“Do what I say, if you know what’s good for you.” Who said this? a) John Gotti; b) your father; c) Mayor Bloomberg.
If you’re a real New Yorker, you know the answer is “c”.
First Bloomberg decreed no smoking in public places, and I was deliriously happy. I’d grown tired of restaurant confrontations. Just getting over a bad cough and cold one winter, I sipped my chicken soup in peace. A woman sat beside me at the restaurant counter, ordered coffee and began smoking.
When I politely asked her to stop, she refused and smiled “Nothing personal, but I enjoy a cigarette with my coffee.” When I smiled back and said that I enjoy flinging soup–”nothing personal”–she left in a huff.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said “The right to swing your fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” So does, I believe, the right to puff on a cigarette.
But it’s gone further. Bloomberg has moved on to decree that restaurants post calorie counts on each item, while totally banning trans-fats. Hmm, I guess that’s ok, with the obesity epidemic a drain on our health care system and all. And saving lives is a good thing, right?
These days, Mayor Mike seems to be taking the increasingly frequent “nanny state” accusations hurled against him as a badge of honor. He is now prodding the Feds to allow him to ban the purchase of soda and other sugary drinks with food stamps.
This proposal has drawn the ire of advocates for the poor, claiming discrimination. But hey, food stamps are paid for by our taxes, so don’t we have a right to insist they’re not used on nutritionally empty colas and such that contribute to obesity?
Now our nurturing Mayor wants to protect us from salt. New York City’s Health Department has launched a “voluntary” campaign aimed at dramatically cutting our salt content and “saving thousands of lives,” according to Health Commissioner Thomas Farley.
Salt is a necessary part of our diet, and its adverse effects are less clear than tobacco or sugary drinks. Nonetheless, the city is plastering subway stations with ads targeting soup as the top offender. The campaign costs $370,000, $130,000 of which comes from city taxpayers.
This is starting to make me twitchy. I’m having nightmares of a future where city cops drag me off my couch while I’m watching Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives, confiscate my corned beef sandwich and demand I get off my butt and run for three miles.
Ridiculous? I guess. But the thought of our city government using our money for scare tactics about chicken soup instead of leaving us to consult with our doctors and make our own decisions seemed equally ridiculous not long ago.
The irony is, Mayor Bloomberg has admitted his tendency to salt everything in sight, as well as a weakness for junk food. He regularly eats pizza, hot dogs and Big Macs in public, with a particular love for Cheez-Its. If I see him with a bag, can I snatch it from his hand “for his own good?”
And this double standard doesn’t just apply to “bad for you” products. Bloomberg recently dodged the city’s two-term limit law, using political muscle to get around it. Now that he’s in his third term, Bloomberg is solidly declaring his support for two term limits. Do as I say, not as I do, Mike?
All I know is, Mommy Mayor’s next step better not be targeting my goopy, delicious Dunkin’ Boston Creme. If Bloomberg dares try that, to paraphrase the late Charleton Heston, he’ll have to pry that donut from my dead, sticky fingers.
Good for Bloomie! Obesity costs us (the tax payers) millions of dollars (billions?) in providing medical care, disability and unemployment. Obesity is now a plague throughout the USA. If obese people don’t give a damn or are uninformed of the cause, it is wonderful that New York has a politician that is looking out for their welfare and at the same time for the welfare of their pocket books. I wish other mayors and governors would follow his example throughout the country.
As for do as I say rather than do as I do, I am sure that your examples of his eating habits are exaggerations of his usual diet. Indulging in a treat occasionally is OK for everyone. Just look at the mayor. Does he look like he does not follow what he preaches? His physique looks pretty good to me. Too bad we do not have his recommendations followed here in Georgia. Be happy that your Mayor Bloomberg is in the forefront of providing good nutrition to his citizens. It is best for all of you.
I don’t suppose the Mayor would consider legalizing pot. It would go a long way in reducing a major cause of obesity and heart disease. STRESS!
I very much enjoyed your post on Krugman’s blog.
Alfie:
Thank you. I always welcome new subscribers to my blog as well (lower right hand corner of blog, Entries RSS) hope you will become a regular reader and look forward to your comments.
Cordially,
Mike Vogel
It’s pretty clear, from the chronology you give, that we are on a very slippery slope here. First you start off with something most people are happy about, smoke-free restaurants. Nice result, but, oops, we just gave away the right of a business proprietor to run his business the way he sees fit. Next, you ban the purchase of what you deem to be unhealthy food with food stamps. Personally, I have no problem with that one, since it is taxpayer money and it shouldn’t be used to promote unhealthy behavior. What people do with their own money, however, is nobody else’s business. Next, we force restaurants to post calorie content. Again, nice result, but they’re chipping away at restaurant owner’s rights in the name of the food police
Now, we’ve gotten to a “voluntary” campaign to reduce salt intake. Why do I suspect that some government coercion is slightly down the road?
By the way, all this from our nanny mayor who cheers on his daughter while she pursues her hobby of show horse riding which has resulted in broken bones, multiple concussions and spinal injuries. Isn’t that a bit more dangerous than a salty bowl of soup?
Yet not a peep from him about banning that dangerous sport. I agree that it shouldn’t be banned. People should be free to pick their own poisons. It just seems some politicians like making that choice for you.
Reply to Alec:
You agree with what Bloomie installed…yet you disagree with the concept because of your poor reasoning. Everyone benefits from these changes.
As for comparing salt intake to horse back riding…please! How many people does each of these affect? Also, I am surprised that you do not link football, polo, and so many other “dangerous” sports with your horse back riding. Puhleeze!
Michael, it sounds like you’d enjoy living in a dictatorship where the government decides what is good for the people. Dangerous idea. A quick reading of history will show you that. In this country, it’s We, the people, who are the sovereign, not the government. Tempting as it might be to have a benevolent dictator tell us what is good for us, I’ll put my trust in the wisdom of the people to run their own lives. Hate to disillusion you, but there are no gods walking the earth, just us fallible mortals, including the great Bloomberg.
Sorry Alec but you are promoting a society without leadership or a governing body. That was in the cave man era.
Right for all the wrong reasons;
While I agree with the post that the mayor shouldn’t oversee such areas of our lives under the nanny-like characterization, the author overlooks an even broader implication of direct government wellness control. Over-crowdedness! Once again, the author’s short-sighted, thinly veiled left-of-center, tip-toe through the tulips approach excludes an even broader meaning of the mayor’s intrusiveness.
Mike Bloomberg would have people eating healthy, refrain from smoking and riding their bikes (and who among us has not experienced a fatal near miss on the avenues), thus prolonging lives and compelling them to be more active as a result of their mayoral-imposed wellness regimen. The obvious result, and the crucial one overlooked by the rant-driven author, will be longer movie lines, longer waits at restaurants, less taxis available (allowing for fare hikes), higher prices on theater and concert tickets (as a result of greater demands) and the closing of more New York City Hospitals (simply because of declining need). People in poor health will stay home! Order in, shop on-line, watch porn or ramble on the phone ’till all hours!
I could go on. But, the bottom line equation is simple: increased mortality=declining life quality. Would the author dare to examine other motivations behind Mayor Mike’s initiatives? I challenge him to consider just a few possibilities: Does Hizzhonor have investments in Broadway shows, vegan restaurants or rollerblades? More people, more votes? Do happier, healthier people tend to oppose term limits? Why hasn’t Mike Vogel explored this crucial line of thinking? Does he like waiting two months for a table at Per Se’? Does he enjoy arriving 45 minutes before a movie in order to get two seats together? Was that him who nearly ran me down on Broadway and 47th?
Mr. Vogel, your insight is as constraining as those awful bicycle pants you were wearing in a feeble attempt to silence this respondent.
Reply to Peter:
You are condemning the mayor for his life increasing policies and for reducing medical costs? Of course this must be a tongue-in-cheek response. C’mon Peter. This is not a joking matter. Many folks see things the way Mike and Alec do. Mike is doing a good job opening up these issues.
Nun-ny is a more apt description. Like the mayor, nuns never know when to stop telling you what’s good for you.