Tag: Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Posted on

geepers

Perhaps this is news to you.

 

I can’t always tell my son what to do.  I can’t.

 

Sure, sometimes I tell him, and perhaps, yeah, maybe, he means well.  He might even say “yes, madre,” but then he doesn’t follow through.  He has a mind of his own.  He has choices to make.  And perhaps this is even more news to the waiting, watching world:  sometimes he makes bad choices.

 

I’m sorry, but that’s the reality.  Sometimes my son — sometimes you and me — sometimes we make bad choices.  But thank God we’re allowed to make bad choices!  It’s my past bad choices that instrumentally influence my decisions now.  In wisdom we weigh outcomes, discerning cost, benefit, prudence, etc.  Bad choices are God’s way of allowing us to figure life out.  Thank God for bad choices.

 

But there are times we are undoubtedly uncomfortable with the bad choices of another…

 

Can we then force people to do what we want them to do?

Is it even appropriate to force people to do so?

 

There’s a lot of things I’d like to force…

 

… people to act maturely…

… partisans to get along…

… the Senate to finally pass a budget…  (geepers…  why in the world does our federal government not pass a budget these past 4 years?  … why is there this obvious, discouraging evasion of accountability?)

 

But yet, we continually attempt to mandate behavior…

 

… mandating drivers and passengers to each don their seat belt…

… mandating our teenage boys commit to what’s nothing less than basic, moral hygiene…

… but also mandating Americans buy medical insurance…

… and mandating New Yorkers don’t buy too big a soft drink…

 

Geepers.  What is ok to force people to do?

 

It seems to this semi-humble, casual observer that forced behavior must initially pass through the following conditions:

  1. Does the person in question possess the ability to make a rational decision?  And,
  2. Does the person’s decision negatively impact anyone else?

 

Hence, the Intramuralist is comfortable with the example of mandated car seats for infants, as the infant does not possess the ability to make a rational decision.  Equally true, the Intramuralist advocates the additional example of prosecuting drunk drivers; drunk driving puts other people on the road at risk.

 

But if the mandated behavior fits neither condition above, what is the logic behind the restriction?

 

… that we are incapable of making rational choices?

… that we wish to be a more socialist society?  (egad)

… or that government is both arrogant and naive — thinking they know best, that people are incapable, and forgetting the great teacher of negative consequences?

 

As said multiple times previously, “geepers.”  Let me add an affirmative “egad.”

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

16 ounces

Perhaps you’ve noticed the latest, looming crisis…

 

Via the Board of Health, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned the sale of sugary drinks over the size of 16 oz.  No pitchers.  No Ventis.  No accompanying 2 liter bottles.  But alas, on Monday — one day prior to the law going into effect — a state Supreme Court justice overturned the ban, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.”  As Huffington Post host, Mike Sacks, inferred the ruling, such is “law-speak for too stupid to be legal.”

 

(Talk about a new sugar high.)

 

First are the facts:

 

  • In September of 2012, NYC’s Board of Health voted unanimously in favor of the proposed regulations.
  • The restrictions were passionately supported by Mayor Bloomberg.
  • A 16-ounce limit was placed on sweetened bottled drinks and fountain beverages sold at NYC restaurants, bars, movie theaters, sports venues, and street carts.
  • The limit applied to beverages with more than 25 calories per 8 ounces.
  • Included in the regulations were sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, juice drinks, slushies and smoothies, among other beverages.
  • Excluded were alcohol and milk-based drinks.
  • The judge declared that the NYC’s Board of Health was only meant to intervene “when the City is facing eminent danger due to disease.”

 

Reacting to the ruling, Mayor Bloomberg said he disagreed with the court decision and cited his intent to appeal.  With a rising number of overweight and obese people, he said, “It is reasonable and responsible to draw a line.”

 

Ok, sorry, but the Intramuralist must pause and take a deep breath (… those deep breaths, uh, assist in articulating a respectful response…).

 

When I look at this sequence — and I do believe that the Mayor was attempting to do what he sincerely believes is honorable and right — I see one huge, glaring bottom line that makes this semi-humble current events observer cringe.  Follow me here; perhaps the discomfort will dissipate (… although I highly doubt it).

 

Bloomberg wants to ban large sugary drinks.  Understandable.  Excess sugar puts excess weight on excess people.  Excess isn’t all good.  Granted, pizza, chips, candy bars, milkshakes, etc. also contribute to “excess,” but none of the above were covered under New York’s regulations (hence, the “arbitrary” distinction).

 

But besides the arbitrary and thus inconsistent application of the regulations, there is a more significant cause for my discomfort.

 

Bloomberg wants to help the obese among us, yet in order to assist the obese, the assumption must also be made that people are incapable of controlling their consumption.  People are incapable of wise decision-making.

 

In other words, according to Bloomberg:  people cannot control their own choices.  Therefore, our ever-more-caring government will control their choices for them… We’ll take the big drinks away.  Under this line of thinking, if citizens are left to their own decision-making, they may make poor choices; thus, it’s government’s duty to protect citizens from themselves.  Government must keep the negative, “excess” consequences from ever occuring.  Government, my friends — according to Bloomberg — knows best.  Government knows better than the people.  Excuse me, but has government not realized that negative consequences are often the most effective actual deterrent to negative decision-making?

 

True, this regulation only regarded plus size soft drinks… but what will be next?  That’s the concern:  what will be next?  There is no way soft drinks are the end of the extent of government interference.  There is no way soft drinks are the end of the extent of government arrogance, believing they somehow know best.

 

What’s next?  Something bigger.  Something more.  Something more intrusive.  Something far more than 16 ounces.

 

Respectfully,

AR