House of Eratosthenes

Oh Dear Lord, does this not capture the whole argument about punitive taxation, and hostility to commerce for its own sake alone, just perfectly. Bullwinkle Blog’s entry speaks for itself, and all I can do is copy the whole thing in, adding very little, taking nothing out, simply giving link credit where due. Just READ.

I Was Right.

Me, explaining to some girlyman Liberal whimp why doctors have no business asking for tax increases, using my normal amount of tact and diplomacy (being far nicer than any liberal deserves):

Bullwinkle Says:
June 12th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Even if you aren�t a doctor the title of this post applies to you too, Chris. There�s nothing kneejerk about opposing any new tax, especially one like this that is being called for by a very small percentage of the population. I know that parastic liberals like you think everything need a tax to support your social programs, it�s even very likely that all liberals ( you inparticular) NEED those nanny state programs to survive but you�d be crying like a little girl if conservatives demanded a tax on those triple mocha cinnamon lattes you liberals like so much. That�s next even if you lack the ability to understand it. After all, Starbucks seems to be profitting obscenely at 6 bucks a cup, don�t they? You wouldn�t have any qualms about that coffee-like swill you sissies drink going up another dollar or two, would you? I know it comes hard to little jr. Marxists like you but why don�t YOU try thinking next time. Jerk.

Then, a mere 5 days later what does the news say about it?

Starbucks targeted over high-fat products

By Abha Bhattarai

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Starbucks Corp. may be next on the target list of a consumer-health group that this week sued the operator of the KFC fried chicken restaurant chain for frying foods in oils high in harmful trans fat.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest said it is planning to campaign against the global cafe chain because of the increased risk of obesity, heart disease and cancer associated with high-calorie, high-fat products it sells.

And the possibility of legal action against Starbucks, similar to the case it is taking against KFC owner Yum Brands Inc., has not been ruled out, said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson.

“Regular consumers of Starbucks products could face Venti-sized health problems,” Jacobson said, referring to Starbucks� use of the “Venti” designation for “large.”

The group is primarily funded by newsletter subscribers and individual donors. It has support in the campaign from the small IWW Starbucks Workers Union, which has members in three stores, all in New York.

They would like Starbucks to list nutrition information � which is currently available online and in store brochures � on its menu boards.

“Customers can ask for nutrition information, but when you�re talking about a transparent business in a busy world, that�s not enough,” union organizer and Starbucks “barista” staff member Daniel Gross said in an interview.

I was right. Just call me Moostradamus. Heh. I should write this stuff in quatrains.

Beautiful.

Fair disclosure: I’m hooked on Starbuck’s myself. Venti, drip, dark, for here, in a mug, a MUG dammit, no room for cream. Er, can I get that in a MUG please? What do you mean you broke the last one?

I don’t get the toffee coffee thing…the whole mocha, whipped, chocolate cinnamon nutmeg orange spicy blah blah blah. Coffee is coffee. Candy is candy. The two are different, right?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… XISaturday, June 17th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… XI
Saturday, June 17th, 2006