Photos
If you don’t live in New York, you should move to New York! It’s a really neat city! But if you don’t live in New York you might not know that the city’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, proposed a legislated ban on the sale of extra-large sized sugary drinks as a public health measure, and it’s created quite a bit of controversy because THESE COLORS DON’T RUN, THEY JUST SIT AROUND AND DRINK SODA. Anyway, New York Magazine finally got the reclusive soda and public health expert Jerry Seinfeld to open up about the subject. PHEW!
New York Magazine: How do you feel about Bloomberg’s push to ban soda?
Jerry Seinfeld: I don’t think I’m in favor. I’m in favor of continuing the accelerated Darwinian process of early death and weeding out most of the population through sugary drinks.NYM: Do you have a family policy for sodas?
JS: Oh, yeah, yeah. My kids haven’t had that many sodas. They don’t really know what it is … When I was a kid, it was nothing but.NYM: Did you have a favorite soda as a kid?
JS: Well, we had the real-sugar coke. And that was pretty solid. Also Orange Crush was great. Dr. Pepper, great.NYM: All classics.
JS: Yeah. I say, “Fatten them up, kill them off, and move them out.” That would be my philosophy.
Making jokes about Darwinism as it relates to mass human death is always hilarious, but I think my favorite part is when he actually gets into the inherent class elements of this entire discussion by pointing out that his extremely wealthy and privileged children aren’t allowed to touch soda because it’s obviously terrible for them, whereas the people who do drink soda (read: primarily poor people) should be allowed to die. It’s just fun! Who doesn’t love jokes?! I love jokes! Fun fun fun fun fun fun fun soda soda soda soda soda soda soda. LOLOLOL. Fuck everybody!
 |
 |
You Might Also Like
Leave a Reply
Sign inSign in with FacebookYou must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.
My children are 9 and 12 and do not know what soda is
-the saddest thing I have ever heard
Those kids are going to develop diabetes like three months into college, you just know it.
I know that’s not how diabetes works, but that’s how that joke goes.
On a similar note, Seinfeld is wrong about how Darwinism works. It only applies up to your age when you can reproduce and protect infants. So, all of evolution exists just to get us to about 25. Sugar doesn’t kill anyone that fast, meaning the “early death” it brings will have no effect on the gene pool. It lies completely outside Darwinism. But that is how his joke goes.
Yours is funnier.
(in best jerry seinfeld voice) What’s with all the diabetes!?!
You gotta be an asshole to read class elements into what he said.
Not really. The whole soda ban debate has been dripping with class elements from the start. It’s an unpopular proposal by a billionaire mayor who many feel is paternalistic in the first place. The fact that the proposed ban primarily targets the behavior of the city’s poor pretty much guaranteed that class would be part of the discussion. And since Jerry Seinfeld lives in New York, he was almost certainly aware of this.
Is it? I guess I haven’t been following closely, but cigarette taxes primarily affect low income folks, but they also are very effective in getting people to stop smoking. And that is seen as a good thing by most public health experts, not as classist.
It may not be the best proposal in terms of its effects on changing behavior, but I think it’s head’s in the right place.
The difference is that health experts tend to see these policies as good for public health and thereby obviously good for promoting health within lower income groups. What Jerry says with his joke is that he thinks it would be better if a certain group of people died off. The group of people who drink lots of sodas, generally speaking low income people.
Sorry I realized that it wasn’t clear, but I was asking “Is it?” with regards to the notion that the soda ban debate has been dripping with class elements. To my knowledge, a lot of people aren’t discussing the accelerated Darwinism (?) angle. I also used the wrong “its”. so sorry again.
Except that I think he’s pretty clearly just a comedian making an offhand joke about slobs in general.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see
It seems pretty different to me.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see
Whoa. Just whoa. Limiting the size of sodas might be ridiculous, but it doesn’t “hurt the lower classes” and leave them with no “alternative” (“We have no Big Gulps! We’ll die of dehydration!” — the lower classes hypothetically). It is fairly fucking obvious to ALMOST EVERYONE ALIVE that if your health is important to you, you should not eat 3 meals a day at McDonald’s and avoid exercise. This is not “the US being insensitive once again.” Jebus Chrysanthemum, it is just Jerry Seinfeld being almost hilariously unfunny once again.
Well, maybe an apple with some Cookie Butter on it, plus a cup of coffee and a half a bagel. Let’s not overdo the anorexia you guys.
GODDAMMIT this was supposed to be a reply to myself way, way below. You’ll see when you get there.
Can’t promise it will be worth the suspense.
I disagree. I think that’s something really easy for you to say. Lower classes don’t always have access to the same education as others, so it’s not quite as cut and dry for them. I volunteer part-time as a social worker and while eating at McDonald’s 3 times a day is bad for you is very obvious for YOU – that isn’t the case for everyone. It frustrates me when people put themselves in the shoes of the less fortunate and just think it’s their fault for not being smarter.
But yes, I agree JS being unfunny. Again.
First, what is “lower class”? What income and education level are you talking about? The bottom 20% of the US makes up to $18,500, and I bet a person making that notices that eating poorly and not exercising is bad for you. How little money and school do you need before you don’t notice that? I don’t mean don’t care, or don’t prioritize — I mean don’t notice.
Also: you’re a social worker. When you tell people who think McDonald’s is healthy that it is not, do they insist it is? Because you just educated them. If they insist you are wrong, then maybe what we are dealing with is an individual psychology resistant to information, not a condition that affects people based on income.
Until recently, my building had an apartment full of (formerly) homeless people who pooled their money to afford rent, and I never got a “crap is good for you!” vibe off them. I did get a “kind of bad choices” vibe sometimes, as when they bought cigarettes and cable, maybe not the wisest investments (I don’t have either). But I think they decided that was the best they wanted to do, which is not the same as not knowing other people do better.
Diet is absolute related to class and income. Everyone has access to education about this to some degree, but some people are trapped in a position where they honestly think the $1 menu is worth the short-term costs. I have very well-educated friends who eat terribly because it was how they were raised. They are exposed to so much information about why how they eat is directly causing their health problems as they age and they see it as big government or whatnot encroaching on their lifestyle choices.
People who have less exposure to this information and were raised to think soda or sugar drinks or Gatorade were the same thing as juice or a comparable alternative are significantly more at risk for diabetes. Even Seinfeld’s noted comment about how he had sugar in his soda reflects the current movement against corn syrup in processed foods by those who can afford to not buy them. Corn subsidies keep processed foods at a cheaper cost than organic and non factory-farmed things.
That this is more prevalent behavior in lower income families in urban areas where people don’t have the space to grow their own food is a basic societal fact (and a big incentive for community garden initiatives). Institutionalized classist foodism or whatever it’s called.
Additionally fast food places specifically market their wares to low-income families with free food incentives when kids are young, which compounds the habits and convenience factors. The children heading to Stuevesant are not going to be as being targeted by McDonald’s for achievement as those going to not-name-brand-but-also-public-school. Some will be, but that is still more related to parental demographics and where they live in the city (i.e. family income). The companies know who has loyalty and are more likely to be a life-long fan.
I think these kinds of good grade incentive coupons have been forced out since I left the city, but I remember them growing up in the Midwest — and even in a city where people protest fish fries, the fast food groups still hit up the lower income areas more than the fancier areas with all-you-can-eat fish fries. I got out of that food cycle when I stopped eating meat, which subsequently helped my parents… who are now absolutely out of it since their move to California.
But even you have said that it took you years to get out of the eating habits you grew up with… and that’s probably very related to your move to California… where fruits and vegetables are cheaper and fresher.
I just had a friend tell me that she is going to join Weight Watchers after she has her baby, but had to run out and get McDonald’s for lunch. Then she complained about being tired. All three of these things are absolutely interrelated. And this is one of my friends (though journalists not on camera are notoriously terrible eaters)… And actually I think fast food places used to target my newsroom with similar incentives for similar reasons to get people to form food habits.
Hell, I don’t eat as well as I should when I’m super stressed out and that’s when I need to eat my whole grain lentil flax organic spinach whatever most of all. Thankfully I live in an area where I can outsource it to the nice hippies down the street for a semi-affordable rate.
You’re giving people too much credit for being in charge of decisions they think that they are making but are so very, VERY influenced by strategic marketing over measured periods of time.
This being said, Seinfeld is absolutely being a snotty classist dick. And his wife is super famous for an annoying cookbook aimed at moms to get kids to not eat sugar by tricking them with spinach in cookies or something else awful.
Sorry the previous response was so long, but your disconnect is alarming.
Well, very long post, badidea — and in terms of timing it comes after me & helmaey have it out below, so unfortunately it didn’t influence that back & forth. I don’t want to keep dragging this out, but I will say that yes, I had to address my own diet at some point because I always felt worn out and weighed down. And I started to notice that the giant steak I had been raised to see as the pinnacle of civilization was not doing me any favors. I still eat all those foods, just not very often anymore, and I feel a lot better.
The propaganda that goes with food is interesting. I mean, I definitely know people who think Real Americans Eat Steak — and if you don’t eat steak, you really might be a socialist. It boggles the mind, but I actually know people who sincerely think this way — food has become a code to them. They order things that they know are bad for them, and that will make them feel awful — “We needa getta Bloomin Onion AWWWWWW YEAHHHH” — they are compelled by the conviction that to not do this is somehow worse. Order the Chinese Chicken Salad so we can still function in an hour? What are we, TRAITORS? Not even kidding about that, wish I were.
But when I was super-fit, it was because I was super-broke; every day for a year I ate a single protein and fiber heavy meal (chili) that cost $1.25 to make, and I ran 7 miles (price of sneakers: $60, lasted all year). I drank exactly one beer every night, and unlimited coffee (which I made myself, no Starbucks). It was a diet I made up to save money and to feel decent, disregarding all upbringing and food patriotism. At some point — the point will be different for everyone — the propaganda you follow becomes what you have chosen to follow.
My disconnect is FINE. YOURS is alarming. YOURS.
“My name is Hotspur and I raised myself up with my food bootraps and I don’t see why everyone else can’t do what I did.”
Ha ha ha — “bootraps”! What’s that? A net you catch a ghost in? Ha ha ha! NOW WHO’S SORRY SHE MADE OBAMA BAN AUTOCORRECT??
My mother didn’t let me have soda as a kid and we weren’t exactly the Rockefellers. Or, wait, what do we say nowadays? The Kardashians? The Hiltons? Regardless, we weren’t rich and mom found me beverages that weren’t carbonated and sugary.
hotspur you are extremely naive on this topic. Just because I tell someone that McDonald’s is bad, doesn’t mean they will listen. That’s a very simplistic solution. If I were to tell you something off hand would you just accept it as truth? Also, you’re not taking into account depression, anxiety and other factors that influence decisions.
Furthermore, it is not a social worker’s job to tell someone what to do, but to help guide them and to use the resources available to get out of their predicament.
Also you’re experience with a few homeless people in your building is almost irrelevant to the bigger picture. That’s ONE experience. I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. It sounds kind of like a “I have a friend who’s black” kind of story.
I am not “extremely naive.” I am noticing that you did not actually address any of my points, except one: you seem to agree with me that failure to eat properly has more to do with an individual’s emotional and psychological condition (e.g., anxiety) than with how much money he makes. You never defined “lower class” or explain how it is possible TO NOT NOTICE that a life without exercise renders you less fit than a life with exercise.
Furthermore, if you told me a fact “off hand” (I am not sure what you mean by that — either you give me facts or you don’t; what the hell is “off hand”), and you proved it, I would accept it. Because I’m not a jackass. And I’m really unclear what the difference is between “telling someone what to do” and “telling someone to use available resources to get out of their predicament.” Tell me I should replace Big Macs with available apples or don’t, what the fuck.
I am reminded of one of my in-laws who always brings chicken mcnuggets whenever she visits my parents on Thanksgiving etc, because “My kids refuse to eat anything else.” Well, lady, your kids refuse to eat the awesome dinner my mom cooked because you fucking bring chicken mcnuggets everywhere. There is a level of bullshit coddling there that I will not condone, and I detect it in your position, along with the smugness of calling me “extremely naive” and photo-in-the-walletting me.
Great, now I sound like a Republican. GODDAMMIT I will destroy you for this, helmaey, absolutely destroy you before I let you social-work America into the fucking ocean!
It is my goal to turn you into a republican hotspur! mwaahh haaaa haaa
Okay, that’s funny.
To add to Jones’ excellent comment, my siblings and I (who were born into privilege as the super-rich scions of a carpenter and stay-at-home mom) were allowed one soda a week on Friday or Saturday nights with dinner. Years later, when my mom added a second salary to the household (hmm…) we began having the luxury of drinking soda WHENEVER WE WANTED! Like I had a can in my lunch bag EVERY DAY at school! So in my case, the addition of (relative…so so relative) wealth partly led to *gasp* an increase in unhealthy beverage consumption!
italics
What’s his stance on eating cheese from a can?
italics
Yeah. I say, “Fatten them up, kill them off, and move them out.” That would be my philosophy.
Well, I can honestly say I was not expecting Hansel and Gretel’s wicked witch to be Jerry Seinfeld, but so it goes.
Considering how expensive soda is I think it’s a bit of a stretch on the class angle. Why did I stop drinking soda? Because I couldn’t justify the extra expense added to my weekly grocery bill. And even if you don’t think it’s expensive, it still costs more than water.
Water being essentially free and all.
If you could taste the water that comes out of the tap at my apartment in Hollywood, I think you would happily spend the $2 on a gallon of clean water at the store.
I think it plays into the food desert situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert). I admittedly don’t know very much about New York so I am not sure if it is applicable, but I think it is something to consider.
Well sure. Technically, the area of Los Angeles I live in is considered a food desert (which I don’t really get how at all to be honest) but if you’re smart you can still eat healthy on a budget (I spend roughly $30-$50 a week on food), you just have to be willing to cook.
Unless it can be shown that the lower classes in New York don’t have any access to drinkable water and that soda is their only recourse, then I don’t think it’s applicable.
Also, from what I read, this proposed law doesn’t put any restriction on how much soda a person can drink at one time, just what size container it comes in. You can still refill as many times as you want or you can order multiple sodas at one time, so isn’t this whole debate of the size of the soda cup a bit silly to begin with?
From a public-health point of view, it’s about reinforcing actual portion sizes. You are still able to buy a gallon of coke and drink it all at once, or six cans of coke, or 4 cups of coke with your double-down friend chicken stack; however, this would clarify what is “one” coke.
One of the causes of the obesity crisis in the western world is portion inflation and a lack of education about nutrition. I believe the experts will hope this will help.
And Jerry Seinfeld hasn’t been funny in 15 years.
But that’s thing. It doesn’t clarify what is “one” coke. That would take a law establishing that soda can only be served in a 12 oz container (or whatever arbitrary amount was deemed suitably small enough to not be “that” detrimental to your health).
I’m all for returning to smaller portion sizes, I just don’t think this would really do anything in the long run and since it doesn’t have any real restrictions on how much soda a person can consume all the outrage (both ways) is amusing to me.
There’s a ton of research (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1128605, for example) showing partitioning things off makes consumers use less of that something. For example people will eat more cookies when 20 cookies are in one container rather than one container with four subcontainers (of 5 each.)
I think, using smaller sizes can certainly help, I just think there are better ways to encourage behavior (taxes, say) than an outright ban. Plus civil liberties and stuff, but that’s not a relevant argument for this issue.
Fair enough, and it makes sense. However, it just seems to me that, as I’m old (enough) and I can remember when a small drink was actually, you know, small, people simply kept getting refills unless the refills cost money (say 50 cents). If it cost money, then people would get frustrated and upset and sometimes abstain from having more.
free refills would make the point moot … until you leave. In the case of a fast food place, a lot of people refill before they leave, so that’s at least cutting down on that last little bit. And some people will finish their drink, no matter what, because of the whole “children in Africa” programming of needing to finish everything in front of you. In the theatre, most people would be unlikely to want to go back to refill every 30 minutes.
The fact that it doesn’t apply to convenience stores means it’s unlikely to have a huge impact, but the theatre part of the ban might have the most impact.
[In terms of buying multiple sodas ... as a solution for the theatre that could work, but it's hard enough juggling a drink and popcorn while trying to handing your ticket to the ripper, that adding another soda wouldn't be easy].
This image may not work but portion control is part of the problem. They need to make those good ol PSA’s about portion control and daily calorie intake. Most people have no idea about these numbers and that how it is an easy, free way to lose and control weight.
But I disagree about Jerry.
these PRETZELS are making me THIRSTY!
“let them
eat cakedrink soda.”These people who speak out against things like banning super-sized options and taxing junk food blow my mind. The “people should be able to decide for themselves” argument doesn’t hold water when the continent is in the middle of a type 2 diabetes / obesity epidemic, meaning the majority clearly cannot make good decisions without a push. And a lot of these super-sized drinks and meals exceed the human stomach capacity. Why would you ever want that much of something at one time? It’s like those books and movies about opulent futurisitc societies only instead of diamonds and child murder, or whatever, we want as much shitty food as we can get our hands on. See also, Roman vomitoriums. We’re a gross bunch of people, guys.
Vomitoriums were not places that Romans went to throw up, they are passage ways located under stairs that large crowds could use to exit quickly (the root of the word vomitorium means, “to spew forth,” much like a crowd after a show)
Sorry to be an pedantic jerk! At least I’m not a famous billionaire saying that poor people should kill themselves!
Ah. Once again, popular culture is a terrible teacher. Merci!
Aw, man. I’m actually really bummed out that vomitoriums for actual vomiting were not a real thing.
Huh! I remember my teacher in grade school specifically teaching me that a vomitorium was a room to vomit in. Thanks for clearing up that misconception!
It is weird how conditioned we are to expect giant meals when, biologically, we are built to eat just a little and move on. How many times on Yelp (etc) have you read negative reviews that griped “the portions are too small!” Meanwhile it is a cheeseburger place — how freakishly big do you want that burger? How many POUNDS of fries should come with it?? Once you get away from that world, you realize how easily you can live on much less food without feeling like you are “starving” (and how affordable it is to do so). Seriously, an apple is a decent lunch. AND THAT IS ALL ABRAHAM LINCOLN ATE FOR LUNCH EVERY DAY. MAYBE.
I feel so accomplished that I remembered your comment from earlier. It’s like a videogum easter egg. And yes it was worth the suspense
APPLES ARE THE WORST FRUIT. Ugh. You’re right about everything, but please, can we stop using bland boring garbage apples as a go-to for health alternatives, when a half melon or bowl of grapes is so so much more delicious, with the same amount of nutritious. Even a pear is superior to an apple. PEARS: “The better apple”
Ugh. Apples. Gross, hotspur.
Apples are wonderful, but so are pears. Those crazy hybrid pear-apples are the best… Or raspberries. Or really fresh strawberries. Hell, I’m a big fan of the vegetables that are also fruits, like cucumbers and tomatoes.
What I’m saying is fruit is delicious.
The only way I can get on the apple train is if there’s a knife and a jar of peanut butter in the vicinity.
But then again, if there are delicious pears available and the jar of PB remains, why on earth would I not go that route instead?
AGREED. I really dislike apples. When I was little, I was a really picky eater, and everyone kept making me eat apple slices saying “You should eat more fruit.” And I grew up not wanting to eat fruit because I thought it all tasted like apples. Finally when I was older I discovered that in fact most fruits are really good and not gross like apples. Also, I really hate it when I get “fruit cups” that are like 90% apples with a few strawberries and grapes thrown in. (I’m looking at you Chick-fil-a!)
Exactly! The axiom should be “A hollowed out honeydew that acts AS ITS OWN BOWL a day keeps the doctor away.”
it really does.
dj & summer, I actually agree! I hated apples so much until this year and now I am shocked to find myself on an apple kick. But I discovered I only like Gala apples because they are soft so I don’t feel like my teeth are going to come out — and even so I slice them up. And put Cookie Butter on half the slices (the good half). Have I told you about Cookie Butter yet? It’s good.
Ayo, Honeycrisp apples are the grip.
Hotspur, I believe you buzzmarketed that cookie butter earlier and I was super angry that I have no access to it. I’m in a cookie butter desert! (Probably not, because I have done zero research on whether it is available anywhere other than Trader Joe’s.)
WHOA, what the, is it new avatar day today? Everyone is looking mighty fancy!
Gala apples, if I were to have an apple, are the apples I would reach for. No doubt. Those are top notch. But being an elite apple compared to being an elite grape is like comparing the best sailboat available to man and the greatest most extravagant spaceship in alpha centauri (the Uranusans make a solid mark V xtrxbgh)
I had the same experience with apples as a kid (cue dramatic music). I later found that I actually like granny smith apples, but I love pears, grapes, strawberries, pineapple and watermelon, among others. But red apples get way too much credit and attention. They’re like the white people of the fruit world.
You need to get yourself a Jazz Apple, my friend. It’s like…biodigital jazz!
I heard Abe Lincoln ate only an apple for lunch because he ate vampires for breakfast. because you know, vampires are pretty filling.
I heard he ate logs and shit freedom.
This is probs TMI and also boring, but I had a medical condition about a year ago where I was forced not to eat at all for like a week. Like not even drink water (as a ‘treat’ they would let me chew on a couple of ice chips). My point is, that when I was allowed to eat normally it was blowing my mind because it was like a Hunger Games situation and all food seemed amazing. Fruits and vegatables were like glorious flavor explosions in my mouth. But I only needed to eat very little to be satisfied, and every bite was a party. I guess what I’m saying is that it became glaringly obvious that we normally eat WAY too much and can do just fine on small amounts of food that we should probably be appreciating a little more and that things like massive cheeseburgers are actually kind of gross out of context and also totally unnecessary. Also, a glass of wine and/or beer is insanely more potent and fun than normal in this situation.
And this morning I ate the most ridiculous and unnecessarily opulant donut that was possibly about 2000 calories so I am an idiot hypocrite.
Agreed!!! I’d also like to add that if I had it my way, you wouldn’t need to be 21 to buy alchohol, all drugs would be legal, birth control would be over the counter and you wouldn’t have to show ID to buy Sudafed (you do in my state). If I have to show ID to get just a week’s worth of Sudafed (and I’m not allowed to buy more than a one week supply at a time) because, according to my state, “it’s for the safety of society” then no one should be able to buy a Super Gulp full of enough corn syrup to kill a rat. So what I’m saying is, as long as we insist on having laws governing the consumption of anything, I don’t get why this one particular thing can’t be regulated. You can’t legally buy unpasturized milk in my state anymore, and you don’t see people calling it class warfare against hippies.
I work in a pharmacy in a county that requires a prescription for Sudafed. People complain all the time using the “let the meth heads just kill themselves and solve the problem that way.” Ignoring the heartless sentiment, it also ignores the fact that meth labs don’t just hurt meth users when they blow up.
The same is true with diabetes. We are a community and rely on others to thrive. If a large portion of our society is being adversely affected by something, we all feel the drain. If people are to sick to work, productivity declines. If people are to sick to go out, commerce declines. When this happens long enough, our economy goes downhill.
“Welcome to the 74th annual soda games! May the odds of dying a dumb fatty be ever in your favor!” -Jerry Seinfeld letting his classism ruin his audition for the role of Effie Trinket.
Bloomberg could have just quietly put up a few “NYC: No Fatties” signs around town so this whole debate would have been avoided.
Bloomberg could have just quietly put up a few “NYC: No Fatties” signs around town and avoided this whole soda controversy entirely.
Oh goddammit.
Hey, it could be worse. You could have wrote a comment out, and it refreshed the page, and now its gone. Then you could have pasted in what you wrote an it said ‘duplicate comment detected,’ and you can’t even see your comment with an “awaiting moderation” tag.
Bloomberg could have just quietly put up a few “NYC: No Fatties” signs around town and avoided this whole soda controversy entirely.
Well, badideajeans, one of us has to go home and change.
badideajeans’ post wast refreshing. but you super-sized it.
That explains why Bloomberg has been chasing me around with a rolled up newspaper all day.
Happy Birthday, my dear friend.
AAAAAAAAAAH IT’S SO AMAZING I want to take down the sun and put this up instead.
Is it your birthday?!?! HAPPY BIRTHDAY LILBOBBYTABLES!!!! You are truly a great Monster, and have made me feel so welcome here!!! HAPPY BIRTHDAAAAAAYYYY!!!!
Thanks!! I am 30, so It’s like the second movie in the trilogy of my life. I am hoping it will be and Dark Knight rather than a Matrix Reloaded in terms of quality.
I wholeheartedly pray that the second movie in your life will be The Empire Strikes Back and not Attack of the Clones. I have every confidence that it will be so.
That’s a great greeting card. You should work for Hallmark! Also Happy Birthday LBT
Wait, why haven’t we started making lazy observational jokes about this yet? I’ll start…
“Seinfeld thinks poor people should die off because of Darwinism. In unrelated news, Jerry also just announced his support for Ron Paul as president.” — Jay Leno
You are severely overestimating Jay Leno. And Jay Leno’s audience, in that you’re assuming they know who Ron Paul is.
How about this one?
“If Bloomberg really wanted New York to lose weight, he’d stop letting in people from Wisconsin.” — Jimmy Kimmel
“Well, we had the real-sugar co**. And that was pretty solid. Also Orange C***** was great. Dr. P*****, great.”
HEY NOW DON’T YOU DARE MAKE FUN OF MY STATE….just kidding let em rip this place sucks.
“Shut up already, Seinfeld! You’re ruining my action!”
George is getting upset!
It’s so tricky, isn’t it? On one hand, I really like the concept of limited portion sizing. Portion sizes are ridiculous, since it’s been proven time and time again that we will eat whatever is in front of us until it is gone, usually because of our inherent nature and also to get our ‘money’s-worth.’ Bleh. On the other hand, I am not on board with government making so many goddamn rules about everything, and when it comes to capitalist businesses and their lobbyists and all that stuff, they’ll fight to the bitter end with all their money to save every last penny they have made and will make, whether it’s responsible to society or not.
A ‘Small’ size drink at a fast food restaurant is usually pretty big anyway (something like 20 oz or something?). That’s as big as what a car cup holder will allow without the cup having that small base and then expanding out to hold all that carbonated corn syrup. I think that should be a large. It’s a Venti at Starbucks. That’s a large drink.
In addition to that, fast food chains routinely have their employees asking if the customer wants a ‘medium or large,’ with NO MENTION of a small size. It might as well be an off menu item, the way they present it. Additionally, if you are having your meal in the restaurant, most if not all of them now offer free refills, so the size of the cup becomes irrelevant. I can’t understand why anyone eating in would ever order anything besides the smallest ‘value’ cup.
It’s all about money, of course. Corporations will exploit every legal avenue they have to make money off of consumers, and they do that by moving product. They won’t limit portions on their own out of the goodness of their non-existent, capitalist hearts, and even the measures they have enforced whenever a spotlight is shone on them (your Fast Food Nations, your Super Size Me’s, etc) are always temporary and ultimately empty gestures, because it’s not cost-effective, and the outrage always dies back down and then it’s back to business as usual. Supply and demand. “I want a bigger cup! I’ll pay for it!” “Here you go. Enjoy your 128 oz container of corn syrup madness. Btw, that won’t quench your thirst. Enjoy!”
I don’t like the concept of our lives getting regulated down to a microscopic level, and I don’t like the bloodthirsty profit-minded, cold-blooded corporations doing everything in their power to keep information away from us while integrating their business deeply into our lives with their deep pockets, Washington lobbyists, and faceless SuperPACs. I would like the companies to be responsible, the consumers to be knowledgeable, and I would like government to butt out. But companies aren’t responsible, we’re all dumb, impulsive shit machines, and the government keeps trying to pack everything and everyone in figurative bubble wrap and packing peanuts for our own “safety.”
It’s all really infuriating.
I think the general rule is that government should stay out of our lives except in two cases
1. When it can buy something that is enjoyed by everyone, but isn’t feasibly bought by everyone chipping in their fare share. Examples: Military, public parks, assistance for the poor, etc.
2. When someone is doing something bad, for which the consequences are borne by other people, and they want that person to bear more of the cost of doing that action (or conversely want to encourage someone doing good to do more of that). Examples: levying fees on factories that pollute, requiring fishermen to buy a license, giving tax breaks to charitable givers etc.
The second case applies here. The harm that is being borne on other people is increased medical costs/taxpayer subsidizing care. Because apple eating doesn’t contribute to higher medical costs for other people, there isn’t a need to regulate it. So I think it is absolutely reasonable that the government wants to do something to make the soda-drinkers bare more of the cost of this action. I think a ban may not be the best thing. A tax may be better even though it disproportionately harms low-income people. However, unlike cigarettes, soda isn’t AS addicting, so changing behavior might be more effective.
The hardest task is to figure out what the additional cost of rampant soda drinking is, but there’s plenty of economic precedent to do that.
Absolutely. I totally get it, and government action seems to be the way I feel myself leaning on this topic. I already stated that the way I would like it to happen will not ever happen because companies won’t do anything they don’t have to, and I am for smaller cups. SMALLER CUPS! It’s so ridiculous. “WHAT?! WHERE’S MY BIG CUP?!?!”
“This is as big as you get. We won’t put so much ice in it so you’ll get more drink.”
“GRUMBLE GRUMBLE Alright.”
You can still buy as much soda as you want. You can still refill your cup as many times as you want. If you’re concerned about being adequately hydrated then soda is the wrong drink anyway. A tiny sip of soda actually tastes BETTER on the tongue than some poor slob gulping it down by the cheekfuls. Soda is about flavor. It’s not about sustenance.
Actually, I’ve changed my mind. There should not be a limit on cup sizes. Free market, blah blah blah. If people want to be fat as fuck, illiterate, pimply, and dumb as shit, that’s their right. I’m sad that they will be that, but what’re you going to do. Education is the issue, not soda.
I guess I should also mention that my mood is weird today because I am 3/4 of the way through the 2010 adaptation of Ken Follett’s ‘The Pillars of the Earth’ miniseries, and I’m just disgusted by basically all morally bankrupt people in positions of power.
Impulsive Shit Machines is my new band’s name.
I’m not going to lie, when I re-read my comment I was mighty proud that I somehow cobbled those three words together.
I’d rather hear what Ron Swanson has to say about this.
As long as they stay away from meat and eggs, he’s fine.
I love Jerry. I love Dr. Pepper. I live in Florida.
Cool comment.
I know it’s usually down-vote suicide to be an apologist for whomever Gabe is making fun of, but isn’t Seinfeld being ironic?
He says that he drank plenty of soda as a kid, and he didn’t exactly grow up wealthy. He doesn’t let his own kids drink it, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s actually for the ban.
I think if he were for the ban he wouldn’t have said that he isn’t for the ban.
Hence being ironic.
Yeah I thought it sounded like he was joking. The way he phrased it made me think he was being pretty sarcastic with his “YEAH LETS JUST LET EVERYONE DIE RATHER THAN TAKE AWAY THEIR GIANT SODAS” remarks. Sarcasm doesn’t translate well to print, however.
I am a little surprised that nobody picked up on this, but IMHO, his whole point was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Freemason ideology. The guy that plays Kramer, and the creater of the show, both are freemasons. JS performed at some Scottish Rite Cathedral in 2005, some kind of Kaballah thing I think. I don’t know if JS himself is a freemason, but he is obviously surrounded by close friends that are. Point is, the further up the chain you go in that, the more they are into population control. He ‘joked’ about it, but the top 1% are very into that. (Not sure if he is in that category, but he certainly is ultra wealthy and hangs with the crowd). Anyone see what is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones? Everything on there is well known freemason verbiage. Population control being the first, or one of the first items on there. I realize that some are going to throw rotten fruit my way, and call me some kind of conspiracy theorist, but for pete’s sake… wake up people. I am not saying he is a devil, but duh, he was serious…he wouldn’t care at all of most of us croaked on soda…gimme a break. Hey, there are much more powerful people hoping you will accept every new immunization coming down the pike. (feel like I am typing to a wall… ducking from fruit).
I dunno — it seems to me like what happened here was, Seinfeld made an offhand, easy joke about the question he was asked, a joke that’s totally in keeping with the material he’s done for decades. (“What’s the most counterintuitive, mildly-hyperbolically-dark place I can take this question? I know: I’ll say I oppose the ban because I *like* the health consequences of drinking too much soda!”) I could see him making the exact same joke about, say, eating fugu — “If someone’s gonna die from eating a poisonous fish, good. That means Darwinism is working.” It was an answer given in character as Seinfeld-the-sarcastic-misanthrope — I don’t think he genuinely is cheered by the prospect of people dying early deaths from overconsumption of soda.
So, he gave his not-very-funny joke answer in Seinfeld-as-comedian mode. And then the interviewer asked him a question about his specific life, and how he’s raising his kids, and he answered it as Seinfeld-the-actual-person, who’s a rich guy with rich kids. And yeah, when you put those two statements together, there’s a juxtaposition between the guy who cares a lot about his kids, and the guy who doesn’t care about society as a whole. But I think that’s more of a function of the interviewer suddenly switching lanes between joking around about an issue, and dealing with the specifics of his life.
That’s not to say that Seinfeld might not be guilty of classist assumptions, or playing into them with his initial joke. But I don’t think that this was anything close to the blithe, sincere Gwyneth Paltrow-esque “why doesn’t everyone give their children mineral water?” sort of thinking. And I think that a lot of comedians do the “saracstic misanthrope who doesn’t care about anyone else” sort of a thing, and the ones who’ve reached a certain level of success — ie., the ones whose names we actually know — are generally pretty well-off. So Seinfeld is hardly the only comedian whose jokes can easily be criticized as, “Oh, look at this rich asshole who has such contempt for the little people”, including plenty of comedians we all like. (“Oh, really, Louis CK? You think people shouldn’t complain so much about air travel? Well, not all of us get to travel FIRST CLASS like you do. And Patton Oswalt, maybe you don’t realize it with all your ‘Ratatouille’ money, but for some people, the KFC bowl is ALL THEY CAN AFFORD.”)
None of this is to say that every sentiment expressed by a comedian — on-stage or off — can be excused with, “It’s just comedy!”. There’s plenty of stuff that’s said under the guise of comedy that’s pretty ugly — Jeff Dunham and Dane Cook both come to mind — and they deserve to be called out on it. It’s a fuzzy line between “acceptable because it’s being said in character, in a hyperbolic fashion” and “unacceptable because it seems to be expressing an underlying philosophy that this actual person actually holds”. And the Seinfeld joke is pretty close to that fuzzy line. But in this particular case, I guess I put him more on the former side of the line than the latter.
Is the connection really between income levels and soda drinking? I mean directly. As a former once-a-day soda drinker myself, I stopped largely for the financial reasons. Didn’t make sense to spend months of rent money in a year on something so terrible for my body. If soda was the cheapest thing on the shelves, OK, but hey there is water from a tap, for free at most restaurants, and sometimes bottles of it at gas stations for $1 or less.
I understand the links exist, but I don’t know if you can make the argument that poor people would rather buy, say, Naked Juice or green tea or even coffee at a gas station but only have the cash for Coke.
Fast food restaurants could be a contributing factor. Anyone who has eaten at one knows it is always cheaper to buy a value meal than individual items, and it takes a lot of willpower to ask for water over soda because “I want to get my dollar’s worth.” And yes, I do agree that poor people eat more fast food for economic and convenience reasons.
Just, at the moment, I’m not buying the “rich people can avoid the soda glut because they have access to more options.”
Actually, soda’s are very bad for your health(i know you guys already knew this) but sodas contain lots of sugars and chemicals which are better suited for other chemical processes then being mixed in drinks..