Hmmm, let's see: New York mayor Mike Bloomberg decides that a particular capitalist excess is harming society, so he sets out to curb that excess -- and the industry he's attacked isn't happy:
At Movies and Beaches, Soda Industry Fights BackThe business forces resisting the ban got a couple of City Council members to publish an article in opposition to the ban at the Huffington Post. They're hoping for protests at an upcoming public hearing. They'd like to forestall the ban, or perhaps encourage the next mayor (who'll be elected in 2013) and City Council to weaken it.
Beachgoers who flocked to the Rockaways and Coney Island on the Fourth of July were able to wash down their hot dogs with any size sugary drinks they desired.
But an airborne banner carried above the city's beaches delivered a succinct message that those carefree days could be coming to an end: "NO DRINK 4 U."
The text-friendly banner, dragged by a tiny prop plane, came courtesy of New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a group created by the American soft-drink industry to fight Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's proposal to restrict sales of large sodas in New York City.
And some New Yorkers who spent the holiday indoors at movie theaters came across the same sentiment.
At a theater in Battery Park City, ushers, ticket-takers and concession workers wore industry T-shirts bearing the message, "I picked out my beverage all by myself." ...
In a very small way, this reminds me of Occupy Wall Street. A group of citizens decided that particular capitalist excesses had harmed society, so they sought a curb on those excesses. The attacked industry wasn't happy. But in that case, Mike Bloomberg sided with the attacked industry, and lashed out at the very idea of attacking business. Bloomberg accused the people denouncing the excesses of "trying to destroy the jobs of working people in this city" and asserted that financial -industry customers caused the problem, not capitalists. (I notice he's not attacking customers now.)
And prior to that, Bloomberg accused President Obama of engaging in "class warfare" for advocating the "Buffett rule," which would raise the taxes of the wealthy, especially wealthy people in the financial sector.
You're going after an industry and the industry is fighting back, Mike? And accusing you of trying to destroy its business? Welcome to our world. Too bad the last time you were on the other side.
4 comments:
After seeing this action going on here in NYC, I think I've finally figured out why "The Buffett Rule" is so unpopular all over the country:
They think it's 'The Buffet Rule," where they'll be forced by the evil gubmint to limit their trips to the buffet line to 3 or 4 - or, maybe even 2 - and knowing that Fascist Obama and his health-proponent bitch of a wife - 1.
GOD FORBID!!!
And the background music at all buffet's will be that polka, "I Don't Want Her, You Can Have Her - She's Too Fat For Me!" playing on an endless loop.
And the staff trained to observe, and, after a person has had 2 platefuls, if he/she goes for a 3rd helping, they crowd around the person and screams, "NO! Go back. You're TOO FAT!!! LEAVE NOW FATTY-FAT-FATTY!!!!!!! GO!!!!!!!!!!!"
And yes, I'm aware that it's fairly popular among us proles - but that would spoil the gag.
BTW - The South is full of "All-You-Can-Eat-Buffets."
I only knew of one or two Chinese places here in upstate NY.
Down there - name a food, and there's a buffet for it.
Ok, no Jewish or other European - but tons of Asian places, from Indian to Thai to Vietnamese, to the ubiquitous Chinese.
Oh, and tons of great Southern food ones, where you pick at a whole roasted pig, and tons of ribs, fried chicken, and other meats, and every veggie is cooked with fatback and/or butter.
Yum!
But even one trip to the line probably has as many calories, salt, and fat content as you'll need for a week - if not a month.
Southerners loves them some buffet!
We have buffets here in CA, from Kings' Table, which is pretty good stuff, to Chinese and the rare Mexican buffet, like Okie Frijole.
That soda reg was just stupid from the start. Really.
No wonder the Republicans talk about Nanny Government.
It almost seems like Bloomberg went for the most outrageously dumb "healthy reg" he could think of, to discredit the whole idea of government involvement in health policy, or to give more fuel to people to scream about "what's happening to our freedoms!" (It just seems absolutely bonkers to me that he'd come up with this. There's gotta be something else going on here.)
Post a Comment