You are not allowed to donate that food to the homeless...

[Duke87 1,070]

...because we have not verified that it meets our nutrition requirements.

And this is why I can't stand Mike Bloomberg.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

...because we have not verified that it meets our nutrition requirements.

And this is why I can't stand Mike Bloomberg.

This is one reason why registered dietitians should be taken out behind the barn and taught the facts of life. If you are homeless and someone wants to give you fresh food of any kind, who has the heart to take it out of their mouths?

This is one guy who deserves to be impeached, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Mike Bloomberg has a Jewish name. Has he never heard of the Holocaust? Has he never seen the allied films of the camps? Does he not know that feeding these starving people improperly killed them? Is he trying to set up his own concentration camps?

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

That is unbelievable.

[BIWDC 2,296]

I understand the need for nutrition,but I think Bloomberg Has lost his marbles.

  Edited March 27, 2012 by BIWDC  

[rweather5 22]

If someone is starving, I don't think they would care if it is healthy or not. Food is food, no matter what. And now our government thinks that they should regulate all the food we should eat now.

[jacksunny 741]

When I first read this I thought it was a joke.

What a moron.

[Jack³ 291]

This is just stupid.

"...Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless..."

[Easy Bakes 253]

Since when was kosher ( bagels) food not healthy?

[The Avatar 1,088]

If someone is homeless and starving, it doesn't matter if you give them a Twinkie, as long as it's edible. I can understand wanting to regulate nutrition in schools for children, but restricting people from feeding the homeless is beyond rediculous.

[Follarch 326]

My girlfriend has worked for Safeway, and now Barnes & Noble, both as a Barista, and she's told me about all of the excess pastries and bread she's forced to throw away at the end of every week rather than donate it to a shelter because corporate doesn't want to miss a profit by giving it away. This is just a generally messed up issue.

  Edited March 27, 2012 by Archean  

[krbe 193]

Unopened bottles of alcohol must be alright? Since alle the information is right there on the label.

I think we can assume that Mr Bloomberg sees homelessness as just another form of desired, natural habitation in New York City, so naturally these guys fallunder exactly the same set of rules as the school children and stock brokers.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

  Edited March 27, 2012 by NMUSpidey  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ No fair! You've already used that pun.

I wonder if Bloomberg's mother had any children that lived?

  Edited March 27, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

Another tactic I have seen is making it illegal to transport people in the back of a pickup unless there are restraints (seats and seatbelts). It is another effort to make their life hard - especially in some communities where everyone has a truck and no one wants the expense to modify.

This one has a legitimate reason though. It is dangerous to transport individuals in the back of a pickup truck unless their is a means to restraint their motion to the truck. If you go into a lot of chemical plants and refineries, you will find rules against this sort of behavior, all on the grounds of safety considerations.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Larks2242 251]

This is ridiculous, you eat to survive, coming from Bloomberg it isn't surprising, one of the worse mayors the country has, why can't they reelect Rudy Giuliani?

[Duke87 1,070]

coming from Bloomberg it isn't surprising, one of the worse mayors the country has, why can't they reelect Rudy Giuliani?

The irony of the situation is that the man who is responsible for the renaissance of New York City, thanks to the new reality he created, could never be elected here again.

Since the last time Giuliani was elected, New York has had a lot of young professionals move in and love it who previously would have considered it an icky place to live. This means that whereas New York used to be a fairly balanced town politically, now thanks to the new influx it has a much more pronounced liberal lean. As such, New York is not likely to have another republican mayor in the near future. In fact, that's the only reason Bloomberg is still mayor: he's not exactly popular, but he's a Democrat, so lots of people will hold their nose and vote for him since the alternative (voting for a republican) is still less desirable. As it is, the election in 2009 was damn close. If you had the same matchup with NYC's voters of 15 years prior, he would have lost.

[hym 358]

Yes, I understand the "justified" reason, but you need to read between the lines

For what it's worth, I am not unaware of the "unintended" consequences of such a law.

(and who cares about what refineries require in their private space).

(Technically, the general public cares quite a bit, though it doesn't realize that it does. Many chemical plants and petrochemical facilities process exceptionally dangerous/lethal compounds.)

More to the point, however, because of the consequences of failure, along with the costs of high OSHA incident rates, these facilities tend to be intensely conscious about unsafe work behavior. Consequently, if there is a behavior that they pretty much universally restrict, odds are very high that there is a significant safety concern associated with the behavior. Unsecured passengers in vehicles is one of these behaviors. In a plant type environment, the danger is primarily to the individual riding unsecured. However, on public roads, the risk extends to other individuals. The unsecured individual is at risk of being killed as a result of being thrown from the vehicle, and other drivers are endangered by the flying passenger. Unsecured passengers are just as much a danger to everyone else as they are to themselves.

Furthermore, and this is my Libertarian lean, I do not agree with forced legislation that someone MUST use a seatbelt. Or a helmet. Of course, this is with the sole exception of minors - that makes sense. Otherwise, if some idiot wants to ride a motorcycle and not wear a helmet, then that is their choice. If an adult does not want to wear a seatbelt, I see no reason why they should be forced to. It is their life they are jeopardizing. Some may say "What about texting" - that CAN have an impact on other drivers and control is legitimate, just like DUI laws.

How does it make any more sense to require minors to be restrained in a moving vehicle, but not adults?

Regardless, many times these types of legislation are proposed and/or approved, there is a sub-reason that just isn't promulgated. Making it harder to feed the homeless because officials are worried about nutrition... seriously? "No, you can't eat that - it doesn't have a label. Please go starve somewhere else because we won't feed you".

That may well be, but when you have a law that is ostensibly written to address a legitimate safety issue, it is significantly more difficult to attack it because you feel that there is some sort of unmentioned sub-reason. People who do this can easily get labeled conspiracy theorists.

[Duke87 1,070]

How does it make any more sense to require minors to be restrained in a moving vehicle, but not adults?

The logic is that an adult is mature enough to be cognizant of the consequences of not wearing a seatbelt while a minor is not. Sorta the same reason we don't let minors smoke, drink, etc.

when you have a law that is ostensibly written to address a legitimate safety issue, it is significantly more difficult to attack it because you feel that there is some sort of unmentioned sub-reason. People who do this can easily get labeled conspiracy theorists.

Nutrition is not a safety issue. There is nothing dangerous about feeding homeless people unhealthy food. It's better than not feeding them at all.

I don't think this is an underhanded attempt to push homeless people away, though. I chalk it more up to that Bloomberg lives in an ivory tower and is oblivious to the fact that the policy is harmful. He thinks he's doing a good thing by making the bums eat healthier.

  Edited March 28, 2012 by Duke87  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

That is yet another sign of the decline of our civilization. You can send me a message to see my tally (it is in the triple digits).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think we've strayed quite a bit off track.

If eating is an expression of freedom of speech, and giving food is likewise, Mr. Bloomberg's rules are unconstitutional. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

[Sgt Pepper 864]

Someone deport that man from the U.S....

[Darth Apple 54]

I find this quite sad. OK, if I had absolutely nothing to eat at all, would I deny receiving a sandwich just because it did not meet fiber requirements?

[chicah 20]

This is kind of similiar to a debate some people actually participate in in Norway.

Some people have been caught stealing food from dumpsters, both of private homes and food stores. The food stores (I've worked at one myself, so I know the rules) considers this theft - even though they've thrown it out. A lot of private persons wants to prohibit people from going in their dumpster to take food.

I think that if you've actively thrown something away, it's not your property anymore. Someone taking it won't harm you in any way.

[Duke87 1,070]

This is kind of similiar to a debate some people actually participate in in Norway.

Some people have been caught stealing food from dumpsters, both of private homes and food stores. The food stores (I've worked at one myself, so I know the rules) considers this theft - even though they've thrown it out. A lot of private persons wants to prohibit people from going in their dumpster to take food.

I think that if you've actively thrown something away, it's not your property anymore. Someone taking it won't harm you in any way.

Sensibly, yes, but that's not quite the issue. The store doesn't suffer any loss from having old food picked out of their dumpster, but they do suffer from having the sort of people who engage in such dumpster diving on their premeses. Potential customers will find homeless people icky and be driven away if they see them around. So, from a business perspective, it makes sense to stop the homeless people from going though your dumpsters - not for the sake of keeping them out of your dumpsters, but for the sake of keeping them away from your store.

Not the moral high road, certainly, but business is business.

[Darth Apple 54]

It's sometimes difficult to determine who is homeless because of lifestyle problems, and who is homeless for other reasons. If someone is homeless because they are making poor choices, doing drugs, and things of that sort, I have a harder time compensating for them, but those who have other circumstances involved often don't get the help that they need.

While it is sad that people who are eating out of dumpsters as a last resort are getting told no, what is really sad is that they are in that place to begin with. Nobody should have to eat out of dumpsters. Most people are in a place where they don't have to eat out of dumpsters, but society isn't perfect, and many people who are truly trying their best are just unable to get a job in this economy. I find it a sad situation all around. It's not the dumpsters that are the problem. It's the homelessness. I think that people are looking in the wrong place on this matter.