Reader Comments: Which side are you on in this issue?

Tom Garrett 10 months, 4 weeks ago

One one side of the issue is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The FDA thinks it's a good idea to require chains with more than 20 stores to post calorie content on their menu boards.

On the other side are the pizza chains.

They don't think it's a good idea.

Never mind the arguments pro and con.

Just one question.

Do you think it is any business of the government what we put in our stomachs?

I'll just add this quote from the CBS article:

"There's not much evidence** yet whether posting calorie counts affects consumer's decisions." . . . . . . I think we can safely take it that "not much evidence" means "no evidence."

Dan Haapala 10 months, 4 weeks ago

" Do you think it is any business of the government what we put in our stomachs?"

Great question Tom but I wonder if you've considered all of the implications of the question. Think about all that goes to our stomachs. Food, yes, beverages..(?) yes, medicine yes, illicit drugs yes. Do you suppose 'We' gave the government the idea that it was alright to regulate and control our lives by supporting things like the Health Department, The Food and Drug Administration, or how about Housing and Urban development, or the Department of Agriculture (what is it they grow again) and that doesn't include all of the sub departments within the departments like the D.O.A.'s Forest Service. If there is too much government, it must be because we sent it there. Therefore it behooves us too dismantle it and restore freedom or we'll end up buying a big Gov tofu burger because that's all there is.

Bernice Winandy 10 months, 4 weeks ago

Tofu isn't all that bad. I

believe that posting calories isn't going to do a )(_(&& bit of good. Those who should pay attention to calories just will continue to not do so. Afterall, habitually not watching and controlling what they are eating is what has got them into the shape they are in. Habits are hard to break. Besides all that high calorie stuff just tastes sooooooooooooo good.

Pat Randall 10 months, 4 weeks ago

calorie content is not going to do anymore good than the messages on packs of cigarettes or the warnings on beer. Or the signs that have to be posted in bars or anywhere alcohol is served that it may be hamrful to pregnant women. I know drunks that have had perfectly healthy babies and mothers who were very careful all thier life on what they ate and drank and delivered very ill babies. Some things are in God's hands and all the govt. laws in the world is not going to change that. The laws haven't stopped illegal drugs, drunk driving, murder or theft.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 4 weeks ago

Thanks ladies, so is it our fault or not? Did we ask for too much protection or not? Are there some things that should be monitored and controlled and some that shouldn't? What's the message we must send?

John Lemon 10 months, 4 weeks ago

Dan; The message is the same whether it is health care, calories or tires: Government should be doing only what we can not do for ourselves ! We (read: some of us) have not only allowed but invited government to incresingly become the "Nanny State". The questions should concern what is it that we can not do for ourselves. If that question were to be asked of me about any number of current or pending government programs, I would answer in the negative most of the time. The guide is a simple one and the answers should be simple. The reason that they are not is that too many people havbe become simpletons !

Dan Haapala 10 months, 4 weeks ago

John, your point is well taken. I do what I can do, but didn't always do what I could have done. And I don't believe there are simpletons in the world, that were not created by the simple minded or mindless parents of a child. Some years ago I met a man "we'll call him Ralph" who through a program of Safeway ( bless them) put to work those people who many considered to be outside the mainstream and mentally challenged. Ralph was a super inquisative young man. Very friendly and always ready to help where he could. We struck up a friendship in the store and when I met him in the community the friendship continued. Ralph would tell me about his adventures. Places he went with the money he earned helping and working at Safeway. Ralph was proud of his acheivements through the special olympics and I encouraged his participation. Ralph got a car. He drove to Flagstaff to watch the trains and marveled at the very means of transportation that trains provided. Some would have referred to 'Ralph' as a simpleton, but he followed the issues and asked opinions of others. He reserved his judgement of issues until he had all the responses he could gather and only then did he offer an opinion of his own. More often than not it was the right opinion. If the opportunity to attend a rally or political engagement presented itself, Ralph was there to learn. He had learned that even though God through his wisdom gave him less than others, who took what they had been given for granted, meant that he had to do more, and he did.

My 'Ralph' is real and lives in Payson, I've known him for more than a decade and a half. I am always amazed with what he comes up with when we meet and it's always a question.

His I.Q. may be less than what people think it should be, but of all the true souls I've met here, his is the purest and most honest. Why aren't we all more like....'Ralph'.

Pat Randall 10 months, 3 weeks ago

We might start with the Ten Commandments, then on to the Constitution.

If there were more people like 'Ralph' it would be a kinder better world, they seem to always have a smile and want to be helpful not expecting anything in return except a smile and thank you. Not greedy and mean like the leaders of the land which we so called smarter people elected.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

"Government should be doing only what we can not do for ourselves!"

Here are some thoughts about government from our founding fathers:

• If men were angels, no government would be necessary. James Madison

• It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Thomas Jefferson

• Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. George Washington

The wisest thing I have ever read about government comes from another country.

• Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made. Otto von Bismarck

We win the contest on which country made the funniest comment on government.

• If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of 'progress'? Paul Harvey

(I'm going to mount that one on my wall.)

But we lose the contest on which country made the scariest comment on government.

• The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Winston Churchill

As to Ralph, it does my heart good every time I shop at Safeway.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Any politician who says I want to do 'for' you, has just said you can't do for yourself. Government in my opinion, should never do for anyone what they are not capable of doing for themselves. Now some may say...'What about the infirmed, those not able to take of themselves?' I would answer, Why can't they take care of themselves? Have they asked for help? Have they tried to make it on their own? If the answer is no, help them try but if they've tried, than that's where society should step in and help. Notice I said society and not government. Why society, because society can judge whether the infirmity is because of physical ailment that couldn't be helped. Society can also find wheter the infirmity is a consequence of poor personal decisions.

Here are two examples from me, my opinion only. 1: I have a family, a wife and two children who are still in Elementary School. I work hard in the Construction industry. I am true to my God, my Church and my family and I come down with Cancer. I did nothing to bring the Cancer on it just came. Whether or not I made the choice to have insurance, whether or not I called upon my family, friends and church, whether or not I asked my government for help, Should they?

2: I am a product of a broken home. From the age of ten, I've had to live on my own by my own means. I dropped out of school. I've held several menial jobs. I hung out with friends who offered me drugs and I got hooked. I've had girlfriends but never married, I fathered three children but don't see them, support them or recognize them as mine. I am a 'Victim' of a corrupt society and therfore the government should take care of me. By the way, religion is just a method of control and has no part in today's world.

Which of these examples should the Federal Government listen to and help? Where should the line be drawn and have we already crossed over the line? My opinion, Neither. The first example has lived by his choices in life built a relief system who will help him including family and church and community. They will be able to do more than the government and do it faster. The second example is the product of poor choices. He believes he is victim and therefore can't possibly rise above the status he now enjoys. Problem is, he quit listening to the message coming from every school, every church, every good friend and chose to dive into the pit of hell. So. My opinion is that the Government is not there to help us correct bad choices. The Government is not there to help us stay healthy. The Government is not there to teach us how to be good students, stewards and citizens of this republic. The Government is not there to help us buy a house, buy a car, buy food, buy entertainment or anything else. The Job of the federal government is simply this. Make sure no outside source, disrupts our abililty to provide for ourselves, and Protects us against those who take that away by force.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Dan, forgot to give you the short answer to, "Did we ask for too much protection or not?"

The answer is NOT.

My opinions:

"Whether or not I made the choice to have insurance, whether or not I called upon my family, friends and church, whether or not I asked my government for help, Should they?"

Just so that no one misunderstands, the government should NOT force an insurance company to do anything after the fact. That is not insurance; that is government oppression.

Should friends or church help? Their choice. If you walk up to the tent of an Arab nomad in the middle of the desert and you are hungry and thirsty, he will share what he has with you no matter how little it may be, even if he does not have enough for himself. That is a moral and personal choice, a cultural or religious choice, not a governmentally controllable one.

Should the government help? That depends on the choice of the people. Do they, or do they not, wish to set up such a system? There is no wrong or right, simply a question of the majority of voters. If the people decide that they want a system with a safety net, that's that. And if they decide they don't want one, that too is that.

2: I am a product of a broken home. From the age of ten, I've had to live on my own by my own means. I dropped out of school. I've held several menial jobs. I hung out with friends who offered me drugs and I got hooked. I've had girlfriends but never married, I fathered three children but don't see them, support them or recognize them as mine. I am a 'Victim' of a corrupt society and therfore the government should take care of me. By the way, religion is just a method of control and has no part in today's world.

Again, it is a matter of choice made by the majority of the people. Not only that, the amount of help is once again a matter of choice.

One you didn't bring up. The beliefs of individuals vary a lot, and in many different ways, but can still be roughly put into two categories: a. The "you're on your own group," and b. The "we take care of everything group."

Would it be possible for.....

Holy mackerel!

I just came up with the best idea I have ever had!!

I was going to say, Would it be possible for us to break up into two groups based on those two viewpoints, and pass laws that would only apply to you if they applied to your viewpoint? In other words, if you believe in taking care of everything then you participate in that, both by getting everything and paying for everything. The other group gets and pays for what it thinks is right.

Immediately saw what was wrong with that, and I am not going to go into it now. What I'm going to do is start a new string.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Gotcha, can't wait_--_--_- (that's a new string :-)

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Took a while to catch on, Dan.

I'm still sitting here in disbelief, wondering why no one ever thought of getting rid of all taxes other than income tax. After all, why should you pay a tax on your house just because you worked and slaved to save up enough money for a down payment?

And worse than that. Why the hell should you pay more taxes if you take more of your money and put it into improvements? What kind of socialism is that? And even worse than that, why should you go on paying year, after year, after year?

All this stuff goes back to the days when the Lords and Ladies, and Dukes and Earls, were the only ones who had land. They ruled the land for their own good and paid taxes into the kitty to raise armies to protect what they had. They paid to have roads for their carriages. They paid to have fire departments to protect their estates. They paid to have opera houses where they could go and enjoy the arts.

We are living in the era of the "halfway house of government," stuck between outworn and outmoded ideas from the days of the Monarchy, pelted by socialist ideas that don't work, and confused by the fact that robber barons have gained control over private industry which is--or should be--nothing more than an expansion of what one man or woman does by taking two hands to create what is needed to live. That's all private enterprise is. I make it, you buy it. You make it, and I buy it. And we all agree to a few rules that keep the process fair.

Pat Randall 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Is there any thing except prescription drugs that we are not taxed on when we buy them? Why ?

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes, Pat. Food.

Back in Connecticut in the 1940's, when the idea of a sales tax was new, the state decided that it would be "fair" to tax things people bought, but they exempted "necessities" like food and clothing. They also exempted large purchases like cars and houses. Actually, of course, the whole idea of exemptions was to get people to buy into the idea of having a sales tax at all.

The other side of that coin was that each state was supposed to decide which it preferred, a sales tax or an income tax; they were not "supposed" to have both. Well, you see what has happened. Now we have both.

Why?

Some taxation is the result of government working to do things that the people want.

For example, once we had cars we wanted roads that were suitable for vehicles that moved at higher speeds. The old dirt roads were no longer good enough. On top of that, the day of large public ownership of automobiles came after WWII, and happened to occur at the time when Ike was in office. Purely by coincidence, Ike had once been part of a military "drive across America" back in the 20's. It was a nightmare, and so he jumped in and began building interstates, at least partly because of his experience.

Okay, roads. We no doubt need them. And to pay for them we had to be taxed. The money doesn't just drop out of the skies.

But....

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

But the states (and the feds, of course) are intruding into areas where they do not belong.

Some things should be left to private industry. Others are a matter of free choice. Others are caused by a large bureaucracy trying to get larger. And others are caused by people who live in ivory towers and think the rest of the world should be as involved in what they do as they are.

I'll just take parks as one example. Let's stick with state parks, and leave city or federal parks alone for the moment.

It's "nice" to have state parks. It gives us a place to go, and in some cases it more or less preserves "natural wonders." But the question is whether or not the state should be in the tourist industry. My choice would be not.

If something is attractive enough so that people want to go there, then they will pay to do it. And that being the case, and since most state parks are NEVER seen by the vast majority of the people who pay for them, parks should be a strictly private. That way the costs are borne only by those who benefit from them. And profits go directly to those who put their money into setting them up and running them.

When states get into the tourism business it is for one of three reasons: One is to pander to local businesses which want to cash in on tourist travel; a second is to satisfy do-gooders who clamor to "save" something like a natural cave; and the third is the drive of a bureau to increase its size, its number of personnel--and of course its share of our taxes.

When parks are left to private industry, local businesses do just as well, and often better because the parks are better managed. When natural wonders are preserved by private industry they stay in better condition for a longer period of time for the simplest of all reasons--profit. No one who owns something will let it run down (like the Natural Bridge has, example) and become something no one wants to visit.

Furthermore, without the bureaucratic overhead, the office, the desk chair polishers, the rules, the inspectors, the "experts," and all the rest of the bureaucratic crap, cost of running the parks drops dramatically. I would be in favor of turning all state parks over to private industry, every one of them. One large auction and that's that. No more state agency whatsoever.

Think of the taxes you would save.

Let me put it this way: Arizona currently has 30 state parks: Alamo Lake, Boyce Thompson Aboretum, Buckskin Mountain, Catalina, Cattail Cove, Dead Horse Ranch, Fool Hollow Lake, Fort Verde, Homolovi, Jerome Historic, Kartchner Caverns, Lake Havasu, Lost Dutchman, Lyman Lake, McFarland, Oracle, Patagonia Lake, Picacho Peak, Red Rock, Riodan Mansion, Roper Lake, San Rafael, Slide Rock, Sonoita Creek, Tombstone Courthouse, Tonto Natural Bridge, Tubac Presidio, Verde River Greenway, Yuma Quartermaster Depot, and Yuma territorial Prison.

How many of them have you ever visited? One? Two? None?

Why pay for something you don't use?

Pat Randall 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Where is the state park at Lake Havasu? Ariz. or Nevada side? I lived in Lake Havasu city the summer of 1969 and McCullogh owned everything. He rebuilt the bridge there. Not the state. He also built the lake and fountain at Fountain Hills. I agree if you don't visit the parks you shouldn't have to pay.

Bernice Winandy 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Talking about taxes, I recently took the train from Williams to the Grand Canyon. Good trip. But anyway, I bought a bottle of water in Williams priced at $1.60 when sales tax was added, I ended up paying $1.80. I won't even go into what the tax was on the room at the hotel. The water was over priced at $1.60 but with the tax it became laughable. However, I was really thirsty. And, I did enjoy the train trip and, I probably will not make another trip to Williams.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Tom, If you go back and read your string, you'll appreciate what I just hooked on. One of my favorite movies Starred Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway. The Thomas Crown Affair in the 1968. The Academy award winning song from that movie was sung by Noel Harrison, son of Rex, and was entitled 'Windmills of my mind." The first verse was this " ...

Round, like a circle in a spiral Like a wheel within a wheel. Never ending or beginning, On an ever spinning wheel Like a snowball down a mountain Or a carnaval balloon Like a carousell that's turning Running rings around the moon

Like a clock whose hands are sweeping Past the minutes on it's face And the world is like an apple Whirling silently in space Like the circles that you find In the windmills of your mind

Tom, I included that because , following your string, I thought I saw you turn right and say the government had intruded where is didn't belong.......And the aforementioned lyrics came back to me. forgive me if I jumped ship. I thought your were right and agreed.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Which side of the arguement are we on. That's what got this thing started. Am I free under the American constitution to do whatever I like as long as it doesn't affect or effect any other person.? Does the Constitution give the 'Government the right to tell me NO'? If you believe the answer is yes, tell me why and bring proof. Does the Constitution give the 'Government the right to do anything'? If you believe the answer is yes tell me why and bring proof. My Constitution tells me that the Government is the corrupter, and that they don't tell us, we tell them. My reading of the Bill of Rights, says the founders did not trust the power they were putting into the hands of Government and the Ammendments were to control Government not the people. Further more, If Hollywood were flourishing in 1786, It wouldn't be allowed today. All of our Founders, whether religious or not, believed and understood that the only way the Constitution would work....Is if it were put into the hands of a moral people. Those who would say the Constitution is old and doesn't work anymore are corrupted by immoraltiy and should not have a voice. .....NOT have a voice? .....This is not a Democracy! Can you imagine if Sodom or Gamorrah had a chance to vote on the what they believed their rights were, they would have stayed home? It's been said correctly many times. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Is the deck stacked for the immoral in our Democratic Republic? Yes. The Founders knew that. They warned us of it. We got lazy, tried to ignore the depravity, got discusted and backed away not voting to correct it. We even fell prey to the belief that it' s part of our freedom. Here's the problem we are experiencing today in America. We think the bill of rights was given to us so that we could do what we want and have the Government take care of us and keep us safe. WRONG. There is not a positive word of phrase in the Bill of Rights regarding the people. The first ten ammendments were there to protect the people from the Government, not the other way around. The rights given did not come from Man. The rights enumerated were from God. Not to be fooled with by man.

Pat Randall 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Tom, You are taxed on food if you buy it in a restaurant or fast food place. I think prepared food in the grocery delis are taxed here in Payson. Will have to check on that one.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Pat,

There has been some change in the food tax. I forget what it was, but I was not happy about it.

"Where is the state park at Lake Havasu?"

Beats me. Never been there.

New Hampshire has almost the right idea. The state runs the parks, but each one pays for itself with entry fees. That's close to the right idea. Just get the state out of the loop, save the millions being wasted on administrators, inspectors, et al, and you have the right idea.

There's some thing brand new on this issue. I'll put it up in a separate post.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. You may have heard that there was a petition being circulated for an initiative that would have "let" us vote on another crappy idea: Whether we want to fund state parks with a surcharge on vehicle registration fees.

We don't, of course, and it doesn't take an initiative to prove it.

But guess who was pushing the program? Here's a quote: "Bill Meek, president of the Arizona Parks Foundation, said Tuesday the initiative campaign ran out of money about two weeks ago to hire paid circulators."

"We had a really good army of volunteers,'' he said. But Meek said that was insufficient to gather the 172,809 valid signatures needed by Thursday to put the question on the ballot.

Meek said that is not the end of the issue. He said supporters of the plan will ask lawmakers next year to refer the issue to voters in 2014, bypassing the need to circulate petitions.

The surcharge would have been $14. It would have been optional, but you would have had to search around on the form to discover that. If you didn't know about it, or didn't notice that it was voluntary, or had a hard time finding where to opt out, you would have paid it. I'm e-mailing AZLEG, telling them to turn the whole shooting match over to private hands and get out of the entertainment business. And to read the lips of the people. No More Taxes!!

Meek, by the way, says it's not a tax.

Okay. fair enough. If it's not a tax, buddy, you pay it!

By the way, put these two comments together and tell me what you come up with:

"We had a really good army of volunteers...."
"Bill Meek, president of the Arizona Parks Foundation, said Tuesday the initiative campaign ran out of money about two weeks ago to hire paid circulators."

And here's another question for you. How do "paid circulators" get paid? By the signature? Can you see how crooked that could be?

And yet another question: "...supporters of the plan will ask lawmakers next year to refer the issue to voters in 2014, bypassing the need to circulate petitions."

Where do you suppose "supporters of the plan" work?

And guess whether or not I will vote for any lawmaker who supports putting that pice of crap on the ballot instead of getting to workk and turning the