It's Enough to Make a Liberal Scream "Big Government!"

Studies have revealed a new element in the "digital divide": While more and more children from lower socio-economic backgrounds have access to technology, researchers have found that these children spend more online hours on "time-wasting" activities than children in more affluent households.  Leaving aside the value-laden judgment of what constitutes "wasted time" (if I don't download pornography, all those buxom women will have been exploited for nothing!), I was struck by the following:

The new divide is such a cause of concern for the Federal Communications Commission that it is considering a proposal to spend $200 million to create a digital literacy corps. This group of hundreds, even thousands, of trainers would fan out to schools and libraries to teach productive uses of computers for parents, students and job seekers.

Hm.

Today, the Times reported that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to enact a proposal to ban the sale of large (over 16 ounce) sodas in movie theaters, restaurants, and many other venues throughout the city.  This is Mayor Bloomberg's latest attempt to improve the health of New Yorkers; previous efforts have included widespread smoking bans and restrictions on foods containing trans fats.

Ah, progressive public servants!  What else can I say, but. . .  ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!  These are precisely the kind of big-government, nanny-state programs that drive conservatives up a wall, and, frankly, they have a point. 

The fact that low-income kids are "wasting" too much time on non-productive online activities--assuming that even IS a fact--is not a government problem; it's a parenting one.  And between you and me, I'm fairly certain that plenty of one-percenter children spend what could only be considered excessive amounts of time playing Angry Words with Diablo II.

So, there, I just solved THAT problem: Can I have $200 million?  Tell you what, just give me 100 grand and we'll call it square.

(DIGRESSION: In "Angry Birds," why do you need a slingshot to shoot the birds at the pigs?  Can't birds fly?  Or is that why they're angry?  EOD)

As for Bloomberg's ban on large sodas: Really Mike?

Look, smoking ban? Good idea: Non-smokers shouldn't have to inhale second-hand smoke.  Trans-fat legislation kinda makes sense, too: Restaurant patrons have no real control (or often knowledge) of what ingredients are being used.  Requiring city restaurants to eliminate trans fats reduces citizens' exposure to a dangerous substance and levels the playing field so that no restaurant is being unduly penalized.

But what, exactly, is this ban on large sodas supposed to accomplish?  All these places that sell large sodas already sell sodas in smaller sizes: People simply choose to buy the large drinks because they want more soda.  And as Bloomberg even points out himself, nothing will stop people from buying more than one soda.  In fact, someone who currently buys a 20 ounce drink may actually end up drinking MORE soda under the new policy: If  a 16 ounce drink doesn't satisfy, this person will have no choice but to buy ANOTHER 12-16 ounce drink to quench his 20-ounce thirst.

If the Mayor really thinks soda is so dangerous, he should just be honest and ban it altogether.  (Actually, I probably shouldn't give him ideas.)

I am a firm believer in a strong and, frankly, activist government.  But I would ask the government to focus on big-picture problems like unemployment and poverty.  Until those are taken care of, for God's sake, let people drink Dr. Pepper and play Halo!