Sunday, June 24, 2012

Note to Cambridge MA Mayor, Henrietta Davis

Look, I get it. You're trying to do the right thing by limiting the size of sugary drinks in your city. But, come on, lady, think about it here. Even leaving aside the civil liberties component of it (and the fact that people can still order 2-3 small sodas instead of a kinger), has it just not dawned on you that the Boston subway comes straight into Cambridge, and that people in Cambridge can utilize that subway to get whatever it is that they want over in bean town? I mean, I know that politicians never as a rule tend to consider beyond the first step and all but this one was kind of staring you right in the frigging face.

29 comments:

dmarks said...

Invasion of the Soda Nazis, who have opened up yet another beachhead on America's eastern seaboard.

w-dervish said...

What about your hero Bloomberg?

As for these "Soda Nazis"... I've never heard of them. Do they want to send people who buy sodas that are too large to the ovens?

Rational Nation USA said...

Well, we have had tobacco Nazis, fem-ma Nazis, and speech Nazis to name a few. Why not soda Nazis.

With statists growing in number by leaps and bounds I suppose we'll soon be having Nazi Fests all across the land.

Right wd?

Chuckling to self.

w-dervish said...

"Rational" Nation: With statists growing in number by leaps and bounds...

Wow! I hope you're right. If so that's very good news... because "statists" are people who oppose handing off control of our country to the wealthy elites.

But instead of the slur "statist", I prefer the more accurate term "patriot"... because they're fighting to save our democracy from the plutocrats and their dupes who wish to destroy it.

Rusty Shackelford said...

The nanny state at its best....DONT RUN WITH THOSE SIZZORS!!!

Rational Nation USA said...

Statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

Statist: an advocate of statism

Glad to see you know your terms so well wd.

Just shaking my head...

w-dervish said...

I wasn't talking about the dictionary definition, I was talking how people who agree politically with RN use it... as a slur against people to whom it does not apply.

For one, we have no government ownership of industry in the US.

I'd be shaking my head, but I already knew "Rational" Nation didn't know what a real statist was.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

RN is using the definition of statism in an intelligent and apt fashion.

It also meets a good part of the definition of fascism:

"often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Minus the dictatorship, of course. But the fact that it embraces a large part of the definition of fascism should be a warning that statism is not a defensible -ism or policy.

--------------

"W"D said: "For one, we have no government ownership of industry in the US."

We do, indeed. This is why 'privatization' is an issue. The industries that some want to privatize are in fact government-owned and controlled now.

(Note that I have taken up "W"D's habit of arbitrarily putting quotes around the first part of someone's name. It's addictive, isn't it?)

"W"D said: "But instead of the slur "statist", I prefer the more accurate term "patriot"... because they're fighting to save our democracy from the plutocrats and their dupes who wish to destroy it."

It's a strange definition of "patriot", when the patriots you speak of fight to destroy the Bill of Rights and concentrate more power in the hands of the most powerful.

You really have no idea about American history if you believe that the original Patriots fought to have the government strictly control free speech, and only allow what it deems was 'fair' or 'equal'.

w-dervish said...

damrks: It's a strange definition of "patriot", when the patriots you speak of fight to destroy the Bill of Rights and concentrate more power in the hands of the most powerful.

I'm not speaking of those "patriots". Those are the "patriots" (i.e. plutocrats) that you bow down to. I was referring to the patriots who think the people should have the power and not the wealthy elites.

dmarks: You really have no idea about American history if you believe that the original Patriots fought to have the government strictly control free speech, and only allow what it deems was 'fair' or 'equal'.

You really have no idea about American history if you believe the original Patriots fought to have corporatons and the wealthy have significany more free speech than the rest of us, and allow the wealthy elites to buy more "fairness" and/or "equality" for themselves. No idea at all.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: This is why 'privatization' is an issue. The industries that some want to privatize are in fact government-owned and controlled now.

The "some" you refer to are the wealthy elites. They want to screw the taxpayer by taking a service that is provided not-for-profit and make it for-profit.

You keep insisting that government workers should be poorly paid to keep the costs for the taxpayer down, but when it comes to profits for the wealthy elites... then you're gung-ho to screw them. What a hypocrite.

dmarks: Note that I have taken up "W"D's habit of arbitrarily putting quotes around the first part of someone's name.

It isn't "arbitrary". I put quotes around "Rational" because I don't think he is. Do you think I'm not "W"? If so, please explain what the hell that means. How am I not "W"?

dmarks said...

"W"D said; "You really have no idea about American history if you believe the original Patriots fought to have corporatons and the wealthy have significany more free speech than the rest of us"

Actually, I do have plenty of knowledge of it. I have read the First Amendment. It makes absolutely no exceptions to allow censorship of individuals who belong to organizations you don't like, or for some people having too much speech. Absolutely none.

You would need to have an amendment to abolish the First Amendment in order for the censorship you demand to be allowed at all.

"Those are the "patriots" (i.e. plutocrats) that you bow down to. "

Nope, not at all. You have no evidence of this. If George Soros or the Koch brothers say stuff I don't like, I ignore them, or even thumb my nose at them.

"The "some" you refer to are the wealthy elites"

Entirely untrue. The wealthy only represent a tiny fraction of those who favor privatization (turning control from government over to the people)

"You keep insisting that government workers should be poorly paid ..."

No, I have never said this. I have many times said that they should be fairly paid. Because wasting money on overpaying them degrades public services and impoverishes taxpyaers.

"If so, please explain what the hell that means. How am I not "W"?"

I give up. You are George W. Bush!

Rational Nation USA said...

wd - And you would be the one to determine rational?

LMFAO! Ya oughta be a stand up comedian in some hell hole Marxist third world country.

May I suggest Venezuela?

dmarks said...

And here are some facts on privatization. "W"D says only the wealthy favor it. There is no evidence to support his claim. Here is evidence to the contrary:

click here

"CNN Poll: Majority OK With Partial Privatization Of Social Security"

Jerry Critter said...

I think she is just trying to stimulate use of the subway.

dmarks said...

"....stimulate use of the subway...."

Is that what those kids are calling it now-a-days?

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...the First Amendment... makes absolutely no exceptions to allow censorship of individuals who belong to organizations you don't like...

The First Amendment makes no mention of organizations except for the press. Individals and the press are covered by the First Amendment. Organizations aren't covered.

And I don't believe any organization should be spending vast somes of money to influence our political system, including unions. So you're lying with this "you don't like" BS. I like unions.

dmarks: If George Soros or the Koch brothers say stuff I don't like, I ignore them, or even thumb my nose at them.

"Things go better with Koch". Don't you remember saying that? You've never "thumbed your nose" at the Koch brothers. You kiss their asses.

dmarks: privatization [is] turning control from government over to the people.

Privatization isn't turning "turning control from government over to the people", it's taking control away from the people and turning it over to the wealthy elites... and then shafting the people with a much larger bill (because, instead of the service being not-for-profit it now includes profits for the plutocrats you love).

dmarks: Because wasting money on overpaying them degrades public services and impoverishes taxpayers.

Paying public workers fairly isn't a waste. It strengthes the economy and results in higer wages for everyone. Underpaying public workers hurts the economy and impoverishes taxpayers (by lowering their wages).

Also, why are you agaisnt this "wasting" (which isn't "wasting" at all) but in favor of the real wasting of money that occurs under privatization?

dmarks: WD says only the wealthy favor [privatization].

I never said that, and I went back and checked my previous comments just to be sure. Obviously you did not. You just imagined I said it, and that was good enough for you. Some people think it's a good idea. But it's not. It's a bad idea.

dmarks: I give up. You are George W. Bush!

I'm not a war criminal. I've never been in a position where I had the opportunity to commit war crimes.

dmarks said...

WD said: "The First Amendment makes no mention of organizations except for the press. Individals and the press are covered by the First Amendment. Organizations aren't covered."

So are individuals who are members of organizations you don't like. Yet you demand again and again for them to be censored.

"And I don't believe any organization should be spending vast somes of money to influence our political system, including unions. So you're lying with this "you don't like" BS. I like unions."

The key weasel-words you use is "influence our political system". What this means is speaking out on political issues: the very heart of our First Amendment freedoms. You don't "believe" individuals should be able to speak out on political issues. You and the North Korean dictatorship have this in common.

""Things go better with Koch". Don't you remember saying that?

I do. I evaluate what they say based on their ideas, not their wealth. And since the pro-censorship crowd hates the Koch brothers so much, listening to them is a sort of act of patriotic rebellion.

"Privatization isn't turning "turning control from government over to the people""

This is exactly what is is.

"Paying public workers fairly isn't a waste."

I agree. Therefore, I oppose paying them more or less than the fair, real market value. I welcome you in supporting me on this.

"I'm not a war criminal."

You are one, exactly as much as George W. Bush is (haha) a "war criminal". Since you joke so much about Bush being one, what's so bad about it if someone jokes about you?

w-dervish said...

dmarks: So are individuals who are members of organizations you don't like. Yet you demand again and again for them to be censored.

I oppose individuals being censored. I also oppose special group free speech rights, as per the constitution. I support the First Amendment as written. You support the innacurate interpertation of the Robert's court.

dmarks: You don't "believe" individuals should be able to speak out on political issues.

You're wrong on this. I strongly believe individuals SHOULD be able to speak out, but they shouldn't be able to join groups and then gain more free speech rights above and beyond the free speech rights every other citizen possesses.

dmarks: And since the pro-censorship crowd hates the Koch brothers so much...

I'm not "pro-censorship", I'm pro First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to individuals and not organizations.

dmarks: This is exactly what is is.

That's exactly what it isn't.

dmarks: I agree. Therefore, I oppose paying them more or less than the fair, real market value. I welcome you in supporting me on this.

I welcome YOU in supporting ME. You previously said you opposed paying the "fair real market value". I'm glad to hear you reconsidered and now support Davis-Bacon.

dmarks: Since you joke so much about Bush being one, what's so bad about it if someone jokes about you?

I've never joked about this. bush needs to be tried at the Hague. Also, if hanging was good enough for Saddam... I wouldn't be opposed to bush facing the same justice. And I'm dead serious.

dmarks said...

WD said: "I oppose individuals being censored."

Yet, you support this! Again and again, even in the next sentence:

"I also oppose special group free speech rights, as per the constitution."

1) No group is even capable of speech. What you claim is 'group speech' is really the speech of individuals who belong to a group.

2) There is no 'as per the Constitution'. This special type of censorship is not in it.

"I support the First Amendment as written."

No, you don't. You have added many clauses to make individuals victims of censorship. I have counted 7 so far.

"You support the innacurate interpertation of the Robert's court."

No. I support the First Amendment as written.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Also, if hanging was good enough for Saddam... I wouldn't be opposed to bush facing the same justice. And I'm dead serious."

Now you come across as some sicko who wants a former President murdered.

dmarks said...

Finally, "You previously said you opposed paying the "fair real market value". I'm glad to hear you reconsidered and now support Davis-Bacon."

Davis-Bacon requires government to pay way much more than the fair value for a contract (which is lowest bidder). The waste results in bad roads, bad schools, and worse.

Fair, real market value is determined by an open bidding process in which the lowest bidder that meets the requirements of the job to be done wins. That is all.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, let's just say that I strongly disagree with Mr. Bloomberg on this particular issue.......And Jerry in fact may be on to something.

Jerry Critter said...

Limiting the size of a drink makes about as much sense as limiting the length of a cigarette.

dmarks said...

No one here idolizes the wealthy. We just don't choose to get all nasty and jealous and greedy because some earn more than us. There is a HUGE difference. And it is one of indifference: not hating nor idolizing them.

Please don't confuses a lack of obsessive hatred with 'idolizing'

w-dervish said...

dmarks: No one here idolizes the wealthy.

No, I suppose not, since none of us are actually "here". "Here" is, most likely, a server in California. Some people who post here do idolize the wealthy, however.

Nobody "here" gets "all nasy and jealous and greedy because some earn more" though. Those are slurs dmarks, Will, and Rusty use to slam those who acknowledge the serious problems our system being rigged in favor of the wealthy causes.

They attack these people because they like things the way they are... in fact they think the wealthy should have more and the poor should have less.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

277 people go from 0 to a billion. That would never, ever, happen in a rigged system. And tell all of those West Indian black, African, and Asian immigrants who come to this country and excel that THEY can't make because the system is rigged. I totally dare you.......And most poor people don't stay poor, wd. That is a myth. They are replaced by other poor people within a decade.

w-dervish said...

I only said it was rigged in FAVOR of them. I never said it was completely impossible for anyone to move into a higher class. You're twisting my words/lying to make your wealthy-idolizing case.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

If it was rigged in favor of them, then their income (the actual people in the top 1%'s) wouldn't have gone down 26% from 1996 to 2005. AND their share of the AGI wouldn't have gone down from 20% in 2008 to 16.9% in 2009. And I don't idolize anybody (save for maybe Greta Garbo and Montgomery Clift). That's just a paranoiac accusation by a bitter, unsuccessful momma's boy.