossible to raise taxes, it spends its time doing other, little-bitty stuff that it can do. Stuff like banning fois gras.
Reminds me of New York banning 32 ounce sugary drinks. I applauded the label law but banning strikes me as the nanny state. Banning smoking kept second hand smoke out of my lungs, for which I am happy, but I’m not going to get fat or diabetes because the guy next to me drinks a quart of pop or even a half gallon.
But the question was foie gras and by extension animal cruelty. I can see California banning the production of foie gras but not the sale. Also, it makes Democrats look like effete elitists, distant from the cares of ordinary people. I’ll bet 90% don’t even know what foie gras is. After all, half of them can’t find North America on a globe.
It does make me want to vote Libertarian (sorry, Arthur). It makes me want to vote Socialist.
The problem with the NYC ban (or is it still just a proposed ban?) was that it merely scratches the surface of the obesity problem. Left unaddressed are the vast food deserts throughout the city (and this is true in many impoverished urban and rural areas throughout the country) depriving those without reliable transport the means to access nutritious foods and beverages, as well as the corn subsidies that make high fructose corn sweetener so cheap. NYC really can’t do much about the latter issue, and its bourgeois leadership would never have the willingness or imagination to tackle the former. As it is, the ban will help marginally, and perhaps NYC will be able to boast of the lowest obesity rate among its yuppies. Better than nothing, but not nearly good enough.
Diabetes now a major problem in Mexico [since NAFTA]; candy snacks and artificial juice drinks, etc. very sad
I suspect restaurants will either offer “buy one get one free on the 16 oz” or offer a free refill with the 16oz being the old 32 oz price. Drinking all that sugar will make you want to eat more fat. It will also make you want to smoke, but I don’t know if NYC allows that. Here you can smoke outside but you are supposed to be fifty feet from a doorway. Try five feet in practice.
I think you’d feel differently if you were a goose.
I don’t want to go into graphic detail, but foie gras is cruelty on a cracker. It should be banned everywhere. Being against cruel practices has nothing to do with Libertarianism or freedom.
Mushroom pate tastes better and doesn’t clog your arteries. Plus it’s not gross.
Agree – banning foie gras is decades overdue, and I’m glad they got it done.
Next week they can fix the potholes in the road to the fancy restaurant.