Soda Jerk Michael Bloomberg Strikes Again (Nanny of the Month, May 2012)

May 2012 offered up an embarrassment of riches for Nanny of the Month.

Among the strongest contenders were the buttinsky pols in Fort Lee, New Jersey, who banned texting while walking (what's next, chewing gum?). And then there's the Los Angeles City Council, which pushed an ineffective-yet-annoying ban on plastic bag with the help of testimony by former Seinfeld and current Veep star Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Louis-Dreyfus gave an impassioned speech against the bags as "outrageously expensive" (we thought for a minute she was talking about the laugh lines in her short-lived series, Watching Ellie).

But there's only one nanny of the month and for May 2012, it's got to be New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has proposed limiting the serving size of sugary beverages such as soda pop to 16 ounces or less. The ban would cover restaurants, movie theaters, street vendors, ball parks, and a plethora of other places. In the past, Bloomberg has banned smoking, trans fat, school bake sales, and more. So it's not exactly surprising that he's focusing on cup size now. But it's still appalling.

About 90 seconds.

"Nanny of the Month" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Opening animation by Meredith Bragg.

Watch previous "Nanny of the Month" episodes here.

Visit Reason.tv for links and downloadable versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Comments

[PS]

Externalities!!!

[AlmightyJB]

I wish the ban would go through. In fact, I wish they would give this douchbag everything he wants in his little war in fat. It will be a great example going forward of how none of this stupid shit actually does anything and perhaps makes things worse. The only losers are the people of NYC who elect douchbags like him.

[Whiterun Guard]

Bloomberg sure does look spritely in that video...

[Joe M]

How many times has Blooomberg won this award now?

[Proprietist]

Sullum's referenced in Ed Morrissey's on-top-of-CNN editorial.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/01/.....?hpt=hp_c1

[RBS]

From the comments:

"I applaud Michael Bloomberg's effort here. If we as individuals can't realize what portion control means perhaps it would be best to have automatic portion control build in."

[alan_s]

Where the heck do these people come from? Are they really stupid enough to believe that if they restrict the container size of a product I consume, that that therefore means that I will not continue to consume as much of that product as I want?

[Zuul mothafucka Zuul]

Obligatory three shells reference.

[Christ on a Cracker]

It should be the "Michael A Bloomberg Nanny of the Month" award.

[Emmerson Biggins]

Is this finally going to be the thing where he is too much of a Nanny and doesn't get re-elected? The guy wants to ban large cokes. How could anybody vote for this motherfucker?

[Zeb]

I think that to understand the answer you need to look at who is running against him.

[Kaptious Kristen]

I wanna know what the NYT readers came up with on the "What should he ban next?" question. And then I wanna know what % of those comments were completely serious.

[Peter L]

Where does he get the authority to decide what sizes of drinks to allow people to sell?

[alan_s]

From the barrel of a gun.

[Baal]

Proper sweet tea has more sugar than coke. Imagine a southern governor trying to tell people how much tea they can drink. That would be funny.

[Snakebit]

If Bloomy were to start talking about Ooga Booga's thingamajigs, people might take him seriously.

[happyjuggler0]

Bloomberg the hypocrite: http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=5023

"Bloomberg [LP] is known for providing free food from snack bars loaded with cereal, soup, bagels, chips, fruit, candy, nuts, soft drinks and all kinds of coffee drinks. It's a nice perk (one that causes more than a few new employees to put on what is known as the "Bloomberg 10," as in pounds)"

[Kman]

Summertime is here, and one of my favorite summertime activities is looking at girls. In my northern climate we only have a few short months to engage in this pastime.

Acording to the data Americans are getting more obese. According to my eyeballs there are a lot of fat girls out there. The studies indicate that there are a a lot of obese men as well, I can't speak to that, my eyeballs don't look at men.

I'm all for personal responsibility, and I dislike the nanny state. I am also for skinny girls. Lots of skinny girls. No matter how responsible I am, these girls keep drinking soda packing on more unpleasant pounds. If I had the choice to live in a nanny state with lots of skinny girls, or a libertarian state with fat girls everywhere, I would throw my political ideologies right out the window.

If I was king of our land, I would tax all the unhealthy foods and use the proceeds to subsidize carrots and tigers. I'd call it the orange tax, carrots for the people, and fat people for the tigers to chase and eat.

It hurts to abandon my libertarian principles, but it hurts more to look at fat girls. So I would applaud Bloomberg, but he didn't go far enough. He needs to add some tigers to his plan.

[sweeterjan]

But there's only one nanny of the month and for May 2012, it's got to be New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has proposed limiting the serving size of sugary beverages such as soda pop to 16 ounces or less. The ban would cover restaurants, movie theaters, street http://www.lunettesporto.com/l.....c-3_6.html vendors, ball parks, and a plethora of other places. In the past, Bloomberg has banned smoking, trans fat, school bake sales, and more. So it's not exactly surprising that he's focusing on cup size now. But it's still appalling.

[joy]

ball parks, and a plethora of other places. In the past, Bloomberg has banned smoking, trans fat, school bake sales, and more. http://www.nikewinkel.com/scho.....x-c-4.html So it's not exactly surprising that he's focusing on cup size now. But it's still appalling.

[David K]

So what stops me from ordering 2 16oz drinks? Seems like nanny-staters don't think through the consequences of their actions.

[????? ??????]

Thanks

[????? ??????]

Thanks