Sent to you by moya via Google Reader:
"However, in the debate, I am shocked (yes, genuinely shocked) that the well off defending this proposal seem to be totally incapable of making that leap, that one act of empathy or compassion to realize that preventing people from buying soda/ fizzy drinks with food stamps goes much further than "concern trolling" for their health and well being. It is about denying pleasure. It is about preventing the poor from the joy of "luxuries" and "treats" and effectively "putting them in their place". And here is where I make yet another leap myself: the poor are denied free contraceptive services, thus denying them the pleasure of safe sex as well. For the poor, sex should be scary, carry the fear of unwanted pregnancies and STDs. For poor people, sex should be the least pleasurable possible. Then, after the poor have been left with a sexual life rooted in lack of education, contraception and safe practices, legislation is proposed to go after the next indulgence: their food. Because being poor is not just about lack of access to opportunities, goods and services. In today's puritanical politics, being poor is about having no access to pleasure. Poverty defined not only in economic but also in moral term."
I knew there was something insidious about this proposed policy. Its the denial of pleasure. Thank you for mentioning this.