Keep Food Legal Sues Bloomberg Administration to Disclose Food Policy Facts

Who are the people, groups, and government agencies behind the Bloomberg administration's food policies? Keep Food Legal is forced to sue to find out.


Earlier this week the nonprofit I lead, Keep Food Legal, filed suit in New York State Supreme Court against New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office and his health department. We allege the Bloomberg administration has wrongly denied and ignored our repeated requests—first made in summer 2012—for information on the development of food policy in the city under the mayor's leadership.

We sought to obtain the information under New York State's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), which, like related state laws and the federal Freedom of Information Act, is one of the most important guarantors of fair and open government. As the New York State legislature declared in enacting its FOIL, "a free society is maintained when government is responsive and responsible to the public, and when the public is aware of governmental actions."

Once we had exhausted our appeals through city administrative appeals, we were left with no choice but to sue in state court.

It's no secret that the Bloomberg administration has been perhaps the most aggressive opponent of food freedom in the country over the last 5-10 years. Laws like the city's trans fat ban, mandatory menu labeling law, restaurant letter grade system, ban on providing food meant for the homeless and less fortunate, and soda ban are a few examples both of the administration's zeal and of the policies about which we sought to obtain more information. Other examples include proposals to limit salt or sodium in foods, restrict tavern licenses and happy hours, adopt so-called "Meatless Mondays," restrict urban gardens, and crack down on food trucks.

We want the Bloomberg administration to disclose to us information that it is legally required to reveal under FOIL about the basis of these current and proposed city food policies and, importantly, about the people, groups, and federal, state, and local agencies involved in that policymaking. We then hope to review and disclose that information in order to raise public awareness about how the Bloomberg administration makes food policy and which people, groups, and agencies influence that policymaking.

I won't speculate here whom those people and groups might be. But here's some of what we do know already.

The city's health department is one of several agencies around the country that has used money from federal grants doled out as part of the federal stimulus to launch various campaigns targeting food freedom, including this memorably ridiculous and offensive example.

In another instance, a New York Times columnist used FOIL in 2010 to obtain emails from the city's health department. The emails revealed embarrassing details about overwhelming dissent both inside and outside the agency over a proposed anti-obesity campaign targeting (what else?) soda.

Internally, the emails showed health department staff found the messaging so off-base that they feared scientists would make "mincemeat" of the campaign. And an email from a Columbia University professor to health department staffers (sent at the request of the health department) suggested that adopting the policy was unsound because its "[b]asic premise doesn't work." The health department head, Thomas Farley, ignored this advice and proceeded with the campaign anyways.

This battle over food freedom of information in New York City has national implications. Many opponents of food freedom around the country have hailed the Bloomberg administration as a laboratory for cooking up and testing misguided, outrageous, and often unprecedented food policies. They hope these policies will catch on across the country. I hope otherwise.

States around the country are beginning to pass so-called "anti-Bloomberg laws" to help draw a line in the sand against local opponents of food freedom. Keep Food Legal's litigation to reveal how food policies in New York City are made can help undergird those efforts.

There's no question that policy sausages get made in Mayor Bloomberg's New York City only with his knowledge and approval. What Keep Food Legal wants to learn is where the sausage comes from—and who's manning the grinder.

You can read more about the lawsuit and learn how to support our efforts at Keep Food Legal's website.

NEXT: Shutdown Apocalypticism Watch: OMG WE MIGHT BE HIT BY AN ASTEROID!

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. Finally a Linnekin article that's all on one page!

  2. I'm not a violent guy, but Bloomberg needs to be punched in the face every time he suggests restricting a person's freedom to choose for him/her self.

    1. I can be a violent guy.

  3. Hopefully Bloomberg will be forced to shout, "Curses! FOIL'd again!"

    1. Fear not. He still supports the president in his efforts.

      1. Well of course. Bush made him do that stuff. He only wants to do wonderful things, 'cause he cares!

    2. Too bad he ruined it with this derp:

      He's right on this government shutdown. Republicans are thwarting the rule of law with the Constitution. If they let this debt go into default, they're trampling again on the Constitution.

      1. Republicans are thwarting the rule of law with the Constitution.

        Uh...Tavis. I believe that the House has control of the purse strings. That's actually, you know, in the constitution.

        1. And if he cares about the Constitution, maybe he should recognize the number of times the President has violated it.

        2. I think he's saying that the 'phants are using the constitution to thwart the rule of law. Which doesn't make any sense but the mind of the statist is a strange and mysterious place.

          1. This is his next question:

            If they let this debt go into default, they're trampling again on the Constitution.

            His next sentence seems to argue that it's their opposition to the constitution that he finds offensive. Which is absurd since it's the constitution that allows for a government shutdown in the first place.

    3. 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator Under Obama.'

      But that wasn't the President's intention...

      ...so it's okay.

  4. Speaking of food safety: Man died after [supposedly] overdosing on caffeine mints

    Dr Dragana Cvijan, a pathologist, told the court that 79 milligrammes of caffeine has been known to cause death and that a post mortem revealed Mr Jackson had 155 milligrammes in his system when he died.

    WTF? Some of us must be caffeine *zombies*, then.

    1. Calls to ban caffeine in 3...2....

    2. The article said that these mints were 79 mg of caffeine each. I thought a cup of regular coffee contains 135 mg.

      1. Yeah. 155 mg is a strong cup of coffee.

        Some people are extra sensitive to caffeine, but it's not like it's ahrd to figure out if you are one of those people.

        1. Tea has more.

          Espresso doesn't keep me up at night. Tea does sometimes.

          1. Err...what kind of tea are you buying? Everything I've found on the internet says tea has something around 40-60 mg per cup.

            1. Tea in relation to espresso.

  5. Sounds like Bloomberg and his merry band of flunkies have jumped the shark.

    The fact there's push back is a good sign.

    All these folks from around the world who pull shit like this are punchable.

  6. If you want to know if 13 billion plus dollars will float, they are starting to fill the dry dock which holds the under construction carrier USS Ford. It will be a few days before we know if the Ford floats or whether it trips over its own feet and falls down


    1. Once under it's own power, the first thing it will do is pardon the USS Nixon.

    2. When asked what she thinks her father would say about what's going on in Washington Susan Ford-Bales responded, "He would not tolerate it. He would learn how to walk across the aisle and learn how to make peace and do what's best for the country. And he would be furious."

      Is there anything more annoying than the unremarkable children of politicians?

      1. Yes the ones who think they are remarkable and instead of just coming out of the woodwork at certain ceremonial times instead constantly throw themselves in everyone's face

        Meghan McCain and Chelsea Clinton come to mind

        1. I include McCain and Clinton in the unremarkable category.

          1. How has Chelsea obtruded herself into politics? I'm not saying she hasn't, but all I know is the supermarket magazines' coverage of her marriage.

            1. She's a special correspondent for NBC News and she is part of the various Clinton foundations. We would probably see her more but she is terrible on TV.

              1. Ah, "special correspondent." Nice work if you can get it. I don't begrudge it to her.

                1. I kind of do. Why does she have the job? Honestly, does anyone think it's because of her dogged investigative skills and communications abilities? Or is it because NBC knows that daddy can get doors opened for Chelsea that nobody else can get opened?

            2. Yeeek.

              Hadn't seen her in a while so I just Googled her. One of those ugly duckling children that grew up to be an even uglier adult.

              I can see why FOX didn't pick her up.

          2. I include McCain and Clinton in the unremarkable category.

            Be fair, at least McCain is hot.

            1. I don't think she's hot at all.

              If you want good looking children of politicians, you have to go with Jon Huntsman or Tony Abbot's daughters.

              1. Agree with Irish.

                However, McCain thinks she's hot, and she's especially proud of her boobs.

                And, for some reason, BakedPenguin agrees.

                1. Yeah, I do agree.

                  It's subjective and all, but if we expand to congressmen's families, I think there's one we can agree on - Fred Upton's niece.

                  1. What about the hot WIVES of politicians? They're rarer, but I have to applaud Rand Paul and Paul Ryan for their taste.

                    Rand Paul definitely wins on this count. Well played, Rand.

                    1. Rand Paul definitely wins on this count. Well played, Rand.

                      I hate to say it but Dennis Kucinich is the clear winner of all currently living politicians.

              2. Jesus is that Freddie Krueger in the middle?

        2. Meghan McCain and Chelsea Clinton come to mind

          Come on. Meghan McCain and Chelsea Clinton are hilarious. They're also definitely remarkable in that it takes serious talent to be that horrible at virtually everything you try to do.

          Proof of how hilarious the are:

          Hilarious review of Meghan McCain's book, Dirty Sexy Politics.

          Chelsea Clinton hilariously interviews the Geico Gecko for no discernible reason.

          1. Chelsea Clinton hilariously interviews the Geico Gecko for no discernible reason.

            Jesus christ, I need a goddamn drink after that. How can a bought and paid for interview/ad be so fucking awkward? Gawd.

      2. He'd probably ban futures trading in onions.

      3. "Is there anything more annoying than the unremarkable children of politicians?"
        Yes. Jimmy Carter.

      4. I was reading an interview with Rod Serling's daughter and she was talking about how her father was unable to express his political message except subtly, but that today he'd love to write shows like The Newsroom or The West Wing.

        Christ, his own daughter basically saying Sorkin is the modern successor to a genius like Rod Serling.

        1. I was reading an interview with Rod Serling's daughter and she was talking about how her father was unable to express his political message except subtly, but that today he'd love to write shows like The Newsroom or The West Wing.

          This is why subtle political messages are the best way to get them across. Subtle messages give you The Twilight Zone, in your face political messages get you the masturbatory bullshit that is Aaron Sorkin T.V. shows.

        2. I was reading an interview with Rod Serling's daughter and she was talking about how her father was unable to express his political message except subtly,

          Serling did get to put his political views rather more bluntly in the TV movie A Carol for Another Christmas, which was done in conjunction with the UN. God does the propaganda hit you over the head.

          1. In Rod Serling's update of Charles Dickens, industrial tycoon Daniel Grudge has never recovered from the loss of his 22-year-old son Marley, killed in action during Christmas Eve of 1944. The embittered Grudge has only scorn for any American involvement in international affairs. But then the Ghost of Christmas Past takes him back through time to a World War I troopship. Grudge also is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the Ghost of Christmas Future gives him a tour across a desolate landscape where he sees the ruins of a once-great civilization.

            Wow. That's some stupid bullshit.

            1. The version of A Christmas Carol I'd be curious to see is The Passions of Carol. 🙂

      5. Yes, and he would learn how to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time - something I wonder if Obomber can do.

    3. Ford? Ford got a carrier named after him? Can a USS Clinton be far off? And Zod forbid they keep going.

      1. Hmm, perhaps the USS Bill & Hillary Clinton?

    4. I hate how they name carriers after politicians.

      The US Navy has names of great renown, and the finest warships afloat should carry on those names, not the names of charlatans, fools, and thieves. Yorktown, Hornet, Wasp, Enterprise, Lexington, Kearsarge, Bonhomme Richard. Some of these names are in use for ships of other classes, but they should be reserved for the CVNs.

  7. Another thing.

    It's both sad and telling that the nanny-state is so aggressive that we need titles like 'Keep food legal.'

  8. "Ron Paul endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia governor Friday night, boosting the Republican's push to woo voters who have bled to a third-party candidate....

    ""Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government," writes Paul. "He has consistently and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against ObamaCare shows he is willing to stand up to Washington's continued abuses on our individual liberties."

    "He quotes his friend Donna Holt, a libertarian activist, calling Cuccinelli "the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General we have ever had in Virginia.""


    1. "..as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."

      1. It is disappointing, but not too surprising. I am a strong supporter of both Pauls, but Paul Sr. has at times been surprisingly willing to support some anti-liberty SoCon legislation as long as it is done at the state level. And this is apart from his deviations from the LP on issues like immigration and abortion. So I can certainly see why he would find Cuccinelli's violations of liberty as less of a threat than McAuliffe's (who would not know liberty if it bit him).

        1. I wasn't shocked by it, either. The good news is that it's unlikely to sway most liberty minded people. At best, it will swing tea partiers and truly conservative people who might have been on the fence between Sardis and Cuccinelli.

          1. I forgot about the libertarian candidate. It is especially disappointing that he did not throw his support behind him.

            1. I think it has as much to do with protecting Rand's political aspirations as anything else.

    2. the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General we have ever had in Virginia

      Arguably true.


      You know, as the libertarianish Republicans get more and more common, I'm going to have to make tough calls.

      We could do a lot worse then the Cooch. I know he hates him some 'bortion, but I think someone who's pro market, pro gun, pro school choice, pro federalism on drugs, and looks to already be saying the right things on foreign policy might just be enough for me to hold my nose on other things.

      1. My goodness, that article reads like a poorly written Cuccinelli press release.

        8. Unlike many Republicans, Ken opposes cronyism and won't use the Governor's Mansion to dole out political favors to Big Business.

        Yes, because the author can look into the future and has seen 'Ken's' actions regarding these matters.

        This is the typical pathetic attempt by the GOP to undercut a LP candidate that is gaining support and try to fool those who love liberty into voting for another one of their pols.

        1. My goodness, that article reads like a poorly written

          It is from BuzzFeed......

          But leaving aside the wishful thinking/propaganda aspects, the facts remain. The Cooch is flawed, but so is Ron Paul. So is Gary Johnson. If your intent is to wait for the perfect libertarian guy, you're going to die alone surrounded by thirty seven cats named after obscure philosophers and politicians.

          I probably won't bother voting. My vote is always drowned out by a deluge of statism. But if I do vote, I will choose between Sarvis and Cuccinelli, and yes I will be committing the cardinal libertarian sin of practicality when I make my choice.

  9. Choicers attack prolife marchers in Australia, including member of Parliament and a demonstrator from the US

    "Pro-life Victoria Member of Parliament Bernie Finn also told the press that he was "belted in the head" and pelted with eggs, and that fellow pro-life MP Andrew Elsbury was thrown to the ground and stomped on.

    ""What we saw today was literally a public mugging on the streets of Melbourne and Victoria Police let it happen," Finn fumed. "We had people being assaulted, being kicked, being stomped on and they sat back and watched.""


    1. Eggs? Plainly wrong, but I guess it is a good thing they hit them with eggs and not with what pro-life activists Scott Roeder and Eric Rudolph (for example) hit pro-choicers with.

      1. Yes, and don't forget the guy in Michigan who murdered a prolife demonstrator -


        Or the guy in Connecticut who was accused of murdering his pregnant girlfriend because she wouldn't have an abortion.


        1. Or the guy in Florida who was convicted of killing his pregnant girlfriend and her unborn baby after she refused to have an abortion:


          1. Or, say, Kermit Gosnell - how soon we forget!

            1. "Christopher Simpson, 27, of Fort Coffee, Okla., was found guilty Thursday (Sept. 26) on two counts of first-degree murder in the April 8, 2012, shooting death of Kaloni Flynn and her 12-week-old fetus. Simpson was the father of Flynn's unborn baby, and was upset because she refused to have an abortion, according to authorities."


              Google is an excellent search tool - it easily uncovers cases like this! And I don't have to go back to the late 1990s, either!

              1. "Christopher Simpson, 27, of Fort Coffee, Okla., was found guilty Thursday (Sept. 26) on two counts of first-degree murder in the April 8, 2012, shooting death of Kaloni Flynn and her 12-week-old fetus.

                ...How exactly can someone be found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder for killing a woman and her fetus when the fetus is legally not a person?

                Are you not allowed to abort a 12 week old fetus in Oklahoma? If you're allowed to abort it, I don't see how someone could get a first degree murder charge for that crime.

                1. If the mothrr wants the child, he or she can be considered a person. I know it makes no sense, but thats what I think about abortion in general.

                2. It's definitely a legal anomaly. Remember that dude in CA who killed his pregnant wife & dumped her body in the ocean? He was charged with two counts of murder & pro-choice folks were pretty critical of that.

                  1. -& pro-choice folks were pretty critical of that.

                    Were they?

            2. It's not easy being green.

        2. -Or the guy in Connecticut who was accused of murdering his pregnant girlfriend because she wouldn't have an abortion.

          This is an interesting new tactic of pro-lifers, to equate people who harm others because they would not terminate a pregnancy with the violence of pro-life activists. By this logic we should consider all of the people who harm a woman because she seeks or gets an abortion (such as angry 'expectant fathers' or parents) as equivalent to pro-life activists.

          1. By all means link to the stories of people who kill women for having abortions. Stop the mainstreammedia cover up!

            1. Heres where I wish I had your persistence so I could repeatedly accuse you of Not Answering My question, but I guess ill only do it once. So here goes.

              Where are all those stories about women being murdered for having abortions? The prolifers in theMSM must be covering this up! Stop the cover up!

              1. I just want to be clear here: you think that people who commit violence against someone because they pursue an abortion, for example parents abusing a child for seeking or getting one, or an angry expectant father, should be equated with pro-life activists who commit acts of violence?

                See, I thought they should not, and neither should someone who is violent with someone because they did not get an abortion. It seems to me neither set of these people are involved in 'activism' in the respective sides in any meaningful way.

                But if you want to equate them I guess we could start digging up instances of each.

                1. Ive dug up my instances via Google. They involved murder because you citrd rudolph and the kansas guy. We could certainly compare examples of non deadly violence if youd like.

                  Stop the MSM cover up of prolife extremism!

                  1. Well, I tend to look more to Google Scholar than Google for things like this. There I found several studies that have found that women seeking abortions are significantly more likely to be victims of domestic violence than control groups of pregnant women not seeking abortions. This, of course, could support either view, however, these studies also tend to find that a significantly higher percent of the women who have been abused and are seeking abortions do not share the news of the pregnancy or the abortion with the partner, which suggests they are afraid of violence being committed against them for seeking the abortion.

                    1. I linked to news reports of women being murdered, the links were to stories re judicial proceedings. Are these reports wrong, or was your remark re googld simply a random insult? You mentionrd two murderers and I replied with stories of other murderers. You then found examples of abusive boyfriends...abusing their girlfriends. Very nasty, but did you find examples of murder?

                    2. Well, if it is sensational stories you want, how about Spring Adams, the 13 year old girl whose father raped her and then after learning she planned to get an abortion, killed her (and her mother, who was going to take her to the abortion)?

                    3. Finally, a pertinent example.

                      Im not sure what you have against sensational cases given that you used rudolph and kansas guy to make your arguments.

                      So continue with your numerous cases of women getting killed for seeking or having abortions.

                      Some links would be great.

                    4. Checked the adams case...a tragic case from 1989. Anything asrecent as the cases I cited?

        3. -the guy in Michigan who murdered a prolife demonstrator

          The guy who, to my knowledge, has no history in pro-choice causes, but hated the guy for standing with his signs in front of schools, and went on to kill two other people with no connection to abortion?

          You are stretching.

          1. Eric Rudolph was 20 years ago, was avowed atheist and bombed the Olympics as well as abortion clinics.

            This is why people call you a concern troll. Rather than just admit that what happened in Australia was wrong, you have bring up something, anything from the other side that deflects conversation away from a fact that reflects poorly on your side. With you nothing is ever wrong with the left side. Anything that happens to look wrong is just an segway into talking about how the Right is really worse.

            That is classic concern trolling. Everyone on here sees through it. They are persuaded by it and they see it for what it is. If you have no defense for the people in Australia, don't comment on the thread. But please stop derailing the conversation every time involves a fact that doesn't fit your personal narrative.

            1. Eric Rudolph was 20 years ago, was avowed atheist and bombed the Olympics as well as abortion clinics.

              This reminds me of that article that got posted on H and R a few weeks ago about the documentary about late-term abortionists.

              One of the people who made the film said something like "We just want people to see this movie so that, even if they don't agree with the subjects, they won't want to kill them."

              It's such a bullshit line. Leftists have an unbelievable ability to just assume that their opponents are violent and evil, despite the fact that most political violence in America is, and always has been, left-wing.

              I also remember this because Bo then proceeded to tell me that there's nothing wrong with what the director said and that he was in no way saying that conservatives are violent. Apparently implying that a large number of people who disagree with you want to murder you doesn't in any way imply that they are violent.

              1. I live near the NIH. My wife works for a medical school. So, I know a fair number of MD PHDs and biologists and such. All of them are fairly liberal. But all of them, and I mean all them, will when asked admit that they do not agree with late term abortions. That given the state of scientific knowledge, you cannot defend late term abortions as anything but infanticide.

                Of course they never advertise these views. But that is their view. But remember only ignorant superstitious fundies object to late term abortions.

                1. I tend to stay out of the idiotic shit fighting that occurs in H and R abortion threads, particularly since I don't have a strong enough opinion to wade through the constant insults and foot stomping, but I'm always astonished by the people who try and tell me that it's somehow dangerous to be an abortionist.

                  People who talk about abortion clinic bombings or murders generally have to go back over a decade to find enough instances to make a list. You had George Tiller recently, but most of the murders of abortionists occurred in the 70's and 80's. There might have been one or two in the '90s.

                  But progressives are intent on claiming their opponents are secret terrorists, so the actual dearth of violence by pro-lifers is of no relevance.

              2. If a director were to worry about union violence, would the fact that union violence is not very frequent, but certainly does occur and make the news from time to time, make his comment paranoid?

                1. If he claimed the reason why he made the movie was so "Union people would understand his side and not try to kill him", he would be an asshole who was just slandering the other side. While union violence does happen, the majority of union people are not violent and there the reason to engage them in debate is not because you hope to convince them not to kill you.

                  Your analogy proves Irish's point.

                  1. I agree union and pro-life violence are not typical of union members (many who are essentially forced to be so) and pro-life people. My point was, and is, that there are some highly covered cases of both, and so if someone worked in a field that has been famously targeted by either I can see the concern as not being irrational.

            2. Who cares what Eric Rudolph's religious beliefs were? You are the one that often argues that one need not be a SoCon to be pro-life. Do you want to argue that Rudolph was not motivated by pro-life activism?

              -Rather than just admit that what happened in Australia was wrong

              The first thing I said was that what happened in Australia was wrong.

              -That is classic concern trolling.

              What is your definition of concern trolling? It seems to change and morph every time you disagree with what I post.

              -But please stop derailing the conversation every time involves a fact that doesn't fit your personal narrative.

              This is rather ironic since Eduaard's initial comment had nothing to do with the lead post here. Curiously, you had no problem with his 'derailing the conversation every time involves a fact that doesn't fit your personal narrative.'

              1. Eric Rudulph's religous views are important because he was hardly a conservative. He was more or less an anarchist nut. So, it is pretty difficult to pin his actions on the rest of the pro life movement when his views were not typical of such. Yet, people like you constantly bring him up and never mention what his views are. You just use the name to slander the other side.

                Of course you admitted it was wrong. And then immediately changed the subject by bringing up Eric Rudolph. That was why you posted here. You wanted to change the topic of the conversation from a fact that reflected poorly on your side to a subject that you allege reflects poorly on the other side.

                That is concern trolling. Eric Rudolph has nothing to do with what happened in Australia. You only bring him up to try and change the attention and the conversation to something away from this fact you don't like.

                Everyone sees through it and no one is persuaded by it. It doesn't help your cause. It just annoys people.

                1. What is 'concern trolling' John? Let us know so we can apply it broadly.

                  -It doesn't help your cause.

                  My cause is libertarianism, I have never said anything contrary to the NAP and will not. On the other side, you admit you are a conservative Republican. So let us drop this silliness over 'causes,' mine at least is consistent with this website.

                  -Eric Rudulph's religous views are important because he was hardly a conservative.

                  What is funny about your comments is that you assume I think all pro-lifers are SoCons, then berate me for making the assumption, when I do not make it.

                  1. My cause is libertarianism,

                    And that is why are quickly outing yourself as a troll. You are so obviously a liberal pretending to be a libertarian. It is fine that you are a liberal. It is a free country and this is a free board. But the fact that you pretend to be something else makes you a troll.

                    You come on here to try and leave the impression that Libertarianism and leftism are really the same and to do as much damage control as possible against attacks against the left on here by pretending to be a Libertarian and then either changing the subject or diminish any criticisms of the left as best you can.

                    That is all you ever do on here. Do you think everyone on here is stupid and can't see that?

                    What is funny about your comments is that you assume I think all pro-lifers are SoCons, t

                    No you half wit. I assume that you think that Eric Rudolph is somehow reflective of other pro lifers, otherwise why mention him? And of course he is not. He is a lone nut and thus irrelevant to the debate.

                    1. -You are so obviously a liberal pretending to be a libertarian.

                      If you can point to anything I have ever said here contrary to the NAP you might have a leg to stand on, but as it is you have none, because you cannot. In addition to being consistent with the NAP I have on numerous and consistent occasions strongly condemned the Democrat Party and its pet projects, such as Obamacare. You just do not like that I often take the time to point out that while 'progs' are indeed horrible, conservatives are not much better. Being one you likely feel the need to push the trope that libertarians and conservatives are largely in agreement. This likely explains your inconsistent application of your professed principles here in who and what you choose to attack and let pass.

                      And, we have now reached the third time you have avoided my question about why you did not feel Eduaard's injection of abortion comments into this discussion of food nannyism was a 'derailing' you had to object to, but my reply to him was.

                      It is clear to anyone with eyes you are just out to defend your cause, conservative Republicanism, and have no other real principles. That is your prerogative, but when libertarians like me say 'a pox on both their houses' one of those houses will, of course, be yours.

                2. More importantly John, you did not answer my question: why did (and does) Eduaard's 'derailing of a conversation (which was about Bloomberg and his food nannyism) to further his personal cause' not bother you to post something like what you did to me? Could it be that you have different standards for ideological allies than foes? That would, of course, be consistent with the usual modus operandi for conservative Republicans.

                  1. What Eduard did was start his own thread about a different topic. People do that on here all of the time. His topic didn't diminish the point of the thread. It was something completely different.

                    What you did is concern trolling. You didn't bring up something totally different. You brought up something about the other side for the specific purpose of getting attention away from a fact you don't like. That is what you do on here. A criticism of the liberal side is always your cue to talk about how the subject really should be how much worse the Right is. You do it every single time. It is not good faith arguing. It is just you concern trolling the board. Stop it.

                    1. So concern trolling is bringing 'up something about the other side for the specific purpose of getting attention away from a fact you don't like?' Can you point me to anyone on the internet defining it that way? Usually 'concern trolling' refers to someone who expresses overall agreement with someone's point but then starts to undermine it with comments suggesting certain 'concerns' about the point. But if you have your own, idiosyncratic and unevenly applied definition I am unsurprised.

                      -A criticism of the liberal side is always your cue to talk about how the subject really should be how much worse the Right is.

                      So let me get this straight: it is fine with you to change the subject totally, but when someone changes the subject it is not fine to reply to that change with a related, but contrary point? You are stretching to defend your inconsistencies John. This is unsurprising, partisans tend to appear to have a lot of inconsistencies because while they feel obligated to cite general principles they really only have fealty to one: defending their side. Libertarians, at least those who are not totally wedded to the LP, usually have less of a problem with this.

                    2. Usually 'concern trolling' refers to someone who expresses overall agreement with someone's point but then starts to undermine it with comments suggesting certain 'concerns' about the point.

                      You mean like somebody posting that he agrees that it's wrong for the police to stand by with their hands in their pockets while demonstrators they don't like get beaten up, but what we should really be concerned about are mean old pro-life activists?

                      You mean like that?

                    3. No, that is not classic concern trolling as I understand it. It is also not what I said.

                      Classic concern trolling would be someone saying, in reply to Eduaard, 'that is wrong, pro-choice people are often violent and the authorities let them be, but I am worried that the MP's push is only going to lead to more embarrassing moments like this.'

                      The irony here is that my response was motivated by being simply tired that Eduaard has to include some pro-life post in every, usually non-related, thread he participates in. So when he did it yet again here I replied with 'yeah, yeah, they threw eggs, I guess they can not all throw bullets like some pro-life nuts.'

            3. This is why people call you a concern troll. Rather than just admit that what happened in Australia was wrong...

              You know John, it probably took you two minutes of your life to post that reply to him. I found a better way of dealing with his trolling, that keeps my blood pressure down.

              Git ya some Chrome and then download ya some Reasonable. Go to one of its posts and click on the "name" that appears right after the word "filter".

              Ahhhhhhhh! No more irritating troll.

              I don't know why, but that individual is grating. I don't filter anyone else. I find the other trolls here somewhat amusing, but that idiot's incessant blathering is irritating beyond description.

              Just thought I'd put forth another option. It works well for me.

              1. I certainly seem to have struck an emotional chord with some of the objectivists here. I do not think that is too surprising, those who know the libertarian movement well know that a significant wing of objectivists essentially became conservative Republicans when Reagan was elected. To the extent that Republicans and conservatives are not going to like my criticism of them, what can you do?

              2. You mean, you read my comments?


                /kicks sand.

            4. What are you basing claims of Rudolph's atheism on? The only thing I could find was a quote about preferring Nietzche to the Bible that he made in prison, but he has also claimed to be a lifelong Catholic, was involved with the Christian Identity and Army of God, and has cited Biblical passages in letters regarding his motives.

          2. If we dont count people who committed multiple crimes, including non abortion related crimes, then why did you mention eric rudolph?

            1. Because Rudolph was motivated by pro-life activism. The fellow in Michigan was on a shooting spree that happened to include a pro-life activist, but he had no history or even declared pro-choice beliefs that I have read of.

              1. A shooting spree that happened to include a prolife activist. A shooter who gave no evidence of animus against prolifers except shooting one of them.

                1. And when asked he did not seem motivated by dislike of the person's pro-life views or even activism per se, just the manner of his activism (that he stood outside the school).

                  But I think I have pointed out the differences enough. You are welcome to the last word.

                  1. For you that is a major concession, for which I am grateful.

                    1. *swoops in, takes last word*


    2. Is there any news of anti-circumcision activists assaulting mohels or something?

      How about devotees of deep-dish attacking fans of traditional pizza?

    3. I have a hard time feeling bad about an MP being assaulted by angry constituents, regardless of what he's promoting. It's the kind of thing I'd like to see happen more often.

      1. If only there was somehow some other way for constituents to express their disagreement with their representative....

        1. There are many.

          Eggs are one, tar and featherin' is another, and the standby of a good ol' fashion hanging is just one more of the myriad of possibilities. Not to mention, drawing and quatering, stockades, ridicule, that thing at the end of The Wicker Man, etc...

  10. Well, I see that the abortion sub-thread has arrived right on schedule this fine Saturday morning. Oh, joy.

    1. Well, it's probably for the best that they get aborted so that they don't have to suffer the gross humiliation of getting circumcised or one day eating deep dish pizza while watching Star Trek: Into Darkness.


      1. At least I beat you with my comments on circumcision and deep-dish. 🙂

    2. Dammit, you beat me to the punch. 😉

    3. I respect Eduaard, but he puts a pro-life comment into nearly every thread he participates in. John and other conservatives do not see this as problematic 'subject changing' or 'shoehorning,' of course.

      1. Because he's honest about what he is, and what he believes? Because he isn't an insufferable prick? Because the Saturday morning thread has become an open thread for people to drop things of note?

        1. I am not honest? I have said that I am a libertarian who dislikes conservatives and liberals, a libertarian who is worried about how conservatives and Republicans attempt to trick libertarians into supporting them. So I like to point out where conservatives and Republicans fall short, yet. No dishonesty about that.

          Of course, given your rather explicit conservative and Republican leanings (very thinly disguised, for example, in your endorsement of Cuccinelli and the GOP supra), of course that makes you angry.

          1. Thank you so much Bo, for protecting us with your intrepid commenting from the eeevillll Republikkkan mind control rays.

            Truly you are a shining light of pure libertarian truth, and all others should be thankful for your insightful wisdom.

            1. Says the commenter who just posted what is essentially a Ken Cuccinelli campaign ad aimed at libertarians and who shared his testimonial about how he is going to vote for that same GOP candidate over a LP candidate in the coming election.

              1. Read it again you lying little shit. I never said I would vote for the Cooch, I said I was considering it.

                Apologize now.

            2. Bo is far less annoying than Palin and Tony, Virg. I don't mind him like some of you do.

              There is some consistency and coherence there I think.

              Not that what I think matters.

  11. Okay, someone enlighten me as I don't live in a town/city.

    Is there some sort of elected legislative body that must vote on and pass these laws or is the mayor some sort of two-bit dictator?

    If the latter is true, how can such an asshole legally mandate these actions on his own? Where does his authority come from?

    1. There is a city council. And in New York, it is even more insane than Bloomberg. As bad as Bloomberg is, I know any number of reasonable people who live in New York and follow its politics who tell me he is a hundred times better than the clowns on the city council. So whatever Bloomburg wants is usually a tamer version of what the council would do. So he usually gets what he wants.

      1. Got it. Thx.

        I guess all I can say is I don't and never will understand why anyone with even a modicum of respect for liberty would continue to live in such a place.

        1. That is what sucks so bad. It is still an incredible city. New York is so interesting even liberals can't fuck it up that badly. But God would it be incredible if those jackasses would move somewhere else.

          1. That is what sucks so bad. It is still an incredible city. New York is so interesting even liberals can't fuck it up that badly.

            Well, they managed to ruin California for everyone but the very rich. If progressives can burn down and bankrupt an Eden like California, they can sure as hell ruin New York City. You have to remember how bad New York was in the '70's and '80's. They're in a renaissance following the dark ages, but there's no reason an aging commie like Bill Di Blasio can't bring back the bad old days.

            1. -They're in a renaissance following the dark ages

              Good point. Whatever issues I do have with their Republican mayors (Giuliani and Bloomberg), they really are better than the Democrat Party hacks who made the city the quasi-dystopia depicted in films such as Taxi Driver.

              1. Tallest midget.

              2. Giuliani and Bloomberg are atrocious, but they're atrocious mayors that a city can survive. The type of people who ran the city in the '60s and '70s, on the other hand, were Detroit-level city killers.

                I'm worried Di Blasio will be the same when he waltzes to the mayoral office. I really do like modern New York, although I'd hate to live there, and would be really upset to see it regress.

                1. Well said (especially like 'Detroit-level city killers'), I am in total agreement with you here.

                  I spent some time in NYC. If I were there now I would certainly vote, and work my proverbial tail off, for the GOP candidate, Lhota. I would urge anyone there to do the same, it could be a critical election. The Democrat Party machine in NYC is unbelievably corrupt, incompetent and of the worst kind of progressivism. It would be a major step backwards if they come back into power.

                  1. NYC is like Disneyland or Vegas. Living there is hellish for the middle or working classes - that's why it's lost those folks. It's a hollow city that supports the very wealthy and the very poor. Young people tolerate it for the excitement and opportunity but most leave after the thrill wares off.

                    Depending on your tastes Vegas, Disneyland, and NYC are great vacation spots.

                2. There was a lot wrong with Giuliani and Bloomberg but compared to Dinkins they were moderate geniuses.

                  Di Blasio is a nostalgic pick. He'll crash and burn quickly.

          2. New York is so interesting even liberals can't fuck it up that badly.

            IMO, there is NOTHING interesting about ANY city, but to each their own.

            1. I have spent more than my fair share of time in the woods and in small towns. They have their charms. But it gets old quick.

              1. Yep, it gets old.

                I'm going pheasant hunting.


            2. IMO, there is NOTHING interesting about ANY city, but to each their own.

              There's a lot to do in New York City. I'd hate to live there due to the cost of living, the horrific abuses of the NYPD, and the general lack of freedom, but New York is a great city to visit.

              1. NYC has a 'spirit' you get going to Paris or Rome. Mind you San Francisco gave me that feeling as well.

                We love planning trips to NYC.

            3. Been to Florence or Venice or Rome, Franky?

              I found them beyond interesting.

              I see NYC as a continuum (in the Western civilization context) of those cities.

        2. You just break the law.

      2. "There is a city council. And in New York, it is even more insane than Bloomberg."

        Back when I lived in San Francisco, Gavin Newsom was running for mayor and was considered the "far right" candidate. I think half the SF city council was explicitly communist.

    2. Don't one-party states typically end up like this?

      I'm sure they've got local politicians who think they're career bureaucrats. They might as well be.

      The cronyism must be out of control.

      1. -Don't one-party states typically end up like this?

        I do not know that we can call NYC a 'one party' state. Their Republicans are certainly to the left of the national party and would be moderate Democrats in other places, but they have won the mayorship quite a bit recently.

        1. Wasn't Bloomberg a Democrat originally who only ran on the Republican party line becaust it was easier to get on the ballot that way?

          1. Sources say Bloomberg was 'a Democrat' before he ran as a Republican. It is hard to know what that meant (registered as one? Democrat leaning? Democrat activist). But when he switched to the GOP he went all in, assuming Giuliani's mantle, speaking at the GOP national convention, etcetera. The Bush Presidency made being a Republican very difficult in NYC politics, but he was by then a confirmed opponent of the city Democrat Party, so he switched to an Independent.

            Bloomberg's party has essentially been the Bloomberg Party. But this does not change the fact that the GOP candidate for mayor has won more recent elections than the Democrat Party candidate.

    3. New York has a city council, but like a lot of governments it also has a bureaucracy which often acts under powers broadly delegated to it by the council. That bureaucracy is in theory part of the executive, but can also in theory be considered somewhat independent from it, and can issue regulations. The Health Board in NYC falls in that area, and they issued the regulation. Of course everyone there knows that in practice the board is under Bloomberg's thumb. The court that threw it out did so on the grounds that the bureaucracy had overstepped its powers and intruded into the council's powers.

  12. Absolutely, bloody fascinating!! Two stories crop up at the same time and they dovetail beautifully. They both involve Africans, boats, and the "nastiness" of Whites, but in such odd, interesting, opposite and complementary ways that one can only rock back in one's chair and let the wind whistle slowly between one's teeth.

    The Daily Mail reports that fourteen Caribbean nations are attempting to sue Britain, Holland and France for the transatlantic slave trade; while over in the Mediterranean the main news is the terrible drowning of hundreds of immigrants sailing from Africa in the waters off Malta.

    To paraphrase and condense things to their essentials: in the first case Whites are being blamed for historically putting Africans into boats and bringing them to their countries; while in the other, Whites are being blamed for not ? repeat NOT? putting Africans in boats and bringing them to their countries. The ironic symmetry is almost priceless!


      1. OK, so, is he wrong?

        Because argumentum ad hominem has not, to my knowledge, been accepted as a valid argument form.

        1. Do you ever do anything here besides defend American whenever he shows up?

          I don't really agree with the arguments of the people he's criticizing (I don't think the lawsuit is valid and while I disagree with European policy in the other case, I don't think their governments are primarily to blame for the tragedy), but his accusation of hypocrisy is idiotic. It is not hypocritical to condemn forced transportation of people and then support allowing voluntary transportation of other people. The fact that you think he actually made a good points says a lot about you

    1. He's quoting alt-right now. I guess he figured that posting things from Taki Mag and VDare would make it too obvious that it's our resident racist scum bag, so he decided to go with a different racist site.

  13. Since I started fre+lancing I've been bringing in $90 bucks/h? I sit at home and i am doing my work from my laptop. The best thing is that i get more time to spent with my family and with my kids and in the same time i can earn enough to support them... You can do it too. Start here for more work detail go to home tab ---------- w?w?w.j?o?b?s?7?2.c?o?m

  14. Dr. Rosenbaum replied that a more accurate number would be 10 pounds. But beyond that, he added, the underlying assumption was flawed because "you would need to make the case that you are talking about a can of soda more per day relative to energy expenditure."
    That NYT article about people worried scientists would make minced meat of the soda ban's science is itself complete garbage.
    Looks like the food pyramid retards still can't get it through their heads that obesity isn't caused by excess calories in the same way military airplanes in war don't crash because of gravity and loss of aerodynamics.
    But nevermind, looking at the competing theory of obesity would mean taking the first step in acknowledging that the government guidelines on nutrition are completely wrong, which means admitting that Americans and citizens of other countries that adopted the food pyramid have suffered from and been made vulnerable to the diseases of civllization because of the government.

  15. my buddy's aunt makes $87 an hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her payment was $19984 just working on the internet for a few hours. great post to read

  16. my roomate's mother makes $82/hour on the internet. She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her check was $15166 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at this now

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.