Exactly the point I was trying to make by going on a fast-food diet. People have complained in reviews that I didn’t eat fast food the way most people do, which means they missed the point. It’s about choices, at home or at McDonald’s or at 7-11.

Really, if they would concern themselves with all the chemicals and CRAP they are allowing to be labeled and sold as food we’d be better off.

It’d be nice to be able to easily find the good stuff instead of searching an entire grocery store for the one item that is real.

Back in my eat everything and anything days, I went to supermarkets because they had the same sugary starchy stuff as convenience stores, but they had bigger and cheaper packages off it. Using my ‘functioning brain’ I thought I was getting value for money doing it this way.

Unless it is different in the states, I don’t see how reducing mini-marts could do anything but have the opposite of desired effect. People are forced to go to the supermarket, where they get a half pound of chocolate and half a gallon of soda for the same price they would get a 2 oz chocolate bar and 12 fl oz can of soda at a mini-mart.

Mini-marts are a rip off, so wouldn’t this inherently restrict consumption?

As usual, they’re confusing cause and effect. Mini-marts sell sugar and starch because that what people buy. You’re exactly right; they’ll just load up on the grocery store. So I guess in a year or so, they’ll order stores to stop carrying the stuff.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stores12-2009oct12,0,2469583.story

“Motivated by new data focusing on convenience stores, civic activists and a City Council member favor limiting the development of new convenience stores.”

What exactly are they supposed to do? Maybe what the city is really trying to do is solve the excess number of unwanted pets. What other option is there?

I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not. So now they’re also going to order those stores to sell fruits and vegetables. Nothing like having a bunch of politicians tell a business what they should be selling. So I guess in order to stay in business, those stores will have to stock fruits and vegetables they can’t sell and will end up tossing out.

the puritan becomes the inquisitor, and the unhealthy act becomes the sinful and then just illegal. the line is always erased and redrawn arbitrarily from time to time…

…and our time is the age of Mommystate. human nature is funny.

and yup, anyone with a modicum of common sense and cynicism understands that nobody wins with the state. this issue isn’t about helping the poor; its about controlling the poor: those who are the most easily controlled, in certain neighborhoods, while everybody else gets to eat wherever and whatever they wish. its perverse on a few levels.

looking at the big picture, one must ask “is the Western world losing its concept of individual sovereignty?”

The Western world has been slowly losing its sense of individual sovereignty for nearly 70 years. When governments can pass laws like these without being laughed out of office, we’re in trouble … not to mention ordering people to buy a product (health insurance) while also ordering another group of people to subsidize the purchase. I can’t imagine which clause of the Constitution could possibly allow for that one.

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he’d soon die of shame.

I think this might just work.

I’m all for encouraging people to drink less soda, but I’m afraid the result of this will just be more empty cans in the garbabe.

Before I avoided sugar, I would go out of my way, literally, to satisfy my cravings if I had to. People who live in one area aren’t limited to the food choices found in that area if it’s possible to go to another. LA is big, but it ain’t that big if you’re a carb addict.

Additionally, when I was at my heaviest and still gaining weight, I ate rather little fast food. Maybe some would argue that I’m unique, but my weight gain came from making homemade cookies and eating far more cookies in one sitting than one ever should, not from restaurant or fast food meals. I guess the solution to that is that the government should ration ALL food to make sure I only ate the number of calories I should have, right?

Don’t give them any ideas.

On an unrelated note, I tried to post this yesterday but it didn’t work…

Testosterone is the male sex hormone.

Testosterone is made from cholesterol.

People are going more and more on cholesterol lowering drugs.

Men are needing more and more medication for “dysfunctions”.

o_O

(I suspect your spam-killer thought I was trying to sell certain medications whose tradenames were written in the first post. Certain medications that seem to make up a disproportionate amount of the spam industry…)

You’re right, it was sitting in the spam folder. Probably the brand names flagged it. I wish Askimet had an approved-commenter function for people I trust. But it beats having to delete 300 junk comments every day.

I agree about the statins leading to ED drugs. It’s also been shown that saturated fat encourages production of testosterone, so the anti-fat movement hasn’t helped, either.

Nannies make voluntary arrangements with people who hire them because they see it as a mutually beneficial relationship. Politicos do nothing of the sort. They force their agenda down your throat whether the motivation is pure paternalism or racism or a combination thereof.

Telling them they can’t have any more fast-food restaurants in their neighborhoods is paternalistic and insulting. It’s rooted in the notion that they can’t make smart decisions for themselves, and therefore need a government nanny to hide the cookie jar.

But that is the nature of politics whether in South Los Angeles or West Los Angeles. The only difference is the issues.

Michael

Good point: we hire nannies on purpose, although “nanny state” is a common term. The paternalistic attitude is quite common among California politicians, which is part of why we bolted the state. And I just read in the paper this week that yet another company is leaving California for Tennessee, so we’re not alone.