Bozell Column: The Vast Child Fattening Conspiracy
When it comes to the increasing sex, violence, and profanity in entertainment media, the social libertines are indifferent. They insist that children will hardly be warped or ruined by the media they consume. They chortle at the paranoia of Hollywood critics. Their mantra: If you don't like it, just turn the channel.
But if the issue isn’t indecency, but instead, say, obesity – so many of those titans of “tolerance” suddenly become the censors. Behold San Francisco, the paradise of permissive sexual attitudes. The city council may welcome flowers in your hair, but they have just voted to ban “Happy Meal” toys unless the “happy” menu is low in fat and sodium and includes fruits and vegetables.
Apparently, that villain Ronald McDonald has been leading a Vast Child-Fattening Conspiracy.
This is hardly the first step toward dietary dictates in San Francisco. In 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom banned city-government use of bottled water, and this past summer, Newsom instituted a ban on sugary sodas in city vending machines. And not just sugary sodas, but sports drinks and even artificially sweetened water. The rule insists juice must be 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice with no added sweeteners, and machines should allow the choice of soy milk or rice milk.
Then there's the Big Apple, San Francisco’s East Coast cousin, another hub of libertine behavior. New York City schools now regulate the types of foods that students may sell for fundraising inside the school: acceptable products include Fiber One bars, Soy Crisps, and Ayala’s Herbal Water. To qualify as an approved item, a snack must meet 11 criteria developed by the city. All products must be in marked, single-serving packages with a maximum calorie count of 200. Artificial sweeteners like Splenda are banned. Less than 35 percent of the item’s total calories may come from either total sugars or fat. Grain-based products must contain at least 2 grams of fiber.
After resistance to the city's ban on bake sales of homemade goodies, the city relented partially: Parents may sell cupcakes and cookies – but only once a month, and not in the school cafeteria.
Entire blue states have capitalized on the dietary-puritan wave. In the state of Illinois, the legislature raised taxes last year not only on alcohol, but on candy and soft drinks. The state tax on candy was multipled by six, from 1 percent to 6.25 percent, unless it needs refrigeration or contains flour. That rate also applies to soda and non-carbonated sweetened drinks, like iced tea. They did it for the children (and, allegedly, for roads and bridges).
What weird people they are. Now their media friends are getting into the act. The same networks that think it's harmless to put orgies into dramas and profanities into sitcoms are utterly panicked about drinking a Pepsi. The Business and Media Institute found CNBC anchor Erin Burnett asking the president of the American Beverage Association why anyone lets Coke or Pepsi be sold. This is what's next? Soda Pop Prohibition?
Burnett demanded to know: “Let me ask you, is there anything good about drinking a full-calorie soda? Why do they even sell it? What’s good for me in drinking it?” When she was told it's delicious, Burnett replied sourly: “I’m sure you could say we like cocaine, right?”
So when parents buy their children a Mountain Dew, they might as well be pushing cocaine? All that's missing here for CNBC is the dietary equivalent of documentaries like “Reefer Madness.” You don't hear anyone using the mantra that “If you don't like a Pepsi, don't drink one.”
In the journal Policy Review last year, Mary Eberstadt tackled the “curious reversal of moralizing” about food and sex: “Modern man (and woman)...has taken longstanding morality about sex, and substituted it onto food. The all-you-can-eat buffet is now stigmatized; the sexual smorgasbord is not...According to them, after all, consensual sex is simply what comes naturally, and ought therefore to be judged value-free. But as the contemporary history outlined in this essay goes to show, the same can be said of overeating — and overeating is something that today’s society is manifestly embarked on re-stigmatizing.”
The libertines love to mock those anti-Hollywood puritans in Menckenesque tones, suggesting the critics are haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere might be happy with their sleazy television. It's now just as easy to say that the big-city food police are haunted by the fear that some child, somewhere may be enjoying a Happy Meal, with french fries and “cocaine” on ice.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
New Blogs but NO BAN HAMMER????
Over at Huffington Post the
Over at Huffington Post the Libs were upset that Amazon was pulling a book on safe pedophilia. The comments were... horrifying. Once again proving that Liberals, pedophiles and rapists all share common ground and seem to understand each other. But let a hamburger or Diet Coke get near a kid and all hell breaks loose from the left.
What's also important to understand here is ME-Chelle Obama's role in leading this rush to food awareness. It's simple: Liberals gets involved in food-worrying. Left wing groups and media take up the cause writing and talking about it whenever they can. Next step: CRISIS! Something must be done! And fast! Enter the government. Selective banning and regulation starts - for our own good. It increases until the government is forced to 'step in and make things right'. Food growth, production, distribution and serving now falls under control of the government. With the workers now on the government payroll, they can unionize - under SEIU and voila! A percentage of all purchases as well as a portion of every food industry worker's paycheck goes to the SEIU and hence, the government.
There can be no common ground with the Left. They're too far gone.
New defense for pedophiles and rapists?
Honest, Judge. I was just fooling around with the kid to get her mind off wanting a Mountain Dew!
... and I won't even mention what she made me do to her to get her to give up Ding Dongs! The snack kind, I mean.
She's killing me Judge!
Nothing new here
They did it for the children (and bridges). I'm pretty sure that the kids will find a way to get their sugar fix, and the the various governmental units will spend some of the tax money on programs that encourage healthy eating.
This is another ruse to control our behavior and gen some revenue so they can fund the programs to control behavior. (HT to J. Heller). I know that they think I just waste the money I have left after taxes, and that spending and dietary decisions are best left up to experts, but I'm going to stop at 7-11 this morning and buy a Pepsi and a Snickers bar for breakfast. You can't stop me.
Thanks for letting me share.
Local vs Federal
I had this discussion with my wife yesterday. Does San Francisco have the ability to ban toys in happy meals? Is there anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits local authority from doing this sort of stuff?
My guess is, it's more of a local issue then anything else, and if it's not prohibited in the State of California Constitution, then the duly elected of San Francisco can micro-manage their residents to death if that's their desire, as long as they don't violate any federal or state rights.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
commerce vs federal
This issue should be between the Commerce Department and the CEO of McDonalds. A city council can't just arbitrarily decide something like this, but when do rules matter with libs like these?
Happy Meals have been around for 30 years, so why now? I would expect nothing less from a dumbass town(this is meant to be insulting since San Fran is supposed to be a big city, but they act like little kids not getting their way).
-Jon
Federal Government is All Powerfull?
I don't subscribe to the liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause that gives the federal government power over everything whenever a dollar bill changes hands. If we are going to give the Federal Government absolute authority over everything we do, then we should just abolish local and state elections and let the President send out his minions to rule over the land by edict.
I'm in favor of limited Federal Government States and local authorities should be able to do pretty much as they please as long as they don't violate any rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If a local government has the authority to regulate the sale of legal products such as liquor or tobacco, then where do they lack the authority to regulate the sale of other legal products or services?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
minor mistake
I had been thinking about what I said before and I attribute it to "in a normal situation" whereas we don't have a normal situation with this federal government that's so anti-business.
Having said that, McDonalds was a convenient enemy for the liberal food police, albeit the wrong enemy, but then again, global warming acolytes were demonizing carbon too which was a convenient enemy for them.
One question I have is, was any attempt made to talk to anyone from McDonalds about this before deciding to make this stupid ban? My guess is probably not.
-Jon
SF Board of Supervisors
An interesting side note, the Mayor of SF, Gavin Newsom, is going to veto this new ordinance, but since it passed by a vote of 8-3, the Board of Supervisors will in all likelyhood override his veto.
San Francisco is on a similar road as Detroit. SF is riding high because of the tech boom of the late 80s and 90s and is still reaping the benefits from the tech industry. Detroit boomed from the early 1900's through the 1950's because of the auto industry. But Detroit, dominated by liberal, all controlling politicians, experienced a fast decline as soon as the auto industry experienced it's eventual commoditization and it became cheaper to build quality cars outside of the union controlled, high wage, bloated Detroit metro area.
San Francisco is not unique. They are subject to the same rules of economics as any other city. Unless their citizenry wakes up, SF will eventually follow the same road as Detroit.
My guess is that the Board of Supervisors thinks they are immune to basically everything because they are smarter then anybody. They live in SAN FRANSICO!, and have one of the highest per capita incomes of anywhere in the country, so they have to be smarter then the rubes in the rest of the country. So no, they don't need to talk to the folks at McDonalds.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
If childhood obesity is an "epidemic"
why don't we cut the federal school lunch program?
This is terrible
The problem is..............................
They didn't :"fatten the right politicians pocketbook"....."contribute or we will come after you! I guess they didn't contribute.....BRAVO MacDonalds!!!! What? You gonna tell me these communist A.H.'s give a rats butt on how fat your kid is? lol, roflmao.......!!!
Let's see if I can get this straight...
So it's perfectly OK to have sex anytime, anywhere you want, but it's immoral to eat Oreos? I say, pass the Oreos (especially the Double Stufs!)
No, I don't think anybody is
No, I don't think anybody is saying Oreos are immoral. The concern is that some foods are unhealthy.
So is
homosexual behavior, but you'll never see the libs pushing that ban. Hypocrites, all.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
1. You want to "ban"
1. You want to "ban" homosexual behavior? Really?
2. Homosexual behavior is unhealthy? Really?
So San Fran wants to put the
So San Fran wants to put the ban hammer on the Happy Meal? Strangely this doesnt upset me very much. San Francisco (I guess) should be free to regulate and control their city how they see fit. The residents there in the bay area elect their local leaders and one can only assume agree with what they are doing. Good for them. If the citizens dont agree they are free to move, or less drastically elect more like minded leaders. Now as a franchise holder with McDonalds I would not be very happy with this, and in all likelyhood would retaliate by closing my stores and leaving the area. Which is truly a fair exchange and how the free market should work.
Do I agree with banning the happy meal in the name of child protection? Of course not, it is a ridiculous overreach and governmental intrusion into my buying and eating habits, which should be left up to me (as a responsible adult and parent) to moderate with my childeren and family. It is also up to me and all of us to vote responsibly, and if San Franscisco is going to vote and decide to be an overbearing and intrusive micro-managing liberal town, then let them. I wont be moving there or spending my dollars there. One can only hope (wishfully) that the businesses and more even minded folks will act in kind.
Or,,,
maybe they can offer the toy separately. That way the kid can have whatever food they want, and get a toy to boot.
My four kids all grew up on McDonalds Happy Meals. When we are traveling, it is wonderful to have fast food and a clean bathroom. And a little toy to have after they finish the food is a nice little bonus.
Glad I don't live in San Fran, for so many reasons!
However, I am affected by that stupid IL tax. Licorice has flour, so does not count as candy, nor do twix bars. It is so confusing that half the time I don't know which items have the higher tax. The week before it took effect I stocked up on Coke and then we tried our best not to buy anything affected by the higher tax for a month. Tried to do my little bit to protest...
San Fran on the march: Ban the Happy Meal! Save the foreskin!
Is there some kind of strange kharmic linkage between these two proposals from the city by the sea, home of Nancy Pirogi?
oh this great wisdom from the gayest of cities banning the
"happiest" of meals. funny how libs are sooooo concerned about "the children". must have something to do with the "great escape"...when the child actually manages to "escape the womb" and exit alive. because when the child is still in the womb they don't seem at any loss for excuses to try to excuse it's killing. hypocracy? squared.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
Ironic, ain't it?
In SF, gay bath houses must be protected, but Happy Meals are destroying society.
Liberal minds truly do not function properly.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me