Fast Food Predators - Do you Buy it? by AnthonyT

It's only in America that we have inhibitions about kids and alcohol and tobacco. Not that that's particularly wrong of us, but this is a distinctly cultural thing. French children drink plenty of alcohol, and you might have seen a youtube video going around recently about some guy in Asia or Indonesia (not sure which) who taught a two year old how to smoke.

Again, I'm making no comments on whether that's good or bad. It's probably bad.

Is a child able to understand what they're putting in their bodies, and is it harmful? Some of them. For the rest, you'd hope their parents are making responsible decisions for them. Probably they aren't, but there's more factors going on here than bad parenting.

If these people behind the litigation were really interested in the health of the children, they'd be building a case against the toxic and addictive additives in the crappy food, and pushing for more and more healthy alternatives. Focusing on the toys is not going after the real problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:13 PM

I am tempter to agree with the plaintiff: happy meals are predatory marketing.

Its a fine line, but when something is not a children's product, but the major focus is advertising to children than I think it's probably,y predatory. If it can also be proven to harm children, then it should probably be stopped.

The result would probably be a moving of the toys to something safer, like to drinks, it would be harder to argue that the chocolate shake was harmful.

When we were kids we got rice paper candy, which had a toy in it, like cracker jacks. otoh, both were childrens products, as such, they have to abide by certain safety requirements.

I recall in the 90s knowing a lot of kids who started smoking because of Joe camel, and they told me as much. Typically boys, 11 or 12, and much more than the cjoe camel character, it was the collecting points to trade in, camel cash I think it was called. All the other boys would think they were cool if they had camel gear.

The camel kids were then the most likely to smoke weed heavily, I'm not sure they were more likely to smoke weed period, but far more likely to pick it up relier and to smoke it every day, because they were already smokers, 100% of camel kids I knew became serious potheads. All of the kids who actually bought the camel gear went on to do harder drugs, many ended up in jail or in the psyche ward. So far, all of them are still alive,

Sure, the things which drove them to Joe camel might have driven them other places, but maybe just to s and h green stamps, and things that don't really work that were sold on the back of comic books. So maybe Joe camel didn't cause their universal downward slant in life, but was it predatory marketing? Of course it was.

So, will happy meal kids grow up to be fat and have myriad health problems than their cracker jack buddies don't have? Sure,

Solution? The company should act responsibly. If it wants kids as customers, fine. Produce a kids product, one that wont kill them, or cause them serious lifetime problems. Spiderman salad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:28 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
the idea of suing a food company for offering toys with its meals is abhorrent to me.

It should be- that's all kinds of lame.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:37 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Dream,

I think food in kid-sized portions is indeed a children's product, although I know some adults who also prefer that portion. I think the shakes and sodas are probably among the most deleterious parts of the meal, so your opinion about them being much safer surprises me. As for the Spiderman salad, things have begun to move that way, actually. Apple juice, apple slices, and lowfat milk are all optional components of the Happy Meal. The protein needs some work, I agree. Their beef and chicken are just awful, though I used to eat them all the time.

I'm sorry to hear about your Joe Camel friends all turning to hard drugs and developing psychiatric problems. I'm not sure it relates to McDonalds, though, or to prizes inside of Happy Meals, Cracker Jacks, or Cereal Boxes. I guess I don't think it's predatory to market a product to kids if the product is designed for their legal consumption. Small-portioned food goes right in that box, in my opinion. I sort of wish I'd eaten more Happy Meals growing up. My appetite outgrew them before I was ten, and I turned to adult sized portions.

It's also notable that there's only two ways a kid can get a Happy Meal. Either 1) The parent buys it, or 2) The parent trusts the child with money, and they use that money to buy it. Probably after the parent or trusted guardian transports them to the restaurant, since leaving children to roam freely has become a criminal act in the last decade or two. In either case, no one gets to the kid except through the guardian.

I'd understand a campaign to provide more food options for Happy Meals. Maybe a mini Boca Burger for young vegetarians to have with their already available apple slices and lowfat milk.

But suing over toys? That seems ludicrous, and a stepping stone to meddling in all kinds of products. I don't like that sort of meddling. I'll decide if my kid gets the Happy Meal and the Toy that comes with it, not a 'science' center claiming to act on my behalf for the welfare of my children. It seems to me that all this 'science' center is trying to do is take away my freedom to choose while claiming to speak for me or mine.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:58 PM

Quote:
Their beef and chicken are just awful, though I used to eat them all the time.

That's because it was toxic. The preservatives in the meat to make it able to travel and be reconstituted make it into a non-food.

Sure, you can argue that ice cream and soda are bad for kids, but they're things that kids consume, and your not making them do it. Fast food is a product for working people on the go, which is why it was creates and what keeps it in business. They are attempting to lure new lifelong customers, and doing so at the expense of those customers health. The sticky point being that doing so is illegal. You can sue people for that, because you have a case. If you don't have a case, you cant sue.

Some other bad product ideas:

Smith and Wesson realistic toy guns.
Harleys for tikes
Al Qaeda training kit and tea set.
Extreme Chemistry Set: biowarefare edition.
Anheiser bush frog chocolate candies
Plastic dynamito suicide kit, and suicide kit for girls.

In fourth grade my cousin was asked to pick a person in the news he admired. He picked Charles manson, who was up for parole at the time. Odd choice. Six years later he committed suicide. Ive thought about it many times since, and this comes through more than anything: he had a knowledge of how to kill people and all the tools to do it. It was a "hobby" that his parents "entertained." he was not at all psychotic, sick or unstable. He was much like the people here. He enjoyed scifi and military stuff. But when he got into the crashing depression mood that we all have several of growing up, he had the passing though to end his life, and the knowledge and ability to do it instantly and effectively.

My point is that kids are impressionable, and what we teach them are good venues for them to follow actually does matter.

Personally, I encountered fast food when I had teaching job. Okay, it wasn't much of food, but it was fast, and beat starving. When i would stop in-between my day job teach high school and night job, teaching adult Ed. I had just enough time in the middle of my hour commute from after-school, I would stop into a fast food joint. Some people there would give people who think that they are fat some serious pause. I remember this one woman at mcdonalds who sat down on the chair and her fat drooped over the edges until it reached the floor. Her husband, himself being around 300 or so then fed her i think it was six meals. She didn't feed herself, how could she?

So yes, I think its fair. These sorts of habits are picked up somewhere, and when your a kid, you're far more susceptible.

My mom is currently planning to quit smoking after 50 years. She hated it when she started, but the media convinced her it was cool.

Really, when I think what these guys do to kids? Feel sorry for them, not bloody likely. I'm more likely to feel sorry for BP.(though not very) sure, they'll get sued. They should consider themselves lucky.

Fact of the matter is that these guys knew what the moral boundaries of the free market were when they went in. And also, what they have according to the article is a cease and desist letter. That's hardly unfair.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:05 PM

This is pretty clearly not a civil liberties issue, nothing was related to the content of the toys, except in my post just now, and no one is saying the child can't have toys.

Also, even if I granted that the happy meal was a childrens product that kids were eating anyway, and not something created by a marketing dept, which i don't, but if I did, it still wouldn't explain dinosaurs and superheroes on the super sized value meals. That's for the (slightly) older kids. I knew a kid who was 310 lbs in 4th grade, he loved those value meals.

No one is saying you can't choose to give your kids junk food or you can't give your kids toys. Mcdonalds is definitely the stranger with candy here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:12 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"doing so at the expense of those customers health."

Hello,

If the 'science' center believes the food is unfit for human consumption, they should argue on those grounds. If the food has no nutritional value or is toxic, that's a fun fact for everyone. Perhaps the 'science' part of their 'science' center could make that argument based on some factual data.

However, kids do eat cheeseburgers and chicken just like they eat ice cream and candy and cinnamon flavored cereal. It feels like your division between these products is rather arbitrary, based on personal taste.

Also, the only person who 'forces' kids to eat candy, ice cream, soda, cheeseburgers, or chicken nuggets is the parent or guardian. My niece has only very infrequent encounters with those foods because my sister simply chooses not to feed them to her.

Perhaps the person they really mean to sue is the parent, who is ultimately responsible for food choices, but doing so is logistically difficult and likely to be extremely unpopular.

I should also point out that you can sue anyone for anything in this country. You may not be successful, but you can sue.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:19 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"No one is saying you can't choose to give your kids junk food or you can't give your kids toys. Mcdonalds is definitely the stranger with candy here."

Hello,

But someone IS saying I can't get my junk food and toys in one package if I want it. Also, by identical reasoning, there can't be cartoon characters on my cup. Or crayons with my Denny's kids menu. Or a decoder ring in my Lucky Charms. Etc.

I think it's up to the store to provide the product, and up to me to buy it or leave it lie.

Their (the food store's) only concern ought to be that food content information is available and that the product is not toxic. If it fails those criteria, then suit can be brought on different grounds. Better grounds.

This isn't just a suit against McDonalds. It's a suit against anyone who ever marketed a product for children. THAT is what they're suing for. I simply don't think marketing food to children is or ought to be actionable or illegal.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:02 PM

CSPI has a political agenda Anthony, and an extreme one, and of course, it's all about control and profit, obviously.

This is kind of a real pisser cause the opposition is no more credible than they are - on the one end you have CSPI, and on the other you have CFCF, who represents the industries, and NEITHER one is any kind of trustworthy.
(Nor is, the FDA, who takes money from both sides and plays ball for the highest bidder no matter how they hafta twist up the "science" to do it!)
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

Worse, is that both sides argument actually has merit, once you saw through the layers of distortion, bullshit, and obfuscation, but in the end imma side with actual customer and state that their choice should be an INFORMED one - let the companies produce whatever they like, but with the caveat that it should be *accurately* labelled, instead of using obfuscation or even made-up names to hide ingrediants they know the customer might consider cause for rejecting their product.

I don't trust either one, but even taken with a very large grain of (cue screaming from CSPI) salt - the CFCF's site deconstructing CSPI is well worth a look.
http://www.cspiscam.com/index.cfm

Thing is, in the end imma side with who lets *ME* make the choice about what I eat, who lets *ME* make the choices about my lifestyle...

And I consider anyone, anything, who thinks they have some divine fucking right to run MY life for me without so much as askin me, to be the very epitome of tyrannical scum and naught more in the end than gunsight fodder.

Ergo, CSPI can go fuck themselves to death with a giant cheeseburger flavored cigar.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:50 AM

Frem

The thought had occurred to me that this group had an agenda or possibly was associated with a special interest. The money for thgese cases has to come from somewhere.

I don't think it's my right to have tiny toons on my mcshake without having bought the tiny tons cup, but I actually done think this opposes that. It opposes luring kids to purchase a specific product they might be indifferent about to get the toy. Legally, they're already required to give you the toy if you ask for ti even if you didn't buy the happy meal. I remember reading about a grown women who has thrown out hundreds of happy meals just to get the complete collection of toys. Guess she didn't know you could just ask.

Anthony

I think theres a difference. If you eat it in moderation, it won't have a serious affect on you. If you develop an early life long habit of eating it, it will. McD's is trying to create the latter, and doing so is illegal, which is the reason for the case, whether we agree with the law or not.

I'm all for the libertarian free state, but those natural rights don't include the powers of corporations. Because we have corporations, we need a means to control them. If we just had corporations, they would almost instantly become a government through collusion. Sure, theres potentially a better solution, but I'm still tempted to agree with the claim. It seems predatory to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:56 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think theres a difference. If you eat it in moderation, it won't have a serious affect on you. If you develop an early life long habit of eating it, it will. McD's is trying to create the latter, and doing so is illegal, which is the reason for the case, whether we agree with the law or not.

I'm all for the libertarian free state, but those natural rights don't include the powers of corporations. Because we have corporations, we need a means to control them. If we just had corporations, they would almost instantly become a government through collusion. Sure, theres potentially a better solution, but I'm still tempted to agree with the claim. It seems predatory to me.

Isn't this a civil suit brought by a non-governmental Non-profit? In which case this pretty much is a Libertarian solution.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:23 AM

Sure it's predatory. All businesses are, aren't they? Probably none of us here like corporations any more than we do authoritarian moral watchdog groups.

It's a tricky case. Like you pointed out, cigarette companies got hammered for marketing unhealthy products to kids, so CSPI probably has some legal precedence here.

But I still stand by what I said earlier, it's not the toys that are the real issue here. It's the food. And the food is addictive and unhealthy and toxic.

We can say that people are marketed into bad habits, but ultimately it's a choice they made or their parents made. In general I'm against a policy that assumes people need the law to make their choices for them.

That said, I hope this lawsuit goes through, and I hope the food industry hemorrhages money out the ass fighting it when they win. And they they will, you can already see hints that public opinion sees selling unhealthy food with toys and selling deathsticks with toys as a different thing (it's not, but oh well), and this is a case that'll probably fall on the side of public opinion.

Paying all that money won't even make a dent, but I'm spiteful that way. I wouldn't mind seeing them out of business and mom and pop restaurants having an upswing. In the very least, it'll continue to raise awareness, which maybe is the whole point of this stunt, however poorly enacted it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:43 AM

Whatever possessed anyone to think CSPI is a non-profit ?

They may pretend and hint at it, but they don't say it outright cause they legally cannot, they are very much a for-profit enterprise, and besides sucking up the obligatory political grants to piss away on their laughable "research" (and yet, no more laughable than the corporate sponsored version practiced by CFCF) over 65% of their income comes from their NAH publication which is aggressively marketed to idealistic true-believer type idiots by telling em what they wanna hear whether no matter how they gotta twist the facts to do it.

And don't even get me started on Jacobson...
Ok, you know how I was against MBTE in Gasoline cause no one thought that brilliant fucking idea all the way through, and all the Greenies who rabidly supported it quietly slinked away as we now have to spend that much more trying to dig that poisonous shit out of the environment ?

Well, Jacobson was one of the assholes who pushed so hard for trans-fats as a replacement for "evil" stuff like natural butter, and all these hideously toxic sweeteners as a replacement for "evil" sugar - and *THAT* right there oughta freakin give you some idea that these folks are not to be trusted.

Not sayin the corporations are trustworthy neither, far from it, but much like a lot of anti-alcohol or anti-tobacco initiatives, they don't really give a fuck about public health (although well meaning individuals within those orgs may) as much as they care about getting the money, and so they use this platform to do it, which in it's own way demeans and obfuscates *actual* attempts and efforts to research better solutions.

They're really not a lot different than a corporation themselves, they just got better sounding propaganda, is all it is.

But in the end it comes down to choice, the corporation is, somewhat begrudingly, still willing to offer me the CHOICE, to buy and use their product or not - CSPI is *not* willing to offer you a choice, they want you to live their way, and they want the Gov't to bring it's guns to bear and MAKE you live their way.

And that, folks, is wholly unacceptable to me.

Just call me Edgar Friendly.

-Frem

PS. Byte - Do a little research on CSPI and ponder whether them running your life is any better than some corporation doing it ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:02 AM

I understand it, hence why I made a comment about not liking authoritarian moral watchdog groups. Ultimately, my view is the choices people make about food isn't even being addressed here, this is some whackadoo side battle about toys. This isn't going to keep the food industry from making unhealthy food that I don't eat and so don't particularly care about, it's not going to keep kids from trying out fatty foods or their parents buying it for them and the kids developing a taste for whatever they like.

Which is why, rather then taking sides, I'm sitting here nommin' on some organic no butter sea salt popcorn while I watch them eat each other. It'll be hilarious. CFCF is going to smack down CSPI with whatever money they have at their disposal, it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to win and the toys are going to stay. At the same time, I get to watch the evil bastards in the food industry bleed a little bit. It's win win! (for me)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:18 AM

Oh I can understand that, however - with me it's a matter of principle, "Crusaders" like Jacobson, you let em get that first inch, and another, and another, build momentum...

Sooner or later they're kickin in YOUR door.

Nobody took those pissants at Synanon seriously, even when they started pushing their agenda upon social undesirables, and in the end, look at the enormous damage that did - what if they *had* been cut off at the knees before they got off the ground ?

So I do take it serious, just cause they ain't a threat now doesn't mean they'll not become one if they have their way enough to obtain the financial and political power to become a force, in much the same way certain predators now have a powerful financial and political lobby cause they were not hamstrung back in 1993-1997 when we had the chance to do it.

It's a piss poor time to start worryin about a threat to your personhood when their knife slams into your back - ergo, imma drop sand in their gears *NOW*, cause I have learned better.

-Frem
ETA: Nobody took the NeoCons all that serious when they were a bunch of giggling office pukes working for Scoop Jackson either, and look how that turned out, also.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:44 AM

Hmm. You got me, I never heard of Synanon, though from you I've heard of CEDU, and I'm not surprised that one influenced the other. I fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't one and the same under a different name. Look at the shit involved, forced vasectomies, splitting up marriages, Synanon control over raising children in a direct analogy of state and/or corporate control of childcare?

I suspect what happened with Synanon is that the jerk who created it found himself a lot of special interest sponsors, particularly eugenicists and other authoritarian social engineering nutcases. That's probably what ended up shaping the program.

No doubt these same people have money with CSPI, the apparent interest in control over food consumption seems like a hallmark social engineering idea.

But your comments about transfats and artificial sweeteners... Isn't the food industry technically complicit in all that? Clearly Jacobson has backing from the eugenicists, but I was certain the eugenicists were in the food industry as well. Isn't this just another shadow puppet play?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:56 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Whatever possessed anyone to think CSPI is a non-profit ?

They may pretend and hint at it, but they don't say it outright cause they legally cannot, they are very much a for-profit enterprise,

Time to bring a suit against them then:

Quote:
CSPI is an aggressive non-profit consumer organization conducting innovative programs in nutrition, alcohol, and food safety. CSPI publishes Nutrition Action Healthletter, the nation's premier health newsletter. CSPI strives to provide useful, objective information to the public, represent citizens' interests before legislative, regulatory, and judicial bodies, and ensure that advances in science are used for the public's good. CSPI is supported by more than 900,000 members in the United States and Canada, sales of educational materials, and foundation grants.

http://www.cspinet.org/about/jobs.html

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:05 AM

Byte

Synanon
Hotel california

Cit,

Glad to see you on the side of multinational corporations, yer movin up

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:08 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I haven't read everything here yet, but have any of you ever actually TRIED the McDonald's "apple" slices? Pop quiz: What happens to an apple when you slice it? It starts to yellow and turn brown pretty quickly, right? McD's "apples" don't do that. That's all I needed to see to never order them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"What happens to an apple when you slice it? It starts to yellow and turn brown pretty quickly, right? McD's "apples" don't do that. That's all I needed to see to never order them."

Hello,

I wondered about the apple slices at my grocery store, too, which also don't brown in their little packages.

Turns out there are non-toxic ways of treating a sliced apple. Let's hope they're using one of them:

http://www.wikihow.com/Keep-a-Cut-Apple-from-Turning-Brown

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

http://www.mcdonaldsmom.ca/correspondents.php?mom=3&jrnl=285

Hello,

Apparently, McDonalds' propaganda department gets asked the apple question a lot. They soak them in acid, which is one of those methods I listed above.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:26 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Cit,

Glad to see you on the side of multinational corporations, yer movin up

Sorry to see you're having issues with reading comprehension, try night school

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:29 AM

JONGSSTRAW

McDonalds has recently become the pinata of choice for the pc/food police crowd. Apparently these folks choose to go after McDonalds because they feel their food is not good for people. What they never seem to consider is:

Children of poor folks don't get a lot of toys, and for some kids these toys are a big deal.

Ronald McDonald House provides great charity and comfort for families of sick kids.

Kids love to go to McDonalds, they love the food.

McDonalds sponsors high school kids athletics, including a national HS basketball team.

But whether there's a toy involved or not, McDonalds will still do very well. It seems incredibly mean-spirited and Scroogelike for these activist twits to ruin a good thing for the kids.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:48 AM

Quote:
Children of poor folks don't get a lot of toys, and for some kids these toys are a big deal.

Having grown up extremely poor, I have to say I dont think this is a solid argument. There were, as it turns out, children before us, and as a result, there were also toys ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Folks... dont you get it?

The elite have decided that McDonalds is bad! So we can't have it.

Duh.

Forks make you fat, too.

Ban them.

Ban them I say!!!

Salt also (oh wait, they did that already, right? I wonder when this gout will go away...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:46 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Guns kill people!

Fast Food makes you fat!

Salt is evil!

Eat organic food! (What? You can't afford it? Well then you will be skinny and stop offending us!)

Tofu is good for you! (What, there are no Whole Foods in your neighborhood? Then get on 3 buses, and 2 taxis to the lily-white part of town and get that good vegan food!!)

*shudder I hate elitists so, so, SOOOOOOOOOOO much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:53 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

It fucked up, but there really are not that many grocery stores in the hood.

Call it raciss if you want, but they just dont do well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:55 AM

A farmer's market is a better choice than Whole Foods. We have stands they set up in Holladay every weekend in the Summer and Autumn for the harvest, it's awesome. So interpersonal, and tends to be cheap, too, cheaper than the supermarkets. It helps if you like squash and have a good recipe for marinara sauce. EVERYTHING vegetable is better with marinara sauce.

The only thing to go to Whole Foods for is Sweet Sara Marshmellows. Nowhere else sells them.

Mmm, smores.

@ Grocery stores in the hood, yeah, that makes sense. Living in a city is crazy, especially those megapolis cities with the ghettos on the east coast. People need land and air and sunlight. It's not right. People aren't meant to be sardines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And this is really messed up.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:38 PM

Wulf

You're right, thanks fucked up.

but Tofu is eaten by over a billion peasant, hardly what I would call a food of the elite. Actually, you've proven to me that you are from the deeply humbled masses. You clearly do not have a clue who the elite are. That's not an insult. You've never been close enough to the elite to learn what they are about.

Here's a tip: (I'm sure you've seen a reference to this one)

"Latte drinking elitist" <-- incorrect, if you have a latte, typically daily, say, at lunch, it's because you work. A latte is a great refreshing drink like a frappaccino that will keep you awake for the rest of your working day, but chilled and mellowed to make it a lunch drink.

Now, examine for a sec why someone might want a megadose of caffeine.... For lunch. It's only got one possible answer: you are so overworked that you are tired by lunch, because you've just worked a full day. Typically for me, this was actually about six hours, sometimes eight, a sign I was halfway through the day.

Now, if that's so, why do they cost so much? Because they can. If you fall asleep, you're out the rest of the day's wages. The latte will keep you going through the insanity of the hamster wheel in the world where no time is ever ^technically overtime.

The ruling elite *never* works. It has no use for a latte.

Tofu, dietary staple of a billion peasants in rural Asia. Why is this an upper class food in the US? Think hippies. If you imagine the chinese peasant from a distance, he seems to lead a peaceful idyllic existence, he is one with the Tao. Yes, as a taoist I run into a lot of these people, they're good folk actually, but they tend to have a fairly loose understanding of the far east and its mostly for them colored in a rosy haze the way people on the right look at israel, or Christian Europe. Still, they are not automatically even upper class.

My experience is that the elite have their food catered, the help can make the food.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:05 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"My experience is that the elite have their food catered, the help can make the food."

Yes.

Exactly right.

Perfect.

But its also the boojie elitists who do this. The ones not rich enough to have their food prepared for them, but will pay for the feeling of it.

There really are not that many grocery stores in the hood. Nor are there that many Starbucks.

But elitist assholes keep pushing their ideals on simple working people.

Just look to NY, Cali, and Chicago for this garbage.

Cross reference "salt".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:48 PM