The Nannies Of New York
As a former resident of upstate New York, I can attest to a commonly held view in that region. Many people in areas well away from New York City were, and likely still are, pretty sure that most politicians and government officials from the city were out of their ever-loving minds. (One pleasant exception was Rudy Giuilani, but that's another discussion). It was a source of endless amusement when some of the NYC politicians or bureaucrats spoke out on various issues. This time, though, the bureaucrats in New York City have topped themselves. They are proposing a ban on Trans Fats.
NEW YORK (AP) — Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.
The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.
Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.
Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.
"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.
He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.
The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts.
Welcome to the nanny state writ large. There will be much shaking of heads in upstate New York today.
By Nate, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 8:27 am
We must have lived in different parts of the state, since as a former Upstate New Yorker, I can say this: We did not think too much about the City unless they are planning their child’s’ Eighth Grade field trip.
I was right from the “Heart of New York” and that is how we thought of things. We thought we were the center of things. We thought about milking our cows, driving our trucks, and getting our kids to school.
The City was something else, outside of our experience or our day to day. You knew someone who knew someone who lived there. But for the most part it did not play into our everyday lives. So, we didn’t pay much attention to its policies or laws. We paid more attention to what came out of Albany.
I know, though, your version made for a much better story; where the common folk get to ridicule East Coast Liberal Elites.
I tell you what; I will give my folks a call later and ask them about all of the head shaking. I bet there was some, but none of it caused by this recommendation.
As for the topic at hand, much like the ban on smoking, I think that I am against this policy. Let the consumer decide, let the Invisible Hand guide.
By syn, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 9:18 am
There’s other life forms outside NYC? Who knew.
Given that I reside in Manhattan I now understand just how provencial is this city life, especially if one doesn’t have a car.
Before I knew anything about real life I admit I voted for Bloomberg first time around simply on the basis that he appeared to be an extension of Guilliani. I didn’t vote for him the second time though.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 9:25 am
Yes, Nate, different communities and areas are different. But I can assure you, I knew a lot of folks who would read about something from NYC or hear about it on the news and would discuss it. Usually not in flattering terms.
By Nate, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 10:00 am
Gaius,
Thank you for pointing that out.
My point remains: Your introduction was needless. You brought up irrelevant facts about irrelevant parties. You dragged Upstaters into this just to dress up a needless swipe at the City, and praise Giuliani; it seemed tacked on and pointless. It didn’t further your argument or gave it more legitimacy. And neither did my circumlocutory response.
It is a bad recommendation and would make a poor policy. Why not just directly state that?
By Gaius, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 10:04 am
Ah, so your point is that I should only write in a style and manner you personally approve of.
Tell you what, get your own blog and write however you please.
By Nate, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 10:09 am
I said nothing of your style or manner. It was all about the content. My point is that you should avoid red herrings.
By Eric Blair, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Actually, I think this is cool.
Bring back Lard and butter.
Maybe I can get my McDonald’s Fries fried in beef tallow again. (I do not care a whit for anybody’s superstitious dietary laws).
By Dan, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Gaius,
Why is it that anytime someone criticizes you your response is, “get your own blog”?
By Gaius, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Dan, why do you complain about everything I write?
By Dan, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 2:10 pm
because i don’t agree with most of what you write. Quid pro quo, Clarice. You answer my question now.
By Dan, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 2:14 pm
By the way, your fatalism is just not fair. We agreed the other day about Ned Lamont, didn’t we?
By BubbaB, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 3:48 pm
People, please, let the man speak how he wants to on his blog!!
I think the addition of personal details (hmm… An element of style, I believe) and using those details to tie together and “make relevant” a story (another element of style) is quite endearing. As I said before, I like bloggers because he takes the time to sift out the chaff in the information. I like Gaius because he does it in a style and manner that is entertaining.
Real life experience does apply. Gaius has real life experience, and I am more apt to believe him than a more anonymous commenter. I can also empathize with the characterization (if not the “character”) of himself that he presents. I have been there - I have shaken my head at the stupid laws that have come out of our cities and out of Washington.
Instead of just presenting the information, Gaius puts his own unique signature on it. That is his “style”. By complaining about that, Nate stepped into the realm of “opinion”, versus fact. Yes, believe it or not, a conservative blog will have anecdotes and personal stories showing the idiocy of liberal ideology, as I am sure is true for liberal blogs.
It is ironic, Nate, that you argued that point by bringing up your OWN personal experiences, isn’t it?
—BubbaB
By Gaius, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Thank you, Bubba.
By Dan, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 6:31 am
Good job Bubba. You’ve said more in response to questions that Gaius ever has.
I do take issue with the description of Gaius’s style as “unique”, though.
“Yes, believe it or not, a conservative blog will have anecdotes and personal stories showing the idiocy of liberal ideology, as I am sure is true for liberal blogs.”
I really doubt liberal blogs will talk about liberal “idiocy” (relax, I know what you meant), though they seem to far more frequently acknowledge the faults within the Democratic party than conservative blogs do the GOP.
By BubbaB, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Everybody’s style is unique. Isn’t that one of the reasons why the Democrats keep pushing “diversity”?
No, Dear Dan, I used that phraseology on purposes. Congratulations for catching it.
And why should we spend time on the faults of the GOP? The MSM does it enough for us. I don’t mind pointing out the failures of the GOP - number one being the immigration issue. Number two being the out-of-control social spending (one of the few good things for which Clinton might be given credit is the balanced budget under his watch.) Number three is McCain-Feingold, which has served to stifle free speech more than promote it.
—BubbaB