• CA-26,  Julia Brownley,  Nanny State,  Tony Strickland

    CA-26: Who Can Out Nanny State on Grocery Bags Tony Strickland or Julia Brownley?

    A reusable grocery bag
    Photo Credit: LA Times

    Come on Tony, you don’t have to out Nanny State Julia Brownley.

    As a growing number of California cities and counties have adopted local ordinances banning the distribution of single-use plastic bags in the name of reducing litter and ocean pollution, Sen. Tony Strickland is concerned about a different threat at the grocery checkout line: reusable cloth bags.

    Strickland, R-Moorpark, believes those bags are a threat to public health because of the possibility of cross-contamination of bacteria from produce and that from meats and poultry. He wants to see a label printed on every reusable bag sold in California that reads, “WARNING: Reusable bags must be cleaned and disinfected between uses to prevent food cross contamination. Failure to do so can cause serious illness resulting from food-borne pathogens.”

    Strickland proposes that label in Senate Bill 1106, which would also require grocers to conspicuously display the same warning near where reusable bags are sold.

    “The goal here is public safety,” he said. “Consumers have a right to know that if they don’t wash them they put their health at risk.”

    Sorry Tony.

    But, your contention that there is a health hazard here is just plain stupid.

    I know you are doing this to punish those communities like Los Angeles who ban plastic bags. But, the rest of California doesn’t need MORE NANNY STATE to tell us when to clean out our reusable bags.

    Now, I have problems with banning plastic bags.

    However, more government regulation to cure government overreach is NOT a solution.

    You should know better.

    Drop the bill.

    Find another contrasting issue upon which to run for Congress and beat Julia Brownley.

  • Day By Day,  Michelle Obama

    Day By Day July 12, 2011 – Transfats

    Day By Day by Chris Muir

    With Michelle Obama it is all do what I say not do what I do. But, 1700 calories in one meal?

    Update:We made a mistake in our original calculations. The calorie-count for the first lady’s order was actually 1,700, not the 1,556 we originally reported. Our apologies.

    First lady Michelle Obama ordered a whopper of a meal at the newly opened Washington diner Shake Shack during lunch on Monday.

    A Washington Post journalist on the scene confirmed the first lady, who’s made a cause out of child nutrition, ordered a ShackBurger, fries, chocolate shake and a Diet Coke while the street and sidewalk in front of the usually-packed Shake Shack were closed by security during her visit.

    According to nutritional information on Shake Shack’s Web site, the meal amounted to 1,700 calories.

    Obama, who launched the “Let’s Move” campaign to combat childhood obesity last year, has previously admitted to having an “obsession with french fries,” which she says are fine to indulge in occasionally. “It’s all about moderation,” Obama told reporters.

    And, what kind of moderation is that?

    When the Nanny State starts to take over the hypocrisy rises to the top.


    The Day By Day Archive

  • Nanny State,  Soda Tax

    Nanny State Watch: California Soda Tax Shelved by Legislative Committee

    Well, technically the legislation is still alive.

    And, you remember the Flap.

    A proposed California law to tax sodas, sweet teas, sports drinks and other sugary beverages was shelved today by an Assembly committee.

    Assembly Bill 669 was placed on hold in a file for bills with monetary implications. No vote was taken, so the bill technically remains alive, but the author’s office conceded that it is unlikely to advance.

    Assemblyman Bill Monning, who crafted the measure, said the committee will not move AB 669 to the Assembly floor unless it can win a two-thirds majority vote there — and, so far, that is not the case. Republicans adamantly have opposed any new tax.

    “I would acknowledge that it’s an uphill struggle,” said Monning, D-Carmel.

    Monning crafted AB 669 to generate revenue for obesity prevention activities and programs.

    The measure would slap sugar drinks distributed in California with an excise tax of one penny per fluid ounce.

    There is NO WAY any Republicans in the California Legislature would ever vote for this POS law. And, remember that in California in order to raise taxes you need a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

    But, it will remain alive to become a “JUICE BILL” for the California Democrats in order to raise money for their 2012 re-election campaigns. I can see those invites to campaign events goin gout to all of those large soda companies now.

    Opponents claim that AB 669 could harm the beverage industry and that decisions about consumption of sugary drinks are a matter of individual responsibility and parental authority.

  • Nanny State,  Soda Tax

    Nanny State Watch: California Soda Tax Would Raise $1.7 Billion for Schools and Obesity Programs – Soda Has Become the New Tobacco

    More nanny state taxes from California.

    A study released Thursday estimates that a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary sodas and other sweetened drinks would return $233 per student to California classrooms and fund childhood obesity prevention initiatives.

    “The science linking sugary drinks to the obesity epidemic is rock solid,” said study author Harold Goldstein, with the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, who is a leading proponent behind the largely successful removal of junk food and sodas from school vending machines and cafeterias. “It’s time to make sure that the cost of these beverages includes the social cost of the harm they are doing.”

    The study is based on AB 669 by Assemblyman Bill Monning, D-Carmel, which would raise $1.7 billion statewide every year and send 85 percent of that to schools and local agencies and 15 percent to state-run anti-obesity programs.

    At a penny an ounce, Californians would need to buy the equivalent of 14 billion 12-ounce cans of soda, an average of a little more than a can a day for every man, woman and child in the state.

    And, get this quote: “Soda has become the new tobacco.”

    I mean how stupid is this.

    “Soda has become the new tobacco,” said Supervisor John Gioia, of Richmond. “It took us a while to get to the point where we linked the negative health implications of tobacco on public health, and we know that the taxes on cigarettes are working to reduce smoking.”

    A soda tax — applied to all beverages with added sugar and fructose corn syrup — has been debated for years.

    Don’t these fools understand that the economy cannot sustain any more taxes for their nanny state redistribution schemes? And, why should soda drinks redistribute the costs of their purchases to fund school obesity programs.

    Damn, just kick the soda machines out of the schools.

    And, what about personal responsibility?

    It’s a bad idea, countered said Jon Coupal, with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

    Soda drinkers vastly outnumber smokers, a dwindling population whose ostracized members are accustomed to paying cigarette taxes, he said.

    “It’s the stupidest thing to come down the pike,” Coupal said. “Why are we singling out this form of carbohydrate for taxation? What’s next? A bread tax? A pizza tax? At the end of the day, this effort is a combination of bad fiscal policy with nannyism in government.”

    Classroom dollars and soda consumption have no ties, said Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Executive Director Kris Hunt.

    “It’s another case of ballot-box budgeting that doesn’t make any sense,” Hunt said.

    The only reassuring aspect of this tax is that the proponents will need a 2/3rds vote of the California Legislature, plus the Governor’s signature. I doubt any Republicans will vote for this proposal.

    So, if the nanny state soda jerks want to tax us, they will have to gather signatures and qualify an initiative for the ballot. I doubt if California voters, in this economy, will be voting themselves any more taxes – obesity or not.

  • Nanny State

    Nanny State Alert: Chicago Public School Bans Lunches Sent From Home

    A Little Village Academy student cringes at an enchilada dish served at his school. Many students throw away their entrees uneaten and say they would rather bring food from home. The school, though, does not allow students to bring in their own lunches, unless they have a medical condition or a food allergy

    Yes, it is all about healthful eating or is it the unions and school district that are enriching themselves?

    Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.

    “Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?” the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.

    Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: “We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!”

    Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: “Do you see the situation?”

    At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

    Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

    “Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

    Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring “bottles of soda and flaming hot chips” on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.

    A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.

    “While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments,” Monique Bond wrote in an email. “In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom.”

    Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district’s food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

    At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.

    “Some of the kids don’t like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast,” said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. “So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something.”

    The nanny state is now telling Chicago public school students what to eat because?

    Their parents don’t know what is nutritious enough for their own child? Are they too stupid? Or, is it because the school principal knows what’s best?

    Looking at the enchilada above, my cynical self tells me it is more about how the public school lunch program is enriched with more meals being consumed than any student’s healthy food choices.

    Am I wrong?

    By the way, what is wrong with a PB and J sandwich?