Lunch At McDonald's

I'm going purely out of respect. Big respect! From Reason Hit & Run:

San Francisco's ban on giving away a free toy with a child's meal containing a certain number of calories, salt, and other particulars is set to kick in tomorrow. McDonald's, the clear target of the ban, had a year to figure out a way to change its business practices. Seems like they used the time wisely, reports the SF Examiner.

The San Francisco ban on providing free toys to entice children to eat unhealthy foods goes into effect Thursday, but McDonald’s plans to comply with the law by charging 10 cents a toy for their Happy Meals and donating the money to the nonprofit Ronald McDonald House.

No worries about my austerity plan. I'm getting a Southwest Salad and unsweetened iced tea, which comes in under 500 calories. But to outmaneuver the nanny asshole bureaucrats and leave them absolutely tearing their hair out? Oh, I'll spend a fiver!

One Of My Pet Peeves About Libertarians

I found an article today regarding TV viewing and Spongebob Squarepants. I'll use the Fox News article, just because that stirs certain puddin' besides:

CHICAGO – The cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants is in hot water from a study suggesting that watching just nine minutes of that program can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds.

The problems were seen in a study of 60 children randomly assigned to either watch "SpongeBob," or the slower-paced PBS cartoon "Caillou" or assigned to draw pictures

Immediately after these nine-minute assignments, the kids took mental function tests; those who had watched "SpongeBob" did measurably worse than the others.

I wasn't exactly surprised by this. I've observed my own kids watch TV with eyes locked onto the screen in trance. My eldest has ADHD, and my personal, non-scientific belief is that TV had something to do with it. Also, the little I've watched of Spongebob left me feeling imminently dumber for the exercise. I find the show nearly as unfunny as Mr. Bean. Stupid-as-charming.

My house is one without a TV. No cable. Yes, we watch things via internet or DVD players, most days a few You Tube clips or a half hour here or there. Or an episode of Kojak. The kids nominally get an hour a day, but rarely are really allowed to watch their allocation. It's extremely low priority stuff here. Play outside with friends? Drawing? Hours and hours, kiddies!

That's by choice. No government nanny has restricted the viewing. I have, together with my wife. We value quite a lot above TV viewing.

Nobody in any of the articles I read was calling for a ban of Spongebob Squarepants, or any similarly fast-paced cartoon. That didn't stop Reason Magazine from blowing gaskets.

Jacob Sullum's freak out, complete with headline, "Who Will Protect Children From Dangerously Exciting Cartoons?":

In what sense does this study "bolster the idea that media exposure is a public health issue"? Watching SpongeBob did not harm the subjects' health. Even if it did, why would that be a public health issue, as opposed to a private health issue? The former label implies a rationale for government intervention, perhaps through regulations aimed at ensuring that TV shows watched by children are not too fun or exciting. Calling exposure to SpongeBob a "public health issue" is just a pseudoscientific, quasi-medical way of saying, "I do not trust people to raise their children the way I think they should."

Nick Gillespie's freak out, complete with headline, "Headline Grabbing Study Of The Week: For Kids To Learn, Spongebob Must Die!"

A new earth-shattering and metaphysically incontrovertible study is out, this one saying that watching SpongeBob SquarePants can cause learning problems in little kids. How bad is it? According to a USA Today writeup, "just nine minutes of that program can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds."
...
Wake up, America!: The more we focus on whether SpongeBob will make teh kidz dumb, the less we will focus on him making them gayz.

This is absurd. It's just a study. It may be predictable that someone will soon call for a ban on cartoons, or restrictive ratings, or some such... but at least wait for that to happen before wailing and gnashing teeth. "Implies a rationale for government intervention"? Sorry, I didn't see that in there. A little jumpy? A study, even a weak one, allows parents to- get this- use some reason and come to whatever conclusions they may. I needed little encouragement to keep my little ones away from Spongebob anyway. Other parents will let theirs watch. I'm not going to start looking for the phone number for Protective Services,.

It's such a pet peeve. There are a million things that are actual law that are worth fighting against. You start railing against studies, and it isn't long until you are dismissed out of hand as anti-science.

Yes, Gillespie & Sullum noted the weak nature of the study. Perfect! Do that in measured tones, and people will take it seriously. Go overboard with the hyperbolic headlines, and the response seems as goofy as the show in question.

And please, before anyone assails me as a TV prude without a sense of humor, understand that everything Monty Python is at the top of my list. It's perfectly great viewing for the right ages & maturity levels, far enough away from the screen, and in blocs of time that leave time to have breakfast before the sun sets.

A Soup of Thoughts on Travel and Food

I'm going to New York City next week, and looking forward to the food. Mainly, I'm staying in Queens, in Jackson Heights, which has more ethnic food of excellent quality than all of Indiana, far as I can tell. I am certain that I will eat Indian and Afghani, and probably eat in Chinatown for Dim Sum. Other options include a huge range of Latino offerings (Mexican, Columbian, Ecuadoran) and of course Italian.

New York is a funny place. Because I started going there in the late 80s, I still kind of think of it as a wild, permissive place. That's not in line with the outward reality, what with the smoking ban, the assault on trans fats, and now an attack on salt. From CNN:

First it was trans fats. Then it was high-calorie fast food. Now, the New York City Health Department is tackling another diet enemy: salt.

The department unveiled an initiative Monday urging restaurants and food companies across the country to voluntarily reduce their products' salt levels, city officials said.

"Salt is a huge problem in our diets," said Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Control Program at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. "The majority of us consume too much salt, which increases blood pressure and puts us at risk for heart attack and stroke."

New York has partnered with cities, states and national health organizations across the country with the goal of cutting the salt in packaged and restaurant foods gradually by 25 percent over five years. Doing that would reduce the nation's salt intake by 20 percent, Angell said.

The funny thing is, I don't smoke (never have), don't eat a lot of fast food, and I have low blood pressure (have even been advised by my physician to increase my salt intake at times). I didn't need any laws to bring me to this way of life, as astonishing as that may be to a pointy-headed New Yorker.

I'm kind of interested to see what impact these laws have had on the food there. One place I want to visit is Manhattan's Skylight Diner. They have many Greek dishes, but their fries were to die for. I want to see how they taste, along with some of their other obviously high calorie offerings.

This year, I chose to give up sodas. Now, my friends know what a sacrifice that is. I LOVE sodas. I used to drink 4 liters of Coke daily. When I started realizing that I could shed a few pounds just by switching from regular Coke to Diet Coke, I lost eight pounds. But, I've had a kidney stone, and phosphoric acid is an obvious culprit, so I dramatically cut my cola intake back in 2006.

Mind you, I did this without the benefit of a well-intentioned law directing me accordingly. I gathered the data, and made a choice. Isn't that incredible! That's not supposed to actually work in the real world.

And, I've said nothing about root beer. I really loooooove root beer. No matter. I've given them up. Gone 11+ days now without one. It's a matter of my personality that I find it easier to go completely without at first. Maybe come Summer I'll allow myself the occasional fizzy treat. But for now, a clean break. Lots of unsweetened ice teas, with loads of lemon for me!

Yet Even Still More Smoking Ban for Marion County

It seems like there is endless restlessness by those who wish to use the power of government to force businesses to involuntarily adopt no-smoke policies. From WTHR 13's report:

A City-County Council committee approved a tighter ban in a 4-2 vote. The measure is designed to further reduce health effects of secondhand smoke especially on non-smoking workers at bars and clubs.

...

City Councilor Christine Scales questioned the wisdom of expanding the current restrictions. "Why a total ban? We're talking about serious liberty interests at stake here. Smoking is legal," she said.

I happen to like no-smoke establishments. I choose to patronize them. However, I get hung up on the phrase "the pursuit of happiness". People define that in different ways. For me, playing hockey is one avenue to happiness. For others, it's smoking a cigarette in a bar. I no more want a group of busybodies to outlaw my ability to play hockey on the basis of safety and eliminating risky behavior than smokers or bar owners want this ban. It's the third parties, those who don't even participate in the ownership or behavior, who are driving this law. That makes their efforts very suspect to me. I don't trust little dictators.

The ends of the no-smoke policy is nice, but the means are very important to me. There are the parallels I think of:

I like having a fully staffed military, but I oppose conscription.
I like having top notch health care, but don't think you should be taxed to make it so.

We want the ends. For the means, it is so unnecessary to resort to force, yet it is our nation's first resort anymore. We become less American daily.

Angry Publican: David Hockney

Following up on the recent post on the effect of the smoking ban (among other things) on Britain's pubs, I happened across an article that was sent to me about a month ago by Steve Wainstead. Steve was a photo major, and turned me on to Hockney's photo collages, which was eye-opening for me. In turn, I began to shoot photo collages for myself.

Hockney is quite outspoken about the smoking ban, and all things "bossy". From an article in The Independent:

Some of the world's finest artists were lifelong smokers, he will happily point out, including Picasso, Matisse, Monet and Turner. Hockney does not smoke while he is painting because he needs his hands free, but when he steps back to take stock of his work, he lights up. And when the Government announced its proposed smoking ban in pubs and clubs, Hockney turned up at Labour's annual conference to lead a protest funded by the tobacco companies. "Death awaits you whether you smoke or not," he proclaimed. "Pubs are not health clubs. People go to drown their sorrows. We could save a lot more lives if we refuse to serve alcohol, you could argue. This is ridiculous. It's bossy."

Bossiness is one of Hockney's pet dislikes. He has a slogan: End Bossiness Soon – "soon" because he thinks "now" would sound bossy. "People should start standing up for themselves," he says. "Where has the awkward squad gone?"

I was pleasantly surprised to learn of the range of Hockney's libertarian beliefs. It's not what I expect from an artiste. But, it appears that Hockney finds the "for your own good" laws to be conformity, something many artistes once rebelled against.

let's hear it for Hockney!

Up Yours, Cleveland

Ame and I are originally from Cleveland, and we return there to visit relatives. One thing I will be sure we don't do is spend money in Cleveland for several years to come.

Cleveland is one of those cities that uses traffic enforcement cameras as a revenue generator. Ame passed the cameras on Chester & E 71st, an unsavory area if there ever was one, going 52mph in a 35-zone. The pictures were provided on the "Notice of Liability", and they show that nobody was in the area, and nobody was in harms way due to Ame's rate of speed.

Where is everybody? Oh yeah- they've fled the authoritarian nanny hell that is Cleveland.

This may rankle some of my absolutist pro-rule of law friends, but this is bullshit. The purpose for traffic law is to ensure the public safety. If nobody is made unsafe by the passage of traffic, what is the point of enforcing the law? Cameras are blind to circumstance. Police officers use discretion, and it's highly unlikely that an officer on the street would have pulled her over for this infraction. Obviously, this is mere revenue generation.

So, OK Cleveland. You get your $100 fine. What you won't get from me is a visit to the West Side Market for a few years. Nor will I eat in any restaurant in the city for a few years. You got $100 out of us now, but will not get $1,000 or so, thanks to the ill-will generated by this crap. Enjoy.

It will be a happy day when someone gives the camera's poles the 'Cool Hand Luke' treatment.