Remember I said in an earlier blog post that America is a complicated country? Well, it certainly is...part of the reason is because it is populated by complicated people. I count myself among those complicated people, and I doubt there are many people who know me that would disagree (complicated might be the nicest thing they say actually). Well, today, I got just a bit more complicated.
After finishing a deposition today, I walked over to a local establishment to pick up a sandwich. I noticed, actually heard, a guy on the street essentially saying that he was hungry and asking for some help. I was about to walk right by him and head into the store for lunch (remember, this is the City of Philadelphia...you can't walk a block without at least one or two panhandlers on the way). Then something caught my attention. The guy was not your normal street-dweller. He looked relatively clean, he had on some decent clothes. He was relatively quiet and unobtrusive, and if someone answered his call for help "no," he said thank you anyway. Frankly, he looked like a guy who might have been employed a week ago, and had things go south in a hurry.
I digress...I walked into the store and bought myself a sandwich...a #16 - turkey, cheese and other cool works. Then I decided I would buy him a sandwich too - ham and cheese, no fixings. Of course, I handed him my sandwich by accident, but that's okay. He looked more surprised than anything, and said thank you. I didn't really make small talk; he said he was hungry, and, hopefully, I had solved that problem.
The story really doesn't begin until here. One of my co-workers asked me why I bought him a sandwich different than the one I ordered for myself. I told the truth - I didn't know what the guy liked or didn't like, or what he might be allergic to or not allergic to, so I got something simple. My other co-worker summed that up best: "here's a hungry guy who probably hasn't eaten in a month, and you are worried about what he is or isn't allergic to!!" She then called me the turkey murderer.
Now knowing that I gave him the wrong sandwich, I am petrified that I killed this hungry guy out on the street with my turkey sandwich. Maybe, though, he was really allergic to ham, and I saved him by giving him the wrong sandwich!?!?
Ah, such is the life of the turkey murderer.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The McDonald's Un-Happy Meal
Back in 1977, McDonald's sought to create a better family eating atmosphere for its customers. Bob Bernstein, the head of McDonald's advertising agency (Bernstein-Rein), came up with the idea (after watching his child at the breakfast table repeatedly examine the daily cereal box with great interest) for a pre-packaged meal, containing food portions designed specifically for a child, with interesting packaging and the promise of a treat inside (much like cereal or Cracker Jacks). The Happy Meal was born, and in the 33 years since, has become an American institution.
On November 2, 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance which I shall re-name the Un-Happy Meal Ordinance. Essentially, the ordinance requires any meal with which a toy is distributed to meet certain dietary standards, including the inclusion of fruits and/or vegetables, less than 600 calories, and the omission of any "excessively" sugared or fatty drink. In fact, the best summary of the legislation, along with the comments of the Board, McDonald's and others, is at the San Francisco Citizen.
Upon seeing this new San Francisco ordinance, I decided to take the Internet out for a spin and figure out whether this has been done before, and whether there are other attempts to legislate dietary intake. Imagine my surprise when I found the following:
-- The National Policy and Legal Analysis Network To Prevent Childhood Obesity
-- Santa Clara Happy Meal Ban
-- L.A. Ban on New Fast Food Restaurants in Impoverished Neighborhoods
-- The New York Obesity Tax
These are just a few examples.
Yes, obesity is a problem among Americans. 30.6% of Americans are obese (next closest country is Mexico...yes, I was surprised as well).
Yes, childhood obesity is a problem. 11.9% of children between the ages of 6 and 19 are obese. More disturbing is that 19.6% of children from the ages of 6-11 are obese.
Yes, childhood obesity, and obesity in general, affect minorities more than Caucasians.
Yes, obesity is related to over $190 billion in medical expenses.
No, your government should not take away Happy Meals.
America is a complicated country. Ultimately, taking a toy out of a Happy Meal is not going to solve our problem.
Over the last twenty years, we have developed into what we commonly refer to as the "sound-bite society." While usually used to describe our intake of news, the reference holds for so many things we do. Eating has become one of those things...between working parents, school, activities, etc., we essentially eat on the go. Further, we are more closely related to technology than ever before: television, the Internet and gaming systems now keep us, and our children, inside the home and parked on the couch. And no one has proven to me that you eat healthier at home than you do out (though common sense tells me this is true on a very broad basis)...I grew up in a house where everything came out of the microwave, and I ate junk food all day long. Funny, though, I was extraordinarily thin my entire life despite that. Why?
GO OUTSIDE KIDS. RUN AROUND. RIDE A BIKE. PLAY BALL. EAT SOME DIRT. You will be healthier and thinner for it.
PARENTS: step away from the Twinkies, potato chips, soda, etc. YOU ARE THE PARENT - DO NOT ASK YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO STEP INTO YOUR SHOES BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DRIVE PAST THE MCDONALD'S DRIVE-THRU. DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS DRIVE THE BUS. SAY NO.
Or, we can take the more foolish road. Yes, Mr. Government, please take the toys out of Happy Meals. Yes, Mr. Government, please raise taxes on the foods that are bad. Yes Mr. Government, please keep fast food chains out of my neighborhood. Yes Mr. Government, please raise my children. Yes Mr. Government, please regulate my television, my radio, my food, my speech, my thought...me.
Let's not go down this slippery slope. Keep the government out of our food...
And give me a Chicken Nugget Happy Meal with a boy's toy please.
On November 2, 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance which I shall re-name the Un-Happy Meal Ordinance. Essentially, the ordinance requires any meal with which a toy is distributed to meet certain dietary standards, including the inclusion of fruits and/or vegetables, less than 600 calories, and the omission of any "excessively" sugared or fatty drink. In fact, the best summary of the legislation, along with the comments of the Board, McDonald's and others, is at the San Francisco Citizen.
Upon seeing this new San Francisco ordinance, I decided to take the Internet out for a spin and figure out whether this has been done before, and whether there are other attempts to legislate dietary intake. Imagine my surprise when I found the following:
-- The National Policy and Legal Analysis Network To Prevent Childhood Obesity
-- Santa Clara Happy Meal Ban
-- L.A. Ban on New Fast Food Restaurants in Impoverished Neighborhoods
-- The New York Obesity Tax
These are just a few examples.
Yes, obesity is a problem among Americans. 30.6% of Americans are obese (next closest country is Mexico...yes, I was surprised as well).
Yes, childhood obesity is a problem. 11.9% of children between the ages of 6 and 19 are obese. More disturbing is that 19.6% of children from the ages of 6-11 are obese.
Yes, childhood obesity, and obesity in general, affect minorities more than Caucasians.
Yes, obesity is related to over $190 billion in medical expenses.
No, your government should not take away Happy Meals.
America is a complicated country. Ultimately, taking a toy out of a Happy Meal is not going to solve our problem.
Over the last twenty years, we have developed into what we commonly refer to as the "sound-bite society." While usually used to describe our intake of news, the reference holds for so many things we do. Eating has become one of those things...between working parents, school, activities, etc., we essentially eat on the go. Further, we are more closely related to technology than ever before: television, the Internet and gaming systems now keep us, and our children, inside the home and parked on the couch. And no one has proven to me that you eat healthier at home than you do out (though common sense tells me this is true on a very broad basis)...I grew up in a house where everything came out of the microwave, and I ate junk food all day long. Funny, though, I was extraordinarily thin my entire life despite that. Why?
GO OUTSIDE KIDS. RUN AROUND. RIDE A BIKE. PLAY BALL. EAT SOME DIRT. You will be healthier and thinner for it.
PARENTS: step away from the Twinkies, potato chips, soda, etc. YOU ARE THE PARENT - DO NOT ASK YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO STEP INTO YOUR SHOES BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DRIVE PAST THE MCDONALD'S DRIVE-THRU. DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS DRIVE THE BUS. SAY NO.
Or, we can take the more foolish road. Yes, Mr. Government, please take the toys out of Happy Meals. Yes, Mr. Government, please raise taxes on the foods that are bad. Yes Mr. Government, please keep fast food chains out of my neighborhood. Yes Mr. Government, please raise my children. Yes Mr. Government, please regulate my television, my radio, my food, my speech, my thought...me.
Let's not go down this slippery slope. Keep the government out of our food...
And give me a Chicken Nugget Happy Meal with a boy's toy please.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
What Did Tuesday's Election Mean?
Honestly, I did not plan to spend a lot of time talking about the election. I spent the better part of the last twelve months talking about it. I think it is important, however, to put this election in some perspective in order to move forward productively.
We know know that the Republicans picked up 60 seats in the House of Representatives (*as of the time of the writing of this blog piece*). We know now that the Republicans will hold at least 239 seats in the House of Representatives, larger than after the 2004 election and the largest margin since 1946. There are 11 House races still up in the air, and all 11 are Democrat-held seats. If the Republicans hold the 5 in which they currently lead, the total number of seats picked up will be 65, with the possibility of 71 if every race broke in favor of the Republicans.
We also know that the Democrats held on to the Senate. In fact, the Republicans are likely a little disappointed that they did not fare a little better. Worse yet, the trophy head they coveted, Harry Reid, lived to serve another six years. Of course, Harry Reid is likely a better majority leader as far as Republicans are concerned than Chuck Schumer, the likely successor had Reid lost.
More important, however, is what the Republican Party accomplished on a state-to-state level. The Republicans are now projected to control 29 governorships, with a couple of races still undecided, and now control at least 25 state legislatures. With reapportionment looming in the next month, redistricting will come well in advance of the 2012 Presidential Election, and Republicans are now in an advantageous position to create winnable districts (this is not an endorsement of redistricting, by the way...I believe it flies in the face of our Constitution). The governorships also provide the Republicans with something I thought they lacked in 2008 - rising stars. Haley, Martinez and Sandoval provide the Republicans with a diverse group of new bloods for 2012 and beyond.
A couple of other observations:
Both female CEOs, despite extraordinary expenditures, lost their Senate races.
Most of the "controversial" Tea Party Candidates lost (Angle and O'Donnell jumping to mind first, though Miller ranks among them as well).
Pennsylvania elected a very conservative Senator, which is certainly not the norm; it is reminiscent of the election of Rick Santorum.
Like it or not, Sarah Palin's "hand-picked" candidates did well: over half of her endorsed candidates in the House, Senate and Governor races won.
So what does this mean for today and beyond? I see some simple conclusions, particularly as we look specifically at 2012:
One, Sarah Palin is here to stay. Like it or not, she energizes some core Republican voters. I think the impact of her endorsements is a bit overblown, but it is hard to argue with results. Does this mean she will run for President in 2012? I tend to think she will throw her hat in the ring at some point, but she might be more effective in a non-candidate role (worse, she is exactly the Republican candidate that I am loathe to vote for: no fiscal restraint with a social agenda).
Two, the loss of the governorships in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio is a crushing blow to the Democrats. In order to get re-elected, Obama is going to have to carry at least two of these states; he acknowledged it by going to each state on multiple occasions and sending the fleet in to drum up votes. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania elected a Republican governor, conservative Republican senator, and Republican majorities in both the State House and the State Senate. Worse, in Florida, the Democrats lost a great deal of the Hispanic support from 2008. We know that the cycle changes quickly in politics, and a healthier economy will cure a lot of ills, but this is a body blow for Obama's chances in 2012, and he knows it.
Three, if I were a Republican, I would not get too excited quite yet. I anticipated last year that at least 35 seats could turn back to the Republicans in this election cycle (a combination of the normal off-year election gains for the non-White House party, plus the loss of Democratic gains in traditionally conservative/Republican districts from 2008). This is yet another election cycle where the American people cried out: We hate everyone right now...get us some people that can lead. I think Rubio had it right - the American voter handed the Republicans a second chance, and now it is up to the Republicans to finally define themselves (instead of merely saying "no") via affirmative legislative proposals.
The political landscape just changed significantly. The next good time to revisit the issue will be later in December, before the holiday, when the actions of the lame duck Congress can be evaluated and some of the rhetoric concerning the election has died down. At that point, we should have a window to peer through and see the Republican legislative agenda.
We know know that the Republicans picked up 60 seats in the House of Representatives (*as of the time of the writing of this blog piece*). We know now that the Republicans will hold at least 239 seats in the House of Representatives, larger than after the 2004 election and the largest margin since 1946. There are 11 House races still up in the air, and all 11 are Democrat-held seats. If the Republicans hold the 5 in which they currently lead, the total number of seats picked up will be 65, with the possibility of 71 if every race broke in favor of the Republicans.
We also know that the Democrats held on to the Senate. In fact, the Republicans are likely a little disappointed that they did not fare a little better. Worse yet, the trophy head they coveted, Harry Reid, lived to serve another six years. Of course, Harry Reid is likely a better majority leader as far as Republicans are concerned than Chuck Schumer, the likely successor had Reid lost.
More important, however, is what the Republican Party accomplished on a state-to-state level. The Republicans are now projected to control 29 governorships, with a couple of races still undecided, and now control at least 25 state legislatures. With reapportionment looming in the next month, redistricting will come well in advance of the 2012 Presidential Election, and Republicans are now in an advantageous position to create winnable districts (this is not an endorsement of redistricting, by the way...I believe it flies in the face of our Constitution). The governorships also provide the Republicans with something I thought they lacked in 2008 - rising stars. Haley, Martinez and Sandoval provide the Republicans with a diverse group of new bloods for 2012 and beyond.
A couple of other observations:
Both female CEOs, despite extraordinary expenditures, lost their Senate races.
Most of the "controversial" Tea Party Candidates lost (Angle and O'Donnell jumping to mind first, though Miller ranks among them as well).
Pennsylvania elected a very conservative Senator, which is certainly not the norm; it is reminiscent of the election of Rick Santorum.
Like it or not, Sarah Palin's "hand-picked" candidates did well: over half of her endorsed candidates in the House, Senate and Governor races won.
So what does this mean for today and beyond? I see some simple conclusions, particularly as we look specifically at 2012:
One, Sarah Palin is here to stay. Like it or not, she energizes some core Republican voters. I think the impact of her endorsements is a bit overblown, but it is hard to argue with results. Does this mean she will run for President in 2012? I tend to think she will throw her hat in the ring at some point, but she might be more effective in a non-candidate role (worse, she is exactly the Republican candidate that I am loathe to vote for: no fiscal restraint with a social agenda).
Two, the loss of the governorships in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio is a crushing blow to the Democrats. In order to get re-elected, Obama is going to have to carry at least two of these states; he acknowledged it by going to each state on multiple occasions and sending the fleet in to drum up votes. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania elected a Republican governor, conservative Republican senator, and Republican majorities in both the State House and the State Senate. Worse, in Florida, the Democrats lost a great deal of the Hispanic support from 2008. We know that the cycle changes quickly in politics, and a healthier economy will cure a lot of ills, but this is a body blow for Obama's chances in 2012, and he knows it.
Three, if I were a Republican, I would not get too excited quite yet. I anticipated last year that at least 35 seats could turn back to the Republicans in this election cycle (a combination of the normal off-year election gains for the non-White House party, plus the loss of Democratic gains in traditionally conservative/Republican districts from 2008). This is yet another election cycle where the American people cried out: We hate everyone right now...get us some people that can lead. I think Rubio had it right - the American voter handed the Republicans a second chance, and now it is up to the Republicans to finally define themselves (instead of merely saying "no") via affirmative legislative proposals.
The political landscape just changed significantly. The next good time to revisit the issue will be later in December, before the holiday, when the actions of the lame duck Congress can be evaluated and some of the rhetoric concerning the election has died down. At that point, we should have a window to peer through and see the Republican legislative agenda.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
What Am I?
Our election season in 2010 put this question into my mind, and it is a pertinent one. In my college and law school years, I proudly counted myself among the Republicans, leading a Law School Republican chapter and working with/on a number of campaigns. After 1994, I became concerned about the social conservative/Christian Coalition influences in the party, and jumped ship to the Democrats in an effort to find a more socially liberal umbrella. Frankly, I've never been comfortable under that umbrella either, and continued to vote for primarily Republican candidates until 2008. The Obama agenda and crushing deficit, however, leave me yearning for something better. I venture a guess that there are a number of people evaluating their own political existence this morning as well.
The Republicans tell us that there is room for a social moderate in the party, and point to the Log Cabin Republicans, the Republican Main Street Coalition and the "It's My Party Too" factions of the party as the safe havens for the moderates. Frankly, I believe those factions are closets, not safe havens, and with the surge of Tea Party candidates, many of us may be better off locked in those closets. Perhaps a better question for the Republicans: is there room for a fiscal conservative in the party?
The Democrats also tell us a comforting story - of course there is room for fiscal conservatives under the Democratic Party umbrella. Well, the Blue Dog Democrats may be the one group of Democrats that advocate for fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, the Blue Dogs (who took quite a hit tonight) have absolutely no ultimate control over the Democrat spending binge.
So what to do? Change my registration again? Register independent and not vote in primaries? None of these options really excite me much.
Instead, perhaps we can do something more constructive. Write editorials. Write to your Congressman. Review your local budget. Advocate for causes. Volunteer for campaigns, local and otherwise. Step out of your shell and share your ideals. That is the way to effectuate change...slow, but effective change.
The Republicans tell us that there is room for a social moderate in the party, and point to the Log Cabin Republicans, the Republican Main Street Coalition and the "It's My Party Too" factions of the party as the safe havens for the moderates. Frankly, I believe those factions are closets, not safe havens, and with the surge of Tea Party candidates, many of us may be better off locked in those closets. Perhaps a better question for the Republicans: is there room for a fiscal conservative in the party?
The Democrats also tell us a comforting story - of course there is room for fiscal conservatives under the Democratic Party umbrella. Well, the Blue Dog Democrats may be the one group of Democrats that advocate for fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, the Blue Dogs (who took quite a hit tonight) have absolutely no ultimate control over the Democrat spending binge.
So what to do? Change my registration again? Register independent and not vote in primaries? None of these options really excite me much.
Instead, perhaps we can do something more constructive. Write editorials. Write to your Congressman. Review your local budget. Advocate for causes. Volunteer for campaigns, local and otherwise. Step out of your shell and share your ideals. That is the way to effectuate change...slow, but effective change.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)