Comments on: On Bloomberg’s “Beneficence”

By: Gene

Gene — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:30:03 +0000

I find the politics of vituperation often comes not just from sheer maliciousness, but ignorance too, and even just plain deficiency in basic reading comprehension. For example, I said nothing about agriculture, I said “tobacco manufacturing.” The point, excised in publication, was that there are plenty of businesses to offend with tobacco regulations in NYC.

Bloomberg remains my idol, that most patriotic of public leaders–a smart, competent one. Something the traitorous, country-weakening politics of vituperation seems to have run out of public life lately. We’re certainly seeing the fruits of that now.

By: Dave Lincoln

Dave Lincoln — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:23:22 +0000

No, Gene, Bloomberg is complete traitor to the US Constitution, especially in regards to Amendment II of the Bill of Rights. If this was a real country, he would be hanged for treason (or shot, whatever).

Additionally, I believe Mike’s opinion on Bloomberg’s war on smoking. I don’t think it matters too much whether tobacco was grown in NY state 100 yrs. ago.

By: Gene Borio

Gene Borio — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:52:28 +0000

“Blasting smoking is a cheap cause for a New York politician. Tobacco is grown by farmers hundreds of miles south in states like Virginia and, from what I’ve seen, the corporations that manufacture and market cigarettes are based in North Carolina not New York City.”

A typical ad hominem smear, overflowing with ignorance.

NYC was the center of tobacco manufacturing in the late-19, early 20th century, and many tobacco firms are still headquartered there; certainly all the major firms have a presence. In fact, Philip Morris USA was HQ’d in NYC when “Bloomberg’s ban” went into effect.

Bloomberg is a straightforward, brave and incredibly smart guy. He just plain takes care of business. Would we had a lot more like him, of whatever party.

By: Mike Perry

Mike Perry — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:06:54 +0000

Blasting smoking is a cheap cause for a New York politician. Tobacco is grown by farmers hundreds of miles south in states like Virginia and, from what I’ve seen, the corporations that manufacture and market cigarettes are based in North Carolina not New York City.

If he were to take on some globally harmful industry that’s based in New York City–say that ‘great wasteland’ of network TV shows–then we might have reason to be impressed. But taking on ‘Big Tobacco’ from the ‘Big Apple’ takes about as much courage as torturing a kitten.

And that brings up something I’ve never understood. Why are the tobacco companies the only ones to pay for the damages of smoking. I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and even a child could see that the then big three networks were making a fortune promoting smoking, not just in their ads, but in their programming.

In my files I’ve got a transcript of a Mike Wallace show from the late 1950s, a controversial one where he interviews Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger. To promote a particular brand of cigarette, he smoked it while interviewing, so much so, that the show’s stage directions included running fans during commercials to blow away all the smoke that had accumulated.

If Bloomberg would begin to shake down NYC’s ABC, CBS and NBC and demand that they cough up some billions for the harm they’d done, the hypocrisy factor would be absent and we might have a reason to listen to Bloomberg.

As is, what he’s doing is a big yawner. When he is done with torturing kittens, will he turn to torturing puppies? Perhaps he’ll take on the Iowa growers of corn from which is made the corn syrup that’s making us fat.