How would you run the government?

[Freak Boy]

I didn't destroy anything when they got me coming out of McDonalds. I didn't hurt anything when I was holding up my "Who Would Jesus Kill?" sign.... I hate the SWAT.

[Void]

I know you didn't do anything. I'm not saying the protests are in the wrong in all cases, the police and SWAT can be equally wrong.

[Freak Boy]

You d**n right they're equally wrong... an aquaintance of mine has suffered short term memory loss from an incident of police brutality. He got hit in the head and, despite the fact he already had recieved a concussion on the 10th strike, the officer continued beating him into submission...

[Void]

Remember I say equally responsible. Both, one, or neither side can be wrong, depending on how things play out.

[Helene]

I dont agree. Police take it to the red sometimes. Beating a guy until he is d**n near outta it make the officer wrong. HANDS DOWN. I know a girl who went to a PEACEFUL demostration. She ended up with a BROKEN ankle that required 4 surgeres, a concussion and she has scars from the ass whoopin they gave her. Now in days, her ankle makes a loud ass crackin sound sometimes. Now tell me, who was wrong?

[Freak Boy]

I couldn't agree with you more. I've been arrested during protests 5 times and each time I got an ass whooping...

[Void]

Why do you guys think I'm defending the police actions? I'm not. I'm just saying that it can go both ways.

[Zinn]

It can go both ways. I have known quite a few decent cops. However, there are a lot of really nasty ones too. Even one nasty guy or girl with a gun, a baton, and the power to use them without fear of prosecution is very, very dangerous. The police force needs a serious overhaul.

Ah yes, also...

Why would you eat at a place that destroys the rainforest, actively sells very poor quality food, lies about which items on the menu are vegitarian, abuses animals in horredous ways, exploits minorities....

I could go on all day. Just read Fast Food Nation.

I am one of those people that doesn't buy or support things if I don't agree with them. One of the things that bothers me about people is that many of them know what is going on with Disney, Nike, etc, but they continue to buy those products. You don't have to shop at Walmart.

Anyway, there are scientific studies that have shown that consuming fats and sugars has a drug-like, seratonin enhancing effect. People are geared that way from back in the day when we had to hunt and food was scarce. Fats and sugars are both energy rich. Some people are more vulnerable to being affected in a drug -like manner than others. Therefore, it is contraversial whether you can actually blame McDonalds or not. On one hand, a person couldn't possibly think that anything there is healthy. On the other hand, they are selling things that are very, very bad for you. Should the government regulate that? Children's minds are saturated with McDonalds from when they are very small, through commercials, play places, Ronald McDonald, etc.

Check out Supersize Me. It's graphic, and often disgusting, but very interesting and informative.

[Void]

Being the dirty capitalist that I am, however, I do believe that a business has a right to make money in a way that they see fit, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another. McDonald's choice to sell horribly fatty foods doesn't infringe upon someone else's right, since they don't FORCE them to eat it. I believe certain safety and copyright standards should be enforced by the government, but otherwise I believe businesses should be free to act as they will.

[Freak Boy]

Health code is enough. Granted that those taco-shacks pass health inspection, it does seem to keep most places trying to be clean. McDonalds doesn't force you to eat burgers. If anyone tries to force you to eat burgers, it's the government. McDonalds will always support those right-wing nut jobs and capitalists. Therefore, McDonalds propaganda is put out by our government. e.g.

Bill Clinton eating at McDonalds.

[Zinn]

And oddly, despite the fact I am ordinarily a very libertarian sort of person, I feel that business needs to be regulated. Why? Because they are irresponsible. Sellong unhealthy food is somewhere near number two hundred on my list of why I dislike McDonalds. McDonalds infringes on the rights of the people that work for them, and the rights of everyone else in a lot of different ways.

Here are some big ones.

1) They lied about their ingredients to customers. McDonalds french fries were listed as being fried in one hundred percent vegitable oil, and vegitarian on the company website. There were riots in India, and I believe there was also a class action suit in the US, over the fact that McDonalds forgot to mention that they use beef tallow to fry their fries.

2) McDonald's is still using ozone-damaging blowing agents (HCFCs) in their packaging in the Philippines, Turkey and Hong Kong, 15 years after the US Congress banned aerosol sprays.

3) McDonalds uses old growth and rain forests for their paper. They destroy thousands of acres of rainforest every year, and then they replant with monoculture plantations, which cannot not match old growth forests in their biodiversity, or in social, ecological, cultural or spiritual value. Therefore, they cannot not be described as 'sustainable' forests, even under official international guidelines.

4) May of McDonald's cows (or more specifically, McKey Foods, which is a former subsidary, but still a supplier for McDonald's) are bred and grazed on slash and burn rainforest grazing grounds in Brazil, which also causes the destruction of thousands of acres of rainforest every year.

5) The meat packing industry. Disassembling animals alive, feeding them the remains of their own species, fecal matter accidentally sprayed by undertrained, non-unionized workers... I could also go on all day with this.

6) McDonald's receives between 1500-2750 customer complaints of food poisoning a year in Britain. The company also received complaints of 'foreign bodies' in food sold. There are ab estimated 800 complaints regarding hamburgers (non-food poisoning related), mostly concerning bits of plastic. Mr. Atherton (a witness in the McLibel trial) stated it was 'slightly more' for chicken, mostly concerning pieces of bone.

7) There had been several occasions when the authorities have taken action against McDonald's for selling raw or undercooked meat products including an incident in November 1994 when a 3 year old girl was served undercooked Chicken McNuggets containing salmonella. The McNuggets were tested by local health officials and declared unfit for human consumption.
The company now admits responsibility for a serious food poisoning outbreak in Preston in 1991, when several customers were hospitalised as a result of eating undercooked burgers contaminated by potentially deadly E.Coli 0157H bacteria. They also admitted responsibility for a similar outbreak in 1982 caused by the same type of bacteria, which affected 47 people in Oregon and Michigan, USA. The source of this last one is from five years ago, so there have probably been more since then.

8) McDonalds does not test raw chicken for listeria.

9) The following pertains to the McLibel case's examination of McDonald's' policy towards bacterial colonies in their beef, according to a witness from McKey's.

David Walker of McKeys explained how all raw beef supplies to McKey process plants were sampled, microbiologically tested, and categorised as 'satisfactory', 'passable', and 'unsatisfactory'. He stated that 'unsatisfactory' related to beef which had a total colony of more than 10 million bacteria per gram. He then admitted that such consignments were, in fact, not rejected and were used for McDonald's hamburgers. On top of this, he claimed that any raw meat supplies arriving at over 4 degrees Celsius would receive 'a cast iron rejection'. But on being challenged with McKeys own forms showing acceptance of beef arriving over 4 degrees Celsius, he admitted this happened and explained that instead "the quality control officer receiving the meat would make a management decision which was right for the company".

In January 1995, following months of effort by the Defendants to compel McDonald's to hand over vital 1994 documents regarding the bacterial content of their hamburgers, the court was told that a small snag had just come to light. Richard Rampton QC, for McDonald's, said that the documents had been held for safekeeping by Group 4 security but had inadvertently been destroyed by them in error.

Growth promoters - McDonald's UK company documents state that "McDonald's will not accept beef from cattle subjected growth promoters or hormone treatment". Mr Kenny said it was "not desirable" to have hormones or antibiotics in the food chain. He believed that the concern with antibiotics was that "treatment resistant strains of bacteria may develop in the human body". The use of growth promoting hormones is illegal in the UK, but McDonald's have acknowledged that they are widely used in the USA and the company uses meat from animals subjected to growth promoters. Mr Kenny also acknowledged 'public concerns' over pesticide residues in food and stated that McDonald's "would not want them in the food chain" because of health risks. The Defendants referred to a 1987 US National Research Council major report on pesticide residues which found that beef ranked second of the list of foods with the greatest estimated 'oncogenic' (carcinogenic) risk. Mr Kenny admitted that their lettuce contained pesticide residues, although he believed the residue levels were within government 'limits'.

[Zinn]

Sorry for double posting, but I don't think the posty thing will allow me to write anything longer.

I don't think McDonalds commercials have anything to do with the government, aside from they have lobbyists. All of the businesses have lobbyists. It isn't anything special. Personally, I would like to outlaw lobbying entirely, but that's for another day.

I do believe that McDonald's indoctrinates children. They give collectable toys that tie in to the latest cool thing (I know when I was little, I wanted all of the inspector gadget toys...), they use commercials featuring characters that have become cultural icons, like Ronald McDonald (check out the scene in Supersize Me where he is showing the pictures to first graders. They fail to identify the Wendy's girl, George Washington, President Bush, and Jesus properly. They do manage to identify Ronald McDonald.), they have playplaces that are often the only place for children to run around in heavily urban areas, etc.

Never underestimate the power of a small child to twist his or her parents leg, especially before they understand the importance of eating healthily.

[Void]

The reasons you stated are valid reasons to legislate yes, but I think that at the base level, they should be able to sell as unhealthy food as they want, so long as they are honest about what they are selling and doing. The environmental policies and such are another matter entirely, I'm just saying a company should have the right to make money as they will so long as they do not infringe another person's rights.

[Zinn]

I don't have a problem with a restaurant selling unhealthy things. I have a problem with dishonest business practices, animal abuse, lying to customers, the destruction of the environment, etc. These things infringe on people's rights. I do not eat at McDonald's because I disagree with what they do. It is the same reason I don't shop at Walmart. They do things that I disagree with, so I do not want to contribute to them. Furthermore, the government is supposed to regulate large companies like that, because to expect the companies to be responsible is unrealistic and rather silly.

[Void]

Right, a policy I agree with. Government regulations should be for the environmental policies, safety issues, dishonesty in the information they give out, etc..

I also dislike monopolies and thus feel that the government should have some anti-trust power for the sake of competition and competitiveness.