Bloomberg and Soda: The Prevailing Nanny-State Cultures in America's Largest Cities

Mayor Mike Bloomberg recently hit headlines, not for his continuing fight against tobacco use, but this time against soda consumption in New York City's restaurants and eateries. To those who follow politics, this really isn't much of a surprise since New York has banned many things in its recent history, such has handguns, cigarette smoking in restaurants (Bloomberg has banned smoking in parks and beaches, too), and trans fats. Now Bloomberg is pursuing banning baby formula in hospitals and limiting the size of sodas that can be served in restaurants and eateries. I have long said the worst thing about such laws is that, while they are made with good intentions, once afforded the opportunity the people in power rarely stop at passing just one law. Just as New York and cigarettes, they were banned in just bars and now the parks and beaches all around the city. Trans fats have since been banned, drawing the ire of gourmet cooking establishments in the city.  Now soda consumption is on the chopping block. Where does it end? After this cap on serving size, will it stop there? A look at Bloomberg's dogged attack on tobacco products says no. That is the fine line you walk when you invite the government into your personal lives (the act of inviting it might not even be due to activism, but due to inaction as well), and as we will see with Chicago and Los Angeles, it seemingly doesn't end with just New York.

The City of Chicago frequently gets cited in this debate due to its gun ban, which was struck down by the nation's highest court in 2010. The Supreme Court had analyzed the near ten year long ban, as noted in the Huffington Post:

Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City's handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.

Mayor Daley of Chicago remained defiant following the ban removal and vowed to restrict handgun ownership in the city. The actual success of such bans notwithstanding, this isn't the first time Chicago has flirted with such "nanny state" laws.  In 2005, they passed a law banning smoking in nearly everywhere indoors in the city, and have had a long standing window tint law that has been very frustrating for commuters and tourists. The window tint law in itself stemmed from good intentions, it was a result of a police officer being killed by gunmen inside a heavily tinted car. But there are so many things wrong with such a mentality of completely banning something just because of one violent act. Chicago too, joined the call of some animal rights groups by banning Foie Gras. After being constantly lampooned and defiantly called-out on the law however, it was repealed in 2008 and subsequently replaced with a ban on plastic bags that same year. Also in 2008, the city absurdly dabbled with the idea of banning tiny plastic bags frequently used by drug dealers for pushing their wares.  You get the point. I think when, as a city council, you actually believe that not allowing drug dealers access to smaller plastic bags will have any affect on the drug trade, you really need to take a step back and not only re-evaluate your policies, but also your sanity and understanding of human nature and markets. But, there is more. As we move westward across the United States, we can see what our friends in Los Angeles have enacted in recent years.

California has a long history of being a first-mover on perceived health and safety issues, so it is no surprise that Los Angeles willingly passes a host of its own laws to that goal as well. The State of California jumped on the trans-fats ban bandwagon and Los Angeles took this fight against unhealthy food one step further, actually placing a moratorium on fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. Now you can say that, the New York Soda Ban impacts all businesses equally so it isn't that invasive, but now we have a ban in place that the local government is openly controlling the market and pushing towards one type of business, with favoritism in this case to eateries that are deemed "healthy." This is dangerous as, what is considered healthy now? What is the next edict going to touch upon? No more red meat? Death to carbs? Lawmakers will abuse their power and force their will so long as you let them and I think that is a sound observation to take from this post. But LA isn't only about healthy food, they are tinkering with the idea of banning pet sales in pet stores (what?) and plastic bags and styrofoam cups too, were earlier bans.

A major gripe I have with some of these bans isn't that every single one is chipping away at the foundation of our dear republic or anything dramatic like that, but that these cities are dealing with a host of other issues already.  NYC is still conducting a stop-and-frisk law which is largely unpopular, blatantly unconstitutional, and currently allows any police officer to literally stop-and-frisk anyone they deem suspicious. As we know the NYPD has had its fare share of scandals and as well as the CPD and LAPD.  Point is, these cities have better things to do than to be playing nanny to their denizens. Real problems that require sound oversight, like the budgetary concerns they all face, not dictating where you can smoke or what you can eat or how much soda you can drink.

In closing, I feel a large amount of Americans are now stuck in the middle between two segments of the population, card carrying Republicans and Democrats, who both argue for large government, in just different ways (and in some cases, completely unbeknownst to them). On the left, we have the aforementioned cities as great examples, which feature bans on foie gras, handguns, cigarettes, plastic bags, fast food, soda, and much more. But on the right, as I have mentioned in my previous two posts, we are now being pushed to large government, but on the issues of gay rights, abortion, religion in school, and further prohibition of drugs on state and federal levels. Regardless of the rhetoric one may spin in regards to defending either of these platforms, we are essentially being told how to live and what to do with our lives to an absurd extent when we have much more dire issues to tackle. What happened to freedom in America?  Essentially we have two groups on far ends of the political spectrum, each pushing for mandates based on their moral views, leaving us in the middle standing on ground that is quickly eroding beneath us, like a sand castle stubbornly resisting the rising tide.

The problem is that we see many of these issues, such as soda restrictions or smoking as issues that do not necessarily affect everyone, so one might think it is just fine to support a ban on such things since you aren't the one directly affected by it, but I think the facts in this post show that sooner or later, they will ban something that will affect you and one will ask, how did it come to this? Any affront to personal freedoms should be resisted fiercely, just on principal, regardless of our personal opinion of the act in question. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in her biography of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  In the face of such big-brother mentality, I think it is best to cite the wisdom of one of our favorite Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, as noted on his famous Fugio Cent:

Let's stop telling people how to live their lives,  hold ourselves accountable for our own problems, and get back to what makes America great, freedom and more importantly, freedom of choice. You know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that.


References:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57478622-10391704/research-finds-nyc-soda-ban-would-cut-63-calories-per-fast-food-trip-would-that-have-any-impact/
http://www.khou.com/news/health/NYCs-plan-to-ban-baby-formula-in-hospitals-164420306.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-usa-newyork-bloomberg-idUSBRE87F0CP20120816
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/02/03/nyc_smoking_ban_extended_to_parks/
http://gothamist.com/2006/12/05/health_departme.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/nyregion/03smoking.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-28/justice/us.scotus.handgun.ban_1_justices-two-years-gun-control-justices-john-paul-stevens?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/chicago-gun-ban-axed-afte_n_627773.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0701/Chicago-to-allow-handgun-ownership-under-revised-gun-law
http://www.wbez.org/story/news/local/chicago-smoking-ban-takes-effect-january-16
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/04/04/court-battle-brews-over-tinted-car-window-laws/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras_controversy
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d5_1343348937&comments=1
http://www.chitowndailynews.org/2008/05/07/Recycling-advocates-pan-city-s-plastic-bag-law-14602.html
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/drugs/TV4SF4HJ4BG22H30P
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16fastfood.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/09/03/us-fastfood-losangeles-idUKN0343855220080903
http://www.examiner.com/article/los-angeles-ordinance-proposes-banning-pet-sales-at-pet-stores
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2461615/Los-Angeles-bans-new-fast-food-outlets-and-California-outlaws-trans-fats.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department_corruption_and_misconduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugio_Cent

Middle 30 (Ambivalently) Supports Chick-Fil-A

Dear Chick-Fil-A,

I don’t care. Please make me a sandwich.

Love,

Middle 30

P.S. This does not mean I agree with your position on gay marriage. This does not mean I’m happy that a percentage of the $3.26 will be donated to groups that fight gay marriage. It just means I’m hungry for a chicken sandwich and you make a delightful one (the two pickles are an especially nice touch) at a reasonable price, and deliver it to me at the counter before I can sit down. I understand that there is more to Chick-Fil-A than politics, just like there is more to me than my own ideology. I don’t agree with all my friends’ politics, but I still enjoy their company.

So yes Chick-Fil-A, we can still hang out. But please don’t take my tacit consent as permission to throw it in my face.  Don’t start refusing service to folks because they’re gay. Don’t employ your anti-gay stance as an advertising technique. Don’t actively attempt to profit off the “controversy.” Because if you do, we might be headed to splits-ville. Just ask my ex-girlfriend Race for the Cure.

All you did was answer a question honestly. There’s nothing wrong with that. All the media coverage, the protests, the protests-of-the-protests and other exposure has been organized by non-affiliates. You haven’t used the situation to publicize or promote, though I’m sure you enjoyed the profit margins on that Appreciation Day. I might disagree, but at least I know where you stand. That’s more I can say for hundreds of others that see my business.

So keep that chicken fryin’, that diet lemonade flowin’, and your politics buried on your balance sheets and in your boardroom. I know you're busy Sunday, but let's hang out soon.

Has the Republican Party Become the Abortion Party?

During a discussion about politics with a friend, it was mentioned that the Republican Party has become the Abortion Party. My friend was not joking, he implied that it truly seems so considering all the legislation on the state level, along with the focus on social issues during the Republican Primaries earlier this year. With just the limited facts presented, begrudgingly I agreed. But is that really the case? Here I will examine the issue in depth, looking at the many state laws that have been passed recently as well as comments made by Republican presidential candidates.

I remember, just after the fiscal collapse of 2008, it seemed that the battle cry for every candidate on the state and federal levels was "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" We heard this from state representatives, to governors, to senators and representatives in our nation's capitol. To quote a Dallas Morning News article from September 24, 2010:

"In the legislative blueprint that Republicans hope will serve as a road map to winning control of the House, they declared their two highest priorities to be creating jobs and stopping "out-of-control spending" by the federal government."

Also mentioned in that article is a quote from none other than John Boehner, then just the House Minority Leader, "To create jobs, we need to end the uncertainty for job creators and the spending spree in Washington." Quite bluntly, jobs were the priority and in the wake of the recession, the Republicans used this emphasis on jobs to regain a majority in the House. However, this focus on jobs was used on the state level too, as the Republicans would pick up 675 state legislative seats by November 2010 alone, essentially a landslide. In my home state of Texas, Republicans picked up 23 seats alone. Needless to say 2010 was a massively successful election year for the Republican Party and my expectations were that the focus would actually be on jobs and the economy, as well as limiting spending. But as the evidence will show, it just wasn't the case.

2011 was quite the busy year politically. It seems that the Republicans came out of the gate swinging, not at the economic issues however, but the abortion and reproductive rights issues. Cited in a Reuters article, almost 40 laws were passed in 15 states in regards to women's reproductive issues since 2011.  You may remember some of these. We have the abortion law in Mississippi that essentially attempted to close the state's lone abortion clinic. Then, there is Arizona with its ban on late-term abortions, one that has faced intense scrutiny on the national level (it has recently been blocked by a federal appeals court).  According to NPR, 2011 was a near-record year for abortion laws in the United States.

Why the focus on abortions? Where is the focus on jobs and the economy? Here in Texas, our state legislature too, passed a reproductive rights law that has drawn much scrutiny, Governor Perry's sonogram law. I have a personal issue with this one. Rick Perry is into his third term now and long have I heard him often speak of small government, keeping taxes low and not burdening small businesses or citizen with restrictions. Honestly, I think for the most part, he has done a decent job as governor. We did get some tort reform here in Texas, which I think is sorely needed on a federal level and he did have the foresight to fund a desalinization plant, something many states talk about, but few have actually implemented. Considering the drought currently plaguing our nation, I think the water issue is quite important, but I digress.

I just find it insanely ironic that someone who is so outspoken and devoted to the cause of small government can actually implement a law telling people what to do with their bodies. That is the problem with most of these new abortion/reproductive rights laws, they are mainly being passed by small government republicans, yet these laws infringe upon the rights of American women in regards of what to do with their bodies. Don't believe me? I have already mentioned Texas, Mississippi, and Arizona, the other states that have touched on this issue since 2011 are: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The irony of the situation is further compounded that many of these men who have pushed the abortion and reproductive rights laws through have also been very defiant towards the Health care Mandate, with Governor Walker of Wisconsin and Rick Perry of Texas serving as two great examples. Rick Perry summarizes his views fairly well while in a Town Hall session during attempt to secure the Republican Party's presidential nomination last year. So the health care mandate is unconstitutional, but forcing government between the doctor patient relationship for the sake of abortion, isn't? That is probably what irks me the most. I understand the arguments against Obama care. Socialized medicine, unconstitutional, government getting in the way of the doctor-patient relationship, etc. We have all heard those many times from many different detractors of the health care bill. While those arguments are valid, they all lose their credibility when these same people like Governor Rick Perry pass a sonogram law that not only forces government into the cherished doctor-patient relationship, but also pushes costs to the doctors, patients, and insurance companies as well for these required sonograms.

Texas is not alone in this hypocrisy. The cherry on the sundae is that many of the states that challenged Obama care in court, chiding the federal government for over-stepping their bounds, are also the same states that have pushed for more restrictive abortion laws! They are: (28 states total challenged Obamacare/PPACA, while 26 doing so in a joint action): Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. Nearly every single state that passed an abortion or reproductive rights law post-2010 elections also filed suit to the federal government challenging Obamacare.

Just more hypocrisy when it comes to the "small government" arguments made by many Republicans today. All for small government with the exception of our views on religion and social issues, which we will gladly push upon you! I believe such contradictions are what is truly killing the Republican Party. As I mentioned in my previous post, instead of hammering the Democrats on the economy, we are now still talking about social issues, which at the end of the day legislating for or against them do not help to solve our looming budget crisis, our deficit, cure our ailing economy, rectify social security, and a host of other issues I am sure you can think of. It makes you wonder had all this effort been spent on working together to fix this economy and to make the United States more competitive, instead of on abortion, how things could be different right now...instead of being stuck in the quagmire that is our current economy.



References:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/20/as-santorum-seizes-social-issues-romney-demurs/
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/washington/20100924-GOP-still-has-sales-job-ahead-7742.ece
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111302389.html?sid=ST2010111400091
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/19/usa-abortion-idINL2E8IIHRL20120719
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-01/news/sns-rt-us-usa-abortion-arizonabre8701l8-20120801_1_late-term-abortion-total-abortions-republican-governor-jan-brewer
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/19/145465011/new-restrictions-on-abortion-almost-tied-record-last-year
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/07/02/20120702arizona-abortion-fetal-defect-cases.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/politics/texas.abortion.sonogram_1_sonogram-procedure-abortion?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/09/perrys-texas-involved-in-texans-lives/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68392.html
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/tort-reform-has-had-just-the-impact-we-2417411.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-01-drinking-sea-water_N.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/gov-scott-walker-for-wisconsin-obamacare-not-a-remedy/article_a9fdb33c-cd2b-11e1-9e0b-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP7gI842cUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTmQsWrQkEw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius


Next Up: I will examine Mayor Bloomberg's recent Soda Ban as well as investigate other such edicts being dubbed as "Nanny State" laws becoming prevalent in America's largest cities.

Representative Kelly's Remarks Portray What is Wrong With The Republican Party

As someone who leans center-right, I have voted Republican for most of my life. However, over the past few years I have seen a transition in this political party, shifting focus from the emphasis on small government, to now emphasizing the importance of social issues (birth control, abortion, gay rights, etc.) in our daily lives. This has always served as quite the quandary to me, since I believe you cannot pursue "small" government all the while advocating for "big" government, but I digress. The comments (via NBC News) made by freshman House Republican Mike Kelly, PA, highlight the increasing devotion to these social issues by the Republican Party. On August 1, Representative Kelly said,

"I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that's Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that's the day of the terrorist attack, I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates."

Now, that is quite the statement. So not only does Mr. Kelly insinuate that the Contraceptive Mandate is as dire a situation as the country faced on the days of September 11th or Pearl Harbor (just for reference, Antietam still holds as the bloodiest day on American soil), but he is arguing rather ignorantly, that it infringes upon the religious freedoms of Americans everywhere, guaranteed by the First Amendment of our constitution.  To say it bluntly, it is childish hyperbole to an absurd extent. The crux of Kelly's argument is that, by forcing religious institutions to provide birth control to their employees infringes upon their religious views. He and many others backing him (Rick Santorum), keep citing the First Amendment. I find it ironic in that from my point of view if you did allow religious organizations exceptions on this issue, it would actually violate the First Amendment in two ways:

1. These employers could then dictate their religious views to their employees by tailoring coverage to those views, thus infringing upon the First Amendment rights of their employees.
2. Just the nature of creating an exception for religious entities in my mind does violate the First Amendment, as it says quite plainly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion."

Now, one could argue that merely saying they have to provide this coverage is infringing on their rights. I think we can say it does not. No one is making these administrators, priests, etc., who run these organizations to take contraceptives. They just has to be offered to their employees and obviously no one is making their employees take birth control either.

My opinion of the entire Health Care Mandate not withstanding, the law was upheld by the Supreme Court and is on the books. Now allowing religious institutions to possibly carve out exceptions in their provided health care coverage as I have already mentioned is unconstitutional, but pushes us onto a slippery slope, as does almost anything when it comes to religion in this country. Studying history and religion my entire life, I find it to be a fair observation that people are in general, just simply less tolerant of other peoples' religious views. What do I mean by that? More often than not, when I see a push for more religion into our lives, but usually it is for only one type, Christianity. Then the same person or group advocating for the push is offended when other faiths step up for inclusion as well. Case and point, Louisiana's voucher program and State Representative Valarie Hodges, LA. So Rep. Hodges was in support of Governor Bobby Jindal's voucher program, but thought "religious" meant Christian in terms of what schools could obtain the funding. After finding out the finding could go to institutions of other faiths, she withdrew her support, with some reminding her just what religious freedom is all about.

Now let me ask, what do you think the reaction would be in this country if we had other religious organizations (most of the rancor about the birth control mandate is coming from the Catholic Church) step forward and stating that they too will structure their coverage around their beliefs? We all know the reaction around this country if an Islamic entity were to do so, people would be screaming "Sharia Law!" from the mountaintops and just like, Rep. Valarie Hodges, would show their blatant hypocrisy towards the First Amendment and freedom of religion in this country.

To wrap this all up, the Republican Party needs to focus their message on getting back to small government and not these social issues and not just small government with the exception of one's religious beliefs, either. It has once again dredged up the issue of birth control, in a presidential election year no less, further alienating more women and moderate voters who could vote for Romney in November. I find the great thing about this country is that not only was it founded by people escaping religious persecution, but we are free to worship whatever religion we wish, as often as we wish, as we wish. Let's not allow religious employers to dictate otherwise.

As far as Mr. Kelly goes, he not only needs to be shouted down from people on both sides (Sen. Inouye from Hawaii, a Pearl Harbor survivor and WW2 veteran has already provided his remarks), in comparing the contraception mandate to two of our darkest days in history that also brought the United States into further conflicts and loss of life, but he needs to apologize and resign. No, that isn't an exaggeration, it is based off the fact that Mr. Kelly does not understand the First Amendment and he also has no qualms in violating the Congressional Oath of Office, mainly, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." What good is taking an oath if you aren't held to it? Yes, we all know he won't resign and he has yet to apologize either; so it is going to require that he be voted out. We are looking at you, citizens of Pennsylvania District 3.

References:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/01/13070876-republican-likens-contraceptive-mandate-to-pearl-harbor-911?lite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Kelly_(Pennsylvania)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fact-checking-free-birth-control-day/story?id=16900144#.UBlqADGe7fu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valarie_Hodges
http://m.livingstonparishnews.com/mobile/news/article_6c2da5fe-c1e5-11e1-ae3b-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2012/07/louisiana_lawmaker_needs_lesso.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Federal_Executive_and_Legislative_Branch_Oaths
http://dc808.blogs.civilbeat.com/post/28509942096/inouye-linking-health-mandate-pearl-harbor-complete


Next up: I will continue to discuss the Republican Party and its current devotion to social issues, with a focus on Abortion.

What is the Middle Thirty?

What is the Middle Thirty? As someone who has had an interest in politics their entire life, I have found that our current two-party system does not adequately represent the views of a good portion of the voting public: the middle thirty percent. The same middle thirty percent of the population that helps to decide elections by serving as swing votes in crucial years (2000 and 2006 are good years for reference), the same middle thirty percent that are often labelled as Libertarians or Moderates in today's political spectrum.

This blog is just a small attempt to discuss all things political from a moderate point of view. Ideally a point of view that is rooted in facts, devoid of any adherence to tradition or superstition for the sake of it.  Nothing will be taboo here, nothing off limits. Only by willingness to discuss any issue, regardless of one's emotional connection to the topic, can this country advance and progress.