Article

2013-03-12 Home Front: Culture Wars

Judge halts mayor's soda ban, calls it 'arbitrary and capricious'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2013-03-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 "Obesity kills. There's just no question about it."

So does stupidity.

Posted by DarthVader 2013-03-12 00:11|| 2013-03-12 00:11|| Front Page Top

#2 Everyone dies. For most of human history, because of a lack rather than an over abundance of food. You'd think it would be worth celebrating.

Posted by Procopius2k 2013-03-12 00:21|| 2013-03-12 00:21|| Front Page Top

#3 Nanny Gets A Dope Slap...film at eleven.

Posted by tu3031 2013-03-12 00:39|| 2013-03-12 00:39|| Front Page Top

#4 A start, maybe now the Obama regulations will be seen in a different/better light, they're NOT forever, he just WANTS them forever.

(You know what they say about wanting in one hand?)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2013-03-12 01:43|| 2013-03-12 01:43|| Front Page Top

#5 Personally I blame the Babe on "NCIS".

Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-03-12 01:58|| 2013-03-12 01:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Bloomberg To Appeal Halt Of "Arbitrary And Capricious" Decision
It took the NY Mayor's office a few brief minutes to respond to Judge Tingling's order, and announce it would promptly appeal the decision. Because apparently nobody thought of the children.

Posted by tipper 2013-03-12 02:44|| 2013-03-12 02:44|| Front Page Top

#7 "Ya left out 'stupid', judgie-wudgie!"

Posted by Muggsy Mussolini1226 2013-03-12 10:52|| 2013-03-12 10:52|| Front Page Top

#8 People might wonder how NYC can appeal a Supreme Court Decision.

Well it turns out that in NYState the Supreme Court is only the second highest court. The Court of Appeals is the highest court.

So, if Bloomberg does win the appeal, the consolation is we will may the headline,

"Supreme Court Overruled"

Posted by lord garth 2013-03-12 13:39|| 2013-03-12 13:39|| Front Page Top

#9 Maybe it should be renamed The Not-quite Supreme Court.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2013-03-12 14:27|| 2013-03-12 14:27|| Front Page Top

#10 I see another problem Bloomburg has.

We have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other, Mr. Bloomberg said after the ruling. While other people will wring their hands over the problem of sugary drinks, in New York City, were doing something about it.
He obviously believes that The Gubment has the power to focibly "help" people. He knows whats best for us.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2013-03-12 14:40|| 2013-03-12 14:40|| Front Page Top

#11 "While other people will wring their hands over the problem of sugary drinks..."

.......anybody?

Posted by tu3031 2013-03-12 16:35|| 2013-03-12 16:35|| Front Page Top

#12 Yet another wagon load of much to do about nothing. How many clinically obese 70 year olds have you seen lately? Clinical obesity eventually fixes itself.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-03-12 16:41|| 2013-03-12 16:41|| Front Page Top

#13 Besoeker, at the rate they're redefining obesity anyone that doesn't look anorexic will be defined as obese.

Then they can do anything they want which is, after all, what they're after.

It's not about health. It IS about power & control.

Posted by Alanc 2013-03-12 16:44|| 2013-03-12 16:44|| Front Page Top

#14 It certainly is Alanc, and each day that passes brings additional proof..... [as if we actually needed any additional proof].

Posted by Besoeker 2013-03-12 17:47|| 2013-03-12 17:47|| Front Page Top

#15 Ah, but by becoming morbidly obese and dying young you are ROBBING the government of the taxes you would have paid!

Posted by Muggsy Mussolini1226 2013-03-12 17:52|| 2013-03-12 17:52|| Front Page Top

#16 That assumes the poor "morbidly obese" person is working and paying taxes, and he or she is not simply a consumer. Not at all certain we can accurately make that assumption Mugs. Not sure where the facts lie, but they might actually be 180 degrees to the south.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-03-12 17:58|| 2013-03-12 17:58|| Front Page Top

#17 537 Most doctors are very uncomfortable with the fact that people over 65 who are overweight or obese live longer than those who are of normal weight. Not only does this run counter to the deep puritanism of medical culture, but it also flies in the face of logic, because such people are much more likely to have diabetes, heart failure and hypertension.

And yet obese people with hypertension have the best outcomes, in trial after trial. And if you give them thiazide diuretics and so increase their insulin resistance, they do even better. And if they get heart failure, they will greatly outlive their thinner peers. Here is an analysis of the ACCOMPLISH trial dont even try to remember which one that was which clearly shows that thiazide treatment gives better outcomes in hypertensive fat people.

By all thats holy in mechanistic reasoning, this should not be true, and it is all too much for the authors of the accompanying editorial. They list their objections and state: Therefore, we reject the conclusion of Weber and colleagues that diuretic-based regimens are a reasonable choice in obese patients. On the contrary, we surmise that thiazide diuretics are contraindicated in obesity, relatively speaking. So surmise trumps evidence? I dont think so.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2013-03-12 19:26|| 2013-03-12 19:26|| Front Page Top

#18 richard lehmans journal review 18 february 2013

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2013-03-12 19:27|| 2013-03-12 19:27|| Front Page Top

23:11 JosephMendiola
23:08 DarthVader
22:33 bigjim-CA
22:12 DarthVader
21:50 Warthog
21:33 tu3031
21:27 trailing wife
21:22 Capsu78
21:19 trailing wife
20:49 Angie Schultz
20:47 Mikey Hunt
20:45 jay-dubya
20:40 Redneck Jim
20:23 airandee
20:02 Glenmore
19:57 Barbara
19:27 Bright Pebbles
19:26 Bright Pebbles
19:23 JosephMendiola
19:22 RandomJD
18:43 remoteman
18:41 remoteman
18:35 Shipman
18:29 Shipman