Childhood obesity through the lens of McDonald’s

I was motivated to post by a recent McDonald’s ad touting their “healthy options” for kids. According to the fast-food giant, these include “Apple Dippers – Fresh apple slices with low-fat caramel dip on the side. We also have fruit’n yogurt parfaits and milk in fun-to-drink jugs.” Other fast food places such as Burger King offer similar choices for kids.

I guess this is supposed to make parents feel less guilty about taking their kids to a fast-food place? But the hypocrisy here is a little ridiculous. First of all, if you’re truly concerned about eating healthy, you’re not going to go to a McDonald’s at all. Nobody gets a craving for salad and thinks, “Time to hit Mickey D’s!” when there are so many better places to get one.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I think it’s bad for McDonald’s to offer healthy options. It’s especially convenient if you’ve got a group of five people and only four are carnivores.

No, my scorn is directed at the special healthy choices that are just for kids. Think about it this way: While Junior is having his milk and apple slices, what are Mommy and Daddy eating? How much you want to bet it’s a Big Mac with large fries and a super-sized sugary drink? What message does that send? Seems to me kind of cruel to bring a kid into carcinogen heaven and then sentence them to a diet of health food while Mommy and Daddy happily destroy their arteries. (Or maybe just Daddy; Mommy may have ordered a salad, still feeling societal pressure to fit into clothing designed for anorexic models.) 

In other words, if apple slices and milk are good, why not offer them for adults? (Answer: Because adults won’t order them. Children won’t either; their parents order it for them.) If it’s bad for kids to eat salty fries and sugary drinks, why is McDonald’s offering these bad things to adults?

You can hardly get through one day anymore without hearing about the “epidemic of childhood obesity.” But think about it: Is consuming a Big Mac, fries, and soft drink ultimately more dangerous to the health of a pudgy 10-year old child or to a 55-year old parent with elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels?

Yes, it’s true that children’s nutrition is of special importance because they are still growing. But nobody should be relying primarily on McDonald’s for their kids’ nutritional needs anyway. A fast-food place such as McDonald’s should be an occasional treat for families with kids, not a regular feature of their diet. In that event, fries and a Coke are not going to harm a child or make them fat. Of course, McDonald’s would prefer that you visit them every day, and that’s what they’re marketing. Just keep that in mind next time you see that kids’ menu.

Marijuana legalization: A primer

It’s been a while since I touched on the long-standing question of legalizing marijuana. I’m something of an agnostic on the issue: my reservations about legalization tend to be practical rather than fundamental.

Most of the literature on the subject comes with a very strong opinion either for or against. I therefore found this piece by Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum unusual. Like myself, Drum is a non-pot-smoker with no deep convictions one way or another about the matter. He delivers a thoughtful look at the issue from a practical rather than an ideological perspective. Along the way, he delivers some good information, like the true number of people imprisioned on marijuana charges (a lot fewer than you think.)

Drum concludes with a mild argument in favor of at least further loosening marijuana laws. I am not sure I agree, particularly because Drum does not address the proven ability of law enforcement to arrest serious criminals on pot charges. However, the conlcusion here is not important as the journey. I recommend this piece to anyone interested in a more thorough understanding of some of the issues involved in marijuana policy.

Health care? It’s the economy, stupid.

I commend to your attention this superb piece by Jay Cost over at Real Clear Politics. Cost’s main forte is statistical election analysis, but in this piece he examines the Obama Administration’s priorities and suggests that the President is making a mistake in trying to expand health care coverage while the conomy is still in crisis.

To briefly summarize Cost’s analysis: He argues convincingly that America elected Obama primarily to fix the economy. He then criticizes the President for allowing the Democrats in Congress to craft a stimulus bill that would not meet the goal of a short-term boost ot the economy (as we are now seeing all too clearly) and ramming it through so quickly that there was no opportunity to improve it. Now he’s trying to move health care legislation while voters are still waiting for the promises made when the stimulus bill was passed to be fulfilled. Cost argues that by misreading what is most important to American voters, Obama runs the risk of damaging his political fortunes along with those of the Democrat Party.

It’s not that health care reform is not needed. It’s that you have to clean up one mess before you create a new one

Sotomayor: Judge or trial lawyer?

I return to the question of confiormation of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. As readers may recall, I generally start from the position that the President has a right to nominate someone who shares his general political philosophy, provided he or she is well qualified.

With this in mind, I found this study by Washington Post writer Jerry Markon instructive. Markon and his colleagues looked at 46 different cases Sotomayor participated in where there was a split decision to try to get a sense of her philosophy and judicial approach. They concluded that Sotomayor seems to fit the label of a moderate liberal, well within what you would expect from a Democrat nominee.

As mentioned, that does not concern me. Nor do I question whether Sotomayor has sufficient legal and judicial experience to be properly considered for the Supreme Court. But there is something else that emerges from Markon’s story that I do find to be of concern. While there is no question that she studies the details of each case carefully and thoughtfully, what emerges is a picture of someone whose approach more closely resembles a trial lawyer advocating for a client than an appellate judge weighing the propriety of the actions of a lower court.  The suggestion is that Sotomayor has a tendency to want to retry the initial case rather than focus on whether the lower court acted properly. In doing so, she supports her arguments by pulling in a wealth of outside data that may or may not be directly relevant to the case at hand.

In short, I am left to wonder whether Sotomayor, in many of her opinions, is advocating rather than judging. Clearly that is not the role that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to play. I would hope that Sotomayor will be asked about this directly during her hearings. It will be interesting to hear what her response will be.

Think racism mostly thrives in the South? Think again.

This is one of the most blatant examples of racism I’ve seen in a long time:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Pool-Boots-Kids-Who-Might-Change-the-Complexion.html

And let it be stressed that it happened not in the Deep South but in Philadelphia, a “blue” city in a “blue” state that voted for Obama. And yet, Philadelphia, like many Northern cities,  does have a history of racism as disturbing as anything in the South. (New York City, too, has had plenty of race riots over its long history.)

If the members of the Valley Swim Club are so prejudiced that they want to get out of the pool when black children enter it, that is their right to do so. But for the club to renege on its agreement with the Creative Steps Day Camp and prevent the children from using their pool is indefensible. If you don’t want outsiders in your pool, don’t take their money. Apparently the Swim Club wasn’t concerned about the color of the day camp’s money until its members complained about the color of their skin.

What’s particularly disturbing was the remarks made by a white parent as overheard by one of the black campers: “I’m scared they [the black kids]might do something to my child.” It’s hard to imagine that a kid would make up something like that, so let’s assume it’s true. First of all, what is a black kid going to do to a white kid that another white kid couldn’t just as easily do? Shoot them in the face? Second of all, whence the assumption that black people are all hooligans? Or is it rather a case of projection, in which the white parent assumes that the blacks must dislike her and her child as much as she fears and dislikes them?

I’m sure this incident is embarrassing to the many good people of Philadelphia, and I hope that the Valley Swim Club and its members will find themselves the subject of intense pressure to change their attitude.

I think I agree with the Muslims on this one: Part II

Twice in less than a year’s time  that I find myself on common ground with Muslim religious values! And of course it took the ultimate evil to do it: “reality” television.

I have to admit, at least this time the idea was creative.  A Turkish TV station came up with the idea of a competition between a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist monk to try to convert 10 atheists to their respective faiths. The show is supposed to air this fall.

However, the Muslim authorities in Turkey are not amused and are refusing to allow any of their imams to participate: “Doing something like this for the sake of ratings is disrespectful to all religions.” And I have to say I agree. Faith should not be a popularity contest, and religious truth should not be judged by who has the most followers – or offers the most tempting blandishments to converts.

The TV network’s response was disturbing: “We don’t approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn’t matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe.”  In other words, freedom of religion in Turkey, but not for atheists. Of course those who go on the show would be willing participants, but if I were an atheist I would worry about how I might be treated based on how my fellow nonbelievers are portrayed on the show. If it were handled by a typical American reality show production company, which deliberately instigates conflicts and uses creative editing to portray people as negatively as possible in order to boost ratings, one might imagine the “contestants” being portrayed as speaking or acting disrespectfully toward one faith or another, which could lead to unpleasant consequences. I personally find atheism distasteful, but I think the right to refuse to believe is just as important as the right to choose what to believe.

I’m also puzzled by the inclusion of Judaism, because it is fundamentally not a proselytizing religion. In fact, rabbis are known to try to talk people out of converting to Judaism. While I could see a rabbi being willing to do the show as a way of spreading understanding of the Jewish faith in a predominantly Muslim country, I can’t imagine that rabbi having much success in actually converting anyone to Judaism.

Then again, we are told that the Lord works in mysterious ways…

Let’s tell the truth about “grunting” in women’s tennis

Watching the finals of the Wimbledon tennis tournament this weekend, I was reminded of the continuing controversy over the loud “grunting” noises made by a number of women’s tennis players, including the Williams sisters and Maria Sharapova. There has been much discussion of this practice, with many tennis figures weighing in to either attack or defend it.

It is generally agreed that Monica Seles was the first big-time women’s tennis player to engage in this practice, encouraged by some coaches as a way of reducing stress. Younger players saw Seles’ success and copied the noise along with other aspects of her game.

However, I have yet to hear anyone tell the truth about this so-called “grunting”. In fact, it’s not grunting at all. “Shrieking” would be more like it. A blind person could well be forgiven for thinking that the ladies in question were engaged in vigorous lovemaking or delivering babies based on the sounds they are making. And it’s not simply an issue of being ladylike. Even the men don’t make such noises. Roger Federer and Andy Roddick played a 4-hour final on Sunday and neither one felt the need to shriek at any time.

If this were simply a matter of a natural sound that was the by-product of physical exertion – a true “grunt” if you will – then I would agree that all this would be much ado about nothing. However, the truth is that what these women are doing is deliberately being as loud as they can in order to pump themselves up psychologically and distract and startle their opponents. After all, when was the last time you heard a baseball player screech when hitting the ball? Even boxers don’t emit such sounds when they beat each other to a pulp.

Tennis authorities have discussed implementing rules to sanction players who are too loud. I’m not sure how you enforce that – how do you decide what decibel level is OK? For some players, it has become so routine that they may not even realize that they are doing it. Rather, I think it should be the coaches who train tennis players from an early age who should put a stop to this practice. And the media should stop calling it “grunting”.

They would have got away with it too if it wasn’t for that meddling mayor…

Ever been overcharged by a business and felt like there was nothing you could do about it? No one who would take your side?

Then you might appreciate the plight of a Japanese couple visiting Rome last month who were charged a whopping $980 for lunch including a $160 tip they did not agree to. The couple complained to city authorities – probably without much hope.

But apparently the story got picked up by Italian newspapers, and that got the attention of Rome’s mayor, Gianni Alemanno. Alemanno became angry because he knew it was the type of thing that could seriously hurt the city’s tourism.

Police responded to the complaint and compared the couple’s receipt to the prices listed for the same dishes on the restaurant’s menu – which the Japanese claim they were never shown by their waiter. There were siginifcant discrepancies.

At that point, the city decided it was time for the well-known restaurant – Passetto – to have an impromptu health inspection. Naturally, a number of violations were found, which gave the police reason to temporarily shut the restaurant down. Now the city is considering revoking the restaurant’s license to operate.

So, tourists can rest assured that it is safe to eat in Roman restaurants. And Roman businesses have heard the city’s twofold message loud and clear: Do not cheat visitors to our country, and do NOT mess with the Mayor of Rome.

A birthday present from Dad?

You’ve gotta love the British. They have a certain style to the way they do things.

Case in point: Several months ago, the British National Archives discovered amongst their ancient, musty files, an original copy of the American Declaration of Independence, in very good condition. Only about 200 copies were made in the first printing of the Declaration in Philadelphia in 1776, and only about two dozen are known to exist today. So this find is of signficance.

However, the announcement of its discovery was delayed – until today, July 2, which happens to be the actual date that the Continental Congress voted to accept the document and endorse independence. UK authorities claim that the delay was necessitated by the need to properly catalogue the document, but that is just a classy way of being modest. It’s clear that the announcement was intended as a wink-of-the-eye present to Britain’s closest ally.

Since Great Britain was the ancestral home of most of the American colonists and the power that governed the original 13 colonies under their first democratic system, one can view the UK in a way as the “father” of the United States – even if a rebellion against that father was needed to achieve independence.  In a weird sort of way, maybe Britons take a vicarious sort of pride in everything the USA has accomplished, much the way a father is proud of his child.

So, thanks for the birthday present, Dad.

On Independence Day, 20 reasons to be glad you live in America

Sometimes I feel that I spend too much time complaining about various aspects of American life or politics. Although there is much to complain about, the truth is that we Americans have it pretty good. So to celebrate America’s Independence Day (July 4), since I will be offline for the long weekend, I thought I would change things up a bit and point out some of the problems other countries face, reminding us how fortunate we are to be Americans.

In doing so, I didn’t waste any time on the obvious – countries facing starvation or civil war. Nobody wants to live in those places. Instead, I’ve listed 20 countries most Americans would probably consider nice places to live.  And they are – but as I’ve shown below, every one of these countries has problems that are just as vexing, if not worse, than the ones we face. I hope reading this list makes you feel better about the good old USA.  Happy Birthday, America.

20 COUNTRIES TO BE GLAD YOU DON’T LIVE IN….

Argentina – Had an inflation rate of 15% in 2008 (the highest US rate in the last 20 years was 6.3%). Kidnappings for ransom are common in cities. 20% of the population lacked indoor running water/indoor plumbing in 2001.

 

Australia – Most of the country is a desert. The remainder has the least fertile soil of any continent and is subject to periodic droughts and massive wildfires caused by El Nino; many areas suffer from chronic water shortages and have legal restrictions on water use. In the prosperous city of Melbourne, schoolchildren are taught to use timers to make sure their showers last no more than two minutes.

 

Bahamas – This island paradise is Ground Zero for hurricanes, averaging one devastating hurricane very two years. Because the islands are flat this means massive ocean flooding as well as homes destroyed by high winds.

 

Belgium – The country is severely divided politically and culturally between the Dutch and French-speaking communities, to the point of paralyzing the government and threatening the breakup of the country. A 2003 study found that Belgium’s rivers and groundwater were the most polluted of all 122 countries in the study.

 

Canada – Although a prosperous country with great national resources, most of the vast area of the country is functionally uninhabitable by civilized humans. 72% of Canadians live within 95 miles of the US border. 80% of Canadians live in the cities. Vancouver is the only major city in Canada with an average January temperature above freezing. Also, the nation’s public health care system is severely stressed. There are less than 1400 obstetricians trying to serve a population of nearly 34 million. Patients can wait years for a simple procedure such as an MRI, and emergency patients sometimes have to be rushed to the US to prevent them from dying before they can be seen by a Canadian doctor.

 

Denmark – There is no separation of church and state in Denmark. The official Church of Denmark is headed by the Queen and governed by the Danish Parliament. Whether you are a member or not, your taxes go to pay part of its budget including the salaries of its bishops.

 

Fiji – Pacific island paradise? Think again. Fiji has experienced four military coups and two mutinies since 1987 over political tensions between ethnic and religious groups.

 

Finland – Finland has a severe problem with public intoxication. Alcohol-related diseases and accidents are the leading cause of death for working age people, and even in tourist areas urinating in the streets remains a frequent sight despite the government’s efforts to stamp it out. Finland also has the world’s highest rate of juvenile diabetes.

 

France – Although a very secular country, religious freedom is limited in France. Catholicism is the state religion and most Catholic churches are owned by the government; some priests’ salaries are paid by the government.  It is illegal to wear conspicuous religious symbols in public schools; however, the law is selectively enforced against non-Christians, particularly with respect to the Islamic headscarf.

Ireland – The Emerald Isle has a mild climate but is completely overcast by clouds 50% of the time. It rains on average between 150 and 225 days a year.

 

Italy – Italy is overwhelmingly dependent on foreign sources of energy. The country has virtually no iron, coal, or oil. Italy imports 93% of its oil and 91% of its natural gas (US 53% and 16% respectively); overall 86% of total energy consumption comes from imported sources. As a result, changes in commodity prices for oil and gas have an impact on the average Italian that is many times greater than on an average American.

 

Japan – About 70-80% of Japan is covered by mountain forests and is totally unusable for farming, industry, or residential use. As a result, Japan’s population is crammed into coastal areas making it one of the most densely populated countries in the world. A falling birthrate and shrinking population has led to a labor shortage, with the result that the average Japanese works two hours of unpaid overtime a day. In 2007 176 Japanese attempted to commit suicide as a result of mental imbalance attributed to overwork.

 

Monaco – This playground of the rich is known for its famed casino, Monte Carlo; yet citizens of Monaco are forbidden by law from gambling there.

 

New Zealand – In 1987, New Zealand made the Maori language a second official language. This means that every government office has to have someone on staff who can assist residents in Maori, and trial participants may use Maori in litigation proceedings, despite the fact that only 4% of New Zealanders actually speak it.

 

Norway – Norway is so close to the North Pole that it receives little to no sun in winter. In the capital Oslo, the sun rises at 9 AM and sets at 4 PM from mid-November to mid-January. In northern Norway, above the Arctic Circle, the sun never rises at all during that time. Although the standard of living is high, the cost of living in Norway is about 30% higher than the US average.

 

Singapore – Tiny Singapore is a prosperous democracy but lacks many of the rights normally present in a free country, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, and trial by jury. Many activities are treated as serious criminal offenses in Singapore including jaywalking, sale of chewing gum, possession of pornography, homosexual conduct and failure to flush a public toilet. All TV, all daily newspapers, and almost all radio stations are owned and operated by the government. Satellite dishes capable of receiving foreign programming are illegal.

 

Spain –  Spain has a major immigration problem. It is second only to the US in total immigration despite being much smaller in area and total population. One out of every nine residents is an immigrant and many of those are unemployed. The government has grown so desperate that it is now offering to pay immigrants to leave the country for three years.

 

Sweden – Often thought of as a peaceful and tolerant country, Sweden has above average rates of sexual assault and hate crimes. The fact that 25% of all crimes are committed by immigrants and another 20% committed by Swedish-born foreigners has led to rising xenophobia especially toward dark-skinned migrants from the Middle East and Africa.

 

United Kingdom (Britain) – The UK has one of the worst road congestion problems of any developed nation. The country lacks sufficient road capacity for its population and the problem has become so severe that it threatens to damage the nation’s economy. The city of London charges drivers a daily congestion charge of 8 pounds (about $13) to enter the city during business hours. The government has proposed fitting every vehicle in the nation with a satellite receiver and charging a fee per kilometer driven.

 

Venezuela – Despite the country’s vast oil wealth, in 2007 29% of Venezuelans lived below the poverty line. (US=13%)