Maybe it’s more simple than that – maybe the American people need a comedic relief from all the pain and suffering that they’ve been going through in recent months. Speculation of a double-dip recession, concerns about the environment, concerns about BP dumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and even concerns about mainstream, oft-trusted companies like Johnson & Johnson poisoning their children. Maybe America does need a break; because it just doesn’t seem like Lindsay Lohan going to jail for 90 days should be this big of a deal.

More of my two cents.

Ranter

“This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children’s’ love of toys” to sell high-calorie, unhealthful food, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure. “This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes.”

As the parent of children that rarely eat at fast food restaurants, this seems like something that will make my life easier. While I can control where my children eat and whether or not they eat at McDonald’s, the issue has to do with where they want to eat, and frankly that’s at the place that’s giving them the toy. Truth be told, my kids don’t even like McDonald’s, but they love getting toys – and there are no healthy alternatives – at any location – that include a toy with a salad and vegetables for kids (for the record, the pickle is not a vegetable).

Unfortunately, this ban impacts only a small number of vendors in a relatively small area, meaning that most parents are still going to have to deal with the pain that comes with seeing your small child eat a meal that offers no redeeming value short of the calories that are included. Most areas – and most parents – are still going to have to (for now) deal with fast food vendors rewarding children for eating deep friend and unhealthy food.

“This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes,” Yeager said. “Under this ordinance, restaurants are still permitted to give out toys. This ordinance merely imposes very specific, common-sense nutrition standards for children’s meals that are linked to these incentives.”

The ordinance will ban restaurants from giving away toys with meals that have more than 485 calories, more than 600 milligrams of sodium, more than 35 percent of total calories from fat or more than 10 percent of calories from added sugar. It would also limit toy giveaways on single food items with more than 200 calories or more than 480 milligrams of sodium.

This is obviously an overly aggressive move – but in the interest of protecting our children it seems necessary. As a parent, this protection feels as though something that has been long overdue, if only by the adage that it takes a community to raise a child. Our vendors – fast food vendors included – need to think about our children as theirs and protect their interests.

Interestingly enough, one of the opponents of this, a McDonald’s franchisee with multiple locations, went on record that he had recently been recognized (by McDonald’s Corporation) for his efforts supporting sports teams and community groups. As though this offers some sort of balance between the excesses of the food his restaurants serve. Really, I applaud his willingness to give back, but this simply seems as putting the interests of a few before the many.

Obviously, these are my opinions. My rant, as a parent, but I am appreciate that someone is starting to look out for the parents to help them raise their children in a healthy and otherwise rewarding manner.

Ranter

P.S. As an aside I was really hoping to bring some nutritional guidelines to this article, but received the following error when trying to access nutrition facts on the McDonalds.com site.

It’s time to move along folks – this story is well past its 15 minutes.

ranter

Too big for Lincoln University?

Hey fatty; yes you, the one with more lard in your ass than a micro-bus, you’re going to have to work just a little harder to get your college degree from Lincoln University in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because good grades are no longer good enough. That’s right, this “Historically Black University that combines the best Elements of a liberal arts and sciences” is leading the charge in the battle against obesity by requiring all students with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above, which generally defines obesity, to take a fitness course that meets three hours per week. Don’t complete the class? Don’t graduate.

As students who entered Lincoln in 2006 approach their graduation, the controversy regarding this requirement is reaching new heights, with the best quotes seemingly coming from Tiana Lawson, 21, who doesn’t understand why the fitness requirement would be only for those that are fit today – “why would they want some people to be more healthy than others?” In case you didn’t guess, Lawson has also recently learned that she will be required to take the fitness class as her BMI exceeds the threshold.

“I didn’t come to Lincoln to be told that my weight is not in an acceptable range,” Lawson wrote. “I came here to get an education which, as a three-time honor student, is something I have been doing quite well, despite the fact that I have a slightly high Body Mass Index.”

The University’s response is about as you would expect with James DeBoy, the chairman of the school’s Department of Health and Physical Education saying that the requirement is just like courses to help with communications or math. Unfortunately, DeBoy is leaving out the fact that needing help in math is a technical issue and someone’s weight is a personal one, but hey, that’s a different rant all together. LeBoy goes on to say:

“We, as educators, must tell students when we believe, in our heart of hearts, when certain factors, certain behaviors, attitudes, whatever, are going to hinder that student from achieving and maximizing their life goals.”

It’s likely that it’s only a matter of time before the ACLU gets involved, because this certainly seems like Lincoln University is taking an intrusive role in trying to control how their students live their life.  Where do you sit on this debate?  Would you graduate?

Ranter

Kennedy was recently quoted as saying, “The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion; that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official.”  And, while it’s probably below the belt, I will continue to wonder how Tobin feels about his peers that are being convicted of raping children as part of their work with God.  Do they deserve forgiveness and communion?A little research on the internet confirms that Tobin, by Church Law, can ban Kennedy from receiving Communion with his Diocese, but he cannot stop Kennedy from receiving communion elsewhere.  Kennedy also has the right to appeal the decision all the way to the Vatican, but the church is very likely to overturn one of their own.  Even Bishops have to cover their asses.

Kennedy has been very public about his criticism of the Catholic Church or their idle threats to oppose any health care reform that doesn’t include strict restrictions on federally funded abortion.  He has also voted against the plan supported by the Bishop and for the plan they opposed.  The Bishop demanded an apology – Kennedy (admirably) refused, including this response:

“While I greatly respect the Catholic Church and its leaders, like many Rhode Islanders, the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.  I embrace my faith which acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.”

Not to be left without the last word, Tobin responded with a biting public letter that was published in a diocesan newspaper.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your Communion with the Church.”

Somehow this seems like fighting words, and while I understand the power of the Catholic Church it would seem to me that with these changing times (and their continued transgressions) that the Church would grow to accept that not everyone shares their every opinion and that that’s okay.  Maybe when that happens, I’ll look at the church as something more than I do today.  Until then, I will be standing beside Kennedy supporting abortion and sacrificing for what I believe in.

~geek

The good news, though, is that it gets better.  I’m actually quite surprised that we haven’t seen this family on Jerry Springer, but perhaps that will be next.  If you believe the RNC she’ll be running for office again at some point in the future…

So anyway, in case you were fortunate enough to miss the brief, Bristol Palin’s baby-daddy is “former high school hockey player” Levi Johnston, also 18.  His mother, Sherry, was recently arrested on multiple felony drug counts after she sent a pair of text messages to police informants discussing drug transactions.  Meanwhile, back in Wasilla, Bristol continues studying for her GED while her baby-daddy works as an apprentice electrician.  Of course, governor Sarah Palin’s office declines to comment on anything (probably for fear that it will end up on YouTube), which will simply leave us to speculate.

Can you imagine how great the white-house dinners could have been with the whole cabinet and family around.  Sarah could introduce her husband the snow bunny, her GED seeking, unmarried, welfare bound, daughter, her grand-daughter, her daughter’s baby-daddy the apprentice electrician, and perhaps even a Fathead representation of Grandma Sherry who’s presently incarcerated on drug charges.  Almost makes me think Bush wasn’t so bad.

Finally, for those of you wondering, there is no grounds for a claim of statutory rape in Alaska, because their laws are different (of course).  First, the age of consent in Alaska is 16.  Secondly, the way the Alaska laws read, statutory rape only applies to consensual sex with a minor under the age of 16 when more their ages differ by more than three years.  In other words, 20 year old man who has sex with a 15 year old girl, in Alaska, is guilty of statutory rape. A 17 year old male who has consensual sex with a 15 year old girl is not guilty of statutory rape, under Alaska law.  So much for abstinence.

Ranter

What’s interesting about this is that Senator Larry Craig is back in the news today, after the Minnesota appeals court ruled that his rights weren’t violated before denying his bid to withdraw the guilty plea that he made earlier.  For those of you that watch the television show Boston Legal, this case may strike a chord, because the solicitation chage stemmed from Craig was arrested based on tapping his foot and moving it toward a neighboring bathroom stall occupied by another person, in this case an undercover officer.  Gentlemen – remember these things for future reference, because you never know what a public bathroom experience is going to reveal.

Now, at the end of the day I think that one of two problems exists here.  First, we’re probably not getting the whole story, because that does not seem like nearly enough to prosecute on.  Second, Craig has to be guilty of something or he wouldn’t have entered a guilty plea to anything.  Interestingly enough, the loss of his appeal changed nothing for Craig, other than to bring his name to the front of the news again.

Ranter

You’re probably wondering why I am writing this, and many of you would understand just by reading Abraham Biggs name.  Abraham Biggs was a 19-year-old Broward College student who committed suicide on a live webcam this week.  Live on the internet and message logs showed that some members of the virtual audience encouraged him to do it, while some even went so far as to discuss whether he was taking a dose big enough to kill himself.  This was a live person and a live audience.  A few viewers tried to discourage him, but nobody picked up the phone and called police until it was too late – hours too late.  It sickens me to think that people watched this man die and didn’t think to lift a finger to help.

Abraham Biggs was known to suffer from bipolar disorder and had been prescribed the drugs that he ultimately used to kill himself.  It’s not too unusual that he would chronicle his life through sites like Justin.tv and MySpace, but to take this step boggles the mind and makes me, as a parent, wonder if the internet isn’t a bigger problem then we let ourselves believe.  People have become so anonymous – even as they share more of their lives than ever before – and society has become callous to pain and discomfort when viewed through a web browser.  Certainly the result would have been different sitting in the same room with a group of peers – could people watch someone kill themself live and in person, too?  I have to believe they couldn’t.

My heart goes out to the Biggs family and the families of those affected.  I am hopeful that those people will be able to come to grips with this senseless act and realize that w can only control certain things in life and some will go on unexplained forever.  I hope that those in the audience – especially those that didn’t act to help – will take a good hard look inside and get counseling for their willingness to watch, participate and ignore a tragedy like this.  And, ultimately, I hope that more parents will look at this and realize the internet isn’t safe because it allows us to be anonymous, but instead, as parents, we will know that it is up to us to teach our children what it’s like to stand out and do right – always.

Ranter

“Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor, the United States’ relative strength — even in the military realm — will decline and U.S. leverage will become more constrained,” says the report, which is the fourth in a series from the Intelligence Council.

Obviously, I don’t give the Intelligence Coucil a lot of weight, but I do believe that they’re on to something, noting that the the world will continue shrinking and natural resources will become increasingly scarce in the years to come. Their argument that the world is in the midst of an unprecedented “transfer of global weath and power” from west to east is sound and as we continue to transfer manufacturing, mining, and intelligence labor to other countries the United States will simply be a military force and holder of other people’s money.  It’s hard not to understand or see the logic in what we’re saying, and the reasons behind it, from this chair, are quite obvious.

Every other country in the world is working to improve their infrastructure and the education of their workforce.  The United States has been focused on increasing the size and influence of its military and banking systems while reducing infrastructure and education.  At the same time, the United States has focused its military to protect other countries and lost sight of the battles that should matter most to the world as a whole.  India and China, looking to become the next world super-powers are also the biggest polluters with the least amount of concern for our environment.  The American military and leveraged United Nations should have those environmental impact front and center, requiring China and India to make equal investments in protecting the environment as they are to spoiling it.

While all this is happening, and other countries continue to grow, they also become challengers for the earth’s limited resources (oil, oxygen, water, food, etc.).  The United States continues financial dependence on the rest of the world will create bidding wars that the US can’t win, resulting in Americans being unable to get or afford the most precious of earth’s resources.

Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone has an answer, but whatever it is, I can assure you that it starts at home.  The United States will have to consider reducing its protection of the world as it looks to protect itself.  We will have to continue investing in infrastructure (generating jobs and wealth) and education, which will enable us to remain competitive in the pharmaceutical, technical and energy sectors.  And, finally, we will have to protect our financial resources.  Consider letting foreign investors lose money (as in the case of AIG) and not bailout other countries at the cost of additional debt to America.  Just my two cents.

Ranter

For those of you that haven’t been following world events, a new Saidu supertanker was captured Saturday more than 450 nautical miles southeast of Mombasa, Kenya.  The MC Sirius Star was home to 25 crew and approximately $100 million in crude oil cargo, not to mention the cost of the new supertanker itself.  In the first real sign of retribution that I’ve read of, the New Delhi Associated Press is reporting that the Indian navy sank a suspected pirate “mother ship” before chasing too attack boats off into the darkness.  These mother ships are apparently little launch pads for the pirates, allowing them to head off into deeper and deeper waters.  Ultimately they will ransom off the crew, boat and cargo, which keeps them in business.

Now, here’s the part that I don’t understand.  It’s impossible for me to imagine that they can hide this supertanker, and reports say that we already know where it is and that there are other captured vessels there as well.  That said, especially considering the financial and environmental risks, wouldn’t it be better to go in with excessive force and deal with this once and for all?  How is this different than terrorism?

It’s time to treat all waters as an international responsibility and countries like America – who defend democracy so fervently in countries like Iraq – lead the charge against piracy, murder and pillaging in international waters.  This threat needs to be reduced before it reaches the point of no return, and before the pirates consider environmental terrorism in addition to financial ransom.  Imagine what this amount of oil would do to our oceans…

Ranter