Archive for the ‘Nanny State’ Category
The owners of Collegno’s Pizzeria say they refused to serve him more than one piece to protest Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban,which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city.
Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal.
Witnesses say the situation unfolded when as the two were looking over budget documents, they realized they needed more food than originally ordered.
“Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?” Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito.
“I’m sorry sir,” he replied, “we can’t do that. You’ve reached your personal slice limit.”
Stop and Tisk
Mayor Bloomberg, not accustomed to being challenged, assumed that the owner was joking.
“OK, that’s funny,” he remarked, “because of the soda thing … No come on. I’m not kidding. I haven’t eaten all morning, just send over another pepperoni.”
“I’m sorry sir. We’re serious,” Benito insisted. “We’ve decided that eating more than one piece isn’t healthy for you, and so we’re forbidding you from doing it.”
“Look jackass,” Bloomberg retorted, his anger boiling, “I fucking skipped breakfast this morning just so I could eat four slices of your pizza. Don’t be a schmuck, just get back to the kitchen and bring out some fucking pizza, okay.”
“I’m sorry sir, there’s nothing I can do,” the owner repeated. “Maybe you could go to several restaurants and get one slice at each. At least that way you’re walking. You know, burning calories.”
Witnesses say a fuming Bloomberg and a bemused Liu did indeed walk down the street to a rival pizzeria , ordered another slice and finished their meeting.
New York’s so-called “soda ban” would have limited the size of sweetened beverages served in restaurants to 16 oz (0.5 liters). The plan, backed by Mayor Bloomberg, is currently being held up by a U.S. district court.
Bloomberg has been the mayor of New York City since 2002. Theretofore he was the CEO of Bloomberg LP, the world’s leading financial data firm. His personal fortune is estimated at around $27 billion.
by Ann Coulter
Like the proverbial monkey typing for infinity and getting Shakespeare, Mayor Bloomberg’s obsession with reforming New Yorkers’ health has finally produced a brilliant ad campaign.
Posters are popping up in subway stations and bus stops giving statistics about teen pregnancy that show cute little kids saying things like, “Honestly, Mom … chances are he won’t stay with you. What happens to me?” and “I’m twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.”
It’s one thing to stigmatize “Big Gulp” drinkers, but liberals are hopping mad at this attempt to stigmatize teen pregnancy, 90 percent of which is unwed. To put it another way, if you’re a New York teen with a distended belly these days, it had better be because you’re pregnant.
Planned Parenthood’s Haydee Morales complained that the ads are creating “stigma” and “negative public opinions about teen pregnancy.” (I’m pretty sure that’s the basic idea.)
Instead, Morales suggested “helping teens access health care, birth control and high-quality sexual and reproductive health education.” Like the kind they got before becoming pregnant, you mean? Are you new here, Haydee?
Coincidentally, Planned Parenthood happens to provide reproductive health care! Liberals act as if gun owners, soda-guzzlers and smokers are innocent victims of the gun, food and cigarette industries, but the $542 million-a-year birth control industry is a quarry of angels.
The New York Times’ Michael Powell explained in a column that, as a parent of teenagers, he’s learned that the stupidest thing to do is resort to “the shame-and-blame game.” Teenage pregnancy, he states categorically, is a “problem of poverty.”
I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem, but let’s stick to liberals’ newfound opposition to shaming campaigns.
Far from opposing stigmas, liberals are the main propagators of them – against cigarettes, guns, plastic bags, obesity, not recycling, Fox News, racist “code words,” not liking “Lincoln” and junk food.
The stigma against smoking has gone so swimmingly that you can’t enjoy a little tobacco pleasure 50 yards from another human being without some bossy woman marching over and accusing you of poisoning her.
California is currently running a series of “Reefer Madness”-style anti-smoking ads, including one that shows cigarette smoke going from a woman outside on her porch, up a story, through the door of another apartment, across the living room, down the hallway and into a room where a baby is sleeping. That would be the equivalent of the Bloomberg ads claiming teen pregnancy causes genocide.
And what exactly was the purpose of the Journal-News publishing the names and addresses of every legal gun owner in various counties in New York state a few months ago? To congratulate them? To start a hunting club?
No, I believe it was to stigmatize legal gun owners. The fact that we didn’t already know who they were proved that the problem isn’t legal gun ownership. All those legal guns – and no rash of drive-by shootings!
Los Angeles has banned plastic bags at supermarkets, even though reusable canvas bags are portable bacterial colonies. But a little ad campaign describing the downsides of teenage pregnancy – which is still subsidized – and liberals howl in protest.
One begins to suspect that liberals aren’t as interested in stopping teenagers from having illegitimate kids as they claim. Do they believe a teenager who gets pregnant out of wedlock is harming herself and her child as much a teenager who smokes? How about an unwed teen who smokes at a landfill?
It’s only a “shame-and-blame game” when liberals secretly approve of the behavior they pretend to oppose.
Unwed mothers have been the perennial excuse for big government, going back to Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who plotted in the 1960s to create broken families, welfare dependency and urban riots to pave the way for socialist revolution.
That’s why single mothers are revered victims – victims in need of an ever-expanding social safety net, staffed with well-pensioned government workers. As described in that great book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” liberals concoct fake victims in order to victimize the rest of us.
The only thing single mothers are “victims” of is their own choice to have sex with men they’re not married to. Liberals seem to believe that drinking soda is voluntary, but getting pregnant is more like catching the flu.
It would be hard to make the case that fast food, plastic bags and cigarettes do more damage than single motherhood.
Controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single mother.
At least 70 percent of juvenile murderers, pregnant teenagers, high school dropouts, teen suicides, runaways and juvenile delinquents were raised by single mothers.
A study back in 1990 by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that, absent single motherhood, there would be no difference in black and white crime rates.
So liberals don’t try to make that case. They just say they’re against “shaming” and then go back to shaming gun owners, non-recyclers, smokers and “Big Gulp” aficionados – while subsidizing illegitimacy.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/trouble-in-the-nanny-state/#R6PSOeICQrRdqSSp.99
Take a big gulp, New York: Hizzoner is about to give you a pop.
Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.
Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.
They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.
Bloomberg’s soda smackdown follows his attacks on salt, sugar, trans fat, smoking and even baby formula.
LESS SODA, MORE DOUGH: If you order a pizza, you cannot get a large bottle of soda delivered with it. Already, Domino’s locations across the city are doing away with 1 and 2 liter bottles of soda, deliveryman Philippe Daniba says. They’ll sell smaller bottles instead — costing you more money and increasing plastic waste.
NANNY MIKE’S CAN’T-DO ATTITUDE
The city Health Department last week began sending brochures to businesses that would be affected by the latest ban, including restaurants, bars and any “food service” establishment subject to letter grades.
And merchants were shocked to see the broad sweep of the new rules.
“It’s not fair. If you’re gonna tell me what to do, it’s no good,” said Steve DiMaggio of Caruso’s in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. “It’s gonna cost a lot more.”
And consumers, especially families, will soon see how the rules will affect their wallets — forcing them to pay higher unit prices for smaller bottles.
Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.
“I really feel bad for the customers,” said Lupe Balbuena of World Pie in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.
Domino’s on First Avenue and 74th Street on the Upper East Side is doing away with its most popular drink sizes: the 20-ounce and 2-liter bottles.
“We’re getting in 16-ounce bottles — and that’s all we’re going to sell,” a worker said.
He said the smaller bottles will generate more revenue for the restaurant but cost consumers more.
It will also trash more plastic into the environment.
Deliveryman Philippe Daniba said he had brought countless 2-liter bottles of soda to customers over his 19 years at the restaurant. The ban, he said, “doesn’t make sense.”
Industry-group officials agreed.
“It’s ludicrous,” said Robert Bookman, a lawyer for the New York City Hospitality Alliance. “It’s a sealed bottle of soda you can buy in the supermarket. Why can’t they deliver what you can get in the supermarket?”
Families will get pinched at kid-friendly party places, which will have to chuck their plastic pitchers because most hold 60 ounces — even though such containers are clearly intended for more than one person.
Changes will be made at the Frames bowling alley in Times Square, where 26-ounce pitchers are served at kids’ parties, said manager Ayman Kamel.
“We’re going to try to get creative,” he said, noting drinks with 100 percent juice are exempt from the ban.
“We’re figuring out a way to have freshly squeezed juice for the birthday parties. We might have to raise the price about a dollar or so.”
Dallas BBQ at 1265 Third Ave. will retire its 60-ounce pitchers and 20-ounce glasses, manager Daisy Reyes said.
“We have to buy new glasses,” she said. “We’re in the process.”
And if you’re looking for a night of bottle service at a Manhattan hot spot, be warned: Spending $300 on a bottle of vodka no longer entitles you to a full complement of mixers.
If you get bottle service at a city nightclub or restaurant, you cannot also get a carafe of cranberry juice like the one hostess Maggie is serving up here at Le Souk Harem in the West Village. Tonic water and other beverages are also limited, even though they are only used as mixers.
The carafes in which mixers are typically served hold 32 ounces, and the most common mixers — sodas, cranberry juice and tonic water — will be limited. Only water and 100 percent juice will be unlimited.
“Oh, my God. Seriously?” said Lamia Sunti, owner of the swanky West Village club Le Souk Harem. “It’s not like one person is going to be drinking the whole carafe. It’s silly.”
The rules are hard to unravel.
Alcoholic drinks and diet sodas are not subject to the ban, nor are fruit smoothies if they don’t have added sweetener, or coffee drinks and milkshakes if made with 50 percent milk.
But what about drinks with small amounts of added sugar? Vendors must determine if the beverages have more than 3.125 calories per ounce.
But they should double-check their math: Violations cost $200 each.
Mass murder has unfortunately always been a part of human history; among the worst of these are attacks on children. It is easy to buy into the idea that what we have witnessed in the last decade is a worsening of mass violence in the US. But the reality is that it is no worse than it has ever been. In fact the worst single act of school violence in the US happened in 1929. “There is no pattern; there is no increase.” (James Alan Fox, Ph.D. The Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts) It seems like there is more because we have it clearly brought to us by the media, we see the horror and feel the loss and desire to take action.
It is also common to blame firearms for mass murder, but the worst American attacks have been by explosives or arson. The worst school massacre was by explosives at the hand of a school board member who lost the election. In fact gun violence has declined to about half the rate it was in the 1990’s. The violence against students dropped from 54 to 13 per 1000 during that period. At the same time there was a huge increase in gun ownership. Not only was there a general increase in gun ownership, but the increase in semiautomatic rifles has even had a greater increase.
How could we change gun laws to make society safer? We could rescind them and stop infringing on the right of our citizens to own and bear arms.
Gun laws that limit ownership do not make society safer. What these laws do is limit the good citizens’ right to self-protection; while the criminals and crazies don’t care if the gun they use is legal or not.
Likewise, Gun laws that prohibit private ownership of guns do not make society safer. They take away the good citizens’ right to self-protection; criminals and crazies don’t care if the gun they use is legal or not.
One of the arguments for disarming citizens is that in countries where guns are banned the murder rate is lower than in the United States. England is the most touted example. Gun ownership in England is practically forbidden and they have a lower gun murder rate than the US. However, the correlation of gun ownership is irrelevant because England had a lower murder rate than the US when both countries had no limits on gun ownership. In fact the murder rate was lower in England in the 1950’s before gun control, than it is now with complete gun control.
Australia recently passed draconian gun laws confiscating millions of guns from their citizens. Since disarming the populace, violent crime of all types, including murder has skyrocketed.
Switzerland, Israel, and Finland have very lenient gun laws (Switzerland actually requires each home to have and assault rifle), yet their murder rate by citizens is lower than that of the US.
Gun ownership is much higher in American smaller cities and towns and in rural areas, yet the murder rate is lower. Gun ownership is much lower in black communities than white communities, yet the murder rate is much higher among blacks, and almost all murders of blacks are committed by blacks; mostly young males killing each other.
In the US cities like New Orleans, Chicago, Washington DC, New York, and Los Angeles have strict gun laws, yet they are the most violent cities in the US, with the highest gun murder rates.
Instead of worrying about guns in the hands of responsible citizens we should be addressing how to identify and neutralize the threat posed by potentially violent people. We should first figure out how to prevent them from doing harm, then figure out how to reduce the pool of those with mental problems or other violent tendencies, and how to reduce their access to potential victims.
We should consider measures that will reduce potential damage that can be done in our schools by a nut with a backpack of homemade bombs, flammables, automatic weapons, a machete, or a steel bar. Once such a murderer is inside a “gun free” school and police are called, dozens of children can be heinously murdered.
Even if you have a policeman on the campus at all times, the criminal only has to have two minutes to massacre a roomful of children. It can take longer than that for a resource officer to identify where the problem is and respond. Because the terrorists in Israel aggressively targeted children they have trained and armed teachers, administrators, and other school workers. This means that the damage that can be done will be limited because response will be immediate and massive.
If there had been two concealed carry citizens in the crowed when Rep. Gifford was attacked, chances are good that many could have been saved. If the teacher and principle had been armed at Sandy Hook, there could have been many innocent lives spared. Guns in the hands of good people is a good thing. Guns in the hands of bad people is a bad thing. It is the bad people that need controlling, not guns.
In part two I will discuss how such a security plan could be properly established without creating chaos.
Thursday, December 6, 2012,
(WASHINGTON) —Old Saint Nick better think twice about downing the cookies and milk this Christmas. If not, the Obama administration may just have him banned (beating New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the punch, undoubtedly).
Well, perhaps not “banned,” literally. However it has become obvious where First Lady Michelle Obama stands on Ol’ Kris Kringle.
Speaking to reporters shortly before the White House’s annual Christmas Tree Lighting Thursday evening, Mrs. Obama declared Santa Claus one of the “chief promoters of diabetes and heart disease” in the United States, if not the world, saying the gift-givers’ obesity gives a “green light” for children to eat fattening foods like cookies, candy, and whole milk to their hearts’ content (and content).
“It’s time we ask ourselves: how many people would be alive today had they not believed in Santa Claus as children?” First Lady told reporters and attending school children on the White House’s Ellipse. “How healthy would Americans be today had they not accepted the example Santa has set for generations: that being overweight equals being jolly? …Really, how many people has Santa Claus killed?”
Obama added, “Santa Claus is a killer, no doubt. His example of ‘fat jolliness’ has helped lead millions to early deaths. It’s time we did away with his harmful example.”
National health organizations such as the America Heart Association and America Diabetes Association agree with Mrs. Obama, seconding her message that Claus’ weight is a top reason Americans have grown so comfortable growing over the years. “Mrs. Obama is right, Santa Claus is a deadly menace to us all, especially children,” said AHA President Gordon F. Tomaselli, PhD. “There is no ‘jolliness’ in being overweight, particularly when you’re eternally elderly, like Santa Claus. Let the children of today think about that…because imagining you’re old and fat is so easy for children ten years old and younger.”
Ordinary Americans are reacting to Mrs. Obama’s denouncing of Santa’s weight as well. Millions of e-mails have already flooded the White House (according to the White House), agreeing with Michelle Obama’s condemnation of Santa. Albany, New York resident Megan Neidsum said she is one of thousands of parents across America who does not want her children believing in Santa due to the negative perception his weight and Ho-Ho-Ho attitude promote. Nonetheless, says Neidsum, other classmates of “less concerned or enlightened guardians” still coerced her children to at least admire the 310-pound Claus; an attitude just as treacherous as actually believing Old St. Nick is real, according to the 39-year-old yoga pioneer and owner of All Bean-ee Yoga, the first yoga studio in Albany make its attendees eat a bowl of beans before each yoga class.
Said Neidsum to Duh Progressive, Thursday, “I tried my best, but my kids’ classmates still told them about Santa. We wanted Presley and Dawson not to believe in (Santa) precisely because of his weight. Now, if Santa was like a Ryan Gosling-looking Santa, then that’d be another thing —I’d still believe in him! He could visit me all he’d like in that case…visit me so hard and good!”
Television celebrities are also condemning the “deadly example” Mrs. Obama says Santa Claus has been setting throughout generations. The Learning Channel’s astute June Shannon, mother of the network’s “Honey Boo Boo” (from its show Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, to be seen…never) has also spoke out against Santa Claus, decrying his weight as the reason she and her daughter are total fat, trashy pieces of humanoid waste. Said a saddened Shannon, Thursday, “Like, my daughter an’ me lovzus some San’a Claus-n-all, but Amafraid her heart jus’ plodin’ up like a han’ grenade from all that fat food his weight an’ big ol’ red suit makes her wanna eat.”
For parents like Shannon and millions of others, First Lady Michelle Obama’s quest for them not to teach their children to believe in Santa due to his obesity is sound advice, even if it has come too late to prevent their kids from being unsightly obnoxious slobs. Added Mrs. Obama, Thursday, “Parents, if you must have your children believe in Santa —which you shouldn’t, if you can help it— please have them ‘help’ Santa this year by leaving out an apple or celery for him to eat, not milk and cookies.”
Sobbed a distraught June Shannon, cradling her daughter as she recovered from a routine bout of Iuvenis Narcissimus Futilitas, “Damn ol’ Santa Claus, keep thinkin’ he git away wit doin’ dis to our kids, keep leadin’ dem to diabese-n-all. Jus’ ain’t right, y’know? Goddern Santa be’s asbescain’ an’ trickin’ and akndndha, abudua a duh buh dee dbe my Honey Boo Boo aspghspha gaba yabba-dabba-do!”
NOTE: And to just think if Honey Boo Boo and her mother just had a bit more melanin in their skin, we’d be called racists for criticizing them. Damn you, Santa Claus!