The ‘Trojan Man’ Trojan Horse

Assigned Reading: ‘Contraception Cheapest Way to Combat Climate Change’
(FROM: UK Telegraph)

Just a quick note on this article, as I’m working on other things:

While childhood obesity is a real problem and climate change only a manufactured one, the correlation between the two when it comes to government intervention could be troubling. Already, we’ve seen that the president has no problem connecting so-called “fizzy drinks” to the obesity problem, and that he would consider adding a “sin tax” to such products in an attempt to shape American behavior. Now, with reports coming from London corroborating long-standing arguments by the eco-socialists that population control would be the best way to combat the farcical crisis of climate change, one can only wonder how a government that believes itself to be the ultimate arbiter of American behavior would make use of such findings.



  1. Gail B says:

    Well, that told me that it's cheaper to plan families via contraceptives than it is to deal with the CO2 from the people born.

    And it also told me that, in order to SPEND MORE MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE, the Progressive socialists will not go after contraception, but the Cap & Trade.

    Have they ever thought about making Viagra illegal?

  2. Robert Wallace says:

    I haven't studied this in real detail, but when I did some consulting for a weight-management clinic (run by bariatric-certified MD) she argued very convincingly that the real problem with "fizzy drinks" is high-fructose corn syrup.

    You can look at horrifying maps of the explosion of American obesity and childhood obesity vs. time and compare them with the advent of HFCS in just about everything and it's certainly an alarming connection.

    So why – starting around the late 1970s / early 1980s – did they start replacing sugar with HFCS?

    Corn subsidies.

    Yup, that's right. If Obama wants to blame "fizzy drinks" then he'll find that the finger of blame ends up pointed right at government farm subsidies that make manufacturing corn syrup from corn cheaper than importing actual sugar.

    Strike another one up for "unintended consequences".

  3. Robert Wallace says:

    Of course, don't expect Obama to risk political harm by doing something courageous like standing up against corn subsidies.

    Sure, they make Americans fat. Sure, they raise our healthcare costs. Sure, they impoverish farmers in other countries and cripple economic devolopment where it's needed most. And yes, we have to pay for all of those negative effects out of gov't taxes, but why stand up for something as simple as SOLVING A PROBLEM when there are votes to be won?

    Let's just keep subsidizing corn AND tax the stuff they use to make it.

    Then the consumers – that would be you and I – can pay taxes on this stuff three times:

    1. for the original subsidy
    2. for purchasing stuff made with the subsidy
    3. for paying for the healthcare plan to cover the effects of the subsidy


  4. Gail B says:

    Robert, you are so good, it's frightening–but enlightening!

    What an EDUCATION we're getting here at AR! And we weren't required to listen to propaganda on Sept. 8.

    Jeff, I don't know how you managed to find such talent–in all your writers, but each one is unique, solid, informed, and gave comfort in your absence, with special credit to Robert for actually filling your shoes (because manatees don't wear shoes) while you were off on another planet.

    verify = farkies
    (Farkies?! Is that a racial term?–or political?)

  5. Rix says:

    Why don't they start fighting the population excess by introducing compulsory castration for all leftist radicals? It will neither affect how their females look nor how their males behave.

Speak Your Mind