Reason TV Nanny of the Month: San Francisco

posted at 10:12 am on August 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Heck, even if Reason TV picked San Francisco as its winner of the July 2010 Nanny of the Month for a bad reason, they have plenty of reason to give it to their runner-up … which is still San Francisco.  In fact, the city by the bay gets an unprecedented hat trick of taking all three top spots in the competition.  If only Reason had selected better grounds for the decision:

I wrote about the vending machine controversy earlier in July, and argued at the time that this isn’t really a nanny-state action.  The city’s decision only applies to vending machines on its own property, where they are the merchant, and not to vending machines or merchants elsewhere.  If they choose to sell only unsweetened beverages in their own vending machines, that’s a perfectly rational decision for a merchant to make.  They shouldn’t be forced to sell Coca-Cola any more than the city should force other merchants not to sell Coca-Cola.

Which isn’t to say that San Francisco doesn’t deserve the award, and really for the reason I just outlined.  The city wants to make it impossible for merchants to sell pets and for people to buy bottled water, which is exactly the kind of nanny-statism the award should highlight.  Government imposition on free markets for social engineering is practically the defining characteristic of nanny states, but managing their own vending machine selections is not.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Can I gets a kitty from a vending machine?/

ted c on August 3, 2010 at 10:17 AM

The funny (and profoundly disturbing) thing about this is that I’m sure Newsom and their wacky city council are PROUD that San FranFreakShow received this “award”…

Fuzzlenutter on August 3, 2010 at 10:18 AM

These folks in SF are self-righteous blowhards that know every damn thing there is to know, just ask ‘em, they’re the smartest mo frackers in the world. It’s too bad, it’s a beautiful area, populated by loons. Case in point, I visited SF and some buddies and I traveled N to Muir Woods, State Park—big Redwood area. We pass this nutcake gathering of some Planet Society (?) or something of these flower people hopped up on who-knows-what dancing to mother Gaia and such. SF area is truly a magnet for nutjobs.

ted c on August 3, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Wouldn’t the justification for the ban justify the Nanny Award? Newsome perceived a problem with other people’s behavior and he decided to “fix” it.

Bishop on August 3, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Just love that orange tabby. Beautiful kitty.

jeanie on August 3, 2010 at 10:22 AM

I can haz a kittyburger?

Felonious Monk on August 3, 2010 at 10:22 AM

So it’s safe to assume that mind-altering drugs are safer than Coca Cola and kittens. I guess soda cans are hard to open and cats are scary when you’re stoned.

BKeyser on August 3, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Perhaps Mayor Newsom should create some rules regarding keeping ones dick out of other peoples wives.

azkenreid on August 3, 2010 at 10:24 AM

ted c on August 3, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Ahhhh, but when the ships were in for Fleet Week, the city got itself a fine dose of reality; the good ol’ days of drinking and fighting, tearing up the city and tipping 1978 MG Midgets down embankments.

Bishop on August 3, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Every time the government takes another bite out of our liberties you can always count on some liberal to embrace the “progressive wave” that is Socialism. To a liberal servitude is progress.

Guardian on August 3, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Wouldn’t the justification for the ban justify the Nanny Award? Newsome perceived a problem with other people’s behavior and he decided to “fix” it.

Bishop on August 3, 2010 at 10:20 AM

There might be something to that.
However, you could also say it would be irresponsible for the government to push high-sugar colas on government property.

Count to 10 on August 3, 2010 at 10:34 AM

You cannot have pets, bottled water, or get sugar loaded sodas from City vending machines. You can go the corner pot dispensary and reload your supply. Not sure if they implemented it but they also were wanting to put in a clinic for addicts to go shoot up supervised and police were not allowed to do anything. Their idiocy knows no bounds!

bluemarlin on August 3, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Is there a bigger tool than this guy? I submit that there is not.

carbon_footprint on August 3, 2010 at 10:37 AM

they also were wanting to put in a clinic for addicts to go shoot up supervised and police were not allowed to do anything.

Eric Holder to sue in 5,4,3,2…Never.

azkenreid on August 3, 2010 at 10:38 AM

You cannot have pets, bottled water, or get sugar loaded sodas from City vending machines. You can go the corner pot dispensary and reload your supply. Not sure if they implemented it but they also were wanting to put in a clinic for addicts to go shoot up supervised and police were not allowed to do anything. Their idiocy knows no bounds!

bluemarlin on August 3, 2010 at 10:34 AM

I think it’s mostly a matter of “governance by how things make us feel” and an unconstrained view of government power — which makes it more foolishness than idiocy.

Count to 10 on August 3, 2010 at 10:38 AM

In San Francisco, leadership doesn’t go the the people with the best ideas. It goes to the people with the most radical ideas. It operates like a street mob in slow motion.

RBMN on August 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM

carbon_footprint on August 3, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Yeah his name is Obama

sandee on August 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM

This kind of idiocy has never been better illustrated than it was a few months back in the Boston area. A town voted to ban the sale of bottled water literally days before a massive water main ruptured, rendering public water undrinkable and creating a massive rush at the local stores for, yep, bottled water.

The rationale for the ban was “Why do you need bottled water when there’s all this FREE WATER coming out your tap?”

Mental.

Disorder.

Bruce MacMahon on August 3, 2010 at 10:46 AM

I can haz a kittyburger?

Felonious Monk on August 3, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Puppy Pot Pie is so much better.

Johnnyreb on August 3, 2010 at 10:47 AM

So it’s safe to assume that mind-altering drugs are safer than Coca Cola and kittens. I guess soda cans are hard to open and cats are scary when you’re stoned.

BKeyser on August 3, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Hahahaha…

Lourdes on August 3, 2010 at 10:47 AM

You cannot have pets, bottled water, or get sugar loaded sodas from City vending machines. You can go the corner pot dispensary and reload your supply. Not sure if they implemented it but they also were wanting to put in a clinic for addicts to go shoot up supervised and police were not allowed to do anything. Their idiocy knows no bounds!

bluemarlin on August 3, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Yeah, and you forgot to include that ‘you’ (whomever) can go poop anywhere you (whomever) wants to in the City — on a curb, in the street, in front of a bank, any sidewalk, Macy’s front stoop…

San Francisco is a cesspool and Gavin Newsome is busy banning Coca-cola in cans. I’m sure he slayed the bottled variety a while ago when he forbade installing bottled sodas in his vending machine domain, all that he surveys.

I disagree that it’s not well placed to refer to this latest of Newsome’s bans as to him receiving the Nanny Award. Name anything and everything he does, it’s all applicable.

Lourdes on August 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM

I am under the impression that the mayor and City Council of San Francisco are on a mission from whatever god or gods they worship to drive as much tourism and tourist dollars from their insane asylum of a city as quickly and as efficiently as they can.

Based on this latest escapade of theirs into the very bowels of lunacy, they may indeed succeed in that endeavor sooner than they think.

pilamaye on August 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM

It’s too bad, it’s a beautiful area, populated by loons…SF area is truly a magnet for nutjobs.

ted c on August 3, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Quite true. Many DECADES ago, San Francisco was a beautiful place and great place to live. The Sixties on, it’s been ongoing ruin — but I could never have imagined decades ago just how bad it would be in these times. I mean, who could have?

I even remember the place when there wasn’t a traffic jam in sight, when the streets were clean and tidy and the best Italian food in North America could easily be found. Long lost, all of that, long lost.

Lourdes on August 3, 2010 at 10:56 AM

I swear, you should have to show a passport when you go to San Fran. Theses people are NUTS, and THEY try to rip on people from the south. What San Fran and most of CA don’t know is the rest of the country laughs AT them.

mmcnamer1 on August 3, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Perhaps Mayor Newsom should create some rules regarding keeping ones dick out of other peoples wives and husbands.

azkenreid on August 3, 2010 at 10:24 AM

FIFY. We are talking San Francisco, after all.

Phil-351 on August 3, 2010 at 11:12 AM

The city’s decision only applies to vending machines on its own property, where they are the merchant

But they aren’t just like any other “merchant”: Their “customers” don’t have the choice to go elsewere. They must go to government buildings to attend to the requirements of the legal and regulatory systems. This captive audience deserves to be able to purchase a damned Coke to make waiting in lines to process paperwork more tolerable.

The Monster on August 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM

How long do you have to stay in San Fransisco before this stuff seems normal? I am planning a vacation there, and don’t want to stay to long.

percysunshine on August 3, 2010 at 11:21 AM

When is San Francisco, Sanctuary City, going to pay off the family of the three murdered men, seeing as it was their policies that led to the murderer, an illegal alien, being protected by them in the first place.

Oh, yeah, they ‘weren’t responsible’.

GarandFan on August 3, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Who owns city property?

Who does the Mayor work for?

Oh, nevermind.

Jaynie59 on August 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Who does the Mayor work for?

In San Francisco, the Mayor works for the unions, and don’t you forget it.

Emperor Norton on August 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Who owns city property?

Exactly. By Ed’s logic, anything Government Motors does is just fine, since it’s just a business. As more and more businesses are bought up by government, they can excuse all sorts of things that we’d never tolerate governments forcing onto businesses they don’t own outright.

So, to recap, fascism is bad, but socialism is just fine.

The Monster on August 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM

But they aren’t just like any other “merchant”: Their “customers” don’t have the choice to go elsewere. They must go to government buildings to attend to the requirements of the legal and regulatory systems. This captive audience deserves to be able to purchase a damned Coke to make waiting in lines to process paperwork more tolerable.

The Monster on August 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM

The voters put Newsom in charge, and elected their council. If they’re unhappy with management practices, they can elect others to replace them. In the meanwhile, employees can buy their Coke elsewhere and bring it with them to work. An employer does not have the responsibility to provide employees with everything their hearts desire.

Ed Morrissey on August 3, 2010 at 12:16 PM

I swear, you should have to show a passport when you go to LEAVE San Fran. Theses people are NUTS, and THEY try to rip on people from the south. What San Fran and most of CA don’t know is the rest of the country laughs AT them.

mmcnamer1 on August 3, 2010 at 10:56 AM

FIFY

barnone on August 3, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Certain sexual acts are unhealthy and dangerous. Is the SF mayor going to ban that?

Hummer53 on August 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM

The voters put Newsom in charge, and elected their council. If they’re unhappy with management practices, they can elect others to replace them.

“I won”.

The Monster on August 3, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Be very afraid!

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is the Democrat who is running for Lieutenant Governor of California in November.

http://www.gavinnewsom.com/home

The main quote on his web site says:

“I hope you will join me in my bid for Lieutenant Governor to fix what’s wrong with Sacramento.”

We need to identify and stop these Democrats at the local level before they do any more damage to the State or the rest of the country.

wren on August 3, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Theses people are NUTS, and THEY try to rip on people from the south. What San Fran and most of CA don’t know is the rest of the country laughs AT them.

mmcnamer1 on August 3, 2010 at 10:56 AM

To mncnameri:

Please continue to make this point!

The locals in San Francisco REALLY do not understand how the rest of the country is laughing AT them!

wren on August 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM