A couple of months ago, the Mental Recession reported on a ban on large sodas being enacted in New York City. The plan was the first of its kind anywhere in the nation – perhaps because others couldn’t concoct a more inane way to fight obesity. Bloomberg however, has an extraordinary knack for finding the most absurd ways to monitor your health, and by extension – take away your freedoms.
It is the nanny state at it’s finest, and perhaps another reason why New York’s residents are fleeing the state in record numbers.
The concept really took a turn for the worse when Bloomberg actually said that the city had to “forc(e) you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”
We reached out to the Mayor’s Office for comment on the soda ban, and the following is a response from Mr. Bloomberg himself:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about our plan to limit the size of sugary drinks at some food establishments.
Like the rest of America, our City is facing an obesity epidemic. Nearly 60% of adult New Yorkers and close to 40% of public school students are overweight or obese, putting them at greater risk of developing a host of diseases and conditions, including Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Obesity is now the second-leading cause, just after smoking, of preventable death in New York City.
Our success in cutting smoking deaths to record lows shows that we can tackle the toughest public health problems head-on—and make a huge difference—but only if we are willing to act boldly, and target the problem comprehensively. We are confronting the obesity epidemic on several fronts, including our most recent proposal to curb consumption of sugary beverages. We are also offering healthier options through programs that allow more New Yorkers to buy fresh and affordable produce. In addition, an expanded public education campaign will build on the work we have already done to give New Yorkers more information—just as calorie counts in restaurants do—so they can make better choices about the food and drinks they and their families consume.
Although we may disagree on this issue, I appreciate your input as we work to reduce the number of preventable, obesity-related deaths throughout New York City. Thank you again for writing.
Michael R. Bloomberg
This answer is the very definition of what makes a nanny politician. Bloomberg believes that government knows what is best for the people to eat and drink, and he’d like to find government answers in forcing them to consume products he deems healthy.
That, in a word, is frightening.
The question is – where does it stop? Doughnuts contain hydrogenated oils, and are essentially one of the worst cancer foods you can possibly eat. Yet there the Mayor stood a day after the soda ban was announced, proudly celebrating the virtues of National Donut Day.
This is the height of hypocrisy.
Why is Mayor Bloomberg not actively working to mandate a one-donut policy at all bakeries in the city? He could just as effectively site the obesity statistics used in his previous response on sugary drinks.
Furthermore, the link between sugary drinks and obesity has been debated, with a recent Canadian study suggesting there is little evidence that sodas cause childhood obesity.
Bottom line, the government is well within their rights to educate people on the dangers of certain foods and drinks, but they’ve crossed a boundary when they enforce bans on those same items.
It is an affront to personal choice and liberty. As is the mayor himself.
From the offices of Concerned Veterans For America:
In honor of Wednesday’s July 4th holiday marking the anniversary of our nation’s independence, Concerned Veterans for America has prepared the following web video that celebrates freedom and asks the question what does freedom mean to you?
This video should be reminder to all of us that Independence Day is much more than fireworks, cookouts and a day off from work. It’s a commemoration of the things that make our nation great, and the values we hold in common.
You mean the administration that rammed healthcare down our throats via backroom deals and a mantra of ‘we have to pass it to find out what’s in it’, isn’t the most transparent administration in history after all?
We’ve executed several FOIA requests with the White House, none of which have been answered in the proper amount of time. In fact, they’ve still not been answered, with some approaching a full year since they were executed.
Congressman Issa has continually been stonewalled by the administration regarding Fast and Furious. So why is this a surprise?
President Barack Obama set a high bar for open government, and he set it quickly.
A minute after he took office, the White House website declared his administration would become “the most open and transparent in history.” By the end of his first full day on the job, Obama had issued high-profile orders pledging “a new era” and “an unprecedented level of openness” across the massive federal government.
But three years into his presidency, critics say Obama’s administration has failed to deliver the refreshing blast of transparency that the president promised.
“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” said Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned.”
You shouldn’t be, this is Chicago politics.
Politicians hadn’t been looking at the Constitution for some time, until the Tea Party came along, and even then the Democrats have continued to willfully ignore it.
Via Hot Air (h/t Brian):
This moment in constitutional cluelessness comes to us from the same townhall meeting Rep. Kathy Hochul held with her NY-26 constituents that we featured on Saturday. The local media missed this moment in their report, however, and it was even more telling than the chorus of boos that greeted Hochul when she attempted to defend the HHS mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. When challenged by a reader of Freedom’s Lighthouse on the constitutionality of the mandate, Hochul’s response was rather telling:
This must have been a slip-up. The White House isn’t exactly prone to admitting mistakes. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t found a way to blame Bush yet.
President Obama’s chief of staff said what religious organizations around the country have been thinking for weeks, as he seemed to acknowledge that the original contraception mandate “violated” their freedom of conscience.
“No institution that has — [no] non-profit institution — that has religious principles that we violated has to pay for or directly offer these services,” White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said yesterday on Fox News Sunday. “But women have access to the kinds of care that they are entitled to.”