"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
I love me some McDonalds now and again. I've had some memorable times sitting with my kids in the germ-infested jungle-gym room and plowing down a Big Mac, fries and a coke.
But those times occur once or twice a month, after a SOCCER game or a BASKETBALL game. As such, there's nothing wrong with eating McDonalds.
But once or twice a day, every day? Yes, even metabolism-friendly-aged kids will get fat. Especially, if there's no activity to offset it.
Good gawd, and this could even be considered by a courtroom?
The lawsuite is of couse silly. But the question of unhealthy food is not. That unhealthy food is extremly coustly both for the society and the individuale. That yes people have free wills, but it's interest what is promoted in society. Unhealthy food have heavy promotion with toys, advertisment, cheap prices and availability. While how much promotion is on healthy food? Can you kid meet a happy clown, get a free toy, good tasty food in a restuarant with healthy food. Do you see a lot of comercial on television about health food?
That yes free will, parent responsibility and all that it's still intersting is see how most of the information and incentitive kids and adults get about food is for unhealthy food. That yes parents can try to go against the flow of advertisment for bad food. But all parents maybee don't want their kid to be the only one not to go to the mcdonald birth day parties. Also then the kid is old enough to buy his own food, who will he listen to his boring parents and teacher or all the cool ads for unhealthy foods?
Economics isn't the reason these parents feed their kids McDonalds 5+ times per week. It's because they're too lazy to cook, they like junk food, and they don't give a crap about nutrition, appearance, or their health all that much. Pure and simple.
Which happens to be their right to do so. And it's my right to criticize them for it. Government and courts need to stay out.
Anybody that voluntarily joins this class action law suit is saying "Look at me, I have no control over my kids, HELP ME"
Who would do that?
Not that I support any of this crap.
But isn't it amazing how people don't want the government to intervene in a genuinely horrific health problem for their nation, but they do want the government to step in and prevent gays from marrying in order to "Defend Marriage and prevent damage to America's social fabric" which is bull**** of course because a gay man would never harm fabric
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
but I cant help but respond to the gay marriage thing.
I dont think the 90% of the American people who oppose gay "marriage" are as concerned about moral fabric as they are about changing the institution of marriage as it has been defined forever.
89% of the 90% are ok with civil unions