Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Right

I checked out Pandagon today for the first time in a long time and found that one of the bloggers there was leaving while another, Pam Spaulding would be joining. And so I went to Pam's blog to see what kind of lefty she was. I read a post by someone named "Radical Russ" about a bill passed by the House:

"The bill seeks to thwart class-action obesity lawsuits against food manufacturers and restaurants."

Russ, however, only has an axe to grind with McDonalds, etc. as the rest of his post argues that fast food restaurants should be forced to put nutritional information on their products. While he concedes "If you don't know that a lifetime daily diet of Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese is going to eventually kill you, then your death from obesity is just weeding bad genes out of the pool." (Ooh! Nice play there, Big Boy, on the Theory of Evolution which is under attack by Christian zealots, most of whom don't understand the theory anymore than most of those who oppose the imposition of "Intelligent Design" into our public schools.) But in his own rage to harm the fast food industry whatever the cost, Russ calls for a compromise:

"So let's compromise. If the fast food industry could agree to print nutritional information on their packaging, I could agree that they should never be sued for obesity-related claims. Seems fair to me."

I'm sorry but two wrongs do not make a right. Regardless of what McDonalds and their ilk do regarding labeling, they should not be sued for causing obesity. Russ conveniently ignores the issue of whether or not the obese should have legal recourse against, say Frito Lay and Hostess. Apparently for him, if all the energy you can muster is to jump in the car, hit a McDonalds drive thru, and go home, your ability to sue should be dependant on labeling. If, however, you can only muster enough energy to drive down to the grocery store and strap on a feedback of Doritos and Twinkies, then it's your own fault. How are these two scenarios different? If one eats unhealthy food and doesn't exercise, this is not the fault of the food producer and/or restaurants. Believe me, there is no love lost between me and fast food chains, but to make them accountable for a wrong they did not commit and to absolve individuals for any responsibility for their diet is indefensible. What would Russ want next? To be able to sue the producers of television shows and video games because they produce products which induce lethargy?

The next person that sues McDonalds for making him/her obese ought to be laughed out of court. And they ought to have their voting rights withdrawn. Our voting rights are a wonderful thing and they are given to just about anyone because of the presupposition that one needn't be a member of an aristocracy to be able to exercise judgment in determining how we are ruled. There is a belief in our country that everyone can sift & winnow through facts and come to an informed opinion. From this informed opinion comes a well-considered vote. If you are unable to figure out on your own that a diet of McDonalds and no exercise is deleterious to your health, then your qualifications to cast a well-considered vote in an election are lacking.

Just because a purveyor of unhealthy food refuses to label their products (and instead forces the consumer to ask for a sheet containing the info or to seek the information on the Internet) is no reason for lefties to abandon our principles of fairness. You cannot pretend to advocate fairness and then turn around and apply it selectively to suit your own whims. If that's the case, then your advocacy is a charade for, being fair & impartial means you are fair & impartial to everyone whether it be Noam Chomsky or McDonalds.