Kids who eat chicken legs aggressive, says study

So there are lawmakers who are trying to push for a perfect society.  So one of the ways the accomplish their idealistic goal is to make laws forcing us to make safe choices.  So every time a new study comes out they start salivating.

It was this kind of stuff that we had to deal with the entire term of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  He banned smoking in public based on studies, he banned large pops based on studies linking high carbohydrate diets to diabetes, he tried to make a law banning salt in restaurants because salt was believed to cause high blood pressure, and he assaulted McDonalds because the theory was that high fat foods alone caused heart disease.

Of course, when studies come out disproving their theories they simply ignore them.  That's the hypocrisy of it all. When studies come out to prove something is bad for you, they can't wait to pass a law taking away our personal liberties.  Yet when a study proved genetics and not high fat foods cause hardened arteries, they ignore it.  When a study proved salt has nothing to do with high blood pressure they ignore it.  That's hypocrisy.

So the latest Cornell University study done shows that kids who eat chicken legs to the bone are more likely to be aggressive and disobey adults.  So I wonder how long it will be before some lawmaker forces parents to make their kids use a knife and fork to eat their chicken.

Of course that poses a problem too.  These same people want to take guns away from people because guns kill.  So here they want to take the chicken legs out of the hands of children and give them knives.  I suppose they could ban knives too.

Why would someone valuable time and money doing a study like this anyway.  It's obvious they have an agenda here.  They want to show that uncivilized eating has consequences, and they want to make sure parents and schools don't allow for it.

The ultimate goal of idealism is equal pay, poverty for all

Perhaps people don't think of this much, but the reason people go to work each day is to make money.  And if you want to make a lot of money, then you have to take risks.  Thus, the incentive for taking such risks is the opportunity to make a lot of money.

Another thing people don't think about often is that the rich are not static, meaning you don't have the same people in the top 1%, or the top 10%, of income earners.  In other words, every ten years you have a different list of top earners in this country.  The reason for this is due to the risk.

It is also important to understand is that these same people, the ones taking the risks, also benefit the rest of the country, as they both spend their money in the process of risking it to make even more money.  Plus they spend money on luxury items that keep the economy afloat.

In other words, there are advantages of rich people.

Yet then you have people in Washington who want to raise taxes on these people. Thomas Piketty, in his book that is now #1 on Amazon called "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," suggests an 80% income tax raise on anyone making over $500,000 in order to get rid of that income class.

This, by the way, is the ultimate goals out of the pocket book of progressivism 101: equal pay.  To get this they take from the rich and give to the poor, or take from the haves and give to the have nots, however you want to describe it.

It's income redistribution.  And it has been tried thousands of times in world history, and is being tried in many nations right now as I write this, and it has failed every time it has been tried.

Why does it fail? Because in order for an economy to flourish there has to be an incentive to take risks.  America has always been great because every person has, historically, had an equal opportunity to rise to a better place in life.

Yet them came along the progressive movement, or the liberal movement, or the socialist movement, the idealist movement, or the communist movement, and then this all changed for the worse.  All of these movements, whatever you want to call them, want to redistribute wealth in order to make everyone equal.

This is the ultimate Utopian goal.  The problem is, that while it sounds like a great goal, it is doomed to fail. It has always failed, and will always fail.  The reason is because you cannot have a booming economy if you don't have rich people willing to save and invest.  You just can't.

The thing is, anyone who studies history, anyone who studies economics 101, will know this.  It is for this reason that these types of people don't want privately run schools, because it's easier to control what kids are taught when you have the government running it all.