When the mayor of New York city decided to take on as powerful a lobby as the fizzy drinks industry with a proposed ban on oversized sugary sodas, the furore that ensued was entirely predictable. Coca-Cola and McDonald's, among several other usual suspects, accused Michael Bloomberg of overriding New Yorkers' freedom of choice – as they would.Here again we see the flaws of American-style freedom and the usefulness of social engineering. In the way a citizen should not just eat what ever they want and then burden our public health system, a citizen should not have the freedom to buy gas guzzlers and contribute to the emergency of global warming. If you are serious about saving the world, don't bet on democracy or voting or the protection of rights; bet on social engineering.
But this week some new, and highly unexpected opponents have added their voice to a lawsuit seeking to squash Bloomberg's fizzy drink restriction before it comes into effect on 12 March. The New York conference of the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation have both given support to a legal challenge that came before the courts on Wednesday by lodging a joint amicus brief in which they criticise the proposals for "stripping New Yorkers of their democratic rights".
As for NAACP?
When the Guardian called up the New York chapter of the NAACP, the reporter was told to contact a Washington phone number and ask for the association's statement.
The phone number turned out to be that of a publicist for the American Beverage Association, the trade association of the fizzy drinks industry whose members include Coca-Cola, Nestle, Pepsi and 7 Up.