Subject: Talking Back to Big Soda
This article is not unlike the other articles Dana has written. Dana blames “big bad corporations” for every problem she sees, and sees more government intervention in private lives as the only solution.
If Dana had her way, she would ban school children from bringing lunches from home. She would require every child to eat only food she approves of while at school. No where does Dana ever discuss personal or parental responsibility. I guess it doesn’t exist in her world.
San Francisco has banned the sale of bottled water from large areas of the city (all city property including parks), and at the same time is going to increase city taxes on the primary alternative to bottled water to the point that the cost of the alternative to bottled water will double.
The continual use of the term “Big Soda” is a ploy used by Dana and other progressives to divert attention away from the real target of this proposed legislation. She doesn’t want to mention the impact on small business owners and operators in San Francisco, the people impacted the most by this tax – not Coca Cola or Pepsi. These people definitely don’t meet the criteria of “Big Soda”. They are real people, trying to make a living as entrepreneurs, only to be slapped in the face by “Big Government” solution advocated by Dana. It is much easier to lay blame on an enigmatic “Big Soda” than it is to go after “Ahmed’s (or Bob’s ) corner store. How convenient for her.
San Francisco, CAFiled under: Letters to the Editor