Calling critics of the plan “ridiculous,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is defending his proposed ban on large-size sugary sodas. I have long been a critic of such measures, but this one is particularly presumptuous in my view. People should have a choice as to what and how much they wish to eat and drink. The ban is particularly illogical since it would simply require people to buy multiple cans of soda unless Bloomberg will next impose a drink limit for New Yorkers. You can have as many Manhattans as you want but do not reach for the super-sized soda. I am waiting for the next bumper sticker: “If Big Gulps Are a Crime, Only Criminals Will Have Big Gulps.”
I agree with critics that this is the ultimate example of the “Nanny state” where the government dictates the the proper lifestyle choices and risks for adults. I have no problem with banning sodas in school as many district have done. However, Bloomberg has decided that educational programs and warnings are not enough because adults are not meeting the expectations of the government. Bloomberg is quoted as saying “I look across this country, and people are obese, and everybody wrings their hands, and nobody’s willing to do something about it.” The solution therefore is to take away choice and to dictate Dr. Bloomberg’s diet for all citizens.
The soda ban will be introduced on June 12 at a New York City Board of Health meeting. It is expected to pass.
However, Bloomberg insists that when you are told that you cannot have that soda, “Nobody is taking away any of your rights. This way, we’re just telling you ‘That’s a lot of soda.'” Really? Sounds a lot like “you can’t have that soda.”
Honestly, if prohibition did not work for alcohol, it is likely to be even less successful for sodas. What is unclear is why Bloomberg is not also banning french fries, onion rings, and other unhealthy foods eaten in excessive quantities. How about requiring proof that a large stuffed pizza has no fewer than four persons willing to sign for it? I think people have a right to an unhealthy lifestyle. This is not like second-hand smoke that harms others. You can be around someone with a large soda and remain perfectly healthy.
There must be something to occupy the Mayor’s time beyond soda drinkers like serial killers. Forcing people to buy two ten ounce sodas rather than one twenty ounce soda is hardly a public interest triumph. However, it is not the sheer stupidity but the sheer hubris that I find remarkable about this proposed ban. Perhaps the good Mayor should stop “looking across the country” like some stern Satrap and focus on those harms that people do to others from crime to pollution.
In the meantime, I will soon issue a new bumper sticker for the soda patriots: “You Can Pry My Big Gulp From My Cold Fat Fingers.”
Source: LA Times
Bloomberg is probably driven everywhere he goes, and doesn’t expend as much energy walking around his city as most New Yorkers and visitors do. Wasn’t the problem the sugar content, not the size of the fluid created with it. New Yorkers burn more calories than anyone because there is no transportation except underground, forcing everyone to walk, or live underground like mice.
Bloomberg is taking candy water away from babies! Wah!
anon,
Sorry to take so long to reply, but I needed to do a little bit more work “under the hood” before I responded to your pitiful squalling…
I’m sure it is–I’m just not sure how much of the truth is left after it’s been filtered through your many obvious biases…
Comments you make on the web can be correctly attributed to you–oh the horror!
Just out of curiosity, what is that supposed to accomplish? Except, of course, to provide me with some amusement regarding your complete tactical ineptitude. If that was your intent, good job!
As I’ve asked before, whose privacy has been violated and how?
I used a different email address (but valid–I like to subscribe to the threads, but I guess you can’t do that… *snort*)–otherwise you would have recognized my gravatar. I thought that was what you wanted–not to be able to tell if two different commenters are really the same person… Make up your mind.
I didn’t put the leak there, I’m just making use of the data I come across. You seem to be arguing that this is solely the province of corporations or intelligence agencies rather than anyone who wishes to take the time and effort to look at what is freely available. Since we know that the information is already out there and there is no reason to suspect it is not already being used by those with the wherewithal to collect and analyze it, it’s too bad there isn’t someone pointing out that this is possible so that any potential whistleblower would be more careful than the one you describe. Oh wait–that’s exactly what I’m doing!
Do you think that my software is doing things that, say, the NSA is not capable of? That’s flattering but nowhere near the truth…
No guest bloggers were involved in the project when this first arose (and there hasn’t really been any project since then… until now, of course 😉 ) and your allegation is completely baseless. Furthermore, since you clearly understand what I claim to have done, you must be aware that I could have accomplished everything I did by the methods that I’ve explained. So why are you making accusations that you have no evidence to support? Trying to smear innocent people by falsely accusing them–I think that says volumes about your character (or lack thereof).
You really don’t understand anything, do you? This was a one-trick pony–once anyone knows that someone is watching in this way they can easily cover their tracks (unless they are as stupid as you apparently are). I didn’t write the software to exploit the gravatar leak, I wrote it as a tool and exploiting the leak was just something that the tool made it easy to do. I’m not the only one who has or can build this kind of tool…
This is a complete and utter lie.
It seems to me that understanding what kind of information (and intelligence) can be developed from freely available information that most people are unaware that they are leaving is exactly the sort of thing that should be discussed on the blog of a civil libertarian. If you weren’t a fool, you’d see that I’ve been trying to raise discussion of this issue (and defend myself and others from your false charges, of course).
A fine example of putting the cart before the horse.
Do you really think that the people that set up gravatar didn’t know about this (and likely intend to make use of it for their own profit all along)? Professor Turley may have expressed his disappointment to me in a private email, but he doesn’t seem to think this issue is important enough to comment on, so until someone can explain to me exactly how anyone is being hurt by my actions or why corporations have more rights than I do, I’ll be using my software and the information that it gathers however I see fit. (I can see you… Bwa-ha-ha-HA-ha!)
Oh, I think I know what they say… 😛
While, despite the fact that you should know exactly what went on since I explained it all, you were a little light on the facts and heavy on the false accusations…
So, by revealing what went on when the matter first arose and explaining everything completely when a third party was attacked, I’m doing this “behind your back”? How, exactly, does that work?
Co-conspirators? I hate to disappoint you (although I’m sure you wont believe me anyway, even though I’m telling the truth), but there really wasn’t any conspiring going on–I developed the software to help a friend with an idea he had about determining demographic information from comments on blogs, did all of the planning and programming myself and only involved other people to discuss the usefulness and ethics of the resultant information once I was getting data (or close to it). This whole kerfuffle is really beside the point, anyway–using gravatars to identify people posting with different handles and the same email isn’t what I’m interested in as there is much more interesting and revealing data that you continue to make available all the time–or am I not allowed to collect your words and analyze them according to your Byzantine rules?
Well, let’s just say in a contest of intelligence, I’d pick any of the guest bloggers over you. You clearly have some sort of grudge against the guest bloggers (which makes it curious why you would spend so much time commenting on threads that they started and participate in if they are so horrible…), but while all of the guest bloggers have long histories of insightful contributions to discussions here, I have yet to see you participate in any discussion in good faith or display genuine insight of any kind.
Just to give an example of what you seem to think is a violation of your privacy, I note that the handle anon has been used with 121 different email addresses (I’m guessing most, but not all, are you). How has imparting this knowledge injured you? Besides the fact that anyone who understands what is going on here is now having a laugh at your expense regarding your pointless countermeasures… Did you think them up all by yourself? I’d ask if you got your friends to help you, but I doubt you have any…
Everyone knows sugary sodas are not healthy, but apparently everyone does not know that prohibition simply never has, does not and never will keep people from putting whatever they want into their bodies.
A more important discussion, I think would focus on the sheer volume of responses this totally unimportant story has generated as well as the elevated level of ad hominem and non sequitur attacks provoked by and contained in those responses. Does this truly matter? How will your lives be affected? Who knew such a mundane piece of legislation could so polarize a populace? On one side you have the all-government-is-evil kooks screaming “nanny state” while on the other you have the you-must-be-protected-from-yourself crowd. There must be SOME happy medium here.
I know! Lets leave the gargantuan sodas alone but pass legislation requiring all good citizens to point and laugh at anyone seen sucking one down.
bfm,
@matt “Big mac’s. Do you know why Ronald McDonald got put in jail?”
I don’t have a clue. I am going to assume it was not for insider trading. If the question if raised on this blog I am going to guess it must be something like ‘he couldn’t keep his big mac to himself’, or he was just vising.
==========================================================
Something like that.
“You’ve just now connected something that I’ve said often?”
I’ve known that for a long time from your writing. I’m just bringing others who don’t kow your crap up to speed.
Hey that’s great Dr. Kevin Kesseler.
http://jonathanturley.org/corrections/#comment-378229
You’re such a maroon.
anon,
So you’re saying that I should switch up my email addresses when I post? How do you like this one?
Hey, look at the huge grey wall of blather.