The guy kills me! He just keeps on rambling like we give us hoot about what he says. The police around him are either filtered out “order followers and true believers” or they are laughing behind his back. Not that he’d notice with the din of the loud voices he must be hearing inside his head!
But I’ll give him credit, he is singularly focused on the desire to impress on everybody’s life what he thinks is a good idea. From guns to soda to sugar to salt to BMI, this guy keeps right on trucking. But if you’ll note by the headline he sincerely believes YOUR freedoms are subject to infringement. However, his aren’t.
The lack of the word “us” is what you need to focus on here.
—Ben Howe’s right that the rhetoric here is more notable than the underlying sentiment. Most pols would never be this blunt in describing the civil-libertarian price of new regulations; they’d either dodge the subject or sell those regs in an Orwellian way as an enhancement of freedom. Not Bloomy. The combination of being term-limited, governing one of the bluest cities in America, and being worth $20 billion affords him a candor that lesser nannies can only dream of. Just imagine: On Friday, this guy was heard publicly lamenting the growing threat of domestic drone surveillance — and not without reason — before throwing up his hands and insisting there’s nothing we can do to stop them. Really? He’s willing to spend his political capital in office on dopey things like soda portions and his financial capital on ad campaigns arbitrarily slamming “assault weapons” to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, but there’s nothing he can do to try to put the brakes on the surveillance state? That’s Bloomberg’s whole problem in a nutshell: He’s constantly playing small ball. He could have devoted his first two terms as mayor to bolstering the city’s hurricane defenses or improving its electrical grid, but instead he wanted to bear down on trans fats and smoking in bars. Even where I disagree with him, his moves make no sense. If you’re willing to spend $50 million or more to shape public opinion on guns, why would you focus on background checks and “assault weapons” rather than to try to do real damage by putting a dent in support for semiautomatics generally? It’s bizarre.
Howe’s right too that his use of pronouns in the clip is revealing. Who’s the “we” and who’s the “you” in “your freedoms”? If “we” get to regulate “your” obesity because, after all, we have to pay for part of the cost to treat it, what other behaviors do “we” get to regulate in the name of saving some money?…
Bloomberg says no to guns for you, but gets waivers for his security when visiting a foreign nation. Should he have security? Sure, but don’t talk out of both sides of your mouth. That is all anyone is saying. If we go to his house and there is Coke in the frig and salted salami on the snack table with chips next to the plate, he
People like being taken care of, and Bloomberg has hooked into that appeal. But he’s gone too far. I’m wondering if he tries to be cute and go for another term by changing the law will the people let him?
Or is there a island somewhere off the coast of Europe waiting?