Heh! But again, not so heh! We laugh, but they mean it. Over at TreeHugger (they have become such a source of sport!), they were discussing the righteousness of NYC-Nanny-Chieftain Mayor Bloomberg’s (whose own dietary predilections do not match his public policy for the rest of his “citizens”) declaration that he would solve the obesity problem of his haunts be making certain sizes of soda sold by NYC establishments off limits. In a post entitled “More than Reasonable:
Last week, New York City showed the nation once again what it means to be on the cutting edge of public health policy. The city announced a bold plan to limit the size of sugary beverages sold at restaurants and other food establishments. Predictably, much of the media went crazy, and numerous outlets have already proclaimed that this time, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has just gone too far. Banning trans fats was fine, but don’t take away my right to guzzle a gallon of Coke is the lazy reaction of some pundits.
But let’s take a more rational look at what New York is proposing. From both a policy-making and political strategy standpoint, it makes perfect sense. No one is banning anything or restricting anyone’s freedoms. The city is simply placing a reasonable limit on how much soda (or other sugary beverage) can be served in a single container.
Cutting edge? Bloomberg already went after salt (which he himself uses with wild abandon in a “fine for me but not for thee fashion”). Now, there is a study out that says cutting salt intake to such a level promulgated by the Feds could actually be dangerous. There also is no definitive study on soda usage either.
The post also tried to slyly slip in what Goverment is doing is just what private business has done with serving sizes in the past (thus, trying to rationalize Bloomy’s actions):

Nothing makes me smile like watching another left wing New Hampshire Democrat narrative go up in smoke. Which narrative, you ask, there are so many to choose from? Why, the one about how irresponsible it was to cut the tobacco tax and how it would never stimulate enough other forms of cross border commerce to make up the difference. A notion that is not just backwards, it runs counter to the entire concept of the New Hampshire advantage.