Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post Reply

Should Ronald McDonald be banned?

Yes, ban him.
25
43%
No, don't ban him.
30
52%
Maybe/Not sure
3
5%
 
Total votes: 58

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by sandinista » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:51 am

Fault Lines - Fast food, fat profits: Obesity in America

Just watched this and thought of this thread, may be interesting to some of the posters here.

Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Svartalf » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:04 am

short and skinny for those who need subtitles to understand what's said, please?
and is that guy some kind of hallal inspector?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by sandinista » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:58 pm

:dunno:
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Gallstones » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:10 pm

Damn I have a hankerin' fer some chicken McNuggets.


I always tell them no bag, and they oblige.
Now if I can just get a side salad without the plastic bowl............
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:11 pm

Some comments on Fault Lines video. It was interesting, but it is long on "ominous tones" and platitudes, and short on any sort of concrete suggestions.

Yes, we all agree that people eat too much food in general, and eat too much junk food in particular. So, what ought to be done about it?

At 22 minutes in, or thereabouts, a woman descries the food system that we've set up, stating that we've "made" the worst foods to be least expensive, and "made" the healthiest foods to be the most expensive. Well, this is and isn't true. SOME of the worst foods are the least expensive, but some are the most expensive - lots of high priced restaurants serve very fatty and sugar-laden foods at very high prices. Also, with respect to healthy foods, some very healthy foods are dirt cheap - rice, for example - I can buy 3 pounds of brown rice for like $3.00 (even less sometimes). Some vegetables and fruits are cheap, when you keep your eyes peeled. But, the implication from the woman at 22 minutes in is that prices are just something that is set by government policy, and that we've just gone ahead and stupidly set the prices of good food higher than bad food. Well, generally speaking, the price of food is governed by it's production costs and supply and demand. The reason why sushi fish costs a lot of money is because it has to be flash frozen fresh and shipped quickly to get to the restaurants within 24 to 48 hours from the time the fish is caught. That costs money.

So - we all agree with the lady at 22 minutes that we'd love it if sushi fish cost the same as "market ground beef" on a per pound basis, right? So, what's the answer? Make the ground beef illegal? Tax the ground beef so it costs $10 or $20 a pound, instead of $2.39 a pound? Subsidize sushi fish so that it comes to market at $2.99 a pound, but we have to spend $30 billion in taxpayer money or borrowed from the Chinese to drive down sushi fish prices?

At 17 minutes in we have a lady who blames the government food pyramid and dietary guidelines for the obesity rate. I find this unpersuasive because as I understand it, nobody follows those guidelines, and hardly anybody even knows they exist (and if they know they exist, they don't know with any degree of accuracy what they are). In the US, the stores sell every kind of food imaginable from healthy to unhealthy - there is no shortage of choices. The choices people make are based on what they want to eat and what they want to feed their children. To suggest that people are modifying their buying habits due to a vague and unpublicized government dietary pyramid that hardly anybody can understand much less remember is a big stretch. But, at least that lady implies a doable solution: change the food pyramid. I agree with that. Change it to the right pyramid.

Also, another thing I agree with is the school cafeterias. The schools should serve healthy food to the children. Fast foods and sugary snacks should be out the door, and all the soda machines should be gone. Kids should, of course, be permitted to bring what they want for lunch from home, but the store in the school should sell good food.

At 3 minutes and 41 seconds there is an obese guy who descries the system, but recounts that he used to eat McDonald's food almost every day for breakfast, lunch and dinner. He suggests no solution, except makes an oblique complaint about the health care system. Well, in terms of weight loss, we all know why the guy got fat. He ate too much and didn't exercise enough.

At 14:30 someone is teaching people how to make a salad. I have nothing to say to that really, except that if there are people out there who don't know how to make a salad, I was unaware of that fact. I'd love to see the stats on it. I would be willing to bet that about as many people can't make a salad as can accurately summarize the US government's dietary recommendations. That's just a guess though.

The first portion of the video is about New Orleans, and they look at a food festival where traditional New Orleans foods are made. They see grills going, and foods being placed on flat iron frying surfaces. Then they discuss that New Orleans food is based on a "rue" which is a flower and oil based mix. Yeah - I've made rues before. It's great for cooking shrimp and other seafood - you make a nice rue, which is just a gravy, basically, but much thicker and you don't use quite as much of it., and then you mix into the rue the various veggies and fish and stuff that you want in what you're making.

The video draws no conclusions from the New Orleans diet - other than that a rue has a lot of fat in it. So what? Is the recommendation that people ought to be permitted to buy flower and oil? Are we to make it illegal to make a nice seafood dish in the New Orleans style? What? I was shocked they would start with New Orleans, though, because even though some of the sauces are high in fat, the dishes can be very healthy - very high in seafood and veggie content and the starch is normally rice, which is quite good. Also, they identify fat as the big problem in New Orleans food, but then they don't mention that many food fan cultures, like France, also eat high fat diets, but aren't as fat.

Also, the video goes from identifying an entire culture - New Orleans cuisine - as inherently unhealthy, to then basically pointing the finger at "corporate interests" and failed government policy (because the government caved to corporate interests). Are they saying that New Orleans folks weren't making "rues" before the food pyramid came out, or before large food corporations were around?

Well - after carefully listening to the whole thing, it just comes across as another political piece lambasting capitalism and masquerading as a public service video concerned with public health. The makers of this video have a political agenda, and they think they can further that agenda by clothing it in a need to address obesity - we have to shut down the "corporate interests" so that they don't keep forcing us to be fat.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Svartalf » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:38 pm

Uh, CES? the Cajun basix sauce is a "roux". Rue is either the French for a street or the name of a herb that is useful for medicinal, and possibly perfumery applications, but that has never been a notable food item.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
leo-rcc
Robo-Warrior
Posts: 7848
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:09 pm
About me: Combat robot builder
Location: Hoogvliet-Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by leo-rcc » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:43 pm

I think CES meant to write "rules" and missed the l.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
My combat robot site: http://www.team-rcc.org
My other favorite atheist forum: http://www.atheistforums.org

Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:53 pm

Svartalf wrote:Uh, CES? the Cajun basix sauce is a "roux". Rue is either the French for a street or the name of a herb that is useful for medicinal, and possibly perfumery applications, but that has never been a notable food item.
Yes - excuse my spelling. My bad.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:37 pm

McDonald's: Friend or Foe?
Our local Patch mom sat down and really examined her family's eating habits at one of their favorite fast food restaurants.

Tell Your Neighbors About Patch
I'm not a nutritionist, nor am I a health expert and I'm definitely not perfect. I'm just a mom trying to do right by my children's dietary needs–95 percent of the time. The other 5 percent is dedicated to the times that I give up, buy the sugary cereal, let them have soda or pull into the drive-thru window at McDonald's.

McDonald's: Those golden arches promise children everywhere a truly "Happy Meal," complete with toys and a smile. It also holds a promise of a peaceful, fast, and dish-free meal for us parents.

It also, for as long as I can remember, has been under attack by nutrionists, parents, doctors and anyone else who wants in on the obesity blame game.

The latest happened last week when 550 doctors put a full page ad in newspapers across the countryurging people to sign their petition to get rid of the clown, the toys and the relentless marketing schemes that they think are to blame for the growing obesity rates in children.

After reading this ad on the Internet, I had to sit down and think about our family consumption of McDonald's and what my own personal feelings were towards this petition.

My gut reaction was to sign the petition. First, I don't like the clown. It's nothing personal, I just dislike clowns in general and think they are horrible mascots. Second, I'm big on passing the blame onto others–who isn't? Third, the advertising to children is unyielding. Everytime I turn around, Teddy is pausing a commercial to show me the latest toy available with a meal.

Truth: I take my boys to McDonald's about once a month, or once every toy cycle. It's usually when Teddy comes begging after seeing a commercial for the latest toy giveawaty or I feel guilty about something I did to ruin their lives, yet again. It also helps if I'm not in a mood to cook (which I never am).

I load the kids in the car, drive five minutes up West Chester Pike, pull into the drive-thru and within minutes we are back home, sitting at the table, smiles on their faces with their happy meals in tow.

It's always the same meal for the boys: 4-piece chicken nuggets, fries, and white milk. If we go for lunch, they have chocolate milk. I always add on apple dippers or cut apples at home.

Teddy doesn't actually eat the entire meal and usually leaves several fries and a chicken nugget on his plate while he plays with his new toy. Peter eats, but he doesn't actually like McDonald's. He doesn't even care for the toy 99 percent of the time. If it was up to him, we would be heading to Wawa for a shortie Italian hoagie. Luckily, Wawa doesn't have a drive-thru.

After examining our consumption and looking into our eating habits, I came up with two real gripes I have with McDonald's:

I dislike eating inside McDonalds. I don't like the playgrounds and I don't like hearing parents yell at their kids that they have to eat their fries to get their toy.

I also dislike that I am made to feel guilty for feeding my children Happy Meals. The last thing a mother needs is more guilt.

In my opinion, the unhealthiest part of eating at McDonald's is probably the germs that you come into contact with when you exchange money, open the door or drink something with ice in it.

To put it in black and white, a Happy Meal for my kids includes chicken nuggets and small french fries, which equals out to 420 calories, 23 grams of fat and 560 milligrams of sodium.

Let's say we stay home and I make a quick meal out of Tyson's frozen chicken nuggets and Ore-Ida tater tots. Now we are looking at 440 calories, 25 grams of fat, and 890 milligrams of sodium.

While close in calories and fat, note the high sodium count. To top it off–I now have dishes to do.

Oh, and if I give in to Peter and go to Wawa to get his Italian hoagie–we are looking at 500 calories, 21 grams of fat, and 2,530 milligrams of sodium. Yes, that's what I would call a seriously unhealthy meal, especially when you add on potato chips.

So as much as I dislike the clown and the constant advertising to children, McDonald's does provide a relatively healthy option for a quick serve meal that I don't think any parent should feel guilty about.


Do I let my kids have a milkshake with that meal? No. That shake has more calories than an entire Happy Meal. Do I indulge in a Big Mac? No. If I get something it is always the same grilled chicken and salad. I am trying to set a good example, after all.

McDonald's might not be the healthiest option, but it certainly is far from the worst, and it really can't be blamed for childhood obesity. That, unfortunately, is all on us.

What do you think of McDonald's–friend or foe to your family? Tell us in the comments.
http://marplenewtown.patch.com/articles ... end-or-foe

This lady hits it on the head. When we demonize McDonalds, and at the same time look at how unhealthy people are at other times, we see the true reason people are fat in the US. They just, by and large, eat too much, and eat too much crappy food, and that permeates all of life, not just McDonalds.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Svartalf » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:40 pm

when it comes to chicken Mc Nuggets, the answer is "Fried AND foe" ;)
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping



User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Gallstones » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:44 pm

I used to teach nutrition. It was a federally funded program and we focused on food stamp eligible persons. The entire program was based around the Food Guide Pyramid and that is what we taught them to use. Most of them were unfamiliar with it. Most of them had no intentions of changing how or what they ate--even the ones with diet related health problems and the ones with health problems that could have been improved by a change in diet.

People are highly resistant to having their food choices messed with. Many, literally had no food preparation skills to the extent that they didn't know how to chop carrots, let alone bone a chicken. All they know is what is easy, either pre-made or warmed in the microwave.

You don't have to know how to make a salad--cause that would entail cutting things up--just open a bag and dump it out. But doing that would mean you'd have to eat plants :shudder:
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Gallstones » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:53 pm

If you can't afford a personal chef, then eating well and economically by doing it yourself does require an investment in time on a regular basis. I think most people do have that much time available somewhere in their week, but they don't want to spend it on cooking.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Ban Ronald McDonald?

Post by Gallstones » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:57 pm

Coito, why are you spelling flour as flower? :twitch:
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests