From the producers of "The Smoking Ban," bring you "The Food Ban"

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Like I said, requiring them to list it is a start.  This might have never been an issue if not for farging Crisco.

[Cerevant]

I'm definitely pro-label - don't get me wrong.  This is another pet peeve of mine - notice that Pam says "no fat" and the label shows 0g of fat per serving?  Bullshtein.  It is canola oil in a spray can.  The devil is in the details.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

That's some funny shtein, Cerevant.  Note the "It adds a *trivial* amount of fat" comment.  Hilarious.

[Cerevant]

Serving size: 1/3 second spray

Who the farg can coat a pan in 1/3 second?  I'm usually firing away for 10+ seconds.

That being said - canola oil is good for you.  High in polyunsaturated fats.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Serving size: 1/3 second spray

Who the farg can coat a pan in 1/3 second?  I'm usually firing away for 10+ seconds.

That being said - canola oil is good for you.  High in polyunsaturated fats.

Ha!  I didn't notice the serving size was in "spray time" form.  It makes sense, but 1/3 second is very short.  I usually go as light on the spray as possible and don't spray much more than 3-4 seconds, but that's still 9-12 "servings".

Many oils and other perceived "bad" foods are actually good in moderation.  The reason partially hydrogenated oils are a different animal is that they are good in absolutely no way.

However, I still think a blanket ban would be much more efficient than a local law just on restaurants.

[Diomedes]

The reason partially hydrogenated oils are a different animal is that they are good in absolutely no way.

But, but they're good for corporations because it reduces cost and that is good for the consumer!Q!

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

That extra *Q* at the end obviously stands for added quality.

[ice grillin you]

berkeley professor michael pollan wrote a great book called 'the omnivores dilemma'....its essential reading for anyone interested in food nutrition and the health of the american people both now and going forward.....the book hasnt succeeded in changing all of my bad eating habits....but it has definitely made me think more about what i eat and where it comes from...its an all around great read even if you could care less what you eat...




check out his excellent essay from yesterdays nyt magazine.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[Eaglez]

or you can donate to charities AND have the govt put a much larger piece of the tax money towards the poor

The whole point is government is inefficient when it comes to those means because (1) they aren't responsive to cost, so they tend not to be in an efficient mindset, and (2) excessive taxation discourages charitable donations because people have a finite amount of money, they need to make choices and divide their earnings accordingly; for every dollar taken away in taxes is one less dollar someone can donate to a charitable foundation they find worthy and actually work towards helping the downtrodden.  So your proposal that we should just tax people to oblivion and then expect them to donate is short sighted; those are two inconsistent positions because the incentives are conflicting. Instead, government sucks it up, dispenses it into failing programs, and then has the nerve to ask for more because billions of dollars amounts to 'underfunding'. It is about efficiency, appropriating funds correctly in order to get the most 'output' for your 'input'. Government does not do that because government doesn't have the correct incentives.

I think for the most part, as a basic assumption, Americans are good, decent people. If you encourage them to give they will do it; they do so now even with high tax burdens (but it could theoretically be more with lower).  Government doesn't need to step in because charities are not a public good and are not underallocated in the free market.

And everything boils down to a cost analysis. How do we compensate people with a physical injury? Through monetary means. Like FF said, it is to compensate for opportunity cost and for costs incurred due to the actual injury suffered.

I wish there was some magic fairy dust like supposedly some of you hippies are proposing, but there isn't. So the distinction between 'physical harm' and 'money' is seemingly non-existent.

You can make little cool this>>>>this garbage all you want, but I don't see any meaningful proposals that would deal with some of these social problems. Taking a bunch of money, which seemingly is evil, and throwing it at a problem is not a very well throught out plan of attack.

[Wingspan]

I own "Super Size Me" and watch it at times to curb cravings for fast food.

I saw Super Size Me last night too...except after it was over, I was craving a quarter pounder with cheese.

And I haven't eat at McD's in over 2 years.

[Diomedes]

You're so cool.

[ice grillin you]

saturday my diet ended 14 lbs lighter than when it started...anyway to celebrate me and my girl went out and got hammered at the local pub...on the way home we stopped off at mcdonalds for six double cheeseburgers...i think i ate four of them but i cant really remember

moral of the story: mcdonalds $ menu double cheeseburgers are better than your life

[rjs246]

What. The. farg.

[Diomedes]

I for one welcome our new BMI overlords.

[rjs246]

Don't get me wrong. I think overly skinny models are as gross and unhealthy as the next guy, but jesus christ, how can they put any sort of ban or restriction on someone's body type? I mean where does this shtein farging end?

This goes beyond restricting a person's activities and actually gets into a person's own body and by extension their profession. Completely unbelieveable.