The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.
In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.
For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife, Lenore, have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side Orthodox congregation.
They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. (Disclosure: I know the food is so tasty because I’ve eaten it — I’m an OZ member.) The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.
DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.
The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats.
Anyone going to defend this or has he gone too far?
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
Sooo.... we have people starving and still reeling from a major weather event and Bloomberg wants to worry about being healthy?
I am all for him saying they should eat better and making laws to enforce it. But there is a line that was crossed and that line is when a major event has transpired that forces the system to a limit.
Right now people need to eat.... he's gone too far.
Completely Rediculous, plain and simple. Someone really needs to have a talk with this guy about priorities. Honestly Ill be glad when someone replaces him as mayor so I dont have to keep hearing about all the stupid stuff he continues to do.
A quick check of the source reveals that the source article is from March 19th, 2012. Seems like sensational journalism to me, unless there is some proof it is happening now.
It sounds like the real reason is that it's difficult to ensure that random donated food is actually safe. If the city has sufficient resources to provide food without taking donations that are difficult to check, I don't have a problem with this.
"The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats."
The bolded sounds like the real story here, and the rest of the sentence sounds like this guy's got an axe to grind.
A quick check of the source reveals that the source article is from March 19th, 2012. Seems like sensational journalism to me, unless there is some proof it is happening now.
True, would be interested to know if it's still in effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
Would you care to cite your sources? I think you just made that up to support your thin argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please abide by all rules and regulations of MTGS its parent and its affiliates. Malicious activity will result in termination of your account. Do not smoke fake weed. Refrain from trolling the staff and/or its sponsored trolls. This may result in your suspension or account termination. Do not reveal the location of Senior Staff members. Do not purchase Big Gulps outside of Manhattan to bring them there. Do not purchase Kinder Surprise eggs. Offer expires after 40 days. Cursing Annorax optional.
I just plain and simply do not agree with government telling people what they can and cannot eat, what they can and cannot donate, all of this sort of stuff is just rediculous. Its a slippery slope (on a general level, not just this one article) and one that makes me glad I dont live in New York. Heck, when even Obama makes a joke about the drink size restriction during his campaign, that should tell you something :p.
I just plain and simply do not agree with government telling people what they can and cannot eat, what they can and cannot donate, all of this sort of stuff is just rediculous. Its a slippery slope (on a general level, not just this one article) and one that makes me glad I dont live in New York. Heck, when even Obama makes a joke about the drink size restriction during his campaign, that should tell you something :p.
There were a lot of jokes at that charity benefit dinner in NY
You probably wouldn't like the gas rationing policy either.
It's still ridiculous to turn away food for the homeless because it's unhealthy,
Not really. People who are at greater risk of ill health than others are even more in need of nutritious, balanced meals. Being given junk won't help them.
Being given junk is better than being given nothing.
However, my understanding is that if Bloomberg allows it, he will open the state up to lawsuits if e.g. they pass on something that has spoiled (causing food poisoning) or is just flat out poisoned. I'm not really sure what to do about that.
Would you care to cite your sources? I think you just made that up to support your thin argument.
People aren't starving to death because there isn't enough food to feed the homeless. The real problems are drugs (you forget to eat, lol) and paranoia (you won't accept help out of fear). Giving people junk food doen't solve any real problem. When there are people who are willing to accept handouts who stave to death because the food bank is empty your argument will be valid. But the food banks are well stocked with safe, healthy food.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please abide by all rules and regulations of MTGS its parent and its affiliates. Malicious activity will result in termination of your account. Do not smoke fake weed. Refrain from trolling the staff and/or its sponsored trolls. This may result in your suspension or account termination. Do not reveal the location of Senior Staff members. Do not purchase Big Gulps outside of Manhattan to bring them there. Do not purchase Kinder Surprise eggs. Offer expires after 40 days. Cursing Annorax optional.
People aren't starving to death because there isn't enough food to feed the homeless. The real problems are drugs (you forget to eat, lol) and paranoia (you won't accept help out of fear). Giving people junk food doen't solve any real problem. When there are people who are willing to accept handouts who stave to death because the food bank is empty your argument will be valid. But the food banks are well stocked with safe, healthy food.
Would you care to cite your sources? I think you just made that up to support your thin argument.
I find it quite hard to believe that, without donations, the state can fund and stock food banks sufficiently enough to feed every homeless person willing to accept handouts.
I made a statement: "Junk food is demonstrably superior to no food." That's not up for debate and requires no sources. A person dies without food.
The burden of proof here, would be firmly on those denying good intention donations. Prove that you can feed people without the donations, then we'll stop trying to help people.
Its just another example of the government over stepping their bounds and getting involved into something they have no business butting into. With actions like this, soon it will be illegal to have a non-state funded caring/food center.
Its just another example of the government over stepping their bounds and getting involved into something they have no business butting into. With actions like this, soon it will be illegal to have a non-state funded caring/food center.
I'm confused. This rule only applies to government-run shelters. How is that not something they should be involved in? It's their own shelters.
People aren't starving to death because there isn't enough food to feed the homeless. The real problems are drugs (you forget to eat, lol) and paranoia (you won't accept help out of fear). Giving people junk food doen't solve any real problem. When there are people who are willing to accept handouts who stave to death because the food bank is empty your argument will be valid. But the food banks are well stocked with safe, healthy food.
Would you care to cite your sources? I think you just made that up to support your thin argument.
I find it quite hard to believe that, without donations, the state can fund and stock food banks sufficiently enough to feed every homeless person willing to accept handouts.
I made a statement: "Junk food is demonstrably superior to no food." That's not up for debate and requires no sources. A person dies without food.
The burden of proof here, would be firmly on those denying good intention donations. Prove that you can feed people without the donations, then we'll stop trying to help people.
While homelessness is a tragedy, there aren't that many homeless people. In June 46,000 people were living in municipal shelters in New York.link Wholesale a meal can cost less than a quarter. link
The ban is only on donations to government run facilities. The New York food bank is still taking donations. The second link has information if you're planning on making a charitable donation.
Its just another example of the government over stepping their bounds and getting involved into something they have no business butting into. With actions like this, soon it will be illegal to have a non-state funded caring/food center.
The government is running the government-run homeless shelters? What isn't over the line if think like that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please abide by all rules and regulations of MTGS its parent and its affiliates. Malicious activity will result in termination of your account. Do not smoke fake weed. Refrain from trolling the staff and/or its sponsored trolls. This may result in your suspension or account termination. Do not reveal the location of Senior Staff members. Do not purchase Big Gulps outside of Manhattan to bring them there. Do not purchase Kinder Surprise eggs. Offer expires after 40 days. Cursing Annorax optional.
Also note the article is talking about churches bringing left over food that they cooked themselves and giving it to government run shelters. This a great sentiment, it really is, but the government has a right to be leary about pre-made food just handed to them.
It's like trick or treating for Halloween. Couldn't take apples because some people put razor blades in them. Not everyone is charitable with charity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyone going to defend this or has he gone too far?
I am all for him saying they should eat better and making laws to enforce it. But there is a line that was crossed and that line is when a major event has transpired that forces the system to a limit.
Right now people need to eat.... he's gone too far.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyEdit: There is the source article linked in the OP article: http://nation.foxnews.com/michael-bloomberg/2012/03/19/nanny-bloomberg-bans-food-donations-homeless-shelters-too-salty
Notice the date.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
"The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats."
The bolded sounds like the real story here, and the rest of the sentence sounds like this guy's got an axe to grind.
True, would be interested to know if it's still in effect.
There were a lot of jokes at that charity benefit dinner in NY
You probably wouldn't like the gas rationing policy either.
Junk food is demonstrably superior to no food.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Being given junk is better than being given nothing.
However, my understanding is that if Bloomberg allows it, he will open the state up to lawsuits if e.g. they pass on something that has spoiled (causing food poisoning) or is just flat out poisoned. I'm not really sure what to do about that.
The question is, however, is the current situation one in which they will recieve no food? (I don't know the answer to that).
*ahem*
I find it quite hard to believe that, without donations, the state can fund and stock food banks sufficiently enough to feed every homeless person willing to accept handouts.
I made a statement: "Junk food is demonstrably superior to no food." That's not up for debate and requires no sources. A person dies without food.
The burden of proof here, would be firmly on those denying good intention donations. Prove that you can feed people without the donations, then we'll stop trying to help people.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I'm confused. This rule only applies to government-run shelters. How is that not something they should be involved in? It's their own shelters.
While homelessness is a tragedy, there aren't that many homeless people. In June 46,000 people were living in municipal shelters in New York.link Wholesale a meal can cost less than a quarter. link
The ban is only on donations to government run facilities. The New York food bank is still taking donations. The second link has information if you're planning on making a charitable donation. The government is running the government-run homeless shelters? What isn't over the line if think like that?
It's like trick or treating for Halloween. Couldn't take apples because some people put razor blades in them. Not everyone is charitable with charity.