Intrusion Of The Trans Fatheads by Doug Wrenn

Intrusion Of The Trans Fatheads

By Doug Wrenn

May 14, 2007

Fret not. Our state's economy is currently about as stable as the Titanic was after colliding with the iceberg. In each passing legislative session we lose about as much of our liberty as we do our personal income. Our very broken infrastructure is oddly repaired by further breaking it due to an unhealthy and very liberal mix of corruption and ineptitude. But it's all good. Our heroes of the Nutmeg Nanny State are well on their way to saving us all from high cholesterol. Hip, hip, hurray for the Trans Fatheads under the big, tarnished dome! The bell has just rung for Round One in the heated political battle of "Slime vs. Goo."

As per Colin Poitras's "Legislative Wrap-Up" of May 11th on courant.com, the Senate "struck" oil and approved a state ban on trans fats in foods by a vote of 26-10. Our less than transparent legislature played peek-a-boo with us once again. The bill was covertly passed by tacking it on to another bill related to the restoration of a swimming pool in Manchester's historic district. Why the Nannies were dictating what Manchester does with swimming pools somehow escapes me, but it does seem to vindicate my accusation of cradle to grave governing. I suppose we should all be grateful that a pay raise for the princes of pork wasn't added onto that earthshaking pool bill as well. Now the goo bill slides over to the House, and if also passed in that chamber, then it drizzles over to the Queen Of Ethics herself. Governor "Weathervane" just might sign this bill into law without even getting greased. Then again, maybe not. It depends. Are trans fats also in "waffles"? For that matter, does a veto pen have an eraser? Quick, somebody take a poll!

I don't get it. It's not like they have nothing to do up there, but I guess "Nanny" knows best, or does she? Someone please help me out here. We can buy cigarettes and booze until our lungs turn black, our livers turn yellow and our wallets turn empty. We even are now trying to legalize marijuana and pass it off as being acceptable for alleged medicinal reasons. But trans fats must be banned. Why? Are they worse than tobacco, booze and drugs?

The sage adage reminds us "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." This ideal is pretty much the line of demarcation between libertarians and conservatives. (On liberals, the concept is entirely lost!) If we accept the disputed claims pertaining to the dangers of second hand smoke, and view the factual and well documented stats regarding drunken drivers and drivers impaired by use of illegal drugs who have injured, maimed and killed scores of innocent people, we can then accept tobacco and liquor are indeed, public hazards. But if some junk-food-junkie of adult age and sound mind and reason chooses to excessively indulge in artery-clogging goo to his overtaxed heart's content, how is he hurting anyone else? We sugarcoat abortion by calling it a woman's "right to choose." That's infanticide. This is only lunch. What about a fat, sedentary, gluttonous slob's "right to choose"?

Having now established that foundation, we now rise to the next level. Who, in the name of George Orwell does the State of Connecticut think it is to dictate to privately owned restaurants what kind of food they will serve their patrons? Thank God this kind of Draconian philosophy has not yet reached the southern states, where folks still zealously fry anything and everything not nailed down from a Snickers bar to a Chevy hubcap. One must not leave Corinth, Mississippi without having first tasted that region's proud local fare, the "slugburger." (Actually, the slugburger is the reason to leave Corinth, Mississippi!)

My parents starting feeding a stray cat last year. I predicted that it would soon move in and own them. They dissented, but I was vindicated. Kitty made it from the yard to the garage, inside to the cellar and was later upgraded as a carte blanche and fulltime family member of the house. It all started with one little morsel in the back yard. It seemed so innocuous at the time. Both predators and liberals are experts at manipulating incrementalism, but I repeat myself.

I didn't even agree with the smoking ban. I thought that problem was adequately addressed with smoking and non-smoking sections long ago. See "liberals" and "incrementalism" in the previous paragraph. Consumers were given a choice of where to sit, and for that matter, where to dine and drink. Like with the trans fat issue, many restaurants and bars converted of their own volition before the ban was passed. Employees had an option, too. Here's a clue, if you are afraid of second hand smoke, don't work in an establishment that is conducive to smoking. Otherwise, accept the job, accept the risks. Does anyone really need to explain to police officers, firefighters, coalminers, taxi drivers, commercial fishermen and convenience store clerks that they are working in an inherently dangerous environment? Why does legislation have to trump choice and common sense? Some communities are also now pushing for outside smoking bans. Newsflash…."liberals" and "incrementalism"!

In his column, Colin Poitras cites that Dr. David Katz of Yale University's Prevention Research Center testified before the Public Health Committee Nannies that such a ban could save 170 lives per year in the state. Anyone even remotely familiar with Dr. Katz's commentaries knows that he is a dye-in-the-wool "southpaw," ideologically speaking. Like with the apple and the tree, the Katz doesn't fall too far from the Yale. Given the authority, I am sure Dr. Katz would love to see liberty banned as well, at least, incrementally, anyway. I wonder if anyone asked Dr. Katz how many lives would be saved if we banned cigarettes and booze. Then again, the state would lose lots of money between revenue and stocks, and the ghost of Al Capone might resurrect the old "family" biz.

Back when the smoking ban was still a bill and not a law, I got into a friendly, but heated debate with a friend who was an anti-smoking fanatic and thought the idea of a ban was just hunky-dory. When I tried to focus his myopic outlook a bit farther and gave him an analogy of Pandora's Box, he questioned my sanity. Three weeks later, in another smokeless nanny state called California, a state legislator proposed a bill banning the sale of Oreo cookies to children. Vindicated once again.

In a state where the very notion of manufacturing now seems illegal as well as obsolete, you would think the Trans Fatheads under the big tarnished dome in the "Drive-By City" would leave the fast food industry alone. Let's face it, cheeseburgers are about all we still make here now. Some of the Trans Fatheads also want restaurants to display all nutritional information on their menu boards. That is another high cost mandated to restaurant owners in addition to finding a suitable trans fat alternative. Actually, I think the posting of nutritional information is probably a good idea, but so is the fundamental chutzpah of actually speaking up once in a while. The Trans Fatheads should cut restaurants some slack by allowing them to simply post nutritional info on handbills. If a customer has a mouth big enough to order and consume a super-sized meal, then let him or her use that same big mouth to ask for the nutritional handbill. Copying costs are much cheaper than construction costs, and let's face it, people don't go to Mickey D's to nibble on lettuce leaves any more than barflies stumble into their favorite watering hole to ask the barkeep if he's got milk. Nutrition science, even for the ham and egger, isn't rocket science. If you want health, go to GNC and pop a pill. If you want decadence, go to KFC and dive into a bucket of chicken, extra crispy, and biscuits with extra butter.

A public health official recently gave me a heads up that they will be the folks charged with upholding the trans fat law if it passes. The gist of the chagrin I took back from that conversation was that the law would be about as easily enforceable by already overworked public health officials as the current ban of talking on a cell phone while driving is by thinly stretched police officers, and that the level of priority of enforcing this panacea of pesky public health pabulum would also be similarly low.

I have yet to read or hear anyone defend or define trans fats as being healthy. It seems like a logical premise to agree that, to at least some extent, they are indeed harmful. I have no problem with food manufacturers and restaurant owners voluntarily removing trans fats from their products, and ethically speaking, perhaps they even should. I just don't think that our legislators, many of whom ironically appear to be zealous consumers of trans fats themselves, should be dictating what should and should not be in food in what I used to think was a capitalist economy. Once trans fats are conquered, what's next? Salt? Sugar? They're not real good for you either. How about caffeine? That's unhealthy, too. Oops. Scratch that last one. I think Attorney General "Slick" Dick Blumenthal might have stolen my thunder. Just my luck. Bloomy wants to cut in on my morning jolt. Why can't he pick on some other product besides caffeinenated beverages? For some reason, hair gel suddenly comes to mind. Nevertheless, my point is vindicated once again. These folks aren't nannies. They're "naggies"! If they ever read the laundry list of ingredients on the back of a Twinkie, shock will cause their cardiac demise long before the trans fat goo even has time to pull over and park in their vessels. Laugh now, but with all this obsessive global warming drivel and erroneous concern about Carbon Dioxide, it's just a matter of time before one of the Trans Fatheads proposes a bill outlawing us all from exhaling.

This seemingly incessant nonsense will never end until we, the electorate, stop instantly accepting knee-jerk, utopian ideas without probing deeper and looking ahead farther. On the surface of the issue, how can anyone not oppose any substance that could cause strokes and heart attacks? It amazes me that for all the popularity of reality TV shows, so many of their mesmerized viewers live on Fantasy Island.

Once we wake up and smell the coffee, while it's still legal, we need to address our voting behavior as aggressively as our eating behavior. One of the sponsoring liberal Trans Fatheads was Senate Deputy Minority Leader John McKinney of Fairfield. McKinney, either late from last Halloween or early for the next one, poses as a Republican, you know, one of those so-called champions of limited government and protected freedom.

If we're really going to ban certain food items from the marketplace then let's also ban "RINO" meat from Connecticut's version of the Kremlin, and liberally, but not incrementally.