piz

Because McDonald's Has Free Will

10 posts in this topic

Speaking of the relative value of fast food, there's this: Los Angeles City Council Passes Fast-Food Ban. Some excerpts:

The Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted on Tuesday to put a one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in one of the city's poorest areas, marking the latest effort by a municipality to fight rising obesity rates.

The 13-0 vote came about a year after research found that roughly 30 percent of children living in the South Los Angeles, West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park areas are obese compared to about 21 percent in the rest of the city.

Several U.S. cities have adopted measures forcing the restaurant industry to adopt healthier standards.

There is so much wrong with what the article is reporting that I don't know where to begin. I do have to ask about one thing, though: why were those neighborhoods targeted? If this legislation is good for them, isn't it good for everyone else, too? By the "logic" of this legislation, why is it acceptable for 21% of us to be fatties? Doesn't Big Brother want to save everyone from themselves? Could it be that this isn't really about anyone's health?

As for "obesity," I remember the federal government several years ago passing a law that lowered the standard, thereby increasing by fiat the percentage of the population that is "obese" by something like 100% (as in if 20% of us were fatties before the legislation, then 40% of us were lard butts after).* Hence the scare quotes around the term - if it can be defined to be anything at all, then it has no meaning at all.

What's next? McRation cards that you must present to determine if Fearless Leader will allow you that next Big Mac?

_____

*Don't hold me to those exact figures, but whatever they were it was close to that and absolutely outrageous, an obvious tactic to exert ever more control over us under the guise of being good for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of the relative value of fast food, there's this: Los Angeles City Council Passes Fast-Food Ban. Some excerpts:
The Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted on Tuesday to put a one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in one of the city's poorest areas, marking the latest effort by a municipality to fight rising obesity rates.

The 13-0 vote came about a year after research found that roughly 30 percent of children living in the South Los Angeles, West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park areas are obese compared to about 21 percent in the rest of the city.

Several U.S. cities have adopted measures forcing the restaurant industry to adopt healthier standards.

There is so much wrong with what the article is reporting that I don't know where to begin. I do have to ask about one thing, though: why were those neighborhoods targeted? If this legislation is good for them, isn't it good for everyone else, too? By the "logic" of this legislation, why is it acceptable for 21% of us to be fatties? Doesn't Big Brother want to save everyone from themselves? Could it be that this isn't really about anyone's health?

It's called "getting one's foot in the door." 30% first, then 21%, then everyone.

As for "obesity," I remember the federal government several years ago passing a law that lowered the standard, thereby increasing by fiat the percentage of the population that is "obese" by something like 100% (as in if 20% of us were fatties before the legislation, then 40% of us were lard butts after).* Hence the scare quotes around the term - if it can be defined to be anything at all, then it has no meaning at all.

What's next? McRation cards that you must present to determine if Fearless Leader will allow you that next Big Mac?

_____

*Don't hold me to those exact figures, but whatever they were it was close to that and absolutely outrageous, an obvious tactic to exert ever more control over us under the guise of being good for us.

What's Next? Only eating on even/odd days depending weather your birthday is an even or odd number, just like rationing of gas was done. Just show your driver's license at the window when you order. Or better yet, you can only eat the fat stuff on your birthday!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted on Tuesday to put a one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in one of the city's poorest areas, marking the latest effort by a municipality to fight rising obesity rates.
Ok, now... Cracker Barrel Restaurant is not a "fast-food restaurant." Chili's is not a "fast-food restaurant." Pick any "soul food" restaurant -- it's not a "fast-food restaurant." On the other hand, is a buffet restaurant a "fast-food" restaurant? Is that not the holy grail for the horizontally advantaged? But, then, that would include everything from Swedish and Chinese to Soup Plantation and the major salad bar restaurants. Will we base this ban on national origin, now?

The next step has to be to outlaw recipes... which will bring the multi-culturalists up against the food fascists; two sister dogmas in the Leftist Universe. But, since, in that universe, contradictions are allowed, I'm sure they'll find a way to ban their egg and have it, too, as long as it's not on a McMuffin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that the Soviet Russians standing for blocks in freezing weather to get their government dole of bread didn't have obesity problems. The logical endpoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine that the Soviet Russians standing for blocks in freezing weather to get their government dole of bread didn't have obesity problems. The logical endpoint?

No. This is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Michigan - where we used to laugh at the nuts in California - a state legislaytor introduced a bill earlier in the year that restaurants weigh customers before serving them. Overweight? No service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To define overweight they generally use the BMI scale where overweight is defined as 25 and over(30+ for obesity). A pretty normal guy like me, who is around 5'8"-9" and 165lbs, i'm just at the border of being overweight according to that scale. In reality however, i'm in pretty decent shape . And the thing is, take a normal guy who works out regularly and eats well and he is very likely to register as overweight on the BMI scale. For comparison, let's say a college quarterback is 6'3" and 230lbs. That's a BMI of 28.7. So according to the BMI scale alot of fit and even atheltic people will be regarded as overweight. And what if the more muscular guys would decide to bulk up a little bit, then they would register as obese. However, one common argument for the BMI scale is that it's meant to be applied to "normal" people who dont exercise regularly. But that's a bad argument considering that alot of normal people do exercise, and one very common form of exercise is to lift weights.

Then we have the health aspect to consider. Even if people were as fat as the statistics claim, how bad is it really to be fat? What we do know is that it's unhealthy to be too fat. Perhaps not as bad as starving, but it's still bad. The problems is that it's impossible to say anything about someones individual health, aside from the more obvious cases. Some people live good and healthy lives even though they are fat, while others are very unhealthy even though they are skinny. The only way to tell is to look at the individual. Even if statistics would show a correlation between overweight and health problems, correlation does not imply causation.

So basically there is no real science behind these government legislations. And while I do generally regard politicians as rather weak in their mental capabilities I think they are fully aware of the lies they are trying to feed people. The question then is, what are their real motives?

First we have power. People are made to feel guilty about their weight and lifestyle, and poor, weak and guilty people are more likely to accept that the government steps in and saves them from themselves. And talk about ruling people completely when you can rule over their eating habits, food is after all a basic need for survival. By first attacking the poor you also have much greater chance to make others accept it too. Isn't it great to defend the poor who cannot take care of themselves and defend themselves against the evil capitalists who profit on their misfortune? Or read between the lines; "Oh great, now these weak and lazy fools will cost a little bit less in social wellfare so that my tax money can go to more important things". Whatever they are thinking, if people start to accept this then what evil ideas will they accept in the future?

Aside from power I would bet it would be interesting to look into some politicians relationsship to the health and fitness industry. Not that I have anything to back this up with, but I bet it would be quite interesting to "follow the money".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from power I would bet it would be interesting to look into some politicians relationsship to the health and fitness industry. Not that I have anything to back this up with, but I bet it would be quite interesting to "follow the money".

If their motive were truly money, I would give politicians much more credit than I do. The motive is probably power, as you mentioned, as well as getting pseudo-self-esteem and credibility and status from others by seeming to be altruistic. If altruism were not a moral ideal, those politicians would go nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My business is public finance and I am close to a large number of state and local politicians. Some are motivated by a desire to be productive and to have earned what they get. There is a poor working class district here with bullet proof financials and academic performance to rival almost any private school. This with a population of students where 95% "qualify for subsudized meals" as the euphamism goes.

On the other hand there are the acivist types, who just want to have a hand in running things and to be "in the game". I very nice, concise reference on this is in "Adam Smith" s The Money Game. Why do people saty in the market when they're losing everything/ Because being in the game means more than anything...being a player. If this were a Republican stronghold the same people would make a case for themselves to be in the lead group just as they are "Democrats" now. As to money, many are getting genuinely wealthy above and below board; but you shouldn't overestimate most of them. Lifetime free health care and generous retirement benefits along with a seat at the table will do nicely for most of them.

Power and status among their own really is the motivation for a large number of them. Most of them are not smart - the smart people are the professionals and academics who are their enablers. The corrupt mayor who bankrupted Flint was and is the protege of a liberal professor/lawyer activist and his Fortune 500 heiress wife.

My own state legislator, who proposed a a law, close to passing, to ban all smoking in all "public" places - bars, restaurants, bingo halls, even self described cigar bars was interviewed and asked why she was such an activist. Her answer was that she was elected to pass laws; that's why they have government, to pass laws and whoever is there gets to pass the laws they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My own state legislator, who proposed a a law, close to passing, to ban all smoking in all "public" places - bars, restaurants, bingo halls, even self described cigar bars was interviewed and asked why she was such an activist. Her answer was that she was elected to pass laws; that's why they have government, to pass laws and whoever is there gets to pass the laws they want.

Welcome to the UK where such a law is in force. People are prosecuted for failing to ensure no-one smokes in bars they run.

About the only place it is ignored, is at major sports events, as it is difficult to enforce. Indeed, to prevent prosecution, we have the spectacle of stewards telling people not to smoke, and being heartily abused for their troubles :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites