Reason.tv: Nanny of the Month for July 2010-San Fran Soda Banner Mayor Gavin Newsom!


They've targeted bottled water and the selling of all kinds of pets, er, "animal companions." And now, with the soda scold who's yanking sugary beverages from vending machines, the City by the Bay pulls off the first-ever Nanny of the Month trifecta!

Presenting Reason.tv's Nanny of the Month for July 2010: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom!

"Nanny of the Month" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Associate Producers: Paul Detrick and Alex Manning; Animation: Meredith Bragg

Approximately one minute.

To watch previous Nanny of the Month videos, go here.

Go to reason.tv for downloadable iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.


NEXT: What Kind of Sick Society Allows Canoeing Without a Life Preserver?

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.

  1. Rod Flanders: What are you doing, daddy?
    Ned Flanders: Imploring some people I never met to pressure a government with better things to do to punish an innocent man for doing something that nobody saw. That’s what I’m doing!
    Rod Flanders: Daddy, we think you need a new mommy.
    Ned Flanders: First things first!

    1. You’ve earned a cookie.

  2. I don’t know where it will end, but I hope it starts with a guy like Gavin Newsom being strung up by his heels at a gas station like his intellectual forebear, Mussolini.

    1. better yet… make the punishment fit the crime. waterboard him with thousands of gallons of coca cola. extra fizzy

      1. I have it on very good authority that waterboarding isn’t torture.

        1. in newsom’s case, i would refer to it as “aggressive reeducation”

          for his own good, of course

    2. Yeah, because they are so much alike. I mean, just the other day I heard stories of Newsome’s political opponents forcibly being fed castor oil and/or being found dead in the bay…

    3. That’s racist homophobic!

      1. Can’t be the *real* Max… that post was way too intellectual.

  3. Caption:

    This is your brain on government…

  4. makes sense, only a bunch of fairies could be so whiny as to ban soda and pets


  5. Was there any surprise when this little endeavor start that SF would score at the least a 3peat?

  6. In fairness, though, Gavin Newsome didn’t ban the sale of sweetened soda in SF, he just removed it from sale in city vending machines. You can still go down to Safeway or Trader Joe’s and get all you like.

    1. really? are these city vending machines OR privately owned vending machines in city buildings? i would guess (wild assed guess supported by past experience) the latter.

      the way it works in most cities (and govt. buildings… i work in one myself ) is that the govt. entity does not own the vending machines. the private vendor does.

      what newsom is doing is limiting choice. he is saying that companies can’t sell (via vending machines) soda, but they can (presumably) sell food items that meet HIS seal of approval. he is acting as the nanny for city workers by limiting THEIR choice, and limiting free enterprise because HE knows what’s best for them. that is the perfect example of a nanny.

      hey, if he thinks soda drinking is a big problem he is free to start an educational campaign explaining to workers why soda is so evil. or even reach out to “non-traditional” vendors who put other than soda in their soda machines… (patchouli flavored water?). but instead he is limiting choice by banning them in the city buildings.

      at least he hasn’t gone as far as banning city workers from bringing soda in to city buildings. maybe thats’s next.

      fuck gavin newsom

      1. “i would guess (wild assed guess supported by past experience) the latter.”

        Interesting that you don’t even know but are OUTRAGED!

        1. i’m not outraged. but REGARDLESS of WHO owns the vending machines, BANNING soda in city buildings is nannystate crap.

          but here’s a little wager. i’ll bet you ten quatloos that these vending machines are NOT city owned, but are privately owned. care to take that wager? if you do, i’ll research it. i’m about 90% confident that they are privately owned (and im being conservativef) considering i’ve worked for govt. agencies for the last 25 years and they’ve always been privately owned. for example, we were complaining about one of our vending machines in the precinct charging .75 for a fucking can of soda. our captain said it’s not the dept’s vending machine, it’s privately owned, so we don’t set the price.

          1. You mean its outrageous for a property owner to decide what products can be sold on the property?

            1. i mean, when it is outrageous for a property owner to limit the sale of CERTAIN food items on his property out of concern for his workers health, instead of letting the WORKERs make their own fucking choice about whether they want a soda, or a patchouli flavored water.

              first of all, newsom is not the “owner”of city buildings. the govt is of the people, by the people. the residents of the city of san fran own these buildings.

              he is the ultimate administrator and executive authoritah for the city. that gives him the authoritah to do all kinds of nannyish stupid shit. it doesn’t mean he should.

              clearly, city workers can still (for now) drink soda on the job. they are just inconvenienced because of newsom’s “concern” for them.

              my point is that newsom is their (ultimte) boss. he is not their mommy. he should not be banning soft drink vending machines, or cheezy poof vending machines out of concern for his workers. he should let his workers decide if they want to patronize those vendors or not

              i work in a govt. building. i don’t want my boss BANNING the soft drink machines there, either. COULD he? sure. SHOULD he? no

              and let’s remember, newsom is not a private property owner. he’s an elected official, exerting his authoritah over city workers, and guests to that city building.

              so, in brief, your question isn’t even applicable, despite all my wanking. he is not the property owner.

            2. Dunphy beat me to it.
              Hey, MNG, when did Newsom take title to the buildings?

              1. The property belongs to the city government. He is the mayor of said government. It’s little different from the manager of a corporate entity ordering a product not to be sold in buildings owned by the corporation.

                “the govt is of the people, by the people. the residents of the city of san fran own these buildings.”

                Yes, and they elected him mayor, a position that has this power. What’s the problem?

                1. the problem is this. i am against nanny’ism. your post makes a point i readily concede. as the mayor of san fran, he certainly has the authority to do ban soft drink vendors from city buildings.

                  my point is that, as a matter of policy it is wrong to do so. it is textbook nannyism. having soft drink machines in the city hall does not negatively affect anybody. those who CHOOSE not to purchase and imbibe can walk right on by. what he is doing is reducing choice for his employees out of his “concern” for them. he is effectively saying that they do not have the willpower to control their own habits vis a vis the consumption of sugary drinks, so HE will do it for them by making them less available to them.

                  if he was the principal of a school, i would have no problem with this. but these are adults, not children. he is treating them like children, though.

                  a better (and more libertarian) approach would be for him to court other vendors with healthier choices to also place their machines in the city buildings, and let the consumers in the city buildings decide.

                  note also that city buildings are also generally open to the public, so his decision does not merely affect the city workers but affects those who visit the building.

                  i readily concede that the fair citizens of san fran duly elected him, that he is using that authority to do something that he believes is right, and that his exercising of this power is within his scope of authority.

                  i merely think it is wrong for him to do.

                  as a matter of policy.

                  let’s also remember that this is the guy that thought his authority as mayor of san fran EXCEEDED state authority. he was the one who ordered his city employees to “marry” gay couples in contravention of state law. now, i support gay marriage. i also support the rule of law, and i do not support mayors of any city thinking that their authority supersedes state law. this is the kind of guy we are dealing with

                  in both of these cases, i think his heart is in the right place. i have every reason to believe he is genuinely a nice guy and wants his employees to be happy and healthy.

                  but this is a wrongheaded approach.

                  an approach i would support would be, for example, installing exercise equipment in a room in the city building and allowing employees free access during their lunch period and before or after work. that would be a positive choice that would not reduce people’s choice or treat them like little children.

                2. MNG|8.2.10 @ 10:22PM|#
                  “The property belongs to the city government….
                  Yes, and they elected him mayor, a position that has this power. What’s the problem?”
                  The problem is there is nothing in the city charter which gives him the power.
                  What’s your point?

                  1. ron, respectfully i think you are barking up the wrong tree. he has the authority. it’s just a matter of bad policy. not a matter of him doing something he isn’t authorized to do.

                    here’s the issue. for their to be vending machines in the first place, somebody had to authorize it. they didn;’t magically appear. that was an executive decision. the decision to remove them, selectively, is no more suspect as a matter of authority.

                    there is nothing in the city charter i would guess, regarding the color the walls should be painted, or other such esoterica either, yet these decisions are made routinely and with adequate authority.

                    the issue is that he is not encroaching on any right, let alone a fundamental right. vending machines exist in municipal buildings when and if the mayor, council, etc. decide to let them. in most cases they do, but they are certainly not required to do so.

            3. No, Max… it’s outrageous for government to make that decision for the property owner, and that shit’s coming sooner and faster and more-often than you want to admit.

              Because you’re a whore for government. Just in case you were confused.

    2. Re: Jimbo,

      You can still go down to Safeway or Trader Joe’s and get all you like.

      Maybe Safeway, but Trade Joe’s? Those assholes are even more sanctimonious than the guys at Wholefoods, and just as expensive.

      I would rather buy my Pepsi at Target than Safeway…

      Fortunately I no longer live in California, so: FUCK YOU, CALIFORNIA!! AND FUCK YOU TOO, GAVIN NEWSOME, YOU LIBERAL SACK OF CAT CRAP!

      1. Uh, Trader Joe’s isn’t expensive. There is no place you can go, for instance, where pignoli nuts are cheaper than Trader Joe’s. And if you want cheap, shitty wine, Two Buck Chuck (now $3, I think) is unbeatable.

        1. “And if you want cheap, shitty wine”

          I’m guessing (from the quality of his posts) this will be important, money saving news for OM.

          1. MNG|8.2.10 @ 4:24PM|#
            “And if you want cheap, shitty wine”
            I’m guessing (from the quality of his posts) this will be important, money saving news for OM.”

            Dunno, but I’m guessing that *expensive*, shitty wine is your fave. Lefties always prefer appearances to results.

            1. How about home made okay wine in large quantities?

              1. Problem is that years ago a friend developed the protein which, if used in the fermentation, means the result is GOOD pretty much always.
                Hate to admit I live in SF, but by now, even $10/bottle California wines are “good” (not great) and I can’t say that of the homemade stuff I’ve had.
                *That* takes the skills that the protein made irrelevant.

            2. penn and teller’s bullshit did an awesome episode on this where they fed people crap and tap water at a “fine restaurant” and these conneisseurs never suspected a thing.

              1. Not surprising. I’ve seen folk suck down *very* expensive swill and brag about it.
                Hey, MNG!

        2. i agree. trader joe has some great bargains, and some really interesting food

          fwiw, if you are in seattle, i recommend PFI – Pacific Food Importers. if you are a lover of good cheese, meats like prosciutto, speck, etc. and lots of interesting gourmet imports they are THE place to go. very very good prices on some phenomenal food. the bulgarian feta at 4.99 a lb is great, and they have a great olive selection at about 1/2 what safeway charges, and much better quality.

      2. I can imagine the following, a bit inspired from a quote from the movie “Kentucky Fried movie”:
        “-This is the city of San Francisco, it’s now been contaminated by a disease known as “nannycracy” then no one will claim it.
        -Worse then Detroit?
        -I’m afraid so.”

        1. Speaking of “Kentucky Fried movie” let’s update this as well:
          “-Take him to… San Francisco!
          -No! Not San Francisco! Anything but that!”

      3. TJ has some things cheap and others a little less on the cheap sides.

        Whole paycheck is just an ass reaming from the moment you walk in the door. But god they have some good food.

      4. Those assholes are even more sanctimonious than the guys at Wholefoods, and just as expensive.

        What? Trader Joe’s is cheap. Two/Three/Four Buck Chuck may be a loss leader, but the frozen meals, bread, other alcohol, chips and so on are around Safeway prices. SF is full of convenience stores and pharmacies that sell soda, too. Additionally, the only people who are really affected here are on city property, and I don’t care about the plight of SF’s overpaid, underworked “civil servants.” Yes, I know the “they came for the ___ and I wasn’t ___ so I said nothing” trope, but I’m really that petty when it comes to the City’s bureaucrats.

        The more obnoxious reg is the a retail fee on sodas, which is still being tossed around. (Also, this ban is something like those awful anti-drug PSAs in the 90s. By replacing soda with shit like rice milk, you better believe I want more Coke.)

  7. Yeah I would say you hit that one right on the head dude.


    1. You don’t know Jack (bot).

  8. The mayor of SF likes to rub Busybody Hot Sauce on his butthole? And there’s an award for that? I thought it was a requirement for the job.

    1. It is SF, after all.

  9. What was Mr. French’s job title in the 1960’s sitcom Family Affair? It’s hard to look at the bright side these days, but at least he won’t be that.

  10. SHit!!! I can’t buy a dog or get munchies in SF? That’s like banning smoking in bars… oh wait…

    1. The CA smoking ban in bars took effect in 2000. I have no idea why ceiling ventilation fans wouldn’t have solved the second-hand smoke problem. But ‘your skulls belong to us’ began in California in the mid ’80s with the motorcycle helmet law. If there’s a point in time when the camel got his nose all the way in the tent, it would be then.

      1. where i live (nannystate WA) not only is smoking banned in private restaurants, bars, pretty much any privately owned business (certain membership only clubs are exempted), but the law applies up to (iirc) 25 ft )or is it 50 ft i forget from any entrance or exit to the building

        this effectively means you cannot walk down the sidewalk in (for example) the city of seattle while smoking. you are almost always within that many feet of any building entrance.

        and of course, that aspect of the law is rarely enforced, but it shouldn’t be on the books in the first place.

        i, for one, loathe cigarette smoke with every fiber of my soul, but i say let the market decide. bars can CHOOSE to be smoke free and attract those who wish to cater a smoke free bar.

        of course, those bars probably wouldn’t have as many slutty chicks, since heavy drinking and smoking are loosely correlated, so…

        1. Don’t know much about Washington state. Is it suffering too much immigration from California? Even within California, emigrants from Santa Monica and San Francisco will suck the blood, sweat, and toil out of anyplace they move to, and move on.

          1. WA state has the dual burden of suffering metric assloads of california transplants AND a very high nanny-liberal population

            remember this is the state that has casinos all over the place. however, online gambling is a C felony.

            playing a $2 online tournament is a more serious crime than smacking your wife in the face with a roundhouse punch.

            the one saving grace is that we have a very libertarian constitution. a VERY clearly outlined right to carry (you don’t need a permit to open carry, and it’s shall issue for permits) so despite the efforts of numerous city councils to ban guns at parks, etc. they get overturned.

            the liberals are highly concentrated in the puget sound area. and pockets of liberalism like olympia (home to evergreen state college the school that had mumia abu jamal give a commencement speech ) and bellingham.

            also, WA state has written into its constitution that citizen initiative is the highest form of law (trumps the legislature), so we citizens frequently pass laws that trump the nannystaters (we legalized medical mj, we banned racial preferences, etc.)

            but yes, we are suffering an influx of californians. heck, we are right next to canada, and i’d almost rather have a soviet canuckistan invasion than a caleeefornia invasion.

          2. … WA state has written into its constitution that citizen initiative is the highest form of law (trumps the legislature), so we citizens frequently pass laws that trump the nannystaters (we legalized medical mj, we banned racial preferences, etc.)

            I am not a fan of direct democracy. I have enough to keep my mind busy with my own job and I already pay others to mind the business of governance. Prop 13, the hallmark of direct democracy in California, is crazy. It leaves a new buyer buyer to pay up to 10 times the property tax of the same home model next door, a discrepancy based only on when the home was purchased.

            1. i am a fan of direct democracy, especially when it works as it does in WA state, as an adjunct to the legislature. it’s an option. when the people feel the legislature isn’t doing their job or are ignoring a key issue, it’s a way around them.

              sure, you can bring up the example of prop 13 as a bad law. guess what? legislatures pass lots of bad laws, too.

              do you REALLY want to compare them? i have no reason to believe that citizen initiatives are any worse than laws passed by legislatures. at least in my state, ALL of the fucked up laws i can think of were passed by legislatures (online poker ban, smoking ban, overbroad unconstitutional cyberstalking laws, some dumb domestic violenc laws, and the war on drugs)…

              1. i am a fan of direct democracy, especially when it works as it does in WA state, as an adjunct to the legislature.

                I’m not totally against direct democracy. Imposing term limits to elected officials would be an example caveat. Elected officials might talk it up, but they would never do that themselves.

                1. i really think govt. works better in states that have these initiative processes, but i’m willing to disagree.

                  i hate to get all william f buckley and all, but there is something to be said for the “common man” as in the first 2 pages of the phone book vs. the elected ‘elite’

                  having BOTH options is nice

            2. Prop 13 is dumb, but let’s be honest here: a lot of the growth in CA government came outside propositions. Pensions, prisons, high-cost low-results schools, etc. The state has had four decades to cut spending growth or raise taxes elsewhere, but they’ve watched presided over a massive expansion of government with a pro-cyclical “soak the rich” revenue strategy. I’m much more inclined to see this as a failure of the bureaucratic class than the hoi polloi.

      2. The anti-smokers are at it here in Missouri:


        Disgusting fucks, the whole lot of ’em. And guess which party most of these nosy bastards vote for.

        1. Where are you from, LG? Always enjoy your comments

  11. Goddamn it, that little pansy beat me to it again!

  12. Ummm. I would have preferred they win based on limiting and/or restricting the sale of household pets.

    That’s down right retarded and a clear violation of individual liberties.

    But in my (admittedly limited) view, the Mayor -Head of the Executive Branch of local government- has EVERY right to ban the sale of any item he deems unfit ON CITY PROPERTY.

    You need a license/permit to sell on city property, and the city can choose to set any requirements they see fit for obtaining said permit.

    He isn’t limiting the sale of sodas on ANYONE ELSE’S property. The property in question belongs to the city and so is under the discretion of the city to manage as they see fit (until the next election, where this assbag will undoubtedly get re-elected if the demtards haven’t already voted this pasty Patrick Bateman wannabe fuck into the white house.)

    For the record, I don’t drink soda (personal choice) but I DO think it is absolutely ridiculous to try to keep another informed adult from doing anything he/she pleases to do to or with their own body. But the Mayor has every right to conduct business any way he wishes (legally) on city property. If that includes shit for brains ideas like this, then so be it…

    1. has anybody said he doesn’t have the RIGHT (actually, you say right. govt. doesn’t have “rights”. it has authority(ies) but i digress.

      i don’t dispute for a second that newsom has the legal authority to do what he is doing.

      fwiw, LOTS of awful nannystate legislation and policy is entirely legal/constitutional

      the argument isn’t that “newsom has no authority to do what he is doing”.

      it is “gavin newsom is a nannystate assmunch for doing what he is doing”

      there is no constitutional right to have soda vending machines on city property.

      iow, you are attacking a strawman. you are attacking an argument that nobody made.

      i reread the thread. i don’t see anybody claiming that newsom is doing something illegal or unconstitutional.

      LOTS of very bad law and policy is well within the bounds of the constitution and legal authority.

      and on the other side, there’s probably some pretty good laws that cannot be passed because they would be unconstitutional.

      1. i don’t dispute for a second that newsom has the legal authority to do what he is doing.

        I do.

        fwiw, LOTS of awful nannystate legislation and policy is entirely legal/constitutional

        Very little of it is strictly constitutional. Most of it is only constitutional in the fashionable sense of “if you squint really hard, you can sort of see how this might be construed as constitutional since we really really want to do this,” like that commerce clause bullshit.

        and on the other side, there’s probably some pretty good laws that cannot be passed because they would be unconstitutional.

        I really doubt it. That kind of thinking led to Prohibition. The road to sefdom is paved with well-intended laws.

        1. you dispute that newsom has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to do what he is doing?

          i’d love to see your legal argument

          and i’m not talking about well intended laws. i am talking about good laws that would be unconstitutional

          lots of very bad law is constitutional.

          and even some good possible laws would be unconstitutional.

          so spare me the prohibition slippery slope argument. i’m 100% against the war on drugs, so that’s clearly not what i am talking about

          i agree with you about commerce clause bullshit, but this isn’t a commerce clause issue.

      2. Ok, I failed to make my point clearly.

        I don’t think this qualifies as a nanny-state law.

        (I agree, btw that my use of the word “right” in place of “authority” was an error on my part)

        The city of San Fransisco is a legal entity. It has certain, very specific legal powers and authorities as designated by the city charter, state and to a lesser extent, federal constitution (under the 14 amendment).

        As a legal entity, it has the right to employ people and own property (in addition to police powers, taxation etc).

        As the Mayor of the City, Newsom has the authority to decide what is allowed on the city’s property.

        I know, I’m rehashing my earlier post here, but I want to be clear.

        In so far as the city of San Fransisco is a separate legal entity with certain powers, and the Mayor is the legal representative and executive of that entity, city property (in this limited scope) can, and I think should be viewed as private property. My point is, in banning soda from city buildings, Gavin Newsome isn’t acting as a mayor, he is acting as a property owner.

        And just as I have the right to ban the sale of soda from my property (extending to any place of business that I own), Newsome, acting as the representative of the city of San Fransisco is acting on behalf of the property and business owner he represents.

        So, no, I don’t think this qualifies as a “nannystate” law in that it doesn’t affect citizens or their personal liberty.

        I’d like to point out that I still think Newsome is a grade ‘a’ certifiable moron, but on this, I take no issue.

        Thanks for hearing me out (again)


        1. i don’t really disagree with much of what you say, but your basic point seems to me that this isn’t an example of nannystatism because he has the authority to do so .

          again, i DON’T agree with the property owner analogy. city buildings, for example, are generally open to the public. private businesses can completely ban the public. city buildings generally do not. private businesses are run with a profit motive and thus we give private business owners great discretion because it’s THEIR bottom line. newsom’s “business” is run with OTHER people’s money.

          furthermore, saying it’s nannyism imo says NOTHING about him not having the authority (legal) to do so. sure, lots of nanny laws are at least arguably unconstitutional. but lots ARE NOT.

          i never denied he has the authority to do what he is doing and i also deny that this is at all relevant to this being nannyish stupid policy.

          i would contrast this with, say a school lunch program or something that chooses not to have soda as an option. schools are acting in loco parentis. they are legally, an de facto NANNIES.

          mayors are not. the city employees in the building are NOT his “wards” and he is not responsible for them in the way that a school is responsible for the students (see again: in loco parentis)

          the city has a duty to create a safe enfvironment (sprinkler system, emergency exits, etc.) but not to protect employees FROM THEMSELVES, which is what this soda policy does.

          he’s failing to treat his employees like adults. not to mention that DIET soda doesn’t even have calories, so by banning SODA (not just sugared soda), his nannyish policy doesn’t even make sense.

          1. my bad. maybe he only banned “sugary” sodas, not sodas.. period. thought he banned diet stuff too, but that may not be the case

  13. Reaction from the feline community was immediate and vocal…


  14. What’s this about pet sales?

    1. It’s the ‘nose under the tent’ by PETA whackos; hoping to outlaw owning pets.
      Check “Liberty” this month for a review of a book debunking “animal rights!”.

      1. to be fair to newsom, a big part of the issue with pet sales is that many of these pets come from so called “puppy mills” which are notorious for poor conditions and often inhumane treatment.

        a city like san fran has more than enough animals in shelters, etc. to provide pets (screw that companion pc crap) for people who want them. since the puppy mills are located outside san fran, newsom et al know they can’t regulate them away. so, they feel that by banning the sale of these animals, they are doing their part.

        so, i don’t think it’s quite as simple as PETA whackos. i think PETA is full of shit

        otoh, there are abuses towards animals, and i think many of these puppy mills are abusing animals

  15. Gavin Newsome what a worthless asshole. At least Bloomberg spends a few million before being an asshole.

  16. If he thinks his employees are so mentally challenged and lily-livered that they can’t even decide on their own beverages, why do they all still have jobs? I would never hire anyone who is as fucked in the head as Newsome seems to think his staff are.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.