I think the new San Francisco law banning Happy Meals is brilliant

[EFerrari]

because it disrupts the corporate PR mainline to our kids' brains. And that's much more important than whatever can be done to make a Happy Meal resemble food.

How many of us learned our first brand by watching a commercial that showed a "prize" in a box of sugar? Kids learn so fast. It's so easy to train them to buy what you have to sell. By the time they are 18, it's a little late to teach them to think independently when the multinationals have been at them ever since they were old enough to sit up and watch teevee.

Anything that disrupts the training of children to become reflexive consumers of cr@p is a good thing, imo. One less body for Fox, one more potential liberal with working frontal lobes to make choices at the ballot box.

[bluestateguy]

1. I think what we need is more responsible parenting

and not Nanny State laws like this one.

[EFerrari]

2. No matter how good a parent you are, you can't block out the ads.

Do you have children? I had two and it was amazing how early they learned brand names.

Nanny state laws, my nanny. That's called community, something most parents rely on to help them raise their children safely to maturity.

[Lisa D]

10. A parent can't block out the ads but can say the word no

and stick to it. Too many parents give into the whining, which only creates more whining.

[EFerrari]

13. Yes, a parent can stick to her/his guns.

But in practice, it's like standing in your yard with a hose during a wildfire. Parents need back up from the community.

[jancantor]

51. The San Fran City Council is not the community

They are the "deciders" and making the decision FOR the parents.

[EFerrari]

61. Um, we don't have a city council. We hae a board of supervisors

that are elected right out of their own district except for 2, I believe, who are floaters.

[jancantor]

64. My mistake on the terminology

I called them Commissars in another post. That would be more appropriate

[EFerrari]

71. Not in San Francisco. The positions are very competative.

If the supervisors don't represent their district, they're toast.

[BolivarianHero]

95. You sound like Rush Limbaugh...

Are you sure you're at the right place?

[blueamy66]

139. Why should I have to back up parents?

I chose to not have kids for a reason.

I shouldn't have to raise yours.

[EFerrari]

153. Because that's what human communities do?

How do you think you got here?

LOL

[blueamy66]

158. Um, I was born to a teenager who put me up for adoption....

my parents adopted me when I was 10 days old.

My Dad worked 2 jobs and my Mom worked as well to raise my brother and myself.

I don't want kids and I don't want to raise yours.

That was your choice.

Deal with it.

[EFerrari]

160. You still haven't thought it all the way through.

For one thing, your birth mother entrusted you to someone. And your Mother had help. She didn't raise you alone in a cave.

Second, you live your life in different spheres of relationship. Yours with you, yours with your family, yours with your community, yours with larger communities. Just because you are active in one sphere doesn't mean the others disappear or that they are inactive.

My kids are in their mid-thirties so I'll have to pass on your generous offer. :)

[blueamy66]

161. My mother had help????

Yeah, that was called my FATHER. My birth mother entrusted me to someone? Like she knew who would raise me....this was the 60s...a whole different world.

I could not care less about my community or the kids in it.

I work my ass off to pay the bills, as does my fiance. Kids are not in my mind.

I don't enjoy kids, don't want them in my yard.....is that enough?

[EFerrari]

162. Well, there you are. n/t

[11 Bravo]

17. I've got two kids and I think it's fucking ridiculous.

They don't eat McDonald's crap because my wife and I decided that it's just that ... crap. Nobody else should have a say in the matter.

[EFerrari]

20. How nice for you. Btw, you could still buy the exact same crap "food" for your kids

in San Francisco. And find them the same crap plastic toy. It's only the corporate marketing linking the two that will be disrupted.

On the other hand, if you have no problem having your kids co-opted by scammers, you could always drive ten minutes across the border. :)

[11 Bravo]

28. After I got out of the army, I lived in the Castro for a while. I'm dying to know, what "border"...

is a ten minute drive from The City?

[EFerrari]

29. Daly City, for instance.

You know, the only thing that has been done is to take McD's ability to sell crap food to kids with a crappy toy. If you still want the whole experience, you get on 280 and drive out to Daly City.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

43. You can turn off the TV.

Failing that, you can always tell your kids "no" like a responsible parent.

[EFerrari]

44. You can turn off the teevee in your home.

Unless you keep your child in a cage, no, you can't turn it off in the culture at large.

ETA: These half thought through "good parent" admonitions are amazing. You do know that children go to school, to their friends's homes, and to public places, right?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

45. Most of their exposure to TV is within the home.

And like I said, if they view TV somewhere else and are influenced by the ads, parents can do their job and tell them no instead of caving in to shut their kids up.

[EFerrari]

46. Because pitting individual parents against Madison Avenue is so effective?

Because the community shouldn't ocme together on a shared goal to ward off corporate funded ad blitzes?

Okay.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

49. No, because outsourcing parenting skills isn't the way to go.

How about handing your kids a book and healthy food instead of expecting the government to do your job for you?

[EFerrari]

93. What a very black and white view of how children develop.

You do realize that children pick up input from all over, they are little collecting dishes? They are not every waking moment attending only to their caretaker no matter how good that caretaker is?

lol

[jancantor]

52. It's not "the community"

The community can do whatever they damn well please. They can picket McD's, they can refuse to patronize McD's, they can patronize restaurants that sell healthy food, etc. CHOICE

What this is the government stepping in and reducing consumer choice and corporate choice for their "own good".

[EFerrari]

59. It is absolutely the community. The supervisors are in no position

to make this kind of a decision alone. lol

[jancantor]

69. No, it's not

The community could do all sorts of things that don't infringe on choice...

They could boycott McD's
They could have rotating cooking parties where healthy food is served and they teach the kids how to appreciate good food
They could rent Supersize Me and have a movie night

My friend's church does something similar. They get together and can foods (stews, fruits, vegetables) etc. and do healthy recipes.

POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES. Not state action to limit choice. That's how adults do it

[EFerrari]

73. LOL. This is a positive alternative and it lays the bulk of the work

on the corporation, where it belongs. McD's can choose to sell a meal that resembles food or they can ditch the toy. They have a choice. Let's see if they make a good one like responsible adults. :)

[jancantor]

82. No, the locus of control, the choice rests with the CONSUMER

and should. No corporation like McD's has ANY power to force food down people's throats. It's THEIR decision.

[Starry Messenger]

89. lol.

Only if you ignore the entire history of capitalism and how corporations create demand.

[EFerrari]

94. My ex was one of the first, if not the first, local comedian

who pointed out to his audiences that they knew every jingle and theme song from their youth. I don't think anyone else could have done it earlier because the ads hadn't hit critical mass before the mid sixties or so, and after he did it, everyone else did it to death. But, he used to get his audiences to recite or sing all the junk they had stuck in their brain. Ear Worms Anonymous but that was before the term "ear worm". lol

[jancantor]

103. Yes, it's evil capitalism and those darn corporations

Y'know sometimes it just astounds me how some people can continually sound like a parody and not even get it. McD's can create all the friggin' deman they want, but people still walk into McD's (as I did last night, partially because I am fighting back against the nannystaters). And yes, I do that while maintaining low bf and good lipid profile. People make their own decisions and live with the consequences. McD's succeeds because people want to eat their food. People have every right to boycott, make movies, protest, go to other restaurants, open a restaurant that offers healthy alternatives, etc. None of those things diminish choice

[Starry Messenger]

112. Sounding like a Bond movie villain yourself is no way to fight stereotypes.

Nt

[jancantor]

114. Sounding like a South Park character

who spent a semester at college and got enlightened about the evil corporations is no way to grow up, son. Nor is being fat, drunk and stupid and all... putting you on double secret probation. I've had it with you Delta Chi boys!~!!!

[Starry Messenger]

115. Enjoy your stay here.

I'm sure you will make many friends.

[jancantor]

116. Enjoy wallowing in hate for the evil corporations

who are dastardly in their ability to control all those dumb parents, with their evil TOYS in a happy meal. I am so glad the commissars have stopped this nefarious plot.

[Starry Messenger]

117. I'm wallowing in schadenfreude,friendo. I live in the Bay Area.

Watching how upset this makes you is like nectar to me. :hi:

[jancantor]

120. But I am channeling my anger constructively

and voting with my dollar. I guess it's speech after all. Last night, I got a McRib, fries, diet coke, and two pies. Hey, I was working late, and I channeled my disgust at the SF commissars into rewarding McD's. That's one of the reasons I went. I'm making a commitment to McD's to buy something from them at least once a week. Maybe a parfait at least.

Warren Buffett, a good liberal if there ever was one, has owned McD's stock for a very long time. He knows what I know. They thrive because they move with the market, and provide consumers with what they want. They have impeccable quality control, cleanliness (want a clean bathroom - find a McD's). I'm owning their stock, bankin' their dividends, and occasionally eating their food.

That's how to do somethign constructive to fight the power!

[EFerrari]

92. You're positing only one center of power and responsibility, an authoritarian paradigm

that I don't agree with, particularly when the almighty powerful "consumer" is a 3 year old. :)

[jancantor]

104. What complete crap

No 3 yr old walks into McD's himself and purchases anything. What you are doing is treating parents like children. It is so phenomenally patronizing to tell parents that nope, THEY can't make the decision for their own kids, the govt. is going to step in and save them from the evils of having a toy in their happy meal. It is so astoundingly sickening.

It is such a great example of the kind of patronizing, "we know better than you" type of haughty condescension that makes people like this a laughing stock and an enemy of free choice.

[EFerrari]

135. Are you just copying and pasting this now?

:)

[jancantor]

144. Close. I was using a random word generator

Apparently, it produced the same exact thing twice in a row. Astonishing

[Gormy Cuss]

97. McD's can still sell Happy Meals in the city. That corporate choice has been preserved.

They are only prohibited from including toys as an inducement.

[jancantor]

105. Ridiculous

It's not a HAPPY MEAL without the toy. That's like saying Ferrari can sell the GTO, they just can't sell it in red.

jesus h christ.

[Gormy Cuss]

108. What's ridiculous is putting corporate interests over consumer interests.

Happy Meals are just a marketing tool aimed at children. If you're old enough you may recall that twenty years ago legislation was passed to reduce the number of minutes of advertising during children's television programming because of the recognition of how easily children are influenced by marketing. See the connection yet?

[jancantor]

109. You have it exactly backwards

Amazingly so. The consumer interests can be measured by a very precise instrument. It's called their MONEY. If a consumer spends his/her money at McD's, they are demonstrating their interest. It matters not what McD's interest is. Because if their product is not the one the CONSUMER is interrested in, it won't sell.

Many years ago, McD's introduced a burger called the McLean. It had significantly less fat than their standard burger. It sold very poorly. They stopped selling it.

This act by the SF Commissars isn't about consumer interest. This DECREASES consumer choice. Consumers now who are interested in a happy meal with fries and a coke can buy one. Those who are interested in the happy meal with apple slices and lowfat milk can buy that. Either costs the same, and both come with a toy.

It's called choice. But the Commissars want to take away the CONSUMER choice and dictate to BOTH the consumer and the corporation. They tell the corporation, "you can't sell this" "we know better than those ignorant hoi polloi consumers".

They thus act against what the consumer wants.

Amazing to me how you can frame something 180degrees divergent from reality. All because you feel superior to those people. It's the exact same sentiment that inspired racism, classism, etc. the idea that since you know better, you will dictate ot others and limit their choices.

[Gormy Cuss]

113. I feel superior to corporate marketers, that's true.

Where your bizarre assumption that I feel superior to "those people" comes from, I don't know. I do know that anyone who categorizes any group as "those people" has bigotry dripping out of their mouths.

You seem to be suggesting that the only valid metric is whether consumers buy products. That would mean,for example, that if lead paint is cheaper than other paint, it should be kept on the market so that consumers have the choice. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[jancantor]

118. You feel superior to the parents

since it is their choice you are taking away. You know darn well the SF Commissars and those who support them feel superior to those dumb people. After all, if you respected those people, you'd respect THEIR RIGHT TO DECIDE.

It is inevitable that if you respect the right to let people make decision, you allow them to make bad decisions, as well as good.

I can count on my hands the # of happy meals I ate as a kid. It was a very occasional treat and I am no worse for it. My parents taught me about proper nutrition. Doesn't mean I couldn't have an occasional bad food, like homemade fried chicken, homemade, fudge, or god help me - a happy meal.

I grew up reading prevention magazine, taking Tiger's milk to school (soy milk) and eating yogurt, buckwheat, brown rice, fish, etc. Good for my parents. And you know what, I can still enjoy an occasional meal at McD's. The SF Commissars haven;t taken that away from me.

There is nothing wrong with a happy meal. What is wrong is using it as a staple of a diet iow too much of a bad thing.

The cure is education, protest, etc. all those things that don't diminish choice, but increase knowledge.

[Gormy Cuss]

140. No, actually I don't. I respect how hard it is for parents to keep up with the manufactured wants

created by advertising. You, on the other hand, seem to feel superior to anyone who thinks the Board of Supes made a good move with this attempt to level the playing field for parents.

If McD's chooses to sell the version with apple slices or otherwise chooses to incorporate 1/2 c of fruit, they're free to sell Happy Meals with toys in the city. They're also free to sell Happy Meals without toys. There's plenty of choice. If McDonald's wants to retain sales for this product in a major city they'll choose wisely.

[jancantor]

143. No, I respect parents and choice

I don't respect commissars who diminish people and choice.

It's the commissars that are the restrictors here. I don't diminish the worth of parents like you and they do.

[Gormy Cuss]

147. You seem to miss this fact: the parents still have choice. So does McD's.

The supes didn't ban Happy Meals outright.

Referring to them as commissars doesn't make them so. The board of supervisors are duly elected district representatives who serve at the will of the voters in their neighborhoods. When they displease the voters, they're gone. If you live in the city, I hope that you've registered your disapproval with your supe. If you don't live there, perhaps you should trust the parents in the city
to do the same.

[jancantor]

50. No, it's called nanny'ism

It takes power and choice away from parents and McD's to make their own decisions about what to sell and what to purchase.

If I was McD's, I'd just give the toys away to every kid that enters the store as a big Fuck U to the SF commissars. Good for Newsom for vetoing it.

[PavePusher]

98. "you can't block out the ads."

Every one of my radios and televisions came with an "off" switch.

Admittedly, it's a recent invention. Before the development of the switch we had to actually disconnect the power cord from the wall before the telly released it's insane grip over our unformed, power-less, unsupervised-by-the-government-nanny minds.

Just sayin'.

[EFerrari]

99. Childrens' brains don't come with an "off" switch.

"Just sayin'"

When I was a kid, it became routine for kids to get hit with ads for cereal and toys. Later, clothes and then music. By the time I had kids, their whole media experience was laced with brands. Ten years later, my nieces live one icon to the next.

Kids have no defense for that shit. Anyone who tells you different is either lying to you or doesn't know what they're talking about.

[PavePusher]

100. I didn't have "media experience" growing up.

I had "chores" and "homework" and "jobs" and parents who were teachers and made everything a learning experience, whether I realized it or not.

Most of my family is like this, including the latest generation.

It's a choice, not an inevitability.

[EFerrari]

101. Well, no, unless you grew up in an Amish community

or were born well before television.

This kind of denial is sort of interesting considering that the European Union is looking at putting in regs for kids ads by 2011 as are New Zealand and Australia.

[PavePusher]

102. Rural New England in the 70's and 80's....

with chunks of time in central Africa. Not much available for TV, even if we had the time/were allowed to watch it.

[REP]

32. I knew by age 2 that commercials were lies - because my parents taught me

In fact, when they'd try to give me medicine, telling me it'd make me feel better, I'd scream, "Commercial! Commercial! Commercial!" (Or so my mom says.) Kids can be taught. Parents just have to teach.

[EFerrari]

33. LOL

There's a book here somewhere, "My Boomer Life in Brands".

From Trix to lunch pails to Barbie, these people were so good at what they did. By the time I had kids, it was their Star Wars bedroom decor and Friday nights at Chuckie Cheese. lol

[NuttyFluffers]

87. but it is responsible parenting! parents can now choose any meal, plus a toy! =)

and think of all the big kids out there packing their dank, jonesing for some McLard 'n a side o' extra large fries, McFlurry w/ M&M sprinkles, and... dude, i can get a toy with that, too?! score!

:smoke: :hippie: :headbang:

[lunatica]

107. If you prohibit your kids from having what all the other kids are having

You are considered a abuser of your child. Which you may as well be because it does cause them psychological pain. The system is stacked against the parents. The best you can do is try to get your kids to think for themselves.

When my kid was young he felt wretched and abused when I wouldn't let him have junk food. He was hyperactive and junk food was pure poison to his system. Now he's actively resistant to consumerism but it was very tough for him.

[arcane1]

3. The toys are crap, too

That said, I feel like SF has more than enough to worry about before dealing with this issue.

[EFerrari]

7. SF has hands full, that's for sure.

But it's sort of neat that even so, they found a point of entry to disrupt the corporate seizure of kids' attention.

I was watching a rerun of "Everybody Loves Raymond" last night. There was a shot of their kitchen cabinets and I was able to identify by brand a whole bunch of things, even when the box was turned so you couldn't see the front. It's amazing, really, how powerful branding is.

[Catherina]

11. Food economy dominated by giant corporations is a pressing issue

SF's move is a small step towards breaking that. I wish they'd go much further but helping break their grip on kids is great.

[EFerrari]

24. It's probably the most bang for your buck, to disrupt the influence on kids.

Iirc, some slavers in Florida were shut down because the workers got Burger King to reject their tomatoes. Sometimes, the smallest focused action can have a big impact.

[Obamanaut]

4. And now, because parents won't 'just say no', someone will do it

for them.

Sorta sad.

[EFerrari]

9. Parents need community back up. They always have.

:shrug:

[jancantor]

122. parents can make their own choice

it's not "community back up" when the SF commissars force the issue. It's state (well ... city) power.

[Catherina]

5. I think so too. I'm sick of seeing corporations hook and brainwash kids.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire fast food industry should be run out of town. The damage they've done to labor, agriculture, environment and health has been very destructive.

[AmandaMae]

8. +1

[EFerrari]

12. I thought it was bad when I had my kids in the 70s-80s.

My brother's kids live in a world determined by competing brands. It's frightening. It's like a language that binds the kids to only thinking through those icons. :scared:

[thatsrightimirish]

6. eh

As mentioned on this thread its a pretty sad statement on parenting. If people are really upset about this they can just go to Daly City.

[demosincebirth]

14. I thought it was vetoed

[EFerrari]

15. Overridden. n/t

[demosincebirth]

22. Next, they want to charge a toll coming into SF, from the San Mateo peninsula.

[EFerrari]

25. Sorry, I missed the connection. n/t

[KamaAina]

36. That's one of several proposed congestion pricing schemes

and by far the least likely to be selected, if any of them are. More likely, cars would be charged only to enter an area bounded roughly by Laguna, Guerrero and 18th streets -- about 6 square miles of the "49-square-mile kingdom". Some European cities and Singapore already have similar schemes; Bloomberg has proposed one for Manhattan.

[Irishonly]

23. It was over ridden

BTW, started to post then decided to finish chopping celery and was too lazy to refrersh.

[pintobean]

16. Are the playgrounds next?

[EFerrari]

18. You do know that rules, regs and laws about playground safety

are all over, right?

[pintobean]

19. Yes, I do. I've installed some.

I meant the elimination of playgrounds in, or attached to, fast food places.

[EFerrari]

21. Ah, I see, sorry. That's an interesting question.

It would be another handy point of entry: you want to market to our kids, you have to feed them food, not cr@p.

[Obamanaut]

34. Yes, the playgrounds are next, and it has already begun. Here's

a thread about swings being removed from playgrounds because of the danger of falling or jumping out of them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9062547

[Posteritatis]

83. I still can't believe people were applauding that here. (nt)

[Newest Reality]

26. Yes, it is a start, however small.

The more we look into the way we function and pay attention to that, the more we can understand how that knowledge is constantly utilized to manipulate our choices and manufacture our consent.

You might be surprised to see just how common this functioning and that the only difference is that it is largely performed out of awareness, just like reading, for instance. You wouldn't want to have to first identify each letter and then word and go over rules of grammar, etc. There are times when automatic is useful and necessary and times when it is an invitation to abdicating choice and control over one's outcomes.

[EFerrari]

27. And that's why our kids are natural targets for the vultures.

As soon as the marketers had a grip on middle class families, they went straight for the kids.

[Obamanaut]

30. Part of parenting is, or should be, fending off the vultures. Obviously, not

everyone agrees, hence the Happy Meals ruling.

[EFerrari]

31. I think your conclusion is off.

Parents do that all the time. But if you believe that parents in a home can defeat the billions in ad money -- the original spam -- you need to alert the industry because apparently, they are betting otherwise.

PR works. Propaganda works. And that's why it is brilliant to disrupt it even in this small way.

[Obamanaut]

35. Some parents have more control than others. For those who don't, well,

someone else will keep the Happy Meals out of the kids' hands, removing yet another parental responsibility.

For those parents, it would be simpler and quicker to hand the kids over to the state at birth.

[EFerrari]

37. Parenting is not about control but about teaching.

You try to teach your kids to think well and to make good choices.

Control has nothing to do with that. So when you spot a multinational corporation attempting to control your children, the rational response is to disrupt their influence. :)

[Obamanaut]

39. Control has everything to do with it while they are being taught. "Do

not put that fork in the electrical outlet." "Do not try to pull the frying pan off the stove top." "Get away from the cliff now."

[EFerrari]

40. Well, no. Nagging at children doesn't keep them safe.

Providing a safe environment and teaching them to take care of themselves does.

Given your position on this law, it's ironic that you are arguing for some control based model.

lol

[Obamanaut]

41. You are right, I was wrong. I should have let the little buggers scald themselves,

or electrocute themselves, or fall off the cliff. That would have taught them a valuable lesson.

Opinions vary, and I think the San Franciscans are wrong. You do not. That's fine, I can live with that.

[EFerrari]

42. Right. The challenge is to keep the environment safe while you teach.

Anyone can let a kid fall off a cliff. That doesn't take any parenting skill. :)

[Obamanaut]

47. That was sarcasm, you know. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

84. How do you teach them to not be suckered in by advertising by banning the advertising?

[EFerrari]

91. You don't need the ad to teach them

in the same way you don't need to have a kitchen fire to teach children how to respond to one, right? You can, for example, help them become attached to other (hopefully real) food. You can teach them that going to the Golden Arches is a rare, special treat.

You can use other ads to show them what ads are -- you pick your moment instead of always reacting to McD's. That's the aim, right, teaching the child to chose instead of to react on someone else's schedule? You can start out by modeling, by picking your moment.

[ProudDad]

155. For those who don't, well,

Let their kids eat poison and decrease the excess population...

Lovely stuff to hear this time of year...

[jancantor]

54. McD's is successful because they provide people with what they want

NOBODY is forced to choose McD's. It's called choice.

[EFerrari]

96. "children younger than 8 years are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising"

From the American Association of Pediatrics:

Research has shown that young children—younger than 8 years—are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising.6–9 They do not understand the notion of intent to sell and frequently accept advertising claims at face value.10 In fact, in the late 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held hearings, reviewed the existing research, and came to the conclusion that it was unfair and deceptive to advertise to children younger than 6 years.11 What kept the FTC from banning such ads was that it was thought to be impractical to implement such a ban.11 However, some Western countries have done exactly that: Sweden and Norway forbid all advertising directed at children younger than 12 years, Greece bans toy advertising until after 10 PM, and Denmark and Belgium severely restrict advertising aimed at children.12

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/6/2563

[jancantor]

106. Children under 8 yrs are very rarely patronizing McD's

without being taken there BY THEIR PARENTS.

This whole episode is a perfect example of nannystatism. That's because the city is acting like a nanny to PARENTS. They are being treated LIKE children. The city is saying that they aren't responsible enough to exercise moderation. It's so patronizing and disgusting and "we know better than you", it makes me ill

It's treating adults like children. It's the same kind of attitude that "informs" racism and classism. The "we know better than you, and if you are allowed to make choices , you'll make the wrong ones, so we'll decide for you"

[EFerrari]

125. Whoooooooooooooosh.

[jancantor]

136. Don't be that harsh on yourself

After all, I'm helping you to understand and you'll get better...

[ProudDad]

157. Get a grip, Ayn...

The law says that they can't give away toys with un-nutritious garbage in order to suborn innocent, impressionable children into practicing emotional extortion on their parents to make them buy that shit.

It's a logical, rational response to a corporation selling poison...

[ProudDad]

156. Utter, unadulterated, libertarian bullshit...

Worthy of that fiction writer Ayn Rand...

McD's is "successful" because they are predatory bastards who swallowed up and/or put out of business thousands of mom and pop restaurants and accumulated enough cash to begin buying politicians and favorable legislation (like exemptions in the Minimum Wage laws) to enable them to put MORE small operations out of business...

It has NOTHING to do with "choice", it has to do with corporate malfeasance, usurpation of democracy and, yes, killing for profits...

[fishwax]

38. seems perfectly reasonable to me

:kick:

[bliss_eternal]

48. wow--great news!

i hope other cities will follow. :thumbsup:

[malaise]

53. All I know is that if parents really knew what went into

those chicken nuggets, they'd rather hear their young ones scream as they refuse to buy those happy meals than give them that toxic swill of chemicals.

Brain wash is a kind phrase for what goes on over at the cartoon channels.

[jancantor]

145. Parents are free to research what goes into them

you are free to tell them what goes into them, and they are free to make the choice. Ditto for all sorts of fatty and/or overprocessed foods you can get at all sorts of restaurants. At least at the chains like McD's, you DO know the exact nutritional profile and ingredients vs. say your average restaurant where you have no idea.

[aikoaiko]

55. I'm not so sure this policy will disrupt anything in terms of marketing happy meals.

There is aways the forbidden fruit phenomenon that goes along with these types of bans.


But if this pleases the community of SF, then so be it.

[EFerrari]

70. Well, that's true. It will be interesting to see how it works out. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

56. Wow, people are really devoted to crap nuggets.

The cult of the invisible hand has a franchise here too, I guess.

[Ichingcarpenter]

57. In France the McNuggets are real meat

and actually very different than the US version

The Nuggets are now the European standard for micky d

Still tastes like shit but better


Having two small kids at one time......

I ALWAYS HATED THE HAPPY MEAL, as a parent.
Who got what? ......... its not fair......... I wanted that prize
She touched my happy meal..... He took my toy.....

SHUT UP AND EAT YOUR HAPPY MEAL
we gotta drive.............on our vacation.

[Swamp Rat]

62. LOL!

:D "SHUT UP AND EAT YOUR HAPPY MEAL" :rofl:

[EFerrari]

68. I loved buying toys for my kids. We didn't have much

and it was our joy to get them what they wanted. But, before we even had a chance to check out the damn toy for safety, the kids already had their heart set on them. And it was like a new toy every two weeks or something. It was a constant barrage of seductive ads. But even that was nothing like what my brother faced about 10 years later. I don't think his girls go half an hour without interacting with some brand. It's unreal.

[EFerrari]

66. Really devoted to some idealized world were kids and their parents are in a bubble

and the PR industry has no impact at all.

[Starry Messenger]

88. When there aren't a lot of choices for a hard working family

these monopolies hold consumers in thrall. Baiting the crap with toys just makes it worse. No one would have objected to the toy if McDonald's was putting carrots and nice salmon fingers in the Happy Meal. It's not about the toy, it's about the crap "choices" that McDonald's foists on a captive market.

[NNN0LHI]

58. I am convinced it was the John Wayne smoking commercials that got me hooked

When I was a kid I couldn't wait to grow up and ride a horse, protect the womenfolk and smoke a cigarette.

Bet that got a lot of kids hooked.

Don

[EFerrari]

63. I was hooked after my very first cigarette at 14.

And it was definitely the wanting to be cool that got me that far. I hope whatever kind of cancer I get is "cool". lol

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

137. Then you must be very weak.

No wonder you support the ban.

[proteus_lives]

60. I think it's the parents who need to make decisions for their children.

Instead of passing the buck.

[EFerrari]

65. There's no passing the buck involved here. n/t

[proteus_lives]

74. I disagree.

"By the time they are 18, it's a little late to teach them to think independently when the multinationals have been at them ever since they were old enough to sit up and watch teevee."

That feels like passing the buck to me.

[EFerrari]

76. It's reality. Kids are bombarded with advertising.

Their food, their clothes, their toys, even ""learning materials" at their schools are branded. It's not passing the buck in any way to get that parents need some support when it comes to helping their kids respond to that onslaught instead of reacting to it.

[proteus_lives]

80. True, it's reality.

But part of a parent's job is to make their children aware of that.

I remember being very little and my father explaining to me about advertising and sales. He did it well because he was a businessman.

And parents still have the most powerful weapon in their arsenal. The word "no" as in, "No, we're not going to McDonald's."

I disagree on this being support, it's an attempt at control and it's laughable.

[EFerrari]

81. Nope, not at all.

It's only "laughable" if you think that marketing to children is less serious than the whole industry that works at it, ie, if you don't think it all the way through.

[Incitatus]

67. I never cared for the toys. When I was a kid, I just liked the taste of their food.

The toy was never the reason I wanted a Happy Meal.

The toy in cereal boxes might by why I chose one crap cereal over another, but that doesn't mean I would have wanted raisin bran or shredded wheat if there were no toys in the cereals loaded with sugar.

As a poster suggested in another thread, some kids might just go for the Bic Mac meal now instead of the little cheeseburger.


Good Job, San Francisco.

[EFerrari]

72. This is funny but as a teenager, I was addicted to Foster Freeze tacos.

So, as an adult, I set out to try to duplicate them so I could make them at home.

Breaking the recipe down, I found out that the secret was to use stale shells, ground beef cut with refries and slightly wilted lettuce. And the shells had to be slightly greasy in order to get that authentic flavor. I swear to god. :)

[ZombieHorde]

75. Children should be raised by the State.

hehe

[EFerrari]

78. I looked into it but the State didn't want them.

lol

[Zax2me]

77. I think it is dumb.

Little too brown shirt and big brother...
You know, a little bit of parenting goes a long way. I understood that happy meals were a treat, and given them as such. We (my sister and I) got a happy meal a handful (3-5?) times a year.
Thought of them like candy, ice cream - not too much or you get a belly ache.
Debating this is kind of just, silly.

If you cannot figure out the happy meal formula without big brother banning them for you, well, you have more problems than a bad kiddie dinner in a cardboard box.

[EFerrari]

79. So, you think debating the billion dollar industry in marketing to children is silly?

I think that's silly. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

111. I think *legislating* it is silly.

Nice to know that San Francisco has fixed all its other problems, though. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

129. San Francisco is actually behind a lot of places on this, it turns out.

:)

[woo me with science]

142. But....they have Happy Meals under Chavez!

http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/animated-8/a-different-kind-of-transformers-animated-happy-meal-toys-165942/

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

146. That's it. He's on The List!

lol

[Hippo_Tron]

85. Given your posts in this thread I think you view parents as helpess against advertising

And I don't think others see it that way. I do remember seeing advertising for Captain Crunch and wanting it because of the prize. I also remember my mother saying there isn't a chance in hell I'm buying that for you and so I never developed brand loyalty for it.

[EFerrari]

90. No, that isn't my position as I have explained several times in the thread.

And I think most parents could name a product that they clearly refused to buy and that their child never gave up asking for. lol

[NuttyFluffers]

86. i think you should use the world "decouple" more. :) Toy liberated from Happy Meal!

really, that's what it is about: decoupling toys from a packaged meal.

this gives parents more parenting control, because they can now select healthy food for their kids AND not have to buy a Happy Meal. they still can buy a Happy Meal AND a toy separately, too, if that's what they want to do. parental choice has been expanded by this act, not limited.

and think of all the saved meals no longer thrown away due to the next collectible toy! even teenagers -- or stoned college kids -- can buy the Happy Meal toy without having to buy a Happy Meal! Yay! Big Mac combo, large sized, sweet tea for the drink -- and throw in a toy! happy dance!
:bounce: :headbang:

[Warren DeMontague]

110. I think we should ban everything I, personally, don't like.

I'm going to start with the Twilight movies, and designer shoes.

[EFerrari]

124. You'd have an easier time if you could get someone like the American Pediatrics Assoc

to agree with you. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Or

I could try to live with the knowledge that some people are going to make choices- even for their kids- that I don't, personally, agree with.

[EFerrari]

152. Magical thinking, and like most libertarian positions, impractical

for the community. It would be pretty stupid for San Francisco to fund our health care program on one hand and then ignore known community health problems on the other.

That's why it's called "community health", btw, and not "a bunch of individuals living in proximity" health.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. So motorcycles are going to be outlawed in San Francisco, now?

Good. Because not only do I hate those noisy, fucking things, they're dangerous as shit.

[TheKentuckian]

119. I remember before there were Happy Meals and even then many children pined away for McDonald's

If you take your kid they will still be eating the exact same crap, just no trinket to occupy them or collect.

I certainly doubt the claim of increased liberals. Consumers, arguably but liberals is dubious at best.

We all got prizes in Cracker Jacks or cereal and still found our way this far.

Teach your kids to be anti-capitalism and the commercials will find little fertile ground.

[EFerrari]

128. Yes, we got prizes in Cracker Jacks and grew up to perfect shopping as a hobby.

Have you ever heard of "aisling"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zgnuJykrc

[TheKentuckian]

141. No, I haven't but I despise shopping and do it only when I actually want something.

I haven't even thought about purchasing something because of a prize since collecting like 10 box tops to get a Bobba Fett before he was seen on film since the Jabba scene didn't make it to the cut of Star Wars.

I think that was Cheerios and it was definitely the 70's.

I think the consumerism addiction is way deeper than trinket prizes and banning Happy Meal prizes will make no net difference is the addiction, the economic system dictates this not inducements to buy consumables which would be acquired in some form, at a similar time.

The real trouble is buying shit you already have or have no use for to fuel the zombie system.
As far as shopping as a hobby goes, I'm not even certain that the capitalists are responsible or if they are taking advantage of natural tendencies

In any event, I'm not overly focused on such things enough to care much other than rolling my eyes at the very idea of going shopping to go shopping as opposed to going shopping with an actual purpose along with buying something I don't want to get something much cheaper, while having no problem with getting a bonus when I'm going to buy a burger or a pair of boots anyway.

I do see a problem but also think bottom feeding laws are no cure for it when it is a societal flaw that is a natural effect if the broader economic system.
It sounds like at the level you want to make an effort to solve the problem that inducements to make healthier choices would be more effective. Perhaps a "prize" when apples and grilled chicken are ordered would be more up the alley of the addicted consumer than pretending it is a toy that makes kids like chicken nuggets.
Such a plan encouraged me to ask for Cheerios rather than Fruity Peebles and I to this day loves me some Fruity Peebles.

[EFerrari]

150. That's pretty much what this law does.

It forces McD's to either bait a better meal with a "prize" or to withdraw the toy.

And I think you're right about Star Wars and Cheerio's because my boys were just old enough to join their Dad in the Star Wars frenzy. They had Star Wars bedding and all of the figures in their own case. lol

[Countdown_3_2_1]

121. If I was Ronald McD, I would simply change my marketing

I would reduce the price of a Happy Meal by 10 cents and offer the toys for 10 cents.

Further I would sell the toys for 10 cents to anyone who came in the store.

So I can't sell a toy with a Happy Meal...OK, buy an ice cream cone and get a free toy.
Buy a big drink, get a free toy. Donate a few cents to the McDonald House charity, and get a free toy.

City councilmen are not that bright. There are a LOT of ways around this.

[lynne]

123. I'm sure the neighboring jurisdictions think it's brilliant, too -

- because that's where people will go to get their Happy Meals. No doubt drop a few more coins while there doing other shopping, as well.

[EFerrari]

126. I hope it doesn't break us.

[Pavulon]

127. Thats called a "parent". your entire line of reasoning is failed

the mind is not fixed at 18, it continues to evolve. Unless you pass a law to allow others to think for you.

This hurts progressives because it makes them look like overbearing assholes.

[Canuckistanian]

130. Kids don't know corporations from dandelions

It's the PARENTS that make the difference. If you don't like McDonalds, don't take your kid there.

Or make your OWN version of a "Happy meal" on special occasions.

And above all, EXPLAIN to your kid why McDonalds is not so great to go to all the time.

Marketing works best when people aren't fully paying attention to the whole message.

[EFerrari]

131. That's right. Kids don't know corporations from dandelions which makes them sitting ducks. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

133. It's too bad they don't have anyone to explain it to them

Someone close to them.... like, maybe a relative or something.

OK, I'm being facetious, but I explained this stuff to my 14-year son a long time ago. And last year, he bought "Supersize Me", all on his own.

Now, he won't set foot in a McDonalds. And he's telling everyone ELSE not to.

He's so smart.

[EFerrari]

134. Good for him!

[BlueJazz]

132. I like it also. Those things should be named "Crappy Meal".

[ItNerd4life]

148. And this is how you make Republicans look intelligent. nt

[EFerrari]

149. I don't know why people bother posting potshots in threads

they don't bother to read. Oh, wait. :)

[amborin]

151. good move

[ProudDad]

154. It's pretty sad that there are soooooooooooo many

deluded "libertarians", isn't it, my friend... :hi:

This thread brought some of them out, didn't it... :rofl:

Libertarians are the most naive, idealistic, cloud-cuckoo land children...

And are antithetical to survival on Earth of large-brained, air breathing bipeds...

[EFerrari]

163. Oh, it's okay. We're brainwashed in this country

to believe in the cult of the individual. People seem to have a really hard time placing a community anywhere in their frame of reference.

lol

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

159. It's a start.

Hopefully someday McPoison, Burger Dung, Taco Smell, et al. will be outlawed all together.

[EFerrari]

164. In the reading I've done for the thread, I found out that SF

is seriously lagging! In Sweden, you can't run ads for toys until after kids' bedtime, basically. The EU is working on a whole package about advertising to kids. Other countries looking into it. That was good news. :)