On a recent episode of Fox
News Channel’s Geraldo at Large, ;Ann Coulter squared
off against Nanny State
enthusiast MeMe Roth regarding New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s
crusade against just about everything. It’s an interesting segment,
not least of which because Coulter is totally right(!). Here’s a
partical transcript courtesy of Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell:
Anti-obesity advocate (and big Bloomberg fan) ;MeMe
Roth ;started off praising the mayor’s various efforts by
noting that he is a “student of behavioral psychology” who
understands that “increasing the inconvenience just a little bit”
will lead to better choices by the consumer….
When Roth made the claim that bans on various unhealthy
activities are warranted because “we pick up the tab” for other’s
bad habits, Coulter countered that “I think you’re going to have to
do something about the gay bathhouses.”
“AIDS is very expensive, and if I’m paying for it, how about
discouraging that behavior?” she explained.
Later, while clarifying that she
doesn’t ;actually ;want to ban homosexual
activity, she told Roth, “If you’re argument is ‘Smoking: we all
have to pay,’ then why not ‘Sodomy: we all have to pay.’” She told
Roth that a consistent position on “nannying” would require her to
be “anti-bathhouses” in addition to anti-smoking.
For her part, Roth sticks to the point that because of
socialized medicine, we’re all picking up the tab for other people
(she
ignores data suggested elevated health risk factors for gay
men). Coulter goes out of her way to say that she doesn’t want to
ban anybody from doing anything – she wants to de-socialize
health-care systems so these sorts of things are not political
issues.
More here.
Hand it to Coulter,
who has done fundraising for gay groups and calls herself a
“right-wing Judy Garland”: She’s absolutely right to underscore the
incredibly selective bias of most nanny-state activists. And to
emphasize the incredibly reactionary logic underlying attempts to
control people’s behaviors.
The logic of the nanny staters should compel them to target all
sorts of behaviors to which they give a pass – really, why not ban
skiing if you’re against activities that cost the rest of us money?
That nanny staters routinely focus things such as smoking,
drinking, gambling, TV watching, weight issues, and the like
strongly suggests an implicit class bias in which relatively
wealthy and politically connected elites are simply enforcing their
preferred lifestyle choices over the less powerful. It has nothing
to do with “public health” or helping people.
As I suggested earlier today in regard to Bloomberg’s soda ban
-which would do absolutely nothing to slim waistlines in New York -
it’s about elevating personal preference to the status of
scientific decree.
Here’s the Coulter/Roth vid.
For previous posts about Ann Coulter, including her tirades
against libertarian “pussies,” ;go
here.
In 2010, I debated MeMe Roth on Stossel. Check
it out here. … Read More
