Kids aren't required to buy lunch at school. They can bring their own.

Of course, there are all sorts of ways to rationalize statism.

"They can bring their own."
It will not be long that too will be banned so as not to upset those whose parents do not send a soda to school. the slope is slippery and these things go in degrees.

Progressivism is defined as incremental control over the lives of citizens by the state.

It's not about the children, it's about Ken "dirty, filthy" Ulman's run for Governor.

It still is your choice Amy. Its no different from a store no longer selling a certain product. You will just have to find it else where besides county property.

That is true. Unfortunately, the average parent is failing miserably.

@CN - and so that is why the government needs to take over and do the parenting? Yes, of course, this is the nature of the left, to cure stupid people who can't make their own choices of their stupidity. Afterall, it's all about the children, puppies, butterflies and unicorns. CN's post perfectly encapsulates the threat that the left/Dems/Progs/Socialists pose to a free society.

Unfortunately with the new health care being thrown at us without choice, it is the job of the government to keep those costs down. And straight up, too much sugar makes you unhealthy - and soda has too much sugar.

"it is the job of the government to keep costs down."

This how it works, the government gets involved with taxpayer money, then uses these monetary obligations to get further involved, until ultimately, the government crowds out the private sector and we have a government run society. This is the nature of the left.

Yes, even the unicorns will benefit. Unfortunately, Martha's leftist attitude is the prevailing one in HoCo. Leftists/Progressives believe in the wisdom and righteousness of the state, to care for those too stupid to make their own decisions wisely. This is the utopian designer society to which they aspire.

Is not "choice" now removed? You now have no "choice" to select a 12 oz soda.

There is a HUGE difference between the government telling you what you can or cannot eat / drink and their operating a park or a library. And if you don't comprehend that difference, you are truly clueless.

Michael, the government is forcing you to pay for a park/library. I.e., they are telling you what you can or can't do with your money, which restricts your freedoms. I find that infinitely more abhorrent than telling me that I have to bring my own sugar water on County property.

I'm with you on those other matters as well.

Well HR. If you live in the county then why do you think you shouldn't have to pay for the parks and libraries?

Libraries in particular are a terrible waste of money. I have an iPad and get all my books in e-format, so I don't set foot in libraries. Libraries offer a service that is rival and exculdable. There is no economic reason they should be subsidized. Most people realize that the services offered by a library are worthless, which is why they'd be completely unwilling to pay a monthly membership fee to use the library. There's this perception that libraries help the poor educate themselves. That's totally false. Libraries are a total waste.

H.R. Pufnstuf....the best you can do is offer up a strawman argument comparing libraries to a sugary drink ban? Whether or not you like libraries, they are a public service authorized by an elected county council and supported by our taxes. Ken Ulman's banning sugar sweetened drinks on county property was an authoritarian decision and a prime example of autocratic or totalitarian political rule used by the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and others.

Michael, if you actually read my comment, I was noting the disconnect between the outrage at the soda ban (which seems like it's not that big of a deal) to the fact that there's no outrage about major government intrusions in our lives (requiring sprinklers in residential homes, not allowing teens to tan, funding seemingly limitless libraries when bookstores are going out of business, etc.).

President Obama murdering people with drones is authorized by elected people and supported by tax dollars. That doesn't make it right.

The fact that you referred to my comparison as a "straw man" is proof positive that you did not even comprehend my comment. A+.

Just to educate you a bit, Michael, a "straw man" is when you misrepresent someone else's argument for the purposes of making it easier to attack. At least learn the meanings of words you use.

People in HoCo clearly enjoy the libraries- they circulated over 7 million items last year alone. They waited in line for hours for a FREE author event (Jodi Picoult), tens of thousands signed up for the summer reading program, thousands attended educational programs, 750+ 5th graders participated in Battle of the Books, and many many residents joined/renewed their Friends of HCLS memberships. I say it often, but this time you might really want to consider a move to a less progressive county. Just sayin'.

Moi, follow through with your stats so we have the complete picture. You said that the libary circulated 7 million items last year. How many unique users checked those items out? How many of those items were books? I have long maintained that the library is utitilized a few very heavy users. Even if all 300,000 people in county checked something out (which they didn't but I'm being charitable) that's an average of 23 items a year or about two a month for each person. There's simply no way that the entire county is reading a book every two weeks.

I think I may have to move. HC is being hijacked by morons.

Ulman lives in a fools paradise. His policies aren't well thought out, from Healthy Howard to the Kendall Hardware property grab, to the ban on smoking in parks to the meters in Ellicott City. It's one nanny state misstep after another.

Anyone over 50 used to get exercise as a child while watching television just by having to get up and adjust the rabbit ears on top of the TV and by changing channels and the volume.

I hope Ken's unicorns will not get hurt.

Why should he focus on a problem that would put him in a bad light?

Ulman doesn't focus on crime because he does not care. We need to let Ulman know what we think. He's busy wasting time over a football bet. What an immature waste of money.

Yes, and when he banned smoking in HoCo public parks he cited no studies, but instead rendered moral judgement, it was a, "dirty, filthy" habit. And when I asked him why he was implementing Healthy Howard, he said it would lower my health insurance premium (a delusional assumption given my insurance carrier and risk pool). You see, Ulman doesn't care about the facts, nor does he care about liberty. He simply cares about the amoral agenda of the socialist movement.