Apparently, some movie theater employees are trading in their regular workwear for a couture statement that speaks out against our city's dictatorial soda size discrimination.

Via Reddit, the shirt, which appears to come in a not-small size:

This dramatic one-piece eggshell cotton top isn't just workwear, though. The shirt is becoming the hottest thing in street style since creepy men with cameras who aren't Bill Cunningham took over Manhattan, as it's been spotted outside the most fashionable film houses in New York, too. Another Reddit-er dishes:

Yeah, I was approached by a woman in that t-shirt on 2nd ave this past weekend. She asked me if she thought I should have the freedom to choose my own soda. I told her I should have the freedom to see a movie that I paid to see without being accosted by a corporate lobbying group.

The marketing efforts of the ominously-named NYC Beverage Association (who, as far as we can tell, is not run by Mugatu) have also yielded an oddly charming social media presence to shill their sugary, larger-than-large wares. Besides somehow securing an Authorized Account on Twitter, they've also managed to capitalize on "celebrity endorsements" of their cause:

Explanation: Though Jay-Z has not explicitly endorsed an extra large Dr. Pepper for President, he does hold a minority ownership stake in the Brooklyn Nets, and has a branded outpost of his 40/40 Club inside the new Barclays Stadium, and thus, could stand to gain from larger drink sales. This does, however, conflict with Beyonce's ties with Michelle Obama, who has promoted a platform of health and anti-obesity measures, which is why she's been asked where she stands on the matter of Pro-Soda-Size-Choice. As far as The Observer can tell, she has not commented.

Also, canny, topical references:

Despite being a B-League style figure, Ms. Holmes has not yet endorsed Big Soda, either. Anyway, here's hoping the campaign for larger sodas gets more and more extreme as the summer goes on. Anything to remove us from the sordid situation of being stuck in the civic boiler that is New York City for the Summer, like the surreal, Wall-E-esque campaign in favor of the liberty to fatten ourselves beyond repair in the loving embrace of oversized mass-manufactured bubbly sugar water: A comical, and thus, only mildly intrusive distraction from the reality that we live in the world we do, in which people are actually passionate about drinking bedpan-sized sodas that pickle your body (and in the case of male Mountain Dew drinkers, supposedly do wonders for one's genitals).

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

“There is no evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity,” she said.

If that logic sounds familiar, well, that means you are of a certain age, and you remember when tobacco executives argued that there simply was no evidence connecting cigarette use and lung cancer.

Ms. Bayne and her colleagues probably should stop denying the obvious and simply acknowledge that Mayor Bloomberg is not demanding an end to soda consumption. He simply wants to limit servings to 16 ounces, rather than the standard, calorie-laden 20-ounce bottle that Coke and its competitors prefer.

The mayor has common sense on his side. Ms. Bayne cannot say the same.

The mayor has a way of upsetting those who believe that government has no role to play in policing unhealthy private consumption. Critics charged that the mayor’s controversial ban on smoking in restaurants and bars would lead to an economic calamity, and, what’s more, showed that the mayor was just another operative in so-called “nanny-state” government. His insistence that fast-food outlets display the number of calories in their meals inspired more complaints about government intervention in private consumption habits.

Now, the mayor is targeting the purveyors of sugary drinks. Again there are cries of outrage from the live-and-let-live (or live-and-let-die) crowd who believe that elected leaders have no business telling the rest of us what we should drink, eat or smoke.

Here’s the problem: We all pay for the poor eating, drinking and smoking habits of our fellow citizens. That’s the mayor’s argument, and he’s absolutely right. If we as a society eventually pay for the costs related to obesity, diabetes and other ailments related to unhealthy choices, well, government has a responsibility to regulate sugar, tobacco and fat—and to inform consumers of the potential consequences of their habits.

Under the mayor’s proposal, those ubiquitous 20-ounce plastic bottles of your favorite soft drink—bottles that contain more than two servings of sugary pleasure—will be banned for sale in restaurants, movie theaters and other outlets. Venues that sell fountain drinks will be prohibited from using cups holding more than 16 ounces.

The beverage industry responded by claiming that Mr. Bloomberg’s health department has an “unhealthy obsession” with soft drinks. But it’s not the product itself that the mayor wishes to regulate. It’s the size of the container.

Not long ago, most soft drinks came in 12-ounce cans or 16-ounce bottles. Eventually, however, the beverage industry supersized its offerings. You don’t have to be a public health expert to speculate that there may be some connection between supersize soft drinks and the nation’s spike in diabetes rates and obesity.

Let’s remember, too, that the prime consumers of soft drinks are children—and it’s common knowledge that children are fatter today than they were in the past, and far too many of them are now developing diabetes.

We all will pay a price for this public-health crisis. That’s why Mr. Bloomberg is, in fact, obsessed with finding a solution. “New York City is not about wringing your hands,” he said. “It’s about doing something.”

During his tenure as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg has done something about smoking. He has done something about calling attention to high-fat, sodium-laced fast food. And now he’s doing something about the size of sugar-laden drinks consumed by children.

Some obsessions actually are quite healthy.