San Francisco bans Happy Meals

It would foolish to believe this law will end a huge crisis in this country. But I see it as a step in the right direction, not the wrong direction. It is a shot across the bow of these corporations that use predatory marketing targeted at kids as a business model.


The great French Marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The Marshall replied, 'In that case, there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!'
President John F. Kennedy

This is a shot across the bow of no one. You said you were a baseball fan. Remember when Manny Ramirez would do something dumb but he would get away with it because people said it was just 'Manny being Manny' as they would roll their eyes? Same analogy here. You are talking about some of the most liberal people elected in our country's most liberal city. While they would of course still fight it (as the Red Sox did with Manny) at the end of the day corporations and people just roll their eyes and say 'oh it's San Francisco'.
 
This is a shot across the bow of no one. You said you were a baseball fan. Remember when Manny Ramirez would do something dumb but he would get away with it because people said it was just 'Manny being Manny' as they would roll their eyes? Same analogy here. You are talking about some of the most liberal people elected in our country's most liberal city. While they would of course still fight it (as the Red Sox did with Manny) at the end of the day corporations and people just roll their eyes and say 'oh it's San Francisco'.

I don't agree, and hearing you echo what conservative think tank rhetors have methodically created; turning language into a weapon against liberals and creating a Pavlov response to words like San Francisco is beyond the pale.
 
I don't agree, and hearing you echo what conservative think tank rhetors have methodically created; turning language into a weapon against liberals and creating a Pavlov response to words like San Francisco is beyond the pale.

HEY, you're really good a juggling that dictionary and creating your own rhetoric.
 
I don't agree, and hearing you echo what conservative think tank rhetors have methodically created; turning language into a weapon against liberals and creating a Pavlov response to words like San Francisco is beyond the pale.

And liberals don't have words they use against conservatives? Give me a break. I'm using my own words and I'm sorry if you don't like it. And Pavlov response to my own City? WTF is that? I damn sure well know my own city better than you do so I don't need some outsider telling me what I can and can't say about where I live.
 
Look at this... more Pavlov! From our left-leaning local the San Francisco Chronicle.

I mean who are they to speak about our City like this? Right-wing whores!


It's not the first time the often kooky Board of Supervisors has caught Stewart's attention. Back in 2005, The Daily Show did an entire segment on the board's rejection of legislation to bring the battleship Iowa to the bay. Supervisor Tom Ammiano gamely participated - and we must say, he's a lot funnier than Harrison Ford.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=76760
 
Here's some FACTS:

The annual health insurance premiums paid by the average American family now exceed the gross yearly income of a full-time minimum wage worker. Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. files for bankruptcy due to the costs of treating a health problem. Starbucks spends more on the health insurance of its workers than it does on coffee.

Medical care costs in the U.S. have not always been this excessive. This year, we will spend more than $2.5 trillion on medical care. But in 1950, five years before Ray Kroc opened the first franchised McDonald's restaurant, Americans only spent $8.4 billion ($70 billion in today's dollars). Even after adjusting for inflation, we now spend as much on health care every 10 days as we did in the entire year of 1950.

ref
-----------------------------------------
FDA health guidelines? USDA beef is banned in the rest of the world, because it is laced with steroids and chemicals that have been linked to cancer.
-----------------------------------------

'government would then use it as an excuse to regulate our behaviors'
Coming from a conservative, the people who demand government intrude into a woman's bedroom and control her uterus? Or conservatives who keep ripping away at the 4th amendment and challenging that it doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because our founding fathers didn't use the word 'privacy'?

It's not liberals that are the problem, it's fat kids and fucking fat heads that are too immature and ignorant to be called adults.

logo_armytimes.gif


Most U.S. youths unfit to serve, data show


By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Nov 5, 2009 16:56:21 EST

U.S. military-age youth are increasingly unfit to serve — mostly because they’re in such lousy shape.

According to the latest Pentagon figures, a full 35 percent, or more than one-third, of the roughly 31.2 million Americans aged 17 to 24 are unqualified for military service because of physical and medical issues. And, said Curt Gilroy, the Pentagon’s director of accessions, “the major component of this is obesity. We have an obesity crisis in the country. There’s no question about it.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/military_unfityouths_recruiting_110309w/


oj_logosmall.JPG

Obesity and risk of job disability in male firefighters

Background Obesity is a major public health problem and a workplace epidemic in Western societies. However, little is known about the association between obesity and job disability in specific occupational groups.

...

Conclusions
Obesity is associated with higher risk of job disability in firefighters. Additional research is needed to further explore our findings. Our study may have economic and public health implications in other occupational settings.

http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/4/245.full



ET_Logo.gif


December 25, 2008

Increasing obesity rate related to increased cost to society
Morbidities associated with obesity are also associated with high medical costs for care.

by Saad Shebrain, MD; Brant K. Oelschlager, MD

Researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health addressed the prevalence of obesity and found the U.S. obesity rate has increased at an alarming rate over the past three decades, according to results of a recent study. The researchers expect that by 2030, 86% of U.S. adults will be overweight or obese, with related health care spending projected to be as much as $956.9 billion. They concluded that without a change in people’s eating habits or exercise habits, the figures will continue climbing to a public crisis.

From an economic standpoint, obesity is costly for both individuals and society, with its associated major health problems leading to substantial economic consequences for the U.S. health care system. This includes both direct and indirect costs. Direct medical costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity; indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs.

http://www.endocrinetoday.com/view.aspx?rid=35574
And one more time, for the illiterate: What does all the above have to do with a TOY in a kids meal? All the health statistics in the world do not justify such a brain dead law.

Also, why are you avoiding a straight forward question? Since the same group of toys is added to all the kids meals at any given business, and since these meals have choices include meals which conform to health standards, how do you justify calling it a hook only for the unhealthy meals?

As far as your "predatory advertising" comment, you are, again, completely blowing dark smoke out your nether region. Have you looked at the ads recently? For instance, McDonalds, advertising a kids meal with Shrek toys, and guess which meal they show being eaten? That's right: chicken nuggets, apple slices, and milk. Once again you prove your rhetoric to be a bunch of whiny lies without substance.
 
Last edited:
And liberals don't have words they use against conservatives? Give me a break. I'm using my own words and I'm sorry if you don't like it. And Pavlov response to my own City? WTF is that? I damn sure well know my own city better than you do so I don't need some outsider telling me what I can and can't say about where I live.

Again you stir Alexander Hamilton. No, liberals don't have the structured language apparatus and echo chamber like the right. It is a huge disadvantage. Don't believe me, pick any political topic and Goggle it. The Nexis database will tell you all you need to know. Ironic we just talked about Grover Norquist who was one of the authors of the Contract with America. Newt Gingrich put out the famous memo: Language: A Key Mechanism of Control, that was a foundation of that PR nightmare for America

Yes, you have the right to comment on your own city, and I gave you a bleak picture of how the area I live has drastically shifted to the right since I was a teen. Be thankful you live in a liberal city, at least it is not a police state.

I guarantee if another city had passed the same law, it would not be national news. And some of the Pavlov dogs on this thread would take a 180 degree stance. Matter of fact, back in April, Santa Clara County establishing a prohibition of high-calorie, high-fat meals served with a toy. They banned all restaurants from giving away toys and other freebies that often come with high-calorie meals aimed at kids. Did we even hear about that?
 
Whoa there Nelly, I was merely being more succinct. It is my position that the tax payer should not be paying for anyones health care but their own, period! Are you always so touchy?

Lol... not being touchy, just didn't understand your post.

I stated.... 'people should pay for their own'

then you stated.... 'how about taxpayers don't pay for anyone else's health care'.... which was not more succinct, but simply a restatement... which is why I wondered what your point was.

Side note: saying 'how about....' typically indicates a DIFFERENT opinion/strategy/suggestion.
 
Lol... not being touchy, just didn't understand your post.

I stated.... 'people should pay for their own'

then you stated.... 'how about taxpayers don't pay for anyone else's health care'.... which was not more succinct, but simply a restatement... which is why I wondered what your point was.

Side note: saying 'how about....' typically indicates a DIFFERENT opinion/strategy/suggestion.

Your post was specific to people who are "out of shape". If you meant no one, whether they are out of shape or not, should pay for their own health care you never said so. I think we just stepped into a misunderstanding because what was in our mind was not communicated well.
 
This is a shot across the bow of no one. You said you were a baseball fan. Remember when Manny Ramirez would do something dumb but he would get away with it because people said it was just 'Manny being Manny' as they would roll their eyes? Same analogy here. You are talking about some of the most liberal people elected in our country's most liberal city. While they would of course still fight it (as the Red Sox did with Manny) at the end of the day corporations and people just roll their eyes and say 'oh it's San Francisco'.

As only a person from the area can unabashedly say with no reservations whatsoever!

He/She just doesn't get it.

Let's see who gets Newsom spot. The most interesting thing about this is the BOS overrode Newsom on this, but I feel fairly confident that had more to do with him being a new father than anything.
 
He seems like a cool enough guy. I'm still on a learning curve with regards to who the different personalities are and who the trolls are! :)

If he would stop tripping over his ego, he might actually read what is written for what it is rather than what he assumes it is. :palm:
 
Back
Top