 So, there's been a lot of pushback against Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban soft drinks, sweetened soft drinks, and other drinks bigger than 16 ounces. And what people are saying is that they think that it's a infringement on personal freedom to ban these drinks. But I think what people are neglecting here is that the only reason that we think that it's normal to drink a double gulp, which contains 700 calories, you could practically go swimming in a cup that big, the only reason we think that's normal is because companies are making a profit on it. And we didn't used to think it was normal. So the argument that government is interfering with your ability to do what you want forgets the fact that corporate America is manipulating what you want. So, this week we saw another piece of news, which is that the Disney Corporation is banning advertisements of junk food on its channels that cater to children. And this is real corporate responsibility. This is recognizing the power of advertising to change behavior. And Disney saying, we don't think this is good for kids, and we don't want to do this. Now, it's probably going to cost Disney some revenue from those ads that they're going to lose. But they made a decision that their behavior was important for the collective good, for the good of kids. And it makes sense to me, I think. And I think it makes sense to a lot of Americans. But we don't seem to see the same kind of good motive behind government doing something like banning gigantic soft drinks like Mayor Bloomberg has done. I think corporations have an opportunity here to recognize that they do have a very, very important role in our society in how we think, how we eat, how we behave. And they can have a very, very positive impact. Government can also have a very positive impact. It's not that long ago that people were up in arms that there were bans on smoking. I remember when the first bans on smoking, indoor smoking happened, because it used to be that everybody in every office was allowed to smoke. And people were absolutely outraged when indoor smoking was banned. And then they were outraged when smoking was banned in restaurants. And then they were outraged when smoking was banned in hospitals. But now we've come to see that as pretty normal. And in fact, I think even a lot of smokers would probably admit that making it harder for them to smoke has been good for them. It's encouraged them to stop smoking, and it's been good for other people as well. So the interesting thing that we've just seen in California is that government once again wanted to use some kind of leverage, in this case, a tax on cigarettes, as a way of discouraging people from smoking. And California already has some of the stiffest taxes in the country, and some of the most vigorous anti-smoking campaigns in the country, and some of the lowest rates in parts of California. So this ballot initiative that was put before the people initially had huge support among California voters. And what happened? The forces that wanted to tax cigarettes were outspent by the cigarette industry. And so it might seem like the California voter has spoken, but in fact what's spoken is an enormous amount of money on the part of the tobacco industry to fight this. I have no doubt that if Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban large sugary drinks were put up as a ballot initiative, as the tax on cigarettes was put up in California, I have no doubt that the beverage industry would fight it tooth and nail, and there's a very good chance that it would not pass. Even if a lot of New Yorkers thought it was a good idea, I would bet it wouldn't pass because unfortunately, money talks in this country when we vote.