金融時報:小可樂難倒大市長

小可樂難倒大市長

為控制肥胖現(xiàn)象，紐約市長布隆伯格繞過市議會，雄心勃勃推動了“大可樂禁令”，但無情地被州最高院駁回。FT社論說，為何不試試禁止小可樂呢？如果規(guī)定蘇打水最小杯至少15升，那么即使最貪吃的家伙也會放棄可樂的。

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

pugnacious[p?g'ne???s] adj.好斗的，好戰(zhàn)

libertarian[,l?b?'te?r??n] v./n.自由意志論的。主張政府對個人生活的干預(yù)應(yīng)盡可能小，個人應(yīng)當不受限制地決定自己的事務(wù)。自由意志主義者構(gòu)成了美國共和黨的一個派別。

bulge[b?ld?] n.腫脹、贅肉

girth [g??θ] n.腰圍

deli ['del?] 熟食店，即delicatessen

city council 市議會，紐約市議會共有51名議員，民主黨和共和黨人的比例為47:4 Leviathan|海怪。英國哲學家霍布斯創(chuàng)作了影響深遠的政治哲學著作《利維坦》，認為人類的自然狀態(tài)是“所有人對所有人的戰(zhàn)爭”，因此需要創(chuàng)造一個有權(quán)威、有暴力手段的國家（利維坦）。

evisceration [i,vis?'rei??n] n.去除內(nèi)臟

fructose ['fr?kt??z; -s] n.果糖

ravenous ['ræv(?)n?s] adj.貪婪的，狼吞虎咽的

thimble ['θ?mb(?)l] n.頂針

gallon ['gæl?n] n.加侖，1英制加侖等于4.55升，1美制加侖等于3.79升。一般的桶裝純凈水為5(美)加侖。

Microsize me (323 words)

Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s pugnacious mayor, never lets libertarian compunctions get in the way of bettering New Yorkers’ health. But his latest battle against the bulge has been put on the defensive by a state judge who struck down a ban on selling sugary drinks in large containers.

Sadly for the “keep off my girth” squad – a strange alliance of beverage makers, the Teamsters transport union, cinemas, and Hispanic and Korean-American deli owners – the judge’s main objection was procedural. By passing over the city council’s head, Mr Bloomberg had created a “Leviathan” (presumably a reference to Hobbes’ analysis of sovereign power, not to an excessive body mass index). In rhetoric that can only called supersized, the judge reasoned that such “evisceration” of the separation of powers might “be more troubling than sugar-sweetened beverages.”

Opponents’ concerns are more substantive. Their economic interest is the same whether a “portion cap rule” is passed by legislative or executive bodies. Some Americans object to the very idea of bans on things people want to consume, obesity notwithstanding. Fears of government overreach – Leviathan – are not altogether unfounded. In 2008, a Republican (!) state legislator in Mississippi introduced a bill that would have prohibited restaurants from serving obese diners.

Surely the only serious objection to limiting servings to 16oz is that it may not produce the desired effect. The ban is riddled with exceptions. Supersized sugar water is fine if sold in supermarkets; and if mixed with enough milk (or, this being New York, soy milk).

Nor would refills be banned. You want 32oz of flavoured, carbonated high-fructose corn syrup? Have two legal 16oz cups. With council approval, the mayor should set the limit at thimble size: 64 minicups can hardly replicate a Big Gulp. Or why not take the inalienable right to supersize to its logical extreme? Even the most ravenous might go off the soda habit if the smallest legal size was four-gallon buckets.

請根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測題目：

1.Why does the writer say "sadly for the 'keep off my girth' squad···"?

A. The opposition force was a quite strange alliance.

B. They failed to persuade and mobilize enough people.

C. The judge’s main objection was merely procedural.

D. These people did not take their health seriously.

答案(1)

2.What is correct about Mr Bloomberg and his “Leviathan”?

A. He created a supersized city Department of Health.

B. The ban might be an infringement to the separation of powers.

C. To implement the regulation, he would use force if necessary.

D. He made the city council his rubber stamp.

答案(2)

3.The only serious objection to limiting servings to 16oz, is what?

A. It may not produce the desired effect.

B. A Republican state legislator in Mississippi introduced a similar ban.

C. The opponents' economic interest would be preserved if the ban is passed by legislature.

D. Supersized sugar water is fine if sold in supermarkets.

答案(3)

4.What's the editorial's advice?

A. Try not drink flavoured, carbonated high-fructose corn syrup.

B. With council approval, mayor Bloomberg should set the limit at thimble size.

C. Set the smallest legal size of coke to four-gallon.

D. Just abandon the idea of "soda ban", it's silly.

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：C.The judge’s main objection was merely procedural.

解釋：法官判決市長的法令無效，但并未支持反對者們“吃的再胖也是個人自由”的觀點。 BD是無中生有。A正確但與答案無關(guān)。

(2) 答案：B.The ban might be an infringement to the separation of powers.

解釋：布隆伯格的禁令繞過了市議會，直接以衛(wèi)生局條例的形式發(fā)布，州法官認為，這是對三權(quán)分立原則的侵犯： "more troubling than sugar-sweetened beverages"。

(3) 答案：A.It may not produce the desired effect.

解釋：這是倒數(shù)第二段的原話。法官在判決中說，這arbitrary and capricious。BD正確但并非回答。

C是錯誤的，“行政權(quán)力越位了”并不是最有力的反對論點，因為民主黨人占據(jù)壓倒性優(yōu)勢的市議會(47:4)完全可以輕松通過這一禁令。 而對那些反對者(貨車司機、電影院和熟食店)來說，不管誰發(fā)布禁令，經(jīng)濟利益受損都是同樣的。

(4) 答案：A.Just abandon the idea of "soda ban", it's silly.

解釋：這一禁令為何會無效呢？首先，含糖飲料在超市買仍是可以的（州際貿(mào)易由聯(lián)邦政府管理），加牛奶了也可以買。 其次，續(xù)杯無法禁止，想喝32盎司的玉米漿，但市政府限制16盎司？那就買兩杯。

最后幾句話顯然是諷刺：“市長先生可以在得到市議會批準之后把容量限制搞得很小，讓64杯也頂不了一大筒的可樂。 或者，為什么不把限制搞得超級大，大到邏輯上的極限呢？這樣的話，即使最貪吃的家伙也會放棄可樂的。”