Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Happy? Not so Fast...

Leroy Comrie-D, NY
Yes, this NYC Councilman wants to legislate what YOUR kids - eat. 

Please, take a moment, look up again, and allow this to sink in.

So why is this man targeting restaurants which provide toys in 'kid's meals' upset? 

  • Does he not 'like' the toys?  
  • Was he attacked by Grimace as a young child?
  • Is he more of a 'Wendy's' kind-of-guy? 

Well, let's check out what the folks at CBS News have to say:  "Comrie planned to introduce his own bill Wednesday that would essentially rewrite what could currently be considered a “Happy Meal.” The bill would require establishments that offer toys with food make sure the meals are 500 calories or less and have low fat and low sodium totals."

Okay, so he's doing it 'for the Children' (is he in Wisconsin by any chance?). 

Super!  What a nice man!  He cares about meals which are 500 calories or less (once again, you may want to re-visit the photo above) for our kids. 

That's special!

But what happens if I attempt to sell an un-healthy-toy-laden-meal to a small child under his proposed legislation?  

According to CBS:  "Penalties would be steep: between $200 to $2,500 for repeat restaurant offenders who use toys to sell unhealthy meals.

Comrie said fast food restaurants know exactly what they’re doing.

“It comes as no surprise that these ads and meals are also targeted in low income and minority neighborhoods that are already at risk for childhood obesity. These are the same communities that have limited access to supermarkets, limited access to healthy food options,” Comrie said."

Um, no.  I must respectfully disagree with Councilman Comrie (only one letter off from another word, can't just seem to place it, though).  

Mr. Comrie, McDonalds restaurants are ALL over the United States - saying that they are targetting 'low income and minority neighborhoods' implies that every neighborhood in the US is 'low income', well, that's just CRAZY TALK... 

Although, over the past few years, he MAY have a valid point here - I'm feeling a bit 'low' myself, at least when it comes to income...

Okay, so folks like Mr. Comrie want to guarantee women the 'Right' to abort their children - but once born, the kids who survive can't eat a Happy Meal at McDonalds'?  Am I getting this right? 

Yeah, I know it's a stretch, but it is, what it is...

What poisonous foods being offered for sale at McDonalds'?
That's right, a Cheeseburger, low-fat milk, and apple 'dippers' (dipped in LARD and SALT no doubt!)

Are there other 'less-healthy' food choices which can accompany your child's 'Happy Meal'?  Sure there are.  You could give your child arterially-challenging FRIES with a lethally-injected-carbonated-corn-syrup-infused 12 Ounce Sprite with NO ICE!  (Oh, the horror) 

But here's the thing: McDonalds' provides you with the Choice to select the healthier alternative, vs. the 'Bad' alternative for your child. 

You get to choose with your child (for now).

In Mr. Commie's world (oops, sorry, it's, 'Comrie'), affordable meals need to be free of choice(s), joy, AND without a toy.  If a toy is provided with a non-healthy meal, the owner of the establishment gets to pay...

A Tax, a penalty, a fee, a punishment for doing business (Call it what you want, but it all comes down to the same) 

So is the debate really about healthy meals, or is it about raising incremental tax revenues while taking 'choices' away from parents?

In looking at the McDonalds' Nutritional site for Happy Meals, it appears that many of the meals available today are fractionally 'just above' the caloric requirements specified by Mr. Comfrie's proposed legislation.  I wonder why this is? 

Even the artery-clogging-old-hen Chicken McNuggets with Low-Fat Milk and Fries come in at 520 Calories, yet Mr. Comfrie specified a '500 Calorie' maximum. 

Isn't it strange that McDonalds' numbers are so close to the Councilman's numbers, and yet, so far away? Yes, the word 'strange', does come to mind.

Enjoy those fries and sugary drinks while you can kids, because if there IS a Boogie Man in your closet, chances are he's wearing an ill-fitting suit, a white shirt, a striped tie, and is sporting ketchup stains on his lapels. 

And for all you 'poor people' out there forced to eat at fast food joints, here's a tip for you - stay at home and cook for your own dang kids.  You'll save money and you'll be able to feed them whatever you want (while the food is permitted, of course).  Just make sure they get a toy.  I hate it when kids cry...  

Perhaps you can give them a nice little gray donkey to remind them of what they've lost? 

I'm thinking...  
"Thanks for noticing me...  Now leave me alone."
NEXT UP:  Banning Chocolate Milk in Schools - I wish I were kidding

NEXT NEXT UP:  They'll be banning 'Bag Lunches' in schools.  Oops, too late...

From the article linked above:  "One principal in the city of Chicago has set off a firestorm after a Chicago Tribune report of a ban on home-packed lunches. Students without a medical excuse must eat the daily offerings in the cafeteria at Little Village Academy.

Well, they have to eat it or do without, which many students are doing.

The principal, Elsa Carmona, defended her decision to the Tribune, saying "Nutrition-wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school."




Seriously, what were they thinking?
The thing looks like a target.
Oh, now I get it...

Post a Comment