Instead, Mayor Gavin Newsome is banning sugary drinks from city vending machines.
Coca-Cola is out, and soy milk is now part of San Francisco's official city policy.Child abuse and rape? That's a paltry crime compared to drinking carbonated water with corn syrup!
Under an executive order from Mayor Gavin Newsom, Coke, Pepsi and Fanta Orange are no longer allowed in vending machines on city property, although their diet counterparts are - up to a point.
If that connection seems like a logical stretch, consider this. Child abuse is overwhelmingly a product of the breakdown of the family by a factor of 10 to 1. Statutory rape laws are about the only tools the government has to enforce protective prudery and slow this down. The connection there is much stronger than the connection between drinking Coke and ill health.
Oh well. I suppose it's better to be hip and cool and go after the greedy corporations and their sugary drinks than it is to suggest the p-word. I did a small Google search on Gavin and came up with all kinds of interesting tidbits from his personal life and political views, not one whit of which indicated he understood the connection between the breakdown of the family and child abuse.
4 comments:
Case 1: Ban sales of sugary drinks from vending machines on City property. Cost: negligible. Political fallout: also negligible. Benefit: probably not huge, but there are a heck of a lot of fat kids who don't need the extra temptation.
Case 2: Strictly enforce statutory rape laws[1]. Cost: millions of dollars[2]. Political fallout: any significant number of false accusations[3] will pretty much bring things to a screeching halt and end the mayor's political career. Benefits: A decrease in the number of children to unwed mothers/abused children, if things could be held together for more than six months.
Are you really sure that the two actions by the mayor are even remotely comparable? Leaving aside the fact that banning sugary drinks will in no way impair his ability to call for strictly enforcing statutory rape laws in the future. This is hardly an either/or situation.
[1] Not quite sure what you are proposing here; throwing teenagers in jail for having sex? Sending swarms of social workers and police to scrutinize unmarried parents for any sign that they are abusing their kids? Both actions?
[2] More police manpower, more court time, more people in prison, and more kids taken into foster care all add up to substantial money. Does the city have it at the moment?
[3] Depending on who gets falsely accused, this could be as few as one or two. For that matter, even the *perception* that false accusations would come up would probably result in his political career being measured in milliseconds.
My reply.
Yes, child abuse is a monstrous crime. I never said it wasn't.
What I'm wondering about is what it is you think that the mayor should be doing about it. What do you mean when you say "Strict enforcement of statutory rape laws"? Are you advocating throwing teenagers in jail for having sex? Or something else?
I'm advocating that people in all walks of life take a stand against the destructive forces at work in society. Mayors, Presidents, janitors, mathematicians, housewives, children, whatever.
Consider the environmental movement. 50 years ago we were confronted with horrible pollution in Lake Erie. Today, if you don't recycle, you're some kind of beast. That's a good thing and an example of what can be done through personal action and making people aware of the threats we face.
Think globally (70% illegitimacy in the black population? Horrible.) and act locally (statutory rape is totally unacceptable.).
Post a Comment