TheSmithViewpoint

27 February 2007

Ban McDonald's?

Prince Charles has suggested that a ban on McDonald's fast food was "the key" to fighting diabetes, according to a Times Online article.

What an interesting suggestion, Charles. Unfortunately, it would be sort of like putting a Band-aid on a poison ivy rash. Utterly pointless. The people who are loyal to McDonald's would be downright outraged. They would soon get over their anger, though, and simply drive through another death-food restaurant.

I agree, McDonald's does do its damage. But in order for your suggestion to have any impact on the overall health of human beings, it would have to be broadened to include all fast food resaturants. Good luck with that.

Not only that; the "nutritional" content in food that other restaurants sell would have to be regulated and monitored. Otherwise they will adapt their menus to include and cater to the huge market share lost by the fast food industry.

Many people love fast food. Most of the people who eat it know the consequences, especially of eating it frequently. A general ban on fast food would be ineffective and as successful as Prohibition was in the U.S. If all of the McDonald's, Burger King's, Wendy's, White Castle's, Arby's, Taco Bell's, Jack in the Box's, Carls Jr.'s, Whataburger's, Chick-fil-A's, et cetera, were suddenly shut down, people will find other ways to get their 3,000-calorie meals.

It comes down to this: people need to be educated with the facts about what they eat and the consequences -- or benefits -- that come with eating it. If people wish to continue eating fast food, knowing that by doing so they are trimming years from their lives, then that is up to themselves and the people who care about them.

posted by Smith @ 2/27/2007 11:47:00 AM 0 comments

21 February 2007

Why not a contest of ideas?

Why can there not be more public debates among key politicians? Or, at the very least, head-to-head public discussions between, say, those in the White House and those on Capitol Hill.

Right now America has more of a he said-she said democratic practice where someone can make a statement through some media outlet and, yet, there is no rebuttal to his or her statement.

For instance, ABC News reported today that, aboard the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, Vice-President Dick Cheney told U.S. soldiers that Americans "will not support a policy of retreat." That statement, however, is completely false. A majority of Americans do support some sort of withdrawal of troops from Iraq within some sort of time frame.

Many statements are made by politicians when there is no one there who can respond to or refute it. Yet, shouldn't the debate of ideas part of a democratic society, not to mention the foremost of democratic societies?

Right now our democratic debates are limited to a few between candidates during presidential campaigns. I do not consider the one-by-one ramblings of representatives and senators in Congress to be proper debates. A debate is a contest, a competition of opposing ideas.

The ideas and ideals of the American people as conveyed through its politicians are expressed far apart from each other -- a policy of us and them -- because they are not made to come together in a public arena.

How can we be a nation united when we are a nation separated by our own ideas? At this moment in our nation's history we are categorized as Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. A time for us to come together as one nation is long overdue.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Smith @ 2/21/2007 08:35:00 AM 0 comments

My Photo
Name:
Location: Elmhurst, Illinois

husband, father, son, brother, friend; curious, skeptical, cognizant, reasonable, liberal, freethinker

Google