↓
 
Home » Nanny Bloomberg strikes again

Nanny Bloomberg strikes again

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s easy to make fun of NY Mayor Bloomberg’s plans to ban super-sized sugary drinks (over 16 ounces, over 25 calories) from the city. But it’s really not funny; that’s how tyranny begins—for your own good, of course.

Bloomberg knows better than to submit the new rule to a vote. He will implement it through the time-honored method of a Board of Health directive, bypassing the need to get other approval. And of course—as with so many such things—the rule doesn’t even make sense. For example, refills are allowed (at least for the moment), and a person can get two servings at a time. I can also envision vendors having specials on a double serving; will it really stop a determined consumer if he/she has to carry two smaller cups rather than one large one? And I can imagine some people being driven to get more soda just as a form of protest.

And let me just say I have no personal dog in this soda fight. I don’t drink soda, not even artificially sweetened soda, because I can’t stand it, along with a host of other drinks I detest (I’m weird that way). But I defend your right to drink it, even in the exceedingly health-conscious city of my birth, New York.

Comments

Nanny Bloomberg strikes again — 23 Comments

  1. It’s a jobs program. A black market in bathtub soda pop will spring up to employ hundreds of producers, enforcers, drivers, and laborers. Then there’s the packaging, labeling, and clandestine advertising as well as the underground clubs selling the soda hooch to wealthy kids rebelling against authority and parents who just don’t understand.

  2. >>> even in the exceedingly health-conscious city of my birth, New York

    This isn’t about health. It’s about A directing B as to which of their behaviors is Bad For Them, and FORCING them to Not Do That Awful Thing.

    It’s rule-by-Mrs. Grundy.

    Rules are always for someone ELSE — only “to protect them, dear”.

    Never rules for themselves.

    And it’s the behavior of scoundrels.

    One would hope there’s room here for some kind of Constitutional challenge, not so much for being explicitly worthy of such, but for being the first step down a slippery slope.

  4. The War on Sugar, but not artificial, modified, and concentrated alternatives.

    Will people choose liberty or submission with benefits? A large and progressive population in America chooses the latter.

  5. What the hell has happened to New Yorkers? Where the hell’s the attitude? Where’s the FU? Was all of that a myth? Hollywood figments? If you ask a typical New Yorker to bend over does he now shout out “yes sir, which way sir”? First Brooklyn now greater New York; I’m starting to get worried.

  6. ah..
    just to clue you in
    here is a travel site helping you understand the customs and rules for north korea no better time to learn how to live after CHANGE.
    http://www.newkoreatours.com/north_korea_travel_rules.html

    At what point will people believe me that we are already in a totalitarian state, but it has not the power or moved to the brutal stage yet… it doesn’t want to have to deal with the rebellians and such, which would make the ambiguity that protects them disappear in an instant and create a huge problem. after all, the cows might stop working then…

    By the way neo… don’t you like how the line (established in 1776) was moved by first putting the salami on the table with drugs and cigs and alcohol, now they have ability to control what you injest… if you go back to the 70s, that’s what the opponents said. That the welfare clause is not about controlling what you do with your own property: your self!

    You see… you don’t know it yet, but there are a whole bunch of laws that establish that you no longer own yourself. Starting with the feminist changed to parens patria.. and so forth.

    What happened to the trick of setting the line?
    The line was set in 1776…

    Where do they derive the right to tell you what you can or cant eat for public reasons?
    Where do they derive the right to affirmative action and unequal representation?
    Where do they derive the right to negatively affect one race to garner votes for another?
    Where do they derive the right to redistribution of another man’s property?
    Where do they derive the right to say certain groups do not have a right to freedom of association?
    Where did they get the power to delegate powers that don’t originate with them?
    (it used to be called usurpation)

    “the very real connection between the “progressive” political machinations and actual Marxist thought and methodology. “What Is To Be Done” gave way to what has been done.”

    Toward the end of the book, Shelton tells the story of Vladimir Bukovsky, a man who spent a dozen years in Soviet prisons and labor camps as a dissident.

    He summarized his comments with words of warning:
    “I have lived in your future and it didn’t work.”

    – see Alger Hiss is still betraying you

    And for those who find me inscrutable…

    Whitaker Chambers, who died in 1961, never lived to see the fall of Soviet communism

    In fact, he truly believed that it would never happen and that when he left communism to embrace the ideas and ideals of American freedom he was leaving the winning side for a losing cause.

    We know that he was wrong–at least in the short run.

    We are now in the final stages of Gliechshaltung before the conflict.
    What conflict? Engels said that this conflict, this world war, would sweep the world and the Conflagration (holocaust had not been invented yet) would sweep the problem people off the face of earth… (paraphrased)

    A study of law and economics of last century would clue you in to which history they are copying and varying as a theme… (ergo ipso facto: history repeats, but not exactly. Its called evolution of ideas and methods – practice)

    They are hurrying up the copy laws from Germany (And soviets too)…
    But you can’t recognize blood and soil, as your focus in it is race, not method
    And forget soviet, no one bothers to read or study that except for communists and anti-communists..

    I said they have been repeating the laws.
    But rather than be asked, what laws, nothing is asked.

    It would be wiser to look what the denied effects of the laws are, not the point or spravka of the law… today, the idea is to wrap the poison in something palatable, as you no longer have moral ethics to tell the patient you experiment on.

    Since neo never changed to leave the fold, but rather saw the reality and that it wasn’t what she thought it was, and so the same ideas that got her into it, got her out.

    We CANT change… but their idea is much like medicine. Todays medicine is akin to throwing a wrench randomly into a fine machine, and if the outcome is good, repeat the wrench throwing to duplicate the event… its not solutions designed from an understanding of the system and derived from such knowledge.

    So… socially, they experiment on the people trying to figure out which selection of lies, false principals, etc… can get the output of the machine they are screwing with… eventually they realize their machine is not cooperative and get more and more nutty and punitive.

    But note, they try to treat everyone as a cog, not a individual!!!

    We are all equal to the administrators…
    They cant be bothered with individual needs… l
    So the soviets come up with these blanket law fixes…

    Anyone who has family that lives in such a place, or has had it, or lived it themselves
    Recognizes it for what it IS

    This is not the first laws on food they have tried..
    And I am not referring to the salt rule..

    As in germany, the food laws had ulterior motives IF you know the cultures

    Jews have specific food laws and rules… and so like the recent laws that are pitting the church against the state, these laws will not affect everyone the same way…

    To those not in the know of others the term is: Kashrut
    These are the sets of jewish dietary laws…

    The more they control, the more they get in the way of such things..
    Which is the point… as then under Hegel, who wins?
    The state or Jews and western civ?

    FOOD IS CULTURE… why else eat Chinese food in the US and not call it American
    (Even if the food IS American, like chop suey)

    Before the soda law, and the salt game… they tried to negate kashrut!!!
    And did… as now ny state law has control over Kosher labeling..

    A New York law regulating the marketing and labeling of kosher food doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled, rejecting a First Amendment challenge.

    Why make a law, set the line, put the salami on the table?
    Because that and other laws (drug laws, etc) together create the precedent, which is hard to break once established (not to mention delegation of powers).

    You are watching the lines now being moved against the trick

    Next post… what laws…

  7. First of all, note that its very hard to find things since all the rhetoric has created a fog over the actual information…

    1927 — First German food law enacted

    Most people forget that each of these states are restricted to act in a way that at least appears legitimate. Ie. The Germans did NOT write a law that directly attacked Jews. Ie. The attack was always with or in terms of something else, or to reach a goal, or based on premises (some false, some true).

    So there was no simple law that said.. Jews are Jews, kill them… etc.
    Each of the laws was wrapped up in an idea or area in which the laws goal justified some action… And like Obama and company, and their laws, WHAT action or such was left out.

    The devil is always in the details…

    The Jews and those killed for state reasons, in Nazi Germany and in soviet Russia, were mostly done in by “HEALTH LAWS” (and economic equality laws)… we have normalized a whole bunch of stuff… even stuff that the soviets made illegal, like pedagogical experimentation on kids in school with social programs…

    The first laws and such on these things were from Bismark…
    Under his idea that a little bit of socialism, would make the people happy to not want all socialism! So he came up with the first health laws and health insurance, and social security, women’s suffrage, etc.. (Women LIKE or are attracted to totalitarianism… strong leader, etc).

    It wasn’t very long before the focus went from individual health and private practice, to public health…

    The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. It is one thing to see oneself as responsible for the “nation’s health” and quite another to be responsible for an individual patient’s health. It is one thing to be employed by an individual, another to be employed by the government.

    He who pays the piper calls the tune…
    The intertwining of state and medicine in the US is almost full, with the state setting goals and docs experimenting on the public to create ‘interventions’ for totalitarians to implement to fix problems… but we don’t see it for what it is, as we are doing it. (see Stamford experiment: Zimbardo)

    These social changes resulted in some health improvement… but it was an illusion
    It set the doctors up and others to be agents of the state.. not agents of the patients…

    “the doctor’s role changed from that of advocate, adviser, and partner of the patient to a partner of the state.”

    Sound familiar? The doctor, who is tired of telling his fat patient to diet, now is telling the state that if we team up, we can force that fat person to diet… (forgetting that we are not monolithic homogeneous equals… so what about anorexics? And others?)

    Where traditional individual ethics and Christian charity had once stood, the reformers posited a collective ethic for the benefit of the general population. Private charity and welfare were nationalized.

    But as in our state, all that was the set up for later. We did much the same, and Obama has put it into overdrive… we even copied the letting of mental patients out into the public, which later created the excuse to warehouse them, and later, given it’s the states bill, euthanize them…
    [edited for length by n-n]

  8. even when i cut them down they are way too long, as the topics that neo pics are not assailable in a paragraph (more so when the public reading has forgotten or never learned the history)

    -=-=-=-=-=-

    Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years. Until now, these arguments have focused on what’s best for the baby–in the words of recent Dutch guidelines, “infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering.” Giubilini and Minerva merely push this idea one step further, calling their proposal “‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”

    They avoid euthanasia, for euthanasia. They avoid the words unworthy of life, replacing it with hopeless prognosis.. Which doesn’t mean the same thing…

    [The authors conclude that “if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”

    [

    So if they take all your money in taxes, and you cant afford a kid, then just kill it?

    If you have read that and tons of other stuff.. (including ideas of using ebola to make population better)… then you relize that the soda, the salt, the mass control, is allthe same thing, but in a different order, and AVOIDING the same language.

    Pssst… speak in synonyms, then the idiots can’t catch on… they will deny that synonyms are the same… they are obviously different… duh

    What your seeing is a convergence of the same ideas once that tricky line was moved from individual rights, to collective rights.

    As in individual, owned by yourself, you can do what you want to yourself.
    As a collective creature, owned by the state, your hurting yourself is cheating the state on their investment in your education, medicine, and dam it they want their return for what they paid for.

    Is it really so strange that there was only three economic systems in competition
    And when socialism failed… all that was left was one pure thing and one hybrid

    So what you have is the fall of the soviet union, told everyone, communism was not it, but FASCISM was… (corporatism, etc.. ) and THAT’S what your seeing.

    But you’re waiting for the costumes, and the frippery, and the OUTER SURFACE forms to be expressed but also be the same, not a different variation on the same theme.

    But those are not needed, required, or a part of it. they are the peccadilloes of the group leading… but alas, they DID show you the same things… but since they were synonyms, you think they are different

    Let me show you:

    No profession in Germany became so numerically attached to National Socialism in both its leadership and membership as was the medical profession. Because of their philosophical orientation toward finding a more scientific basis for medical research and practice, government funding for research, and the practical benefits of acquiring university positions and medical practices from the many banned and exiled German Jewish doctors, many physicians supported Nazi policies.

    The key is to replace specifics with the general, or convert them to today’s versions
    So back then, the scape goat was Jews, today the scape goat is white males.

    If women are 66% in getting degrees, and the rest are foreign, minorities, and white men
    Then where did the (non elite) white men go?

    You can rewrite the above to modernize it..
    [edited for length by n-n]

  9. What the hell has happened to New Yorkers? Where the hell’s the attitude? Where’s the FU? Was all of that a myth? Hollywood figments?

    Escape From New York? High-Taxing Empire State Loses 3.4 Million Residents in 10 Years
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/escape-new-york-high-taxing-empire-state-loses-34-million-residents-10-years

    New York State accounted for the biggest migration exodus of any state in the nation between 2000 and 2010, with 3.4 million residents leaving over that period, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Over that decade the state gained 2.1 million, so net migration amounted to 1.3 million, representing a loss of $45.6 billion in income.

    they did say FU
    they left…

  11. Saw a great bumper sticker relevant to this on the way home… and even here in deep blue Connecticut:

    Liberalism: ideas so wonderful they have to be mandatory.

  12. It’s almost humorous that an obese government is trying to solve obesity everywhere else. You can’t make this stuff up.

  13. What George Pal said. Also, I’m sure the Board of Health (or whatever) will hire undercover agents to see if they can buy illegal amounts from vendors.

  14. Re Bloomberg: I keep thinking of Savonarola, the Florentine monk who ruled Florence during the Renaissance with fiery zeal and had the populace dressing drably, abjuring wine, women, and song, and burning “lewd books.”

    Until the Florentines got fed up with him and burned him at the stake.

  15. Oh, yeah: New York attitude? they’re a bunch of squishes. They put up with more bossing around and chivvying about than any Texan would ever contemplate. Hell, they tamely stay out of the ocean just because the Govt. Nanny Lifeguards aren’t on duty.

  16. What is it about “none of your business” that he doesn’t get? What an insufferable busybody!

  17. “Until the Florentines got fed up with him and burned him at the stake.”

    It amazes me that New Yorkers put up with this crap. Isn’t it about time he was run out of town?

    Refills are “allowed”. How insulting is that to any grown adult? The government is going to “allow” me to get a second helping of a drink of which it has no part of the production or consumption or the purchase thereof. It’s none of their f’ing (see the post from the other day) business. I’m a grown up adult and it’s my decision alone what to eat and how much. Where in any conceivable society of free men is the authority vested in government to prohibit you from having a cup bigger than a certain size? It’s pathetic, insulting, and ridiculous. It’s nannyish micromanagement and would disgust our Founding Fathers. The hubris is breathtaking. New Yorkers need to remove this cancer from their midst lest it consume all their freedom. I’m 5’11” and 145 pounds. If I want to drink a bucket of Coke that’s my business and Mayor Bloomberg can simply butt out.

  18. Perhaps New Yorkers are passive-aggressive. They meekly submit to authoritarian rule; but, their need for individual is overwhelming. It is this latter feature which creates a false perception of, not only New Yorkers, but all residents of populous cities. Since they are necessarily constrained when living among millions of competing interests, they are motivated to become rebels with a cause and without a clue. Actually, this seems to be an inevitable consequence for anyone living in a civilization. Some people are simply better equipped to cope than others. Liberty demands that people are capable of self-moderating behavior.

    Bloomberg, on the other hand, seems to be well suited for exploiting this forced but unavoidable compromise among people. I suppose the totalitarian streak among his kind can also be measured in degrees, as with any other facet of human nature.

  19. …and today he’s celebrating National Donut Day.

    I suspect the soda makers didn’t contribute enough to his retirement fund, though it appears that Dunkin Donuts has.

  20. “Rules are always for someone ELSE”

    It seems that Bloomberg has frequently been landing his helicopter at the the E 34th Street Heliport on weekends, despite the fact it is CLOSED on Saturdays and Sundays (for noise reasons), as clearly stated in the FAA’s Airport/Facilities Guide.

  21. I’m reminded of the movie “Demolition Man”, in which Sandra Bullock informs Sylvester Stallone that in their futuristic world it has been deemed that “everything not good for you, is bad, hence illegal.”

  23. Speaking of “Demolition Man,” I would like to hear Denis Leary’s thoughts on this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑