Nanny Bloomberg's War on Soda

Why is New York's busybody mayor regulating city residents within an inch of their lives?

Last month I applauded New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his graduation message in North Carolina in favor of marriage equality. But, I wondered at the time, why not "extend to food his own comments about [the] error of denying freedom"?

Fat chance. On Thursday, Mayor Bloomberg proposed a sweeping ban on the sale of "large" sweetened beverages in the city.

The proposed ban invited fast and widespread outrage and derision. Sure, people you might expect to oppose the ban (like Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, and yours truly) weighed in. And critics had fun with news of an official proclamation letter issued by Mayor Bloomberg and read displayed on an easel at a downtown celebration of National Donut Day yesterday—an event that featured the formal unveiling of "the largest box of Entenmann's donuts ever created."

But when New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Christine Quinn, writer and healthy-food advocate Bettina Siegel, Jon Stewart, Jake Tapper, Matt Lauer (Matt Lauer!), and The New York Times's editorial page—which labeled the measure "a ban too far"—question the ban, it appears that even those Mayor Bloomberg might have expected to be sweet on his scheme find it more like sweet nothings.

The ban did draw some tepid support. New York Times columnist Mark Bittman tweeted that the proposed ban was the "[b]est news of the week", while MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski sipped a giant drink while throwing her support behind the mayor's plan.

The ban also drew rabid support from writer Drew Magary, whose moronic and reprehensible Gawker rant attacking opponents of the ban ("Please, people, shut the fuck up.") contains this explanation of democracy for the millions of "fatsos" in need of an unintentionally hilarious and misbegotten lesson:

Democracy is not OH MY GOD THESE LAWS WILL MAKE US PUSSIES! Democracy is people working together to sort out just what the rules of society should be. Obviously, this process is labored and often hilariously corrupt, but that's what living in a "free country" is supposed to mean. It doesn't mean that you get to grab a gun and storm City Hall just because you think a soda ban is some kind of sign of the End Times. It's fucking soda. Don't be such a pussy that you can't live without a 42 oz. cup of the shit. If you're the type to flip out just because you can't have that, then who's the real pussy?

So. Dumb. This piece from the new Village Voice writer James King, in which King rips Magary to shreds in brilliant fashion, is the perfect antidote to the Gawker piece.

Like Magary, the proposed ban makes little sense.

(Article continues below video.)

Take the science. The unsweetened juice of an apple—that symbol of New York City—contains at a minimum exactly the same number of grams of sugar per ounce (3.25 g) as Coca-Cola (3.25 g). Choose a different source and apple juice suddenly boasts more sugar per ounce (and more calories) than Coca-Cola.

Look at the economics behind the ban, which chef Daniel Moody argues would actually subsidize heavy soda drinkers at the expense of those who drink less. And that's to say nothing of the fact that in a time of rising unemployment, growth in the food and beverage industry accounted for more than 40 percent of new jobs (according to recent government data) created in April.

So why would Mayor Bloomberg propose such a ban—especially on the eve of his Donut Day proclamation?

If this doublespeak by the Bloomberg administration sounds to you like, well, doublespeak, then let me do nothing to dissuade you of that notion. But if you reside somewhere within the narrow, crayoned sliver of land that sits between the Hudson River and the Pacific Ocean, you may not know that this sort of haphazard food polic(y)ing is just part of a typical news cycle in the Bloombergosphere.

Whether it's proposing to restrict new tavern licenses, suggesting a ban on happy hours, banning food donations to homeless shelters, attempting to limit restaurants' use of salt, merely making life difficult for food trucks, banning trans fats, et cetera, there appears to be no food consumer, seller, or ingredient that escapes the eagle eyes of the mayor and his hawkish health department, headed by Thomas Farley.

Bloomberg and Farley claim the soda ban is a public health measure designed to stem mounting obesity numbers. And they place the blame for those numbers largely on soda and other sweetened drinks. For example, the Times reports that Farley attributes to "up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years" to "sweetened drinks."

Those are some heady—and heavy—numbers. Farley's evidence? The Times doesn't suggest any, and Farley has since repeated a similar claim without offering any support:

Now, there are many contributing factors to [New York City's obesity rate], but there is none—no single factor that is contributing to it more than the increase in consumption of these sugary drinks. There's something about this product that seems to be uniquely associated with obesity and is also increasingly associated with diabetes and heart disease.

The specifics of the "something" that Farley claims "seems to be uniquely associated with obesity" have so far eluded him. Though that same "something" appears not to have escaped the attention of Farley's own health department, which reports that "New York City neighborhoods that report lower physical activity levels and less fruit and vegetable consumption have higher obesity rates."

But then facts and evidence are not Farley's strong suit. The perverse "curve shifting" practices embraced by Farley—which Forbes writer Trevor Butterworth described earlier this year—require little more than faith in one's ability to regulate.

What else but such faith can explain the mess the New York City health department found itself in earlier this year when it was forced to admit it had doctored stock images of an obese man—Photoshopping out one of the man's legs and swapping in a crutch—as part of its anti-soda campaign.

Was the department apologetic? No, even as a model used in another ad attacked the health department's practices.

“We might stop using actors in our ads if the food industry stops using actors in theirs,” said John Kelly, a health department spokesman, after The New York Times exposed the deceit. Neener neener.

With that level of discourse, it's no surprise the amputee ad is still featured prominently at the health department website.

If bald lies seem too much, there's always policy based on honest-to-goodness, take-a-stab guesswork.

Consider, for example, the process by which Bloomberg and Farley settled on 16 ounces as an appropriate maximum beverage size:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Commissioner Farley, how did you decide on 16 ounces? Why not 12 ounces or eight ounces, which might be too much sugar for a smaller person? 

DR. THOMAS FARLEY: Well, we certainly think that 16 ounces is ample.

Farley then went on to talk like he and Mayor Bloomberg are actively working behind each of the city's beverage counters, claiming "we are going to serve them a portion size that gives them a guide as to what is the maximum appropriate size."

Years and dozens of hyperlinks show that New Yorkers and Americans should not take either Farley or Mayor Bloomberg at their word when it comes to regulating food. In Mayor Bloomberg's own words, we should not tolerate the error of denying freedom.

Baylen J. Linnekin, a lawyer, is executive director of Keep Food Legal, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit that advocates in favor of food freedom—the right to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, cook, eat, and drink the foods of our own choosing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • fried wylie||

    I took a shit in NY was banned from NY once.

  • ||

    How did you manage that? I want to be banned from NYC......

    I did get the best view of it possible once.....by looking in my rear-view mirror.

  • fried wylie||

    fried wylie? If i have to explain the joke....ugh, forget it.

  • fried wylie||

    *stumbles away crying and coating self in trans-fats for impeding self-immolation*

  • fried wylie||

    argh, "impending", not "impeding"

    though, I guess if my immolating self runs into traffic, I could become an impediment.

  • ||

    Ok, it is early and I am slow...just now having my first coffee.....
    I got it just after I hit submit. *sigh*

  • fried wylie||

    just after I hit submit

    What is it about that moment that inspires such clarity of thought?

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Man, I know that one.

    Also, when all the commenters have moved on to the newly posted article.

    It's rather like what (A and E's version of) the Scarlet Pimpernel refers to as "Carriage Wit," that perfect comment that occurs to you on the way home.

  • fried wylie||

    Also, when all the commenters have moved on to the newly posted article.

    I think H'n'R needs to move to a real forum-based format.

    Here's a thread for police abuse, here's a thread about the never-ending-election-game, here's a thread about drug legalization.

    The threads here lose effect because we have to start the same arguments over and over again every time a new story gets posted.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    The threads here lose effect because we have to start the same arguments over and over again every time a new story gets posted.

    Practice makes perfect?

  • Pi Guy||

    Usually the clairty hits me when someone points it out, ala friedwillie. That's when I got it and I've been up 4 hours mainlining caffiene.

    *sigh*

  • John||

    The whining on the news this morning about Romney sending hecklers to Axelrod's speech is epic. All of my life leftists have been heckling and shouting down speeches. A Republican sends a single group of hecklers and you would think the dark night of fascism was falling on America. The campaign is just nasty. It is downright funny.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Romney's not going along with the program and they are not happy about it.

  • Brutus||

    I've dreaded Romney from the outset, but I'm liking this new tone. McCain thought he was being a gentleman, but he was just a sap.

  • Number 2||

    We don't quote Rush Limbaugh approvingly very often here, but I think he was spot-on when he used to speak of the mainstream media forcing events into pre-conceived "templates."

    This is a case in point. It is acceptable for Leftists to heckle, protest, rally, vandalize, etc., because that's what Leftists do. But when Republicans, conservatives, taxpayers, and others viewed as the "Establishment" do this, it is unexpected and therefore viewed as a precursor to Doom.

    Contrast the mainstream media reaction to the Tea Party ("Fascism comes to America!") with the reaction to the Occupy movement ("a reflection of the frustrations of real Americans!")

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Like most people, Limbaugh is a mixed phenomenon. I listen to him occasionally during a long drive if he's doing well that day. Personally, I treat him like I do NPR or the TV news: Is he likely to say what I will decide to think about something? No, but it's a starting point.

  • ||

    If you want to know what the lefties are up to, just listen carefully to what they are accusing others of doing. The word 'hypocrisy' doesnt do justice to the actions of the left.

    Current example; Holder complaining that the Voter ID laws will not make for a fair election. In my state he is trying to force us to stop taking illegals off of the rolls. The guy is just saying "Fuck you, we are going to engage in voter fraud and fuck you." to our faces.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I have mixed feelings about the current push for Voter ID laws. While fraud is a concern, I also feel that Voter ID might be the push down the slippery slope to a national ID card. I was never more happy to live in New Hampshire when we voted against Real ID.

  • John||

    But you have to have an ID to do anything in this country. I think voting is something that is important enough to require an ID. Every time someone who shouldn't vote does that disenfranchises a legitimate voter.

    I get tired of the whining. Voting is important. If you don't care enough to register and show up with an ID, then you probably don't care enough to be having a say in the government.

  • ||

    I've been trying to get people to see this for years, to no avail. I need an ID to buy cold medicine, but not to vote? I see two things wrong with that picture.

  • fried wylie||

    I need an ID to buy cold medicine, but not to vote?

    Isn't that argument backwards?

  • fried wylie||

    on second thought, not backwards, just totally fucked up.

  • ||

    Note that I said that I see two things wrong with the picture

  • fried wylie||

    two is higher than I can count!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Really, xenia? You think the Brown undocumented hordes are amassing to commit voter fraud? Let me tell you something, Juan Doe can't afford to take the day off from his 5-dollar an hour, manual labor job to go and vote.

    If you allow the national ID hucksters to play off of your paranoia, you have no one to blame but yourself when you can't even move from municipality to another without your internal passport.

    Ihre Papiere, bitte!

  • John||

    Bullshit. First, the states run elections. So states requiring IDs has nothing to do with a national ID card. States, not the feds run elections. And they require state issue IDs. So your concern about national ID card is just bat shit insane and besides the point.

    Further, if you are so concerned about IDs, then you ought maybe to worry about things like having to have an ID to get on an airplane or get a bank account. Those things are a hell of a lot more intrusive than requiring an ID to vote. And the need for an ID is about a hundred times less. Those are what you should be pissed off about. Voting is something you do at most once a year. And it is also something that directly relates to the government.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So your concern about national ID card is just bat shit insane and besides the point.

    Really? Are you being stupid or just dishonest?

    Further, if you are so concerned about IDs, then you ought maybe to worry about things like having to have an ID to get on an airplane or get a bank account. Those things are a hell of a lot more intrusive than requiring an ID to vote

    I wholeheartedly agree, but last I checked airlines and banks were private entities, so that's a different discussion for a different time. And don't get me started about the ubiquity of asking for one's S.S. number.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    but last I checked airlines and banks were private entities

    Except that it's federal regulations which require airlines to see ID to fly. Ditto with banks.

  • Voros McCracken||

    To the bank officer: "No I don't have anything with a picture of me on it per se, but here's a whole bunch with pictures of Ben Franklin."

    Bank officer: "Welcome to 1st National Bank!"

  • Pi Guy||

    ...or get a bank account.

    While I feel that this is anectdotally true, I have a feeling that, if you walked into a bank with like $10,000 in a grocery bag, that process could be greatly expedited.

  • Pi Guy||

    *spanks self for hitting 'Submit' too quickly*

    Just thinking that SUBMIT sounds vaguely like one of those dumb HR Bill acronyms.

  • ||

    Lol, no. $10,000.00 is the magic number. At that point the bank HAS to report it to the IRS.

    http://www.irs.gov/businesses/.....21,00.html

  • fried wylie||

    Juan Doe can't afford to take the day off from his 5-dollar an hour, manual labor job to go and vote.

    Obama's campaign funds can cover the cost.

  • ||

    I'm really not worried about brown undocumented hordes trying to vote; I'm more concerned with my degenerate neighbors who forget to register on time but want to vote anyway.

    This isn't about National ID, a concept which is abhorrent to me. I also don't think the bar has to be set particularly high for what form of ID is acceptable-- library card, student ID, utility bill in your name at your address-- just something that ties you to the name and address you used when registering to vote.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I also don't think the bar has to be set particularly high for what form of ID is acceptable-- library card, student ID, utility bill in your name at your address-- just something that ties you to the name and address you used when registering to vote.

    That fine. And that's why I stated the current push for Voter ID laws bothers me. It's just the first step toward the D.H.S's dream of national ID.

  • Incredulous||

    "the current push for voter ID laws bothers me"

    And voter fraud doesn't?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And voter fraud doesn't?

    I don't get too bothered about over-hyped panics.

  • Incredulous||

    Heroic Mulatto: "I don't get bothered about over-hyped panics."

    Unless it's about ID requirements.

    And when is rational concern about assuring valid voting automatically a fucking "over-hyped panic" anyway?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    All answer your questions when you stop braying like a jackass.

  • ||

    HM...there are no 'brown hordes'. The people who are on the rolls illegally mostly dont exist. The only horde I am worried about is the democratic operative who votes on behalf of 7000 ghosts ( who are white if you can believe the casper stories) .

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fair enough. However, are you willing to destroy our system of federalism by making us citizens of the Federal government primarily, as opposed to being citizens of our respective States first? National ID would reduce the various States into mere provinces of the District of Columbia.

  • Apogee||

    National ID would reduce the various States into mere provinces of the District of Columbia.

    Agreed. But it's a false choice between national ID and no ID. You're making quite an assumption that any ID check will lead to a Federal program. Assuring clean elections is clearly something that the States should handle.

    If people can't trust the elections, they'll find another way to exercise their interests.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Don't you still need an id to get various government transfers, aka welfare?

    Are there hordes of independently wealthy morons that are incapable of obtaining an id and never need one anyway?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But you have to have an ID to do anything in this country.

    Why? Is our existence dependent on governmental fiat?

    If you don't care enough to register and show up with an ID, then you probably don't care enough to be having a say in the government.

    So love it or leave it?

  • John||

    No. not love it or leave it, have some interest in the outcome. If it were up to me, you wouldn't vote unless you paid taxes.

    And no our existence is not dependent on the government. That is ridiculous and besides the point. Every time someone cheats by either voting twice or voting when they shouldn't be, they cancel out the vote of an honest voter. We can't have a democracy if we don't have honest elections. And we can't have honest elections if we have no idea who is voting or if they are voting multiple times.

    In the end you are either for ID or you are for fraud. There isn't a middle ground.

  • fried wylie||

    And we can't have honest elections if we have no idea who is voting or if they are voting multiple times.

    And since identities can never be falsified....

    Less power, less influence, fewer elections, less gov't. Not more ineffective bandaids, laid one on top of the other for eternity.

  • John||

    Sure identities can be falsified. But locks can be picked. Does that mean you shouldn't lock your house when you are gone?

  • fried wylie||

    Does that mean you shouldn't lock your house when you are gone?

    It means I don't invite everyone and their brother over to checkout my stuff.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If it were up to me, you wouldn't vote unless you paid taxes.

    Well, that's how it works in Britain; however, we Americans are not given the option of living outside the country and not paying taxes. Good luck getting the 24th Amendment repealed.

    And no our existence is not dependent on the government. That is ridiculous and besides the point.

    Actually, it is the point. If you can't do anything without an ID, your liberty, and even your life, is dependent on the issuer of said ID, yes?

    Every time someone cheats by either voting twice or voting when they shouldn't be, they cancel out the vote of an honest voter. We can't have a democracy if we don't have honest elections. And we can't have honest elections if we have no idea who is voting or if they are voting multiple times.

    Fine. But why isn't state ID enough? Why the push for a national ID card?

    In the end you are either for ID or you are for fraud. There isn't a middle ground.

    Starship Troopers was a cool book, but I wouldn't want to live in that world.

  • John||

    Who is pushing for a national ID card? Not me. State ID is plenty good enough. But the Dems would stop even that. Some people want there to be no ID requirement whatsoever.

    You can be for voter ID without being for national ID.

  • fried wylie||

    You can be for voter ID without being for national ID.

    Which only works as long as states retain their sovereignty instead of relinquishing it to the feds.

    Remind me again, how's that situation proceeding?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Who is pushing for a national ID card? Not me.

    Ummm...Homeland Security? You really should read up about this issue, I believe you might just change your mind.

  • Incredulous||

    What's wrong with a national ID card? What's with the paranoia?

    You can do many things without an ID but there are certain things, like voting, that understandably require ID.

    With the cases of ID theft and mistaken ID (even leading to imprisonment), I don't see a fucking problem with more fool-proof ID's. Accurate ID protects your rights and is good for libertarianism. Anti-ID paranoia is just fucking anarchist lunacy that has nothing to do with libertarianism.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Incredulous,

    What's wrong with a national ID card? What's with the paranoia?


    Ihre Papiere, Bitte!"

  • tarran||

    What's wrong with a national ID card?

    Jesus Fucking Christ! Because you can't have fascism without them, but you can have a free society.

    I was born in Turkey. Everyone has ID papers of the sort that people carried in Germany. .... and wouldn't you know it, their existence grants the state great power over their lives.

    Sure, I guess it will help get rid of voter fraud, the same way I can get rid of a headache by putting a Colt .45 to my temple and pulling the trigger.

  • ||

    If it were up to me, you wouldn't vote unless you paid taxes.

    Fuck taxes. If it were up to me, the requirement to vote would be an IQ 100.

  • ||

    Fucking squirrels. IQ GREATER THAN 100.

    Cant use less than greater than keyboard characters?

    let's see what else makes it through?

    ! @ # $ % ^ * ( ) _ + - = ~ ` : ; " ' , . ? / { } [ ] | \

  • ||

    Everything made it EXCEPT the "less than" and "greater than"

  • Voros McCracken||

    And, notoriously, the ampersand. The ampersand has been gone for a while now.

  • Anonymoose||

    Less than and greater than are used in html. They have to be removed for security but they should be replaced by (ampersand)lt; and (ampersand)gt;

  • Pi Guy||

    In the end you are either for ID or you are for fraud. There isn't a middle ground.

    Wow. False dichotomy anyone?

  • Pi Guy||

    Speaking of bringing up the same old arguments...

  • Incredulous||

    Yes, verifying one's ID is just the first step towards fascism.

    Uh, not really. Maybe if you started taking your antipsychotics, you might not be a fucking crazy paranoid schizophrenic.

    Do you fucking understand that verifying one's ID protects you from identity fraud and a million other fuckups??? Verifying one's ID is an unavoidable basic part of modern civilization. Otherwise, go fucking live in a cave.

    Sheeeeesh. Get fucking real.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yes, verifying one's ID is just the first step towards fascism.

    Right,

    Making travel contingent on cheerfully submitting to a good groping by government goons - no problem.

    Cops murdering people that piss them off - no problem.

    Militarizing bureaucrats in the FDA, EPA D of Ed - No problem.

    Politicized prosecutions and non prosecutions (Corzine free - Edwards charged)- No Problem.

    But have a Federal ID instead of a state ID --- Whoa Nellie, that's a baby step to fascism.

  • spvicker||

    Everything we do in this country is linked to a social security number, now assigned to a child at birth. What's wrong with adding a picture to make it a bit more legitimate?

  • John||

    http://bostonherald.com/news/p.....1061136010

    Liz Warren foreclosure profiteer.

  • ||

    When my three kids were young, going to see a movie in a movie theater was a rare and costly treat; since larger drinks cost less per ounce than smaller ones, I would usually buy one super-size soda for the four of us to share.

    Mayor Bloomberg, why do you hate poor people so much? Why don't you think of the children?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Because they're gross and smell bad.

  • Robert||

    Not once they're toilet trained. Oh, you meant poor people.

  • Hell's Librarian||

    Bloomberg has one of those faces that is eminently punchable. Still, if the platitude that you get the government you deserve is true, the schadenfreude derived from the knowledge that NYC citizens voted that shithead into office is so very delicious.

  • John||

    He has even lost the New York Times on this one. People are getting tired of him even in New York. He has really lost his mind over this stuff.

  • ||

    Bloomberg has one of those faces that is eminently punchable.

    Can one apply for a waiver to the NAP?

  • 21044||

    Bloomberg has one of those faces that is eminently punchable. Still, if the platitude that you get the government you deserve is true, the schadenfreude derived from the knowledge that NYC citizens voted that shithead into office is so very delicious

    I agree with everything you wrote. May I also suggest, with memories of Mayor Dinkins, that the alternative to Bloomberg may have been as repugnant as to make Bloomberg the only choice. It is NYC, voting Libertarian is as useful as pissing into the wind.

    While I agree with the Southpark analogy of the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich is true most of the time, sometimes the choice is between a douche and a slimy, morning after heavy drinking/chili cook-off turd sandwich (i.e. Bush II (a douche) vs. Kerry). My vote is for the douche as the least distasteful choice. We then need to find some way to limit the douche’s power.

  • fried wylie||

    We then need to find some way to limit the douche’s power.

    That's the rub.

  • Hell's Librarian||

    It is NYC, voting Libertarian is as useful as pissing into the wind.

    I live in Maryland, trust me, I feel your pain.

  • John||

    I refuse to vote in Maryland state elections. The Republicans are almost as loathsome as the Dems. Pretty much anyone in elected office in this state needs to be shot.

  • fried wylie||

    Pretty much anyone in elected running for office in this state needs to be shot.

    Lottery. Or Electioncution.

  • fried wylie||

    Electioncution, Copypatenmarked, Fried Wylie, 2012.

  • Pi Guy||

    MDer here as well. Agreed on the local elections, same for being lib.

    OT: after listening to C4 on the radio the other day, I'm starting to think that the pols are going to try to bundle the DREAM Act and Gay Marriage Act(?) together in such a way that it's difficult, if not impossible, to vote for one without the other via candidate posturing.

  • WWNGD?||

    "Why is New York's busybody mayor regulating city residents within an inch of their lives?"

    Because the wealthy ruling class can tell you what to do. It is for your own good.

  • creech||

    I can see Manhattanites going for this shit but why the folks in the other boroughs??

  • Number 2||

    OT but...I read the Margary and King pieces. I am not Mr. Clean and do not support censorship...but since when did it become a mark of professional journalism to use constant off-color references to sexual intercourse and excretory organs in place of wit, rhetoric, logic, fact, argument and persuasiveness?

    Fucking A ..if I had fucking only fucking known that I fucking coulda fucking made a fucking professional career outa fucking cursing an' shit...

  • Keith Olbermann||

    Fart.

  • Old Mexican||

    "Democracy is not OH MY GOD THESE LAWS WILL MAKE US PUSSIES! Democracy is people working together to sort out just what the rules of society should be."


    If that is what Democracy is about - sorting out how people treat each other - that would mean Democracy has to be the worst possible way to sort out how people should treat each other, because all is needed is for 50%+1 to decide to treat others barbarically and still give the decision a veneer of moral validity.

    "Obviously, this process is labored and often hilariously corrupt, but that's what living in a 'free country' is supposed to mean.


    No, that means you have no clue what it means to be in a "free country". FREE means not being hold to the decisions of a bigger mob.

  • Pinky||

    The error is in that Drew Magary thinks democracy and freedom are interchangeable as words.

  • Brutus||

    As PJ O'Rourke aptly pointed out, democracy is getting to vote for whom you want, freedom is getting to do what you want.

    As a Gawker write, I don't think Magary would be as insouciant about that same demos telling him he can't put Mr. Happy in another fellow's anus, but he'd have destroyed every possible objection to such a law himself.

  • ||

    I've already consume 2.5 enormous jumbo sodas today, and Mayor Bloomberg's noxious bullshit just persuaded me to drive to McDonald's for a huge fuckload of burgers and oily, salty fries. Therefore, Michael mother-fucking Bloomberg just contributed to my consuming lots of really, like, bad shit, and also obesity. He should be shot for that.

  • gaoxiaen||

    That's nothing. I just ate a can of Crisco and washed it down with pure corn sweetener.

  • Killazontherun||

    From the megaretardo Magary:

    Magary argues that "if you think that a ban on large sodas is somehow an affront to America freedom, I have news for you: You don't live in a free country."

    Not a free country, I get what you are saying here because if this were a free country there would exist vast areas of our lives the government could not trespass without the offender winding up blind folded and standing against a wall, but why would anyone be willing to die and fight for a country that is not free? What's the incentive? Sentiment for fatherland doesn't pay you back in kind the way freedom does. Nor does a mediocre state ran health system compensate for being forced to live a dull life.

  • Killazontherun||

    There are a million different laws and rules that come with being an American, and we, as a collective, put all those annoying rules in there of our own accord. Democracy doesn't mean "Hey you, go do whatever the fuck you want."

    I get the feeling from reading Megaretardo Magary that he would strongly object to being censored of his dearly beloved curse words (and, yes, I love 'em like succulent BBQued prongs too). What would be his defense for having them taken away from him? He would have none given democracy outranks the non aggression principle in his systemic approach to ethics. You give Demon Democracy the power to run roughshod through our laws, one day Demon Democracy is going to look over his shoulder and take notice of you (to paraphrase A Man For All Seasons).

  • Brutus||

    I shoulda read your exquisite rant before I posted mine. Well said.

  • Brett L||

    BBQ'd Prongs? Are you another cannibal?

  • Robert||

    All the calorie figures being given are way off for not accounting for the enormous volume of ice they put in in these fast fooderies. Or the calories the ice subtracts for being burned to warm it up.

  • Brett L||

    Or the calories the ice subtracts for being burned to warm it up. That's a pretty small number. 1 kcal (nutrition calorie) warms 1000g of water 1 degree C. So if you drink a liter of cola, you burn (at best) 37 kcal. But that's not really the way it works do to diffusion. Your body being approximately 40 liters of water could burn no additional calories and drop 1 degree C to equilibrate. Probably some mixture of these two things happens.

  • ||

    Mayor Bloomberg should be stripped, tarred, feathered, and paraded about the public square for his idiocy.

  • Pi Guy||

    And forced to smoke a pack of cigs in a bar.

  • gaoxiaen||

    And drink Mountain Dew with a beer bong.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The stoopid... it burns:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....62993.html

    Then again, this WAS written by Alec Baldwin...

  • lunettes de soleil pas cher||

    1 kcal (nutrition calorie) warms 1000g of water 1 degree C. So if you drink a liter of cola, you burn (at best) 37 kcal. But that's not really the way it works do to diffusion. Your body being approximately 40 liters of water could burn no additional calories and drop 1 degree C to equilibrate.

  • lunettes de soleil pas cher||

    Look at the economics behind the ban, which chef Daniel Moody argues would actually subsidize heavy soda drinkers at the expense of those who drink less. And that's to say nothing of the fact that in a time of rising unemployment, growth in the food and beverage industry accounted for more than 40 percent of new jobs (according to recent government data) created in April.

  • maillot de bain magasin||

    gether to sort out just what the rules of society should be. Obviously, this process is labored and often hilariously corrupt, but that's what living in a "free country" is supposed to mean. It doesn't mean that you get to grab a gun and storm City Hall just because you think a soda ban is some kind of sign of the End Times. It's fucking soda. Don't be such a pussy that you can't live without a 42 oz. cup of the shit. If you're

  • ||

    Bloomberg outlaws large sodas yet I am still free to drink anti-freeze in any container size I can get my hands on. Why is Bloomberg so firmly in the pockets of Big-Coolant yet no one calls him out on it?

  • leren riem||

    It's fucking soda. Don't be such a pussy that you can't live without a 42 oz. cup of the shit. If you're the type to flip out just because you can't have that, then who's the real pussy?

  • gaoxiaen||

    I had this argument in poli-sci classabout 25 years ago when PA started jacking up the cigarette taxes and bans. I argued that ice cream and candy (didn't think of soda)should also be taxed, since they caused health problems, mentioning the slippery slope. Everybody said that could never happen. The fatties were offended and very vociferous about personal liberty.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement