Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Bloomberg and Soda 03 12 2013
Bloomberg and Soda
It wasn’t really up to the judge to take into account whether or not delivery men’s jobs would be lost. Those are jobs that require only a fifth grade education level. We don’t create jobs or sustain them when they are detrimental to the American Public.
The Judge ruled that Bloomberg acted capriciously and arbitrarily. Let’s examine what the ruling really meant.
Arbitrary: The Judge meant that soft drinks that included artificial or chemical based sweeteners should be banned. The Judge also meant that it should include beer in 16oz containers too! Beer readily turns into sugar in the bloodstream and the toxic effect on the pancreas of alcohol along with the overload of sugar is a more likely source of diabetes. The ban should also include $2 chuck. The judge knows that artificial sweeteners are bad too!
We are not trying to say those who aren’t as smart as the general population shouldn’t be able to work. Quite to the contrary, the manual laborer; such as a delivery truck driver is the heart of the American Work force. What should happen in cases like this is that opportunities in new areas open up for any worker displaced by this. That is progress and it makes for a healthier population. A healthy population is indeed a Conservative population because they are not creating a future liability to the taxpayer. I believe that the blue collar worker should have plenty of jobs and that the primary goal in creating such jobs is that their health and longevity should never be compromised. But more importantly their work should never compromise the health and longevity of the general population.
Bloomberg was strong enough to make the common sense, that is right- all it took after years of evidence and proof, the common sense to make this choice to protect the health of the lives of New Yorkers. Do not take my opinion on this issue to mean that I blindly or blanketely support all of Bloomberg’s initiatives; they must all be analyzed on an individual issue basis. We know those are bad for people’s health and makes them sick!!!! We know that!
Capricious: the second term that the judge used means an UNMOTIVATED CHANGE OF MIND. No this decision by Bloomberg was not unmotivated. Unlike the actions of many politicians Bloomberg explained his motivation quite clearly. An educated person has no concern with the validity or integrity of that motivation!!!! -Should that judge come under increased scrutiny? That question could turn out to have broader implications and scope.
Bloomberg’s good motive was for the health of the New York Public.
Nor was his motive impulsive either! He was hired to be the Mayor of New York and that action was greatly consistent with that duty. In fact it is one of the best actions a Mayor has taken in a long time. If the judge really meant to say that it was bold- that would be more accurate than the terminology that he used. It makes one wonder if judges accept money for their campaigns to election? How much more crooked can the judicial system get than that? He votes in favor of the Soft drink companies and then gets election money from them or at least a favor coupon. Do judges buy themselves favor coupons?
Summary: Bloomberg needs to strengthen his argument and scope. Then reassert. And if struck down appeal- if possible to a different judge?
New York women? A lot of them look like fat faced cows with distemper. It takes discipline to loser that weight and when it comes off the face gets thinner and the natural beauty they had as children returns to them. Bloomberg cares about you with regard to this issue. Any protest with regard to it would seem to not be with direct consideration as to the common sense motive of it.
When the judge used the word ARBITRARY he/she (?) meant that it did not include all it should and is therefore biased and subjective.
The question is, is Mayor Bloomberg strong enough to broaden the scope of the ban to make it less arbitrary and therefore more effective at reaching the stated intent of his goal?
Is the judge implying (with hidden knowledge and understanding) that $2 buck chuck and 16oz malt liquors are far worse for you? Should the judge be required to clarify his opinion with regard to such question? OF COURSE HE SHOULD! No judge should play the part of supercilious Kings Court. Judicial opinions require reflection and examined explanations in order to be fair. We have the right of understanding in this country!!!!!
And Bloomberg; preventing the poor from being able to afford alcohol is the best thing that you can do for them!!!! A novel I was forced to start to read in Catholic School about a child having to pass by a bum with a pliers, drunk on ripple, in a New York stairwell seems to be highly relevant.
What is Bloomberg, New York and the whole of the United States up against today? – The actions of men who do not believe that their children have the basis of hope to believe in themselves.
Off topic? Splitting the mind of a man with an IQ of ~134 in High School is like giving 134 people the Intelligence Quotient of 1. (Meaning the lesser number 1 and not the same IQ as the One!) It is really IQ deprivation!
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 03 12 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com