Law of unintended consequences strikes again

[rufus]

San Francisco, America's test-tube and Portland's role model, sure is fun to watch (from a distance):

Wednesday, Jan 19 2011
San Francisco bans Happy Meals

In August 2010, San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar decided that city intervention was needed to help him raise his daughter.

As Mar later told reporters, he was shocked to discover a trove of toys from McDonald's Happy Meals stashed in her room. Mar was the one taking his daughter to McDonald's and buying the food — but he said that the "pester power" of a preteen was simply too much for him to withstand on his own. So he proposed that the city ban restaurants from including toys with meals of more than 600 calories that lack agreed-upon amounts of fruits and vegetables.

Mar's "Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance" subsequently passed in November by an 8-3 vote in the Board of Supervisors — a veto-proof majority. Barring legal action, the Happy Meal as we know it will be verboten in San Francisco come Dec. 1. Eric Mar's daughter has been saved.

More...

Tue., Nov. 29 2011
<broken link removed>

On Thursday, Dec. 1, the city's de facto ban of the Happy Meal commences. San Francisco has accomplished what the Hamburglar could not. Or has it?

In order to include a toy with a meal, restaurants must now comply with city-generated nutritional standards. Those are standards that even the "healthier" Happy Meals McDonald's introduced earlier this year don't come close to meeting. (As SF Weekly noted in January, the school lunches our children eat aren't healthy enough to qualify, either).

And yet it seems McDonald's has turned lemons into lemonade -- and is selling the sugary drink to San Francisco's children. Local McDonald's employees tell SF Weekly the company has devised a solution that appears to comply with San Francisco's "Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance" that could actually make the company more money -- and necessitate toy-happy youngsters to buy more Happy Meals.

It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar's much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens' Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald's from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat -- when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

<broken link removed>

​

Read More

 

[Tangent123123]

"but he said that the "pester power" of a preteen was simply too much for him to withstand on his own."

So, he is unable to properly control his child and tell her "No you cannot go to McDonalds.". Instead he would rather get an ordinance passed and inflict his beliefs on the city as a whole as well as attempt to inconvinience a legit tax paying company that employs a large number of people.

This is the type of thing that pisses me off to no end. The government has no place in certain areas of our life and people insist on dragging it there to regulate and control these areas because they are weak willed morons and unable to do things for themselves. If you are unable to be a proper parent without government intervention, maybe you shouldn't be permitted to be a parent in the first place. How about we try to get an ordinance passed on that?

Blah! Thanks for getting me riled up first thing in the morning.

 

[22many]

That's awesome! Because he doesn't have any power as a parent to tell his daughter no, he now has to pay more money for his lack of parenting skills. A true idiot!

 

[rufus]

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Redcap]

That's awesome! Because he doesn't have any power as a parent to tell his daughter no, he now has to pay more money for his lack of parenting skills. A true idiot!

Agreed!

 

[Jamie6.5]

That's awesome! Because he doesn't have any power as a parent to tell his daughter no, he now has to pay more money for his lack of parenting skills. A true idiot!

Yeah, but the saddest part is, so does everyone else. (have to pay)
All because he views the remedy for his failure(s) to be the same for everyone.
Just like those that don't trust themselves with a gun.
Because they aren't trustworthy, they think no one is, or could be.

It's the socialistic answer to every issue.
Reduce everything/everyone to the lowest common denominator.
NO EXCEPTIONALISM ALLOWED.

 

[Tangent123123]

How is it a socialistic answer? Isn't it more anti-socialist? Socialism doesn't allow for 8 people to decide the process for the entire group.

A socialist believes that management and control over the activities of enterprises is based on self-management and self-governance, with equal power-relations in the workplace to maximize occupational autonomy. A socialist form of organization would eliminate controlling hierarchies so that only a hierarchy based on technical knowledge in the workplace remains. Every member would have decision-making power in the firm and would be able to participate in establishing its overall policy objectives.

The guy can't control and make the decisions for his pre-teen daughter without having to pass an ordinance to enforce it, yet we put him on city council? Where's the logic? It's our own fault for putting the decision making power into the hands of buffoons. I don't think we can lay that one at the feet of socialism.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Sorry tangent, but you are talking about socialism in the ideal, which has never existed. (but y'all keep trying)

Socialism in practice requires everyone pulling in the same direction, which never works within the variables that are human nature.
The "equal power-relations" you speak of always need to be enforced, lest the exceptional among the working class decide they are entitled to all the fruits of their labor/ideas, instead of sharing with the collective.
By a group of 8, or however many the elites within the socialist power structure decide is the required number.
That's how it works in practice. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

 

[doubletap007]

san fran is just following the advice of the messiah,obama's ugly wife,she knows what is best for all of america and our children.
what she forgot is that her husband has not created any jobs for americans to buy healthy groceries,most can only afford happy meals
because tax payers need to pay for her seperate flights on a 757 to meet the messiah 4 hours early on his own 747 flight.

 

[Jamie6.5]

To address your statements directly:

How is it a socialistic answer? Isn't it more anti-socialist? Socialism doesn't allow for 8 people to decide the process for the entire group.

A socialist believes that management and control over the activities of enterprises is based on self-management and self-governance, with equal power-relations in the workplace to maximize occupational autonomy.

No it does not believe in self management and self governance within a stand alone profit making entity. That would be a free market principle.
Social ownership/management and social governance is the decree of socialism.
IOW, the collective's (social) voice will be the deciding factor in how sales and profits shall be made.

A socialist form of organization would eliminate controlling hierarchies so that only a hierarchy based on technical knowledge in the workplace remains. Every member would have decision-making power in the firm and would be able to participate in establishing its overall policy objectives. <snip>

I don't think we can lay that one at the feet of socialism.

Ahh, but factions within the social collective are at odds here.
So the collective elected said "buffoon(s)" to represent their interests.
The collective (that can't control the desires of their children) were being forced to put those children in jeopardy, ostensibly by those in "the firm" that is McDonalds, when McDonalds decided they could make more money by offering a free toy with a happy meal. As a firm outside of social ownership, they were pursuing additional profits, by marketing to children directly.

This was perceived by those that advocate for social ownership/management/control to be "profiteering" at the expense of children's health.

So in their efforts to "level the playing field" for the collective, it was decided (by the socialistic buffoons) that making an offer to the children/children's parents that might jeopardize the child's health wasn't "fair" to those parents with less will than their pre-teen children. Especially since the firm that is McDonalds wasn't socially owned by the collective. (and wasn't returning 100% of those profits to the collective)

So those that were deemed to have greater technical knowledge, decided on behalf of the entire collective that those that can/do have the backbone to tell their children NO when they choose, would lose that choice. So that those that can't/won't/don't have said backbone wouldn't have to make that choice, (that benefits their children) since it wouldn't be available.

So now all the children and all the parents have equal outcome. The playing field is level, and the collective is safe from independent profit mongers, that are willing to sacrifice your children's health for their personal gain.

So, in their efforts to facilitate an equitable outcome, they eliminated opportunity/choice, whether it was equitable or not.

Such is the way of socialism's "fairness and equity" for all.
Regardless of independent judgement and choice. Since none is wanted or required under socialist rule, equal outcomes are the goal.

 

[Mark W.]

Who in there right mind would raise a child in San Francisco any way. I was stationed in Oakland while in the Navy and San Fran was the biggest armpit of a city I have ever been in. And talk about bad influences for a child to see. WOW

And there are ONLY 5 McDonalds in all of San Francisco so I doubt this is going to effect very many people two of them near Polk Street which would be one of the last places I would take a child in that city.

 

[doubletap007]

Who in there right mind would raise a child in San Francisco any way. I was stationed in Oakland while in the Navy and San Fran was the biggest armpit of a city I have ever been in. And talk about bad influences for a child to see. WOW

And there are ONLY 5 McDonalds in all of San Francisco so I doubt this is going to effect very many people two of them near Polk Street which would be one of the last places I would take a child in that city.

its only a good place to raise your kids if you want your son to be a daughter or your daughter to be a son,what a freakish lifestyle they live there,too bad we got so many of their liberals here too so now portland is a toilet bowl too.

 

[Doubletap]

Yeah, but the saddest part is, so does everyone else. (have to pay)
All because he views the remedy for his failure(s) to be the same for everyone.
Just like those that don't trust themselves with a gun.
Because they aren't trustworthy, they think no one is, or could be.

It's the socialistic answer to every issue.
Reduce everything/everyone to the lowest common denominator.
NO EXCEPTIONALISM ALLOWED.

Remember..do something to help the world today.. Have a Liberal spayed or neutered....

 

[doubletap007]

Remember..do something to help the world today.. Have a Liberal spayed or neutered....

i gotta say atleast if all the liberals want to be gay they wont be reproducing,thank God!
And they will spread aids through their cult and cleanse the world of themselves.

 

[22many]

Yeah, but the saddest part is, so does everyone else. (have to pay)
All because he views the remedy for his failure(s) to be the same for everyone.
Just like those that don't trust themselves with a gun.
Because they aren't trustworthy, they think no one is, or could be.

It's the socialistic answer to every issue.
Reduce everything/everyone to the lowest common denominator.
NO EXCEPTIONALISM ALLOWED.

Correction. Everybody else in the SF area has to pay. If they elected this idiot into power and with this bill passing then I'm sure their not much better than him.

 

[22many]

its only a good place to raise your kids if you want your son to be a daughter or your daughter to be a son,what a freakish lifestyle they live there,too bad we got so many of their liberals here too so now portland is a toilet bowl too.

HAHA!! Finally someone that also understands that Portland is the same as the inside of a fart box!

 

[Grunwald]

The real kicker is that just a 100 years ago cities like San Francisco, Portland and Seattle were full of "manly" man. These were the rouged individuals that came to West to tame the frontier, now it full of guys who want to tame one another's rear.

 

[dmancornell]

The real kicker is that just a 100 years ago cities like San Francisco, Portland and Seattle were full of "manly" man. These were the rouged individuals that came to West to tame the frontier, now it full of guys who want to tame one another's rear.

Being gay has nothing to do with love of liberty. The bible-thumping "family values" wingnuts are some of the worst offenders when it comes to siding with the criminal government in its quest to dominate the country.

 

[Father of four]

The bible-thumping "family values" wingnuts are some of the worst offenders when it comes to siding with the criminal government in its quest to dominate the country.

Really? That just doesn't sound right to me. Got any proof?

 

[Mikej]

Really? That just doesn't sound right to me. Got any proof?

Ever lived in UTAH?

Smj