Apparently this is a hot button for some of you. And it seems that some are simply unwilling to step back and look at the issue from a broader point of view. If you think targeting Happy Meals is the solution to obesity in this country, I think your focus is skewed- putting it as kindly as I can think to do. I can tell you what the issues are and you ignore them. For example the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables in some urban and low income areas is inadequate and the processed food alternatives are the only cost effective choice for some. I can tell you (if you never had to feed a 4 year old), that getting some children to eat a Happy Meal hamburger because of the toy is a big deal when ordinarily all they want is that one favorite food is very valuable to parents. I can give multiple examples of food police run-amuck with pure silliness like banning Four-Loco for a caffeine/alcohol combination but not banning rum and coke. So after all of that, including the standard - we are off track - yet we keep going back to it - pattern , what is a guy like me to think about all of this?

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

This is media creating a story where there is none. The folks in the military know who is gay and who is not and they have been living with it for a long time. The problem with DADT has been a political problem and a problem of leadership both from Washington and the Pentagon. sure if you look hard enough you can find a guy some where who will make a big deal about the shower thing, but that is not the norm.

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

Let's not let real information get in the way of a good theory. It appears even with a ban on marketing cigarettes to minors, many still make the choice to smoke.

Teen Smoking Rates Remain High | Addiction Treatment

We should focus on real solutions. These theoretical bans (smart/motivated people get around them) don't work and history shows that time and time.

i was under the impression that this thread is about the problematic results of a problematic non-study---more an exercise in playing with brain scan technologies---commissioned by a bbc show that frontloaded the premise (conservatives are more inclined to be afraid of things)----which is at the socio-political level self-evident (going by how conservative political discourse works). and it turned out that to the surprise of the team playing with the scanning technology that there was a correlation. but its wholly unclear what that correlation even really is not to mention what it means.

but we're talking about imaginary "food police" and other conservo-memes? why? why is this interesting? how is it relevant?

Read what has been written here and try to comprehend it.

For your post above.

My response was to give examples of what I consider irrational fears of some conservatives and some liberals - then I add that ideology makes an objective analysis difficult.

Second, or actual it was my initial response in this thread, is that there is a known correlation between inclination of fear and age. There is also a correlation between age and conservatism.

As the responses mounted I further illustrated how ideology clouds an objective analysis of this issue.

It is all there, yet you focus on trivial matters and think I have a problem, go figure. Perhaps I need to s l o w d o w n a n d p e r h a p s u s e c o l o r f u l p i c t u r e s.

The Happy Meal toy ban wasn't voted on by the general public. It was decided by a very small group of people. The decision is very unpopular among most liberals here, including Lt. Governor Newsom and Governor Brown.

This is a bigger picture issue and I believe there is an agenda consistent with Cimarron's point but perhaps even deeper:

The South Central Fast-Food "Ban": Free Enterprise vs. Free Radicals - Los Angeles Restaurants and Dining - Squid Ink

The mindset that first creates an onerous amount of red-tape for a restaurant to be open, then goes on a crusade against the one type of restaurant (large corporate, with the advantage of economy of scale, at a low cost point - especially in low income areas) that can be profitable in some areas given the increased costs of regulations and the demographics, baffles the hell out of me. One day they want to protect the "character" of old neighborhoods, then its livable wages, then it is "for the children", etc. etc. etc. - what is it? What are they really afraid of? Why?

http://gymnasticscoaching.com/new/wp...besity-usa.jpg

I reckon it has something to do with this.

Conservatives are keen to defend the ideals of "free market capitalism is always better" and "personal responsibility is the solution to many problems." However, we have a public health crisis on par with smoking or cancer, and obesity is on track to be the #1 killer of Americans, bar none. It's even worse in children, with the current generation being the first which will not outlive their parents. You're welcome to argue that if everyone had some personal responsibility and the free market were allowed to reign this public health crisis would go away, but I don't tend to agree, for obvious reasons.

In all 50 states, more than ONE FOURTH OF THE POPULATION IS CLINICALLY OBESE.

So as I see it, it is a simple conflict of values. When "free market capitalism" and "personal responsibility" do not solve a problem, an epidemic, even.. which has been developing for nearly 20 years; you can either work to address it with governance, or somehow instill personal responsibility and somehow let free market capitalism solve a problem they have no interest in solving. It's more profitable for everyone if the majority of the public is obese. I'd rather be working towards OBVIOUS solutions (like preventing the marketing of a food that is demonstrably worse for children than smoking TO children WITH toys) than simply chanting the mantra of free markets and responsibility.

Jesus.....

How about satisfy the "free marketers" and those concerned with obesity in America: cancel the corn subsidies. Or better: redirect them into organic farmers of fruit and vegetables.

As a small business owner (it's official as of last month!), this is actually a really good thing. I can't compete with multinational corporations that pay no taxes whatsoever, have their hq in a tax haven, and farm out all of their labor to child workers in Asia. In a mixed free market economy, competition should be fair first and foremost so that competition can allow the superior good, service or what have you do better and reward the people doing the better business.

If I was a restaurateur, even if I was able to provide amazing food at incredible prices by doing good business, I'd never, ever be able to compete directly with McDonalds or Pizza Hut because they're dishonest, evil corporations that are uninterested in fair competition. One of the main ways they're unfair, aside from massive subsidies, tax loopholes, and a bought and paid for food and drug administration, is that they use incredibly low quality products in their food. Large amounts of bovine fecal matter in the meat quality. Fries that never rot quality. Let's say my restaurant served perfect food at highly competitive prices and I paid a fair wage to my workers. McDonalds moves in next door and I'm royally screwed even though their food is of incredibly low quality, their customer service is nonexistant, and the atmosphere is that of the DMV.

Why, you ask? Because corporations have earned their reputations. They DO strip the individuality out of old neighborhoods, they DO provide wages that are terrifyingly low, and they DO sell dangerously unhealthy foods marketed directly to children. They stifle competition, buy themselves subsidies (corn and subsidies benefit McDonalds incredibly), and then they provide a terrible service.

I think you have it slightly incorrect. The "liberals" of California fear the societal costs, both in terms of health and $$$, of the effects of a broken food distribution system. I doubt that over-utilization of fast food is something the families of the proponents of this type of legislation have to deal with; I suspect that when it comes to parenting their own children, the folks who favor these types of bans are doing just fine. These liberals (or maybe they're fiscal conservatives) aren't too keen on relying on the market and personal responsibility because in this instance the market has found ways to ameliorate the ability of personal responsibility to effectively govern behavior.

An over-reliance on the market and on personal responsibility is what has gotten into this mess in the first place.

I don't know whether it's been a major driving force or just one of many factors, but gun laws certainly factor in. Increased eastern regulation led to midwest migration.

I suppose you could file that under 'fear', but then it becomes even murkier as to whether this silly topic is actually a 'gotcha' moment. Perhaps it'll come out that liberals have larger 'apathy' areas in the brain.

The obvious solution is to give low income people (low income people have higher obesity rates) better food choice.

It seems your assumption is that low income people have low cost alternatives to high fat/sugar/salt processed food. Ironically in this country lower fat/sugar/salt foods actually cost more???? Poor people can not afford a diet full of fresh fruit, lean meats and rich colorful vegetables. Your proposed solution does not address the problem.

In addition, low income people are less educated in terms of proper diet, and tasty food preparation using less harmful fats, less sugar and less salt. If we want to solve the obesity problem a focus on this will pay off, banning fast food won't. If people develop a taste for different food that is less fatty, less salty, less sugary - the market will respond. I remember when Mcdonald;s came out with their Mclean burger - it failed.

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

Right, we have government policies loaded with unintended consequences. I suggest that government stop with the micro-management of everything.

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

Big corporations cooperate with big government often to restrict competition by making it virtually impossible for new smaller businesses to fairly compete. You think it is all the big corporation, I don't. It is a partnership. all I have ever suggested is to even the playing field through free market concepts. I don't want government picking winners and losers.

It's a good thing the government doesn't micro-manage everything.

I have asked a vegan friend of mine about how he feels about being a taxpayer when a portion of what he pays goes towards things he doesn't support. I'm thinking particularly about farm subsidies that go towards the meat and dairy industries. He shrugs if off, of course, because what is he going to do? The vegan philosophy is about minimizing what you can with regard to the use of animals as products.

But you're right, there are unintended consequences. I think the U.S. is in a particularly tough spot where they've made corn, meat, and dairy products way cheaper than they should be in the consumer marketplace. I imagine a large proportion of what McDonald's produces has been subsidized by American taxpayers. On top of that add in vast purchasing power, highly developed processes, and high volume production and sales, and you have a really cheap product that makes fresh fruits and vegetables seem a luxury. I won't even get into packaged junk food.

If liberals fear any of this, it's the fear of the influence and reach of McDonald's, rooted in the fact that their products tend to top the list of foods that lead to heart disease among other things.

I agree with you in that the move to ban certain categories of food or whatever is misguided. I'd rather they go to the source. Cut down, redirect, or eliminate the subsidies that go towards corn, meat, and dairy producers. Interestingly enough, the meat and dairy producers are essentially double-dipping in that they use a shit-ton of corn for their purposes. There is no reason why beef should be as cheap as it is.

And for the record, eating products like rice, potatoes, beans, carrots, etc., is rather cheap. But when alternatives are cheaply produced convenience foods, you have competition. I think the problem stems more from a combination of convenience and food education.

But after having said all of this, I cannot see how this train of thought isn't rational. Bad food is bad for you. I suppose the lapse of rationality occurs in how problem is dealt with.

people who choose to opt out of the industrial food system typically do it because they've researched the industrial food system.
it's a conscious choice based on political viewpoint, nutritional information and other considerations.
depending on where you live, it can be a hassle to live off the industrial food grid.

speaking for myself, i lost a lot of weight as a direct function of stopping my consumption of processed foods. i still don't eat them. it had nothing to do with fear---it was a deliberate and considered choice that had direct benefits. it turns out that i don't metabolize that shit very well. i know because i see every day the consequences of eliminating it. for example.

the data about the nature of industrial food, particularly on substances like high-fructose corn syrup, is abundant and readily available.

so as is usual, i don't think ace is talking about anything.

I found your post above very rational. What I find irrational is the thought that we can solve a problem like obesity through restricting choices or the assumption of a - one size fits all - solution. A short review of history shows these approaches generally fail. I have no interest in living in a society where government rations and dictates food choice.

Really? Because, last I checked, if you don't want your child to eat so much fast food that he gets fat and unhealthy -> when he asks for it, you say "No." Wow, not a single fucking politician kept that child thin.

cimmaron---what is your point?

My point is that it seems to me that the liberals of California are afraid to say "No" to their children when their children ask for happy meals EVERY day. So, instead of dealing with the tantrums until the child learns moderation, they have asked their nanny government to simply tell a company to stop producing a product. That way the sissy parents of California can coddle little Johnnie and say, "Oh, honey. I KNOW you want a happy meal. But, unfortunately, they don't make them anymore." Cue little Johnnie demanding Baskin Robbins...until that has to be banned.

If you can't control the fat intake of your 6 year old, you are a pussy.

Let me know when you figure out the difference between public health policy and individual decisionmaking.

uh....so therefore regulation is unnecessary? because regulation does not automatically change the way individuals operate, the choices that they make? what kind of argument is that?

there's a deep problem with the american industrial food system as a whole and its subordination of human nutritional needs to profit imperatives, it's centralization of control/ownership, it's emphasis on standardization (monocropping, massive chemical dependencies to compensate for that), it's willingness to use corn-derivative substances that are only rational in a context where subsidies promote the irrational overproduction of corn no. 2....macdo is a powerful institution within the industrial food system; it is a massive buyer....fast food nation outlines the supply system pretty well. happy meals are basically shitty processed foods marketed to kids. personally, i think they're a health problem not only in themselves, but also because they're marketed at kids. i have no problem with regulating them out of existence.

there's more a problem with the lack of regulation, really. it's the lack of regulation that enables your circular non-argument to function. what's bizarre is that you seem to imagine it an argument against regulation.

Facile prescriptions for more personal responsibility will never be the solution to problems that result from the market's ability to reduce to insignificance the effects of personal responsibility.

Obesity more likely with 'free market' economies

BBC News - Obesity linked to money insecurity in affluent nations

This is an interesting story that I saw earlier today. It links higher obesity rates to nations with greater economic insecurity. For example, Canada and the U.S. have higher obesity rates than rich European countries with greater social systems with strong welfare.

It states that the stresses of economic insecurity spurs poor eating habits even more than the mere availability of cheap fast food.

So those of you who fear the nanny state, what do you think about that?

I suppose this is interesting in that it's a kind of indirect cause rather than the direct cause if you consider not being able to say no to children. If parents are stressed out an eat a lot of fast food/processed food, then I guess the children are eating it too.

So maybe the problem isn't McDonald's and children. It's deeper than that.

Like I said, I don't think the solutions are about banning things. But I do believe the concerns are very real.

There you go. I suppose one thing liberals fear is economic insecurity; though I'm sure that's shared amongst conservatives as well. Their way of dealing with it differs, I'm sure.

Naw, you guys are correct.

cimmaron---do you oppose the idea of public health policies?

If only the question were that simple. I support a policy which forces companies to reveal the ingredients, calories, and potential health consequences of ingestible products so that Americans can make an informed decision about what they put in their bodies (and their children's bodies). I oppose a policy which dictates what products a company can sell and what a person can consume. Now, all of this has the "within reason" caveat. I know we have reached the end of common sense when an American can sue a major corporation for putting a "toy" in a meal which is, in moderation, perfectly fit for consumption.

Frankly, I can't understand the position you take. You call the government's policy on smoking "fascism" but it's policy on food perfectly reasonable? What am I missing here?

Do you have any sort of evidence that this is an effective way of doing anything but ensuring the obesity epidemic gets worse? People already know fast food is bad for them and are typically undereducated when it comes to knowing their own nutritional needs. Adding numbers is either going to have no effect or its going make things worse (See Salad, Eat Fries: When Healthy Menus Backfire). Do you think that adding the Surgeon General's warning to packs of cigarettes was an effective anti-smoking strategy? I suspect not.

Do you think a society increasingly weighted down by the high social and monetary costs of obesity is going to net more or less freedom?

We've been relying on the personal responsibility-centric model for a long time. It is the model which has given us the obesity epidemic. Why do you think that it can provide the solution all on its own?

Where does this deification of personal responsibility come from? I doubt anyone who works in the marketing industry shares it.

Why? No one here is dictating what a person can or can't consume.

~sigh~

Trying to explain personal freedoms to a statist is like trying to explain the color blue to a blind person.

Right. Please, help me understand what personal freedom is. It's this mysterious riddle that I've been trying to figure out for soooo long. I tried reading a thing or two at Reason.com in the hopes I could begin to understand your complex and nuanced philosophy, but their words, they just turn to mush in my simple little head.

No. I understand where you're coming from. I was hoping you could clarify for me a few things which I view as shortcomings of your perspective. My mistake.

I'm so glad the rhetoric is going to be toned down. But anyway.

Let me ask you a simple, serious question. Do you have a right to kill yourself?

How about you answer my questions first?

My answers lie in your answers. Go ahead, it's not that hard: Do you have a right to kill yourself?

I'm not going to play this game. If your perspective is as robust as you seem to think it is you should be able to answer my questions no problem.

It's a yes or no question.

Consider it the "eye test", before I start explaining the color blue to you.

But I don't care about your ability to explain personal responsibility to me. I already know what it means. I want you to answer my questions. I don't want to follow you down some Randian rabbit hole where you repeatedly dodge my questions whilst expecting me to take your questions seriously.

Perhaps your prior difficulties explaining personal responsibility to statists stems from your refusal to answer simple questions?

Very simple. You answer ONE question of mine and I will answer ALL of yours. Otherwise, we are all done here.

Right, your answers will lie in my answers.

~yawn~

I'll pass, thank you. I guess I'll just remain blind to the color blue?

You are a coward. You expect me to share my beliefs and place them up for your scrutiny, but are unwilling to do the same.

Nice. I think you'll find this whole fucking website is littered with me sharing my beliefs and placing them up for scrutiny.

What I don't typically do is post condescending little notes about how statists are all too fucking blind to understand personal responsibility and then resort to silly rhetorical games when asked to clarify how personal responsibility should play out when subject to the constraints of the real world.

You're just pissy because I won't play your game, which is fine. But don't pretend that it's because I'm somehow scared to share my beliefs. Anyone willing to plot the course of this thread will clearly see who lacks the will to support their convictions with explanations.

You are but one word away from the support of my convictions with explanations. It's in your hands...

No, it's in your hands.

Are you trying to teach me about personal responsibility by showing me how to avoid it when it comes to backing up your own ideas in a forthright way?

I have absolutely no responsibility to explain anything to you. My question to you is a litmus test to see how far back I must go in my explanation. If the next post is not a "Yes" or a "No," I'm done.