This Vent-Hole (hereinafter known as IVH), if lost or stolen will not be replaced nor purchase price refunded. Violation of IVH rules will result in expulsion without refund. Admission to certain functions within the IVH may require additional innuendo; enter at your own risk. Frivolity and silliness are highly recommended for all riders. Flamewars are expressly forbidden and political ranting is strongly discouraged. Please consult your counselor, magistrate or religious functionary before usage. A copy of IVH rules can be obtained from one or more members wearing tie-dyed oxford shirts after written requests. Any transmission, rebroadcasting or any other pictures, descriptions or accounts of the IVH without expressed written consent is strictly prohibited. Comment below if you agree with said terms.
About this San Francisco Happy Meal ‘Ban’
New York Times:
Lost in the nationwide electoral tumult Tuesday was another important vote, this one by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which took on one of the great (tasting) issues of our day: the Happy Meal.
The board…passed a ban on restaurant toy giveaways unless the aforementioned meals meet certain healthy nutritional standards for calories, sodium and fat.
Where do I begin on such a silly piece of legislation? I guess the first question I would ask is, why? Why is such a bill necessary? Well, as the Times explains:
The bill, which passed 8 to 3, was sponsored by Supervisor Eric Mar, who had recounted how he had been horrified by his daughter’s collection of giveaway toys and envisioned the bill as a way to strike a blow against fatty, salty fast food. Mr. Mar said he hoped it would act as an incentive to fast-food companies to “provide better choices.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa…what?
Mr. Mar “had been horrified by his daughter’s collection of giveaway toys and envisioned the bill as a way to strike a blow against fatty, salty fast food”, so now this requires a city ordinance to make sure no one else gets toys from happy meals?
Look, here’s the thing: we all know that fast food isn’t exactly the healthiest or best food option a child could have, and should be avoided at most times when possible. However, does anyone really think that this ordinance is the most effective way to combat such? I don’t. It comes off to me as a guilt-stricken parent trying to legislate what he can’t simply deny to his own child.
Parents need to be more responsible in what their children put into their bodies. I’m all for things like healthier eating, and taking soda machines out of schools, but this kind of legislation isn’t going to help with that effort; it will likely be overturned in a court of law, and rendered toothless.
Maybe Mr. Mar, instead of trying to write up legislation like this, ought to learn how to moderate his child’s eating habits to a more acceptable level. Writing and passing laws to get McDonald's to do that for you make little sense.
Dr. Dog performs on the Late Late Show. Whatever else happens is up to Craig, or TV Guide just didn't get the memo. Oh, and I don't think there was a live show yesterday.