When I first heard about the latest inanity from Mayor Nanny State up in New York, I was not shocked, or surprised. This is simply Bloomberg being Bloomberg. He is an ego maniac who wants to run everyone else’s life, so this type of thing is par for the course. The reactions from Conservatives did not surprise either. The Right, and Libertarians soundly criticized the ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces in theaters, restaurants, and ballparks. We ripped into this ban for its absurdity, we ripped Bloomberg for his absurdity, again, no surprise.
The thing that I wanted to see was the reaction of Liberals to this ban. And, while some lampooned it, others went right into Liberal mode, meaning they were simply orgasmic that another agent of government was trying to be their mommy and daddy.
Take Gayle King, of the CBS Morning Show, called, oddly enough This Morning, boy those cats at CBS are creative, for example. King and her guests had some revealing reactions Via Newbusters
WAXMAN: You know what? I think — you know, I’d rather have people do it on their own, but if people need a road sign, why not? You know, I think — you know, I’m kind of happy that someone’s making a stand here, because I think that it’s empty calories. It’s not what we should be eating or drinking in our lives.
What? Who needs a road sign to know that over consumption of sugar laden drinks is NOT good for the waistline? EVERYONE knows this, they have for years. Yet here is a Liberal who thinks that we dumb Americans need a road sign! Waxman by the way is a chef in New York
KING: All right-
ROCCA: He’s making us healthier. I don’t love the nanny state, but I love ‘nanny’ Bloomberg. (Rocca and King laugh)
How is Bloomberg making anyone healthier? Seriously, how? The ban does not stop anyone from getting two, or more 16 oz drinks, Bloomberg himself said that! It does not ban sodas over 16 ounces in many other places, yet Rocca “feels” warm and fuzzy because now his “daddy”, the government is making him healthier.
WAXMAN: No, no. I one hundred percent agree. (laughs)
KING: Yes. Listen, I’m all for anything that’s going to make us healthy. Thank you, Jonathan.
AGAIN! This law will “make us healthier” somehow. I suppose King never thinks that anyone can control what they consume? Again, I work in the restaurant business, I have for a long time, most people today, without ANY law dictating what they can and cannot drink, chooses diet soda, or sweeten their tea/coffee with non-sugar sweeteners. Also a lot of folks opt for veggies or salad over fries. And again, no law requires this act. They actually do it for themselves! Imagine that!
Now, to another reaction, from a New York Times columnist, Frank Brunni who, despite admitting the absurdity of this law, is all for it!
WHILE Michelle Obama focused on carrots, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg brandished a stick. It’s what we deserve. Cry all you want about a nanny state, but as a city and a nation we’ve gorged and guzzled past the point where a gentle nudge toward roughage suffices. We need a weight watcher willing to mete out some stricter discipline.
Ah yes, we the people deserve to be punished by our betters in government, right Frank? No matter how ABSURD the law punishing us is apparently
It’s in many senses an absurd and random gesture. A merchant could still peddle a 20-ounce milkshake with more calories than a Coke. A customer could still buy two 16-ounce Pepsis, using tandem vessels and two straws to do the work of one supersize abomination. There are many vendors unaffected by the proposed ban, and there’s a wide world of caloric villains untouched. Man cannot balloon on Mountain Dew alone.
So, here Brunni admits that the law does not really do one damn thing to fight obesity. Yet, he is absolutely delighted over the law, why you ask? Simple, because it makes Liberals like Brunni feel good! Liberalism is largely a feelings driven ideology, and Brunni is a perfect example of this.
The proposed ban is also an act of government control and regulation that makes no small number of people squeamish. Should we not have the liberty to ingest what we elect to ingest, and to decide whether the pleasure is worth any ill effects? Are we not capable stewards of our own welfare? In general, yes, but the government has taxed cigarettes to high heaven, as a means (successful) of steering us away from them, and made it illegal to partake of many recreational drugs. Like those substances, heavily sugared soft drinks are wholly unnecessary and are implicated in health problems that wind up affecting all of us, not just the individual suffering from them. Food ceased to be a frontier too far when the fraction of American adults who qualify as obese climbed above one in three.
And, there he goes again. The Collectivist heart is revealed in those last two sentences. Liberals believe we must not allow individual liberties to stand in the way of the collective good!