Warren Destroys Bloomberg At Debate

At the recent Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Senator Elizabeth Warren showed what happens when one person (that would be her) comes to the debate prepared and fiercely determined to show everyone she's still in it to win it, while another person (that would be former NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg) saunters into a debate evidently not having bothered to do minimal preparation. 

Bloomberg apparently thought that his wealth and support from certain anti-Sanders media pundits meant that he was above the fray. It was seemingly inevitable that Bloomberg was going to win the Democratic nomination, despite having been a Republican just five minutes ago. In Bloomberg's mind, this debate was just a dog and pony show that for some reason he had to join. Senator Warren didn't see things that way.

Professor Warren (she was my brother's professor at Harvard) not only laid hands on the supercilious Bloomberg, she broke his jaw, kicked in his ribs, hit him upside the head with a brick, kneecapped him with an icepick, and shot him twice with a .45. And THEN she really went to work on him. Before she was finished I was expecting to get a late night call from Warren telling me to meet her at my northern Michigan property with shovels, duct tape and a tarp.

When Will Democrats Learn??

You've heard me say this numerous times on this site, but it bears repeating. I have the utmost respect for the Republican Party when it comes to their precise timing and alignment of party, during elections. Granted, their alignment over the last few years has been around the WRONG candidate, you have to commend their strategy and overall execution. Republicans know how to get in line. I don't know if there is some secret head person that convenes a secret session and hands out the orders, but they do it flawlessly. For the life of me I can't understand why Democrats lack this skill, and have chosen to ignore this one very important play from the "Republican Play Book on Politics." I guess the Democrats aren't scared of losing a race -- the race for Mayor of New York City.



The City of New York is preparing to crown a new mayor. After twelve-years, Lord Bloomberg (that's for you Shady) must abdicate the thrown, and "we the people" must now elect some fresh blood. People are quite divided on Bloomberg's performance over the last twelve years, so the race could go to either party. For Democrats, this should be a no-brainer, a walk in the damn park. At least I thought so, when Speaker of the New York City Council Christine Quinn finally ended speculation, and threw her Manolo's into the race. NOOOOO! In typical Democratic fashion of chaos, division, and lack of unity, they are headed down the path of over complicating the race, and they just could lose this thing. 

This morning as I watched the news in captions during my workout, I saw a headline that stopped me in tracks -- "Anthony Weiner Considering Run for Mayor of New York City." 

Are you F*%KING kidding me??? Has Anthony lost his god forsaken mind??

In a New York Time Magazine Interview, Weiner says he does not know when he will decide about entering the race: 
“the fact that I don’t know tells me I shouldn't run. Or I should not run now.” 

On the current Democratic contenders, Weiner said: 
“I know them all. I like them all.” 

On Christine Quinn's candidacy: 
“The term-limits thing, as an issue, was a deal breaker for me. But, I think the polls are right: Chris Quinn is leading, and then someone will get into a runoff with her. I don’t like runoffs, and I don’t think we should have them so you don’t have these divisive primaries anymore.”

Here is my issue with all of this.... Anthony Weiner shouldn't be saying anything right now. He shouldn't be doing a single interview, and if he does, he should keep his mouth shut on the mayoral race. Let me remind everyone, this is the same crap that happened in 2001 that allowed Bloomberg to cruise in. So if Democrats want to see a repeat, they should certainly continue down this path. Weiner himself, admits  that he wouldn't want to see a runoff debacle occur, yet he is proposing his own candidacy, which would certainly split the vote and force us to runoff territory. This is where the Democrats fail, when it comes to election strategy. You  don't put two high profile candidates up against each other. This is common sense. 

Listen, I'm all for second chances and restarts. However, part of second chances and restarts is demonstrating growth, and in demonstrating that growth I need to see a common sense signal that tells me you are smart enough to know when to embark on all of this. Weiner clearly has not gotten to this stage. It's only been two-years since Weinergate. This timing also shows me that he is still the self absorbed bastard that he was, when he felt comfortable sending inappropriate pics of himself through Facebook to women. He has not learned a damn thing. He is just regaining some semblance of balance and trust, with his wife and 13-month old son. Why in the hell would he even think about dragging them through the mud pit again? Come on!! This reminds me of that over zealous nut job Governor (whom shall remain nameless here), who choose her own self-glorification and political ambition over the needs and sensitivity, of her own daughter. Maybe five-years from now Weiner can make some sort of triumphant comeback to politics. Now is not the time for that comeback, or for Weiner to even play with the thoughts. When will Democrats learn this?

What do you think??

1) Should Anthony Weiner make a return to politics? if yes, then when?
2) Should Anthony Weiner run for Mayor of New York City? If not, why?
3) How would a Democratic Primary look between Quinn, Weiner and Liu?
4) What are your thoughts on Speaker Quinn's decision to vote yes on Bloomberg's term limit extension?

Bloomberg, Broccoli, Smoking and Health Care

As we wait for the US Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (popularly and derisively known as "Obamacare" ) it might be useful to remember the slippery slope/limiting principle argument against the mandate to purchase private health insurance.  This was often referred to as the Broccoli argument. Opponents invoked the spectre of an empowered and leviathan Federal government ordering everyone to eat their vegetables. The law's supporters thought that this argument was completely ridiculous, not worth a response, and prima facie evidence that the mandate's opponents either had damaged amygdalae or had spent too much time surfing libertarian websites looking for pictures of S.E. Cupp.

I am not a fan of NYC Mayor Lord Michael Bloomberg because I think his bland corporatist persona is the cover for a raging power mad nutter who seeks control over other people just because he knows what's best for everyone. He may not have Sauron's One Ring but he certainly acts as if he does. This is most evidenced by his out of control NYPD that on his orders has effectively disregarded the Fourth Amendment for Black and Hispanic citizens in Gotham, especially if they happen to be young and male. Bloomberg says it's for their own good of course. But his need for control over people is not just limited to continuously stopping and frisking every single black male within the city or spying on Muslim citizens in other states. No, Bloomberg is convinced that he knows what people should be eating and how they should be eating. So his health department is poised to ban 32oz sodas. Of course that didn't go far enough and his health department, no doubt emboldened by the impending soda ban as well as the current trans fat ban, publicly mused about the desirability of banning milkshakes and popcorn as well.
LINK

The 11-member health panel met on Tuesday in Queens and approved the plan. A public hearing on the issue on July 24, with a final vote is scheduled for Sept. 13. If approved, the new regulations would go in effect on March 2013.Certain members spoke up, however, saying that the proposal should include other items. Board member Bruce Vladeck questioned why large tubs of popcorn were not included in the ban, according to the New York Daily News. Another member, Dr. Joel Forman, pointed out that even 100 percent juice and milk-containing beverages have large amounts of calories and should not be excluded.While Dr. Kenneth Popler, board member and president of the Staten Island Mental Health Society, recognized that it would infringe on New Yorkers' rights, he felt that the health benefits were worth it, the Wall Street Journal reported. Obesity has led to 5,800 deaths a year in New York City and costs taxpayers $4 billion, according to statements presented at the meeting.

So, while the kommissars in NYC were deciding how next to extend their personal preferences under color of law, one of the largest employers in the Metro Detroit area decided that it would no longer hire people who smoke. Period. 

Job seekers who smoke aren’t welcome at the Detroit Medical Center. The health system on Wednesday joined a growing number of companies to require new applicants to be tested for smoking.The policy does not apply to current smokers, though they are encouraged to stop smoking and participate in cessation programs, the DMC said in an announcement. In Michigan, the DMC joins the Lansing-based Sparrow Health System, the Oakwood Health System in Dearborn and the Crittenton Hospital Medical Center in Rochester to adopt the no-smoking policy for applicants. “I think it’s becoming a pretty common practice across the country, especially in hospitals and (other) health care” employers, said Paula Rivera-Kerr, spokeswoman for Dearborn-based Oakwood Healthcare System, which adopted a similar policy Oct. 1. 

Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, a University of Michigan physician who is director of its Center for Value-Based Insurance Design, said that because businesses spend significantly more on health costs for smokers than for non-smokers “it’s no surprise to see various types of screening and benefit-design changes” to discourage smoking, among current and future employees. “Projections about increased health costs are a major concern to employers right now,” he said. While several states have passed laws banning such hiring policies, Michigan has not, leaving smokers without legal grounds to challenge such a hiring decision, said Tim Howlett, an attorney with Detroit-based Dickinson Wright law firm and acting chair of the State Bar of Michigan Association’s labor and employment law section.

LINK

Now just to get the obvious out of the way I don't smoke. I don't permit smoking around me. I try to eat right. I fully understand that if you don't eat well and exercise you're more likely to live a sub par existence. I have little patience for fat people that try to protect their ego by trying to pretend that fat people don't have health issues. I get that large agribusinesses and food interests often push poisonous products onto consumers.  I think that everyone should minimize or eliminate things like sugar, fat, salt, blah, blah, blah from their diet.  And I actually LIKE broccoli. But those things are individual choices. Should your employer be able to discriminate in hiring based on lifestyle? Well if your lifestyle is related to your job, I would say yes. You won't find too many overweight cheerleaders or bodybuilder jockeys. But if you're doing something that is unrelated to your job on your private time, what business is that of your employer's? And if we say well it's because of health costs, then how far do we want to go? You may have a family history of chronic diseases. Should your employer be able to not hire you because of that? And if we allow discrimination in hiring because of smoking why not obesity? But that's in the (semi)private marketplace so the rules may be different.

In NYC though we have the city government seizing the ability to tell you what you can eat and how much of it you can eat. Again, they claim to be doing so because of health costs. This health cost argument was the same reason the federal government claimed the right to be able to force you to purchase health insurance. Now if you don't bend the knee to Lord Bloomberg and accede to his latest caprice, then you, as a business owner will be fined. Of course if you decide to ignore the fines and tell Lord Bloomberg exactly what he can do with them, sooner or later large serious men with guns will magically appear to either shut your business down or take you away to some place unpleasant. But it's for the public good.

Now can someone tell me again why the broccoli argument was so outrageous?

What's your take?

Should private companies be able to refuse to hire smokers? Obese people?

Is Bloomberg out of control or is this (considering rising obesity rates) a necessary and good decision? Should the government be involved in determining portion sizes and food choices?