Progressives tend to talk about supporting choice — until someone wants to make a choice that they disapprove of. That tendency was on display this week with the Obama administration’s decision to ban the trans fats that go into making products such as margarine.
Each side of the decision sees an entirely different question. To the nannies of the coercive state, the question is whether trans fats are good for people. To those of us who believe in personal freedom, the question is whether politicians and bureaucrats have the moral or legal right to make that decision for individuals and companies.
When I was growing up, we ate margarine and fried everything with Crisco shortening. Back then, those products were loaded with the artificial fats that are now considered unhealthy. Some still are. At the time, we were told they were more healthy than natural fats such as butter and lard. I was so accustomed to the taste of margarine that when I finally tried butter, I didn’t like it, simply because it was different from what I was used to.
After I grew up, I learned to appreciate and prefer the taste of butter, but I heard the health nannies declaring that butter and such natural fats were bad for me. I made the decision that I preferred the taste, so it was worth the risk to me. Eventually, I also started reading information that persuaded me that fat wasn’t the enemy that made me overweight and possibly unhealthy. The real enemy was sugar. But the drumbeat from the medical establishment against fat continued.

Dems, GOP name Charlotte Clinton and future Bush baby for 2056
Changes are destroying culture, but we can build beautiful dream
As humans live in slums, why do I complain about my privileged life?

Republicans edge closer to inevitable choice of Romney to face Obama
Goodbye, Anne (2009-2019)
Public discourse is distorted by constant outrage over anecdotes