Reasons I Will Never Vote for Mike Bloomberg

Can NY Infrastructure Handle Floods, Intense Heat?

The latest in a long line of alarmist reports threatening a flooded coastline and roiling heat waves, this one seems to be the result of a few too many late-night viewings of The Day After Tomorrow.

"We have to adapt to the environmental changes that have already taken place, or that we can reasonably expect will occur because of climate change," Bloomberg said. (Emphasis mine)

The panel will begin its work by studying the city's infrastructure to better understand the city's preparedness for possibilities such as more catastrophic storms, hotter temperatures and a rising sea level.

Politicians and scientists have demonstrated time and time again over the past five years that they obviously have absolutely no idea what to "reasonably expect will occur because of climate change." First it was all about global warming. Now the key phrase is "climate change," which is so nicely applicable to basically any sort of fluctuation in the weather. Less snow in the winter? Climate change. Unseasonably cool in mid-August? Climate change. Hurricane? Climate change. Less hurricanes than usual? Climate change.

If they can't even agree on whether it's getting hotter or colder, why should anyone put any credence in anything else that these people predict?

And now, Mayor Bloomberg, in the midst of what the Governor recently described as officially a recession, wants to find money in the budget to replace the city's entire taxi fleet with hybrids, and to enact new "green" construction regulations that will only serve to stifle building and economic growth. Way to go Mike. I cannot wait until this guy is gone. He needs to take a mistress or something, or perhaps some kind of crime wave needs to start, anything to keep Bloomberg busy. The man is so concerned with his "legacy," in getting his name out there in preperation for his failed presidential run, that he's going to leave the city bankrupt and stagnant.

Hey, maybe that'll bring back Guiliani!

Ridiculous Media Scare Article of the Day

All U.S. adults could be overweight in 40 years via Reuters

Yes, there are some legitimate concerns over health and obesity, particularly with the increasing prevalence of processed foods in American diets. But the premise behind this article basically assumes that none of the adults in the U.S. are capable of exercising any sort of self-control or taking any responsibility for their own health and well-being.

Furthermore, the article doesn't state the tool used to determine a person's status, but I can only assume that they use the incredibly flawed BMI, or Body Mass Index, an extremely vague tool that compares a person's height with their weight, and thereby determines how overweight they are, which is absurd.

Using that tool, I get a score of 27.1, which is 2.9 points from "Obese." Under this form of measurement, I would already qualify as one of the overweight adults described in the article. I am not overweight. I exercise at least twice a week, running about 10 miles and lifting. But don't take my word for it. Here's a great piece on the insanity of using the BMI to judge fitness standards in the U.S. It just doesn't work.

If you don't have the time to read through it, here's all you really need to know. The following people, according to the BMI, are officially "Obese:"

Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Mark McGwire, and Arnold Schwarzenegger

If that's not enough, here's a list of people, according to the government, that are "Overweight:"

Will Smith, Pierce Brosnan, Michael Jordan, Cal Ripkin, Jr., and President Bush - (all of a sudden I don't feel bad about being officially overweight)

The BMI is just another tool for the government to exercise increased control over what we eat, how much we exercise, etc. If people want to eat unhealthy food and sit on their couches all day and get fat, that's their choice. It's because of articles like this that Mayor Bloomberg can get away with his trans fat bans and calorie counts for chain restaurants.

Another Reason I Will Never Vote for Mike Bloomberg

Bloomberg hosts Big Apple party for Hilary Clinton, offers no party relief

Sooo, the city and state budgets are apparently falling apart and plummeting into a recession, but our Mayor takes time to "welcome back" a Senator who took months off from her taxpayer-funded job to run a failed campaign for President, presumably neglecting her constituents in the meantime.

I realize that the man is a billionaire, and certainly has money to throw around on such things if he so chooses (along with giving a quarter billion dollars to fight the "global smoking epidemic"), and I assume minimal taxpayer funds are being used to pay for this event, but what kind of signal is this sending?

Hilary is pretty blatantly serving as Senator for the sole purpose of launching a Presidential run, and if Obama loses the upcoming election, I have little doubt that she'll try again in 2012. Why does it fall to the Mayor of New York City to host a party for her at the Governor's Mansion?

Clinton/Bloomberg in 2012?

One Reason I Will Never Vote for Mike Bloomberg

The Posting of Calorie Counts on Chain Restaurant Menus

As detailed above, I recently paid my first visit to the new Five Guys Burgers and Fries in Park Slope, on 7th Ave. As in many burger joints and fast food restaurants, the menu was posted on a large sign over the ordering counter. However, having not been a frequenter of chain restaurants since moving to Brooklyn more than two years ago, I was unprepared for what was listed next to the rather sparse menu offerings: the number of calories in each item.

There is absolutely no need for me to know that a Five Guys Bacon Cheeseburger contains over 900 calories, or that a Large order of delicious boardwalk-style Five Guys Cajun Fries contains more than 1400 calories. If I'm stupid enough to not understand that eating at Five Guys more than once a week is unhealthy, than I'm probably too stupid to understand that 2300 calories is way too much for a single meal.

Does Mayor Mike really think that this is why he was elected to office, to police the fast food joints in the town? Is that how Rudy made his name? Is this what Bloomberg plans on running on when he fails to get elected President in four years, his war on fat? What a joke. The vast majority of the people in the city of New York are either grown-ups, or have parents who are grown-ups.

Either way, we can decide for ourselves whether or not something is unhealthy without having calorie counts forcibly displayed on menus. And why are chain restaurants the only ones subject to this? Because of the inherent evilness of all corporations? Is a meal purchased at an overpriced eatery any more healthy because the establishment isn't part of a national conglomerate? Or is this just another example of our elected officials assuming that those who eat at lower-priced chain restaurants are just too stupid to run their own lives? Any why am I asking so many questions?

Mike Bloomberg is the single most annoying elected official that I can think of. He's not necessarily a bad leader, or even a person I disagree with to a great degree, he's just ridiculously annoying. He seems to think that his job is to impose his ideals upon the city's populace. It's not. Start cutting the budget, make sure the mass transit system works, and keep crime down. That's it. And hurry up and leave office so you can start planning your failed presidential campaign.