Bloomberg: One doughnut won’t hurt you, but 17 ounces of Coca-Cola will « Hot Air
Bloomberg: One doughnut won’t hurt you, but 17 ounces of Coca-Cola will.
What a control freak! Is he deranged? Seriously, is he? What mentally stable person would say what this fool just said? Do I really have to add that Bloomberg is our Marxist Moron of the day?
Like this:
And Your Nanny Statist of the Day is……….
Every single menu in New York City could soon be getting a major overhaul if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way.
The man behind calorie counts is set to announce a new public health initiative to battle obesity, taking aim at super-sized sugary drinks.
In other words, it may soon be time to say goodbye to those Big Gulps, those Slurpees or even Venti at Starbucks, CBS 2’s Derricke Dennis reported.
“That’s okay,” one person said.
No it’s not, according to Mayor Bloomberg, who is set to propose a ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces everywhere, all across the city.
“I disagree with it, because it’s the right to choose. If you want to drink a Slurpee, you should be allowed to drink a Slurpee,” said Jamie Sawyer, a tourist from Oklahoma.
Can we just trade New York, Bloomberg and the sheeple who keep electing him to Canada for some maple syrup? Good grief!
Like this:
Your Nanny State Update!
Next on the Nanny State’s list? Your hamburger cooking method! Via Matt
I swear these people stay up nights divining problems that government must solve by creating another law. This low flying news also comes to us thanks to Bruce McQuain at Questions and Observations. The Nanny in question is a Kathy Webb, a state Representative from Arkansas. She thinks frying hamburgers is dangerous to the environment.
Webb has submitted Interim Study Proposal 2011-201, an act “to declare an emergency” over the alleged crisis. Frying hamburgers is now The People’s Business of the Highest Order.
Webb’s bill claims food grease presents an emergency risk of sewer overflows that threatens the environment. “It is in the public interest to establish a Fat, Oil, and Grease Advisory Committee to study the recommended measures to better ensure that the collection, transportation, disposal, and recycling of fat, oil, and grease are done in a manner that is protective of the environment,” reads the bill.
And, there is more
According to the bill, the state will appoint a 14 (!) member committee “with adequate staff and facilities” to study the frying-pan-grease emergency and recommend legislation, enforcement, and other emergency government action to fight food grease. Even after such action, the committee and its “adequate staff and facilities” will perpetually exist, convene, and soak up taxpayer resources.
This is what I call Stuck on Stoopit!
Oh no! Not the Food Police again
Yep! Here they come, better hide your steak! Western Hero warns of the newest “research” meant to terrify us
red meat in our kitchen (for the first time?) - _MG_4181 (Photo credit: sean dreilinger)
“Small quantities of processed meat such as bacon, sausages or salami can increase the likelihood of dying by a fifth, researchers from Harvard School of Medicine found. Eating steak increases the risk of dying by 12%.
The study found that cutting the amount of red meat in peoples’ diets to 1.5 ounces (42 grams) a day, equivalent to one large steak a week, could prevent almost one in 10 early deaths in men and one in 13 in women.” (Pseudoscience Nannies condemn Red Meat)
1.5 Ounces a day??? Who the hell could live on that? The average working man eats that in one bite! And their idea of a “large steak” is ludicrous. 7 X 1.5 = 10.5 ounces, hardly “large” in the realm of Steakdom.
“Compared with red meat, other dietary components, such as fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, and whole grains, were associated with lower risk.
They want us to live on nuts and berries…
Here’s the unscientific part. Correlation does not mean causation:
Scientists added that people who eat a diet high in red meat were also likely to be generally unhealthier because they were more likely to smoke, be overweight and not exercise.
Aha, there you go. These studies always have their little “catches” don’t they? Make sure to read the whole piece.
Like this:
Nanny Bloomberg Bans Food Donations To Homeless Shelters: Too Salty!
Nanny Bloomberg Bans Food Donations To Homeless Shelters: Too Salty! – Fox News
So much for serving the homeless.
The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.
In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.
…………..
For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife, Lenore, have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side Orthodox congregation.
They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. (Disclosure: I know the food is so tasty because I’ve eaten it – I’m an OZ member.) The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.
DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities – dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.
The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats.
Like this:
First they came for tobacco…………. UPDATED!
Then they came for evil sugar! And An ‘Old Broad is fighting mad!
Sugar under attack in obesity fight
Three California obesity researchers struck a nerve in Tennessee’s sweet tooth last month when they proposed regulating sugar in the same way government regulates tobacco and alcohol.
In the journal Nature , they pegged a litany of chronic illnesses to excess sugar consumption — diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease and others. Their article proposed taxing foods with added sugar, restricting purchases to ages 17 and over, and limiting convenience stores in poor neighborhoods.
There is no doubt in my mind….California really IS a granola state….fruits, nuts, and flakes! First off, ya don’t tax people even more, second, ya don’t tell people what they can and cannot eat or drink, and third….it’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! The whole thing sounds like discrimination against the poor folks to me!
Days before the Nature article published, U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais made a proposal on the other side of the political spectrum: a bill that would bar federal dollars from being used to publicly criticize foods already approved by the Food and Drug Administration. He’d learned federal stimulus funds financed healthy living campaigns that, in part, discouraged drinking sugary soda.
This is, of course, simply the natural evolution of the Nanny State. We did not stop them at their power grab over tobacco, and this is our reward. And these Neo-Marxists will not stop at sugar either. So, what will be next? Or maybe it will be an activity deemed “too dangerous” by our would-be overlords? Or maybe our Facebook password?
At Telegraph UK, “12-year-old US girl suing school over Facebook comments row“:
A 12-year-old girl is suing her school in Minnesota after being forced to hand over her Facebook password and punished for posts she made on the social networking site.
The case has been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and comes amid growing concern in the United States about individuals’ ability to keep their email and other online accounts secret from their school, employer and government authorities.
A number of prospective employees have complained that they were forced to hand over their passwords to Facebook and Twitter when applying for jobs.
In the Minnesota case, the 12-year-old girl, known only as RS, is said to have been punished by teachers at Minnewaska Area Middle School for things she wrote on Facebook while at home, and using her own computer.
The ACLU is arguing that her First and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect freedom of speech and freedom from illegal searches respectively, were violated.
She is said to have been punished with detention after using Facebook to criticise a school hall monitor, and again after a fellow student told teachers that she had discussed sex online.
The Nanny State is like a cancer, it will not stop until it rots away every last liberty we have
Like this:
USDA Orders 7 Million Pounds Of Pink Slime For School Lunches
Pink Slime: It’s What’s For Lunch In America’s Schools – Take Part
Forget the corn dog and pizza quarrels. Healthy school lunch advocates have a bigger problem on their plates: a 7 million-pound order of connective tissue and beef scraps doused in ammonia, set to hit school lunch trays in coming months.
Despite being dropped in December by McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Burger King, the infamous concoction – known as “pink slime” – is still in high demand, thanks to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) purchase that will keep it on school lunch menus. Yes, keep; it’s been there for years and is set to stay.
……………………….
The substance is smooshed into meat patties and served up as hamburgers, but the meat product is made from parts of cows “normally destined for dog food and rendering,” reports The Daily.
Microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein and retired microbiologist Carl Custer say the goop is “a high risk product.” The two conducted a study on pink slime in the late ’90s, when JoAnn Smith – known for being buddy-buddy with the beef industry – was serving as undersecretary for the George H.W. Bush administration. (Smith was president of both the Florida Cattlemen’s Association and the National Cattlemen’s Association). At the time, Custer sounded the alarms for food-safety concerns, but the USDA ignored his warnings, Custer says, soliciting a second assessment of the slime’s safety.
Because the meat scraps are particularly vulnerable to contamination, South Dakota company Beef Products, Inc. came up with the idea to soak the stuff in ammonia to kill E. coli and salmonella in 2001. The USDA stamped it with approval and shortly thereafter, the slime was available for public consumption.
Years later, Zirnstein feels the same as he did a decade ago. Speaking of his two-year-old son, he told The Daily, “…you better believe I don’t want him eating pink slime when he starts going to school.”
But skeptics aren’t stopping the pink slime from oozing its way through public schools. The USDA has purchased a sizeable order – 1.5 million more pounds than it bought in 2009 for schools – from Beef Product, Inc.
As for safety concerns? In 2009, The New York Times reported that government and industry records showed dozens of incidences of E. coli and salmonella pathogens in schools’ Beef Products meat, despite added ammonia.
At that time, Times reporter Michael Moss said that “since 2005, E. coli has been found 3 times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August in which two 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated.” The meat never reached lunch room trays, but that hasn’t squelched concerns about whether the stuff is fit for school lunch.
For Zirstein, it’s a matter of public deceit on what constitutes real food.
“They’ve taken a processed product [ammonia], without labeling it, and added it to raw ground beef,” Zirnstein told The Daily. “Science is the truth, and pink slime at this point in time is a fraudulent lie.”
Like this:
What if indeed!
J.E. Dyer at the Hot Air Greenroom posts a very interesting piece about food and sex and the government
The left’s governmental approach to sex today involves, among other things, the following:
1. Advertising it to children through the public schools and encouraging them to explore and participate in it.
2. Basing policy on the assumption that no solution to any problem lies in individuals restraining or channeling their sexual urges, and therefore even the intractable facts of nature should not be left, with their powerful incentives, to encourage that posture. It is important, instead, to create an environment conducive to sex unfettered by its natural consequences.
4. Providing, at public expense, the means to support children who are born nevertheless.
5. To adjust the balance between 3 and 4, encouraging and advocating the use of contraception and the resort to abortion.
The suite of policies advocated by the left is designed to encourage sex but limit procreation and STDs. The social “good,” therefore, is deemed to be unfettered sex, while the social “ills” are the birth of children and the suffering (and infectiousness) incident to STDs.
Let’s compare this moral view and its program construct to the left’s policy attitude toward eating. In this latter realm, the social “ills” are thought to be obesity and the medical problems that come with it. But what is the social “good”? Is there one? It’s hard to say, because eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex – is not, in the left’s moral view, considered a “good” to be promoted on whatever terms the individual prefers.
The left’s governmental treatment of eating is very different from its treatment of sex. It runs on these lines:
1. Advertising to children (as well as adults) the evils of certain kinds of food.
2. Basing policy on the assumption that the people must be nudged or even coerced to eat according to whatever principle is suggested by the most recent studies. It is important to create an environment in which eaters have to go well out of their way to avoid the choices made for them by government authorities. The ideal, in fact, is an environment in which eaters can’t avoid the dictates of the government.
3. Ensuring that the expenses of obesity are, increasingly, born by the public, while fanning political resentment of those expenses, and of the condition of the obese.
4. Proclaiming that the solution in every case is controlling what people eat, rather than providing for the obese the same publicly-funded relief offered to the sexually promiscuous.
Quite amazing when you think about it. There is no consistency in these approaches is there? Or is there? Maybe some of y’all can come up with an explanation here. Frankly, right now, I am battling a sinus infection and my head feels like a balloon, so deep thought is beyond my abilities
Like this:
The newest threat to Western Civilization? Fruit Juice~!
Via Moonbattery, one of our Blogs of the Month for March
soon the hysterical Food Nazis won’t even let them drink juice:
Many young children — particularly those in low-income households — drink too much juice, according to a new survey.
More than a third of parents surveyed, and about half of parents with a yearly household income of less than $30,000, reported their 1- to 5-year-olds drink two or more cups of juice on a typical day.
That’s twice the amount recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which advises kids under age 6 drink just one serving of juice per day.
Too much juice puts kids at risk for health conditions such as childhood obesity and early tooth decay, the researchers said.
Good Grief, so now even 100% juice is bad for kids? If this is true then the fruit that juice comes from must be bad too right? Quick parents,take that apple or orange away from your child now! Throw out those grapes, peaches, mangoes, and pineapple too!
Like this:
Daily Benefactor News – Obama To Control School Vending Machines
……………
—————————————— CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE DAILY BENEFACTOR ——————————————–
—————————————————————————– TOP STORY ——————————————————————————
Obama To Control School Vending Machines – Sweetness & Light
From, appropriately enough, the ‘Politics’ section of the New York Times:
New Guidelines Planned on School Vending Machines
By RON NIXON
February 20, 2012Washington – The government’s attempt to reduce childhood obesity is moving from the school cafeteria to the vending machines.
The Obama administration is working on setting nutritional standards for foods that children can buy outside the cafeteria. With students eating 19 percent to 50 percent of their daily food at school, the administration says it wants to ensure that what they eat contributes to good health and smaller waistlines. The proposed rules are expected within the next few weeks…
Efforts to restrict the food that schoolchildren eat outside the lunchroom have long been controversial…
Why should children, or for that matter, anyone else get to choose what kind of food they can buy with their own money? Choice is only for abortion.
No details of the proposed guidelines have been released, but health advocates and snack food and soft drink industry representatives predict that the rules will be similar to those for the government’s school lunch program, which reduced amounts of sugar, salt and fat.
And never mind that these laws are emanating from the White House, and probably the unelected First Lady, and not Congress.
Those rules set off a fight between parents and health advocates on one side, who praised the standards, and the food industry, which argued that some of the proposals went too far.
Yes, it’s the parents against the food industry – Big Snacks. Not the government against kids and parents.
Members of Congress stepped in to block the administration from limiting the amount of potatoes children could be served and to allow schools to continue to count tomato paste on a pizza as a serving of vegetables…
Where does Congress get off limiting the power of the First Lady like that?
Nancy Huehnergarth, executive director of the New York State Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Alliance in Millwood, N.Y., said she expected a similar fight over the vending machine rules.
“I think the food and beverage industry is going to fight tooth and nail over these rules,” Ms. Huehnergarth said…
Everyone else will be tickled pink to have another freedom taken away.
By the way, how long will it before before it is illegal to sell ‘unhealthy’ snacks within so many thousand feet of a school?
——————————————————————– NOTE TO READERS ———————————————————————
THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Like this:
Newest things California will ban? Food near schools!
From Breitbart.tv:
The California legislature introduced a bill last Tuesday that would ban mobile food and beverage trucks within 1,500 feet of elementary and secondary schools. California has the nation’s largest and most diverse school system, so banning mobile food trucks from operating within 1,500 feet of schools would put food trucks out of business by severely limiting where they could operate. The bill was introduced by Bill Monning (D-Carmel).
Does California have some secret lab where they pump out morons? these Nanny Statists want to ban everything. What is next? Banning convenience stores? Fast food establishments? Ice cream shops? How about grocery stores? They sell junk food right? Or how about this, California could just ban obesity altogether. Yes, that is an absurd idea,which means the Libs would love it!
Like this:
Daily Benefactor News – Obama Administration: All Your Taste Buds Belong To Us
……………
—————————————— CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE DAILY BENEFACTOR ——————————————–
—————————————————————————– TOP STORY ——————————————————————————
Obama Administration: All Your Taste Buds Belong To Us – Gateway Pundit
Theyire not satisfied with controlling your health care, your light bulbs and your thermostat…
Now they want to control your taste buds, too.
CNS News reported:
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Ball sack Vilsack told members of the National Restaurant Association on Monday that Americans need to “adjust” their tastes so that they like the kind of food the government believes they should eat – and “we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.”
“You know, as we deal with this issue of reducing sodium and sugar, it sounds simple to do, but you all know better than I do, it’s not as simple as it sounds,” said Vilsack.
“It’s going to take time for people’s taste to adjust and they will adjust over time, but it will take some time,” he said. “So, we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.”
——————————————————————– NOTE TO READERS ———————————————————————
THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Gatordoug
darcprynce
Dave C
