I have a confession. I love Oreo Blizzards at Dairy Queen. So much so that I decided on a non-credit experiment in university. I wondered if I could last a full week eating nothing but them. Sadly after a few days, the experiment failed, and to add insult to injury, I was incapable of getting the TV remote when a housemate changed the channel to Barney. The sheer anguish I suffered was proof my experiment was a failure.
Needless to say, I knew I wouldn’t last the week. I knew this was VERY far from a healthy eating choice. I was just bored. Now bearing this in mind, one can probably sense the irony I felt watching Super Size Me for the first time, just over ten years later. However, going into the film, the basic thought I had going in was something to the effect of:
“Isn’t the premise of the film pointless? We all know McDonald’s is the furthest thing from maintaining a healthy diet?”
Morgan Spurlock’s documentary definitely proves this point in the most stunning possible way with his 30 day lip and ass burger diet. Is it any wonder well reknowned chefs all plug fresh, local ingredients? Not only is it healthier, fresh ACTUALLY TASTES GOOD. They don’t have to lace it with sugar to addict you. What a novel concept, eh?
You can imagine my surprise when last year when a co-worker, being a self-professed card carrying Conservative and Ralph Klein fan, made remarks to the extent that “Mr. Spurlock is just as BAD a liar as Michael Moore” and that “McDonald’s is a healthy, reccomended by health agencies.”
Excuse me, as even a year later, this throws me for a loop.
WHAT THE FUCK
Yup. An Edmontoner (I don’t know if we should hold this against him) Leslie Sayer did his own 30 day binge. And his final results (in terms of body mass and various medical tests) were the opposite of Spurlocks. So what’s the difference? Was Spurlock the fraud, or was it something else. Reading Les’ site shows the difference. Spurlock consumed LITERALLY NOTHING, including water, unless it was purchased at the Golden Arches. He also discontinued his excersise regime, and attempted to match the ‘average level of excersise’ of the average American. Sayer, however, continued with his multivitamins and excersise plan.
Conclusions? Obviously these are two different experiments. But thinking it through, one thing is clear. McFood, with probably a few exceptions, provides very little nutritional value. So to base a diet on it, like an Oreo blizzard, would be foolhardy at the least. But on an occasional visit, probably not too bad. Mind you, for myself, I cringe at the thought. Luckily I’ve turned Dawn onto Greek food, and we can have fresher food at Opa! as opposed to the fast food alternative.
But it doesn’t stop here. Now rightist pundits down south are whinging about anti-smoking legislation, waving their arms around saying that the unconstitutional removal of freedom for property rights, that the scientific evidence of the carcinogenic nature of second-hand smoke is fabricated, and that such violations towards constitutional freedoms will lead towards an Orwellian end.
WHAT THE FUCK? Put simply, in newspeak so all can understand, this is ungood.
Let’s just look at it this way. And bear in minds Occam’s Razor:
“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one.”
Hmmm. Property rights. Fair enough. In a private property, the owner of said should have authority as to what can or cannot be done on their turf. Hence why here in BC landlords can be stringent on a No Pet policy (other provinces the legislation isn’t so rock solid). Hence why I live in Surrey. But the other provinces raise a point. When private property, in this case for commercial enterprise, open their doors for the public, it seems a grey area arises. At what point does a potentially dangerous, gaseous chemical cease being a violation of private property rights and becomes a public threat? Now fair enough, people can choose to not visit said establishment, but as the number of non-smokers is clearly larger than that of the fag suckers, at bare minimum is it wise to allow smoking in an establishment based solely on an economic perspective?
So then the argument is raised about the “factual” nature of the dangers of second hand smoke. Apparently the facts provided by the medical establishment were askew. But think of this. A smoker, while smoking, intakes carcinogens. But people in his immediate vicinity, subject to smoke from the same fag, do not? So what, does the filter make the fag carcinogenic? I don’t fucking think so. The simplest explaination is that it is a volume perspective. Non-smokers breathe in less, so therefore the risk for cancer/other disease is lessened. A bit. But frankly, even if second hand smoke kills at least one non-smoker, should that not be a concern?
But I guess, in the eyes of the conservative, keeping an industry whose profits are made primarily on an addictive chemical that leads to pain, suffering and death is worth the lives of the many it claims. After all, supporting tobacco thusly keeps the spirit of American freedom that has lived for two centuries. Not that the Patriot Act or anything of the like takes away further core freedoms than does a simple smoking by-law. What strange neighbours we have south of our border.
Thank the Gods I’m Canadian!
That is all.
