Sex Sells—Sprouts?

Katherine Mangu-Ward | August 25, 2006

Sure, Paris Hilton clad in a damp bikini can sell a burger. But hell, a burger with fried jalepenos and onion rings could sell itself to a practicing Hindu. The real question: Can a fairly decent Paris Hilton look-alike sell a Vegan Wheat Germ Tofu Granola Sprout Burger?

Larry the Lizard, the ostensible impresario of this awfully professional-looking YouTube masterpiece, says "when people tell me what I can or can't eat, I get mad." Especially "when these holier-than-thou nutrition nuts convince the government to do their dirty work. Maybe it's just me, but I think the food fascists have gotten too much press and way too much power."

Via the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Comments

|8.25.06 @ 2:11PM|#

Paris Hilton is a walking advetisement for the Estate Tax.

|8.25.06 @ 2:18PM|#

There are a lot of things in that ad I would eat, but that Tofu Burger ain't one of 'em. ba dum bumpt.

|8.25.06 @ 2:19PM|#

"I don't like being told what to eat..."

Isn't it funny how Reason loves the marketplace of ideas, right up until one of the players in that marketplace says something disparaging against an industry that is spending a fortune on a counter-offensive against its critics?

The fast food industry's lobby certainly does know the tune to make the monkeys dance.

|8.25.06 @ 2:20PM|#

I dunno, I think Paris is probably a fairly bright girl. She's laughing all the way to the bank, to be sure.

I think that, if I had been born into that kind of money, I'd be much more of a candidate as a poster child for pro estate tax folks.

|8.25.06 @ 2:22PM|#

But hell, a burger with fried jalepenos and onion rings could sell itself to a practicing Hindu. The real question: Can a fairly decent Paris Hilton look-alike sell a Vegan Wheat Germ Tofu Granola Sprout Burger?

...huh?

|8.25.06 @ 2:25PM|#

Isn't it funny how Reason loves the marketplace of ideas, right up until one of the players in that marketplace says something disparaging against an industry that is spending a fortune on a counter-offensive against its critics?

Isn't it even funnier that some people don't see how the statement "I don't like being told what to eat" is 100% consistent with an open marketplace of ideas?

The fast food industry's lobby certainly does know the tune to make the monkeys dance.

Dunno about that, but I do know that busybodies, whether they are food nazis or central planners, tend to hang together.

|8.25.06 @ 2:26PM|#

anony: Estate Tax???? Are you kidding, why let the government have all that money? Have you ever even read this magazine?

Estate Tax? The guy who waxes her 22s down at the Lambo dealer doesn't think so. Nor does the club owner who gouges her $500 bucks for a $69 bottle of bubbly. Clearly, the UCLA dropout who scores smack and coke for the little waif would beg to differ with your conclusion.

At least she engages in commerce and puts that money to work in other people's hands.

The IRS would turn that money into homeland security and gilded shitter seats for legislative staff.

|8.25.06 @ 2:26PM|#

joe - what in the hell are you saying? I don't see Reason disparaging this guy at all.

I'm fine with the fast-food industry...I know that when I'm eating their food, I'm not eating healthy. So what? Oh, they spend billions on advertising so they're bad? Fuck that...I'm smart enough to pick out the BS from advertising, which is most of it, actually.

But I'm also fine with the anti fast food folks - most of 'em are just as full of shit, or are sanctimonious folks, which rubs me the wrong way, but that doesn't mean I'm going to rail against their right to speak their mind.

I just don't see what you're getting at here, sorry.

|8.25.06 @ 2:31PM|#

cecil - preach on, brotha!

|8.25.06 @ 2:35PM|#

I'm with you Lowdog, Joe is seeing something that isn't there.

I think Ms. Mangu-Ward just thinks the thing is funny.

|8.25.06 @ 2:35PM|#

Forget Estate Tax, she is a poster child for the CDC.

|8.25.06 @ 2:38PM|#

Cecil--it was a little joke. My point was if there is anyone who makes people who inherited their wealth look like assholes who never have to do work a day in their lives, its her.

|8.25.06 @ 2:39PM|#

Thanks for the Nazi reference, RC. Now I can safely ignore you.

Lowdog,

People who support a marketplace of ideas don't generally call foul on somebody for putting ideas out there. However, every time the CSPI, for example, points out that certain foods are unhealthy, the industry front groups like CCF call them Nazis and fascists and freedom haters, and Reason picks up on it. You'd think that the additional information available to consumers because of their efforts would be welcomed as a contribution to the marketplace of ideas, but all this mag ever does is disparage them, and run press releases from their competitors in that marketplace.

|8.25.06 @ 2:42PM|#

anony, point well taken. Maybe better yet, she is a poster child for "spend it while you can". Old Conrad should've bought a few more hookers, thrown a few more parties and lined his closets with mink.

There are no voices in the sky, you can't take it with you when you die...so don't leave it to the semi-retarded spawn of your dumb-fuck kids.
(apologies to Lemmy)

|8.25.06 @ 2:47PM|#

If we assume that the federal budget stays the same regardless of whether inheretance taxes are eliminated, (a generour assumption, given what's happened to the budget since the Republicans cut that tax), then almost all of that lost revenue is made up through income taxes. Think of a cut in the estate tax as imposing an opportunity cost - the inability to cut income taxes by the same amount.

Why exactly am I supposed to assume that the economic and social benefits of Ms. Hilton's spending outweigh those that would have been produced by an equivalent amount of additional spending by working shlubs?

Paris Hilton giving $10,000 to her coke dealer vs. 100 families spending an additional $100 each on televisions, groceries, and car repairs? That's not even close.

|8.25.06 @ 2:49PM|#

joe:
Additional information is useful to the marketplace. Using that information to justify suing KFC, not so much.

|8.25.06 @ 2:49PM|#

However, every time the CSPI, for example, points out that certain foods are unhealthy...Reason picks up on it

Agents of the CSPI are free to sound like raving imbeciles who think that the only good life is one free of any epicurean pleasure and focused only on maximizing lifespan as much as they want. The problem is that they are not in the slightest bit interested in informing me of the risks and then letting me make the choice. Their desire is to use the state to obviate me of my right to even make the choice. Big difference.

|8.25.06 @ 2:52PM|#

call foul on somebody for putting ideas out there

For putting out bad ideas, they should call foul.
Wholly worthy and justified.

|8.25.06 @ 2:52PM|#

joe

your argument would have some weight if two of the three bullet points in CSPI's mission statement didn't involve regulation and policymaking for the "public interest".

|8.25.06 @ 2:59PM|#

joe, coke dealers have to eat and pay their cable bills too! And, the schlubs spending their money on Chinese TVs isn't really any different than Carlos the coke guy sending a few thou back to Columbia.
I would point out that the 10k spent by Carlos directly impacts commerce, while the 10k in the hands of the govt is parsed out to overpaid bureacrats and sadly misdirected social programs before it hits the streets.

All that said, I would disagree with your underlying assumption that the fed budget would remain static with or without Paris's 40%. Perhaps I am naive, but if we try and choke the beast at every chance, eventually its consumption will decrease.

|8.25.06 @ 3:01PM|#

What AndyP said.

Tell me all you want that the burger I'm eating isn't healthy. But don't you dare try to pry it from my greasy fingers. You'll draw back a knub. Especially if I'm not full.

|8.25.06 @ 3:05PM|#

"Thanks for the Nazi reference, RC. Now I can safely ignore you."

Read as "Thanks for, in the process of leveling my dumbass argument, using a buzzword that I can seize on to justify, in my own mind at least, ignoring what you actually said."

Joe, if all the CSPI did was "point out that certain foods are unhealthy" no one at Reason would have a problem with them. As you well know, you disingenenous sack of shit, that not all they do. They try to use the power of government to force their quasi-religious view on food and health on others, which is precisely why Reason posters and commenters disparage them. But of course, you knew that all along didn't you?

A deeper point - just because you believe in intellectual freedom in the marketplace of ideas does NOT imply that you are a hypocrite if you do not embrace every idea that is put into that marketplace. There are many ideas floating around in the marketplace of ideas - intelligent design springs to mind - that should be met with substantive opposition. I don't disagree with the CSPI's take on the healthiness of fast food, but their idea that the government can and should be used to change how people eat is worthy of significant opposition.

|8.25.06 @ 3:12PM|#

"Thanks for the Nazi reference ..."

Dude, are you serious? You think using the term "food nazi" means he's comparing food nazis to real Nazis? Did you boycott the "Soup Nazi" Seinfeld episode too?

|8.25.06 @ 3:15PM|#

geez, joe, a little thin-skinned, aren't we?

As if a reference to (lower-case) food nazis is a full-on Godwin. You're not helping your case that we should just all sit back and relax and let the discourse about food wash over us when you jump down my throat frothing because I drop a pretty common pop culture term, to wit, "food nazi." Check the urban dictionary and chill out, dude.

And I've never met a vegan who wasn't a food nazi, by the way. And by that, I mean someone who wasn't a totally wigged control freak about food who is all too willing to inflict their wacked out ideas on whoever, whenever, however.

|8.25.06 @ 3:15PM|#

joe, joe, joe..... What in the hell are you talking about? There are so many misstatements in your post that I'm not sure where to begin. I'll start by saying that the revenue to the treasury has gone up since (and because of) "the Republicans cut that tax." (Unfortunately the bastards can't stop spending)

Also: you stated: Why exactly am I supposed to assume that the economic and social benefits of Ms. Hilton's spending outweigh those that would have been produced by an equivalent amount of additional spending by working shlubs?

The choice isn't Paris vs. Working slubs spending money, it is Paris vs. Gov't spending money if there is an inheritance tax. Maybe I'm missing something.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg

|8.25.06 @ 3:17PM|#

You kiss your mother with that mouth, *? You shouldn't - she's got lice.

Look at this statement: '"when people tell me what I can or can't eat, I get mad." Especially "when these holier-than-thou nutrition nuts convince the government to do their dirty work.'

There are two parts - one, he gets mad when peole try to convince him in the marketplace of ideas to change his behavior. Two, he gets even madder when people try to coerce him into changing his behavior.

I've got no problem with Reason endorsing the second part of that statement, but their constant carping about the first, their attempt to pretend it's no different from the second, is a problem for a magazine that pledges its allegiance to free minds and free markets.

|8.25.06 @ 3:18PM|#

One thing about joe, he really brings out the best in everyone.

Swillfredo - a more economic and articulate post, I have never seen. Awesome.

Warren|8.25.06 @ 3:19PM|#

This seems like a good pretext to trot out my WOD PSA parody and once again beg somebody to make it.

PSA
Setting: Sunny day in the park, father and son taking a stroll.

Kid: Dad, did you ever do drugs?
Dad:[stammers] Well uhh

[guy with large Que cards (QCG) runs up and holds up card that reads:
YEAH I DID
AND IT WAS A DUMB THING TO DO]

Dad: [Looks at card, begins reading, vaguely dispassionate]
Yeah I did, and it was a dumb �
[shakes head begins speaking in engaged conversation voice ]
Yeah, yeah I did. I did a lot of dumb things too. But I also had some great times. Some of the best moments of my life happened when I was high. Like the first time I made love to your mother.

[QCG gets panicked look on face. Turns card over and reads it (twice) turns card back around and holds it up, waves it back and forth]

Kid: Sooooo, you're saying drugs made your life better?
Dad: I'm saying that drugs are powerful things. And like all powerful things, you need to have a healthy fear of them. You see son, drugs, like cars, a little knowledge, and religion, can be very dangerous. But they can also be useful and life enhancing when used responsibly. It's important that you educate yourself on the effects and risks before you start experimenting.

[QCG rotates the "yeah I did" card to back of stack. He frantically waves the new top card which reads:
BUT NO ONE EVER TALKED TO ME ABOUT IT]

Dad: [turns his back to QCG and faces his son] And the biggest risk of all is the fact that they're illegal. Not only can you get arrested, but if you're convicted you loose any chance of getting into college or landing a decent job. And of course there's no FDA or even Consumer's Reports to ensure purity and quality. For instance, Ecstasy is far safer than beer, but when you buy pills on the black market, there's no way of knowing what is in them. You could be putting anything from sugar to cyanide in your body.

[Father and son begin walking again. QCG violently throws the "no one ever" card away. His new card reads:
DRUGS ARE BAD
MMMMM-KAY
He is walking backwards and jamming his finger at his card]

Kid: So if making drugs illegal actually makes them more dangerous, why don't we just end drug prohibition?
Dad: Well it's like I said son, people do a lot of dumb things.
[Father and son continue talking and walk off together]
[QCG trips and falls to ground, cards go flying. Close up on his face � look of exasperation]
QCG: I need a drink

|8.25.06 @ 3:28PM|#

Cab,

Revenue from non-income taxes often goes up for a short time immediately after they are cut, as people who have been delaying transactions take the oppotunity to make them, and people who would have otherwise carried them out at a later time carry them out earlier. Shortly after this initial spike, revenues fall to their previous levels, and then keep falling even lower. Studies of previous capital gains tax cuts have demonstrated this.

"The choice isn't Paris vs. Working slubs spending money, it is Paris vs. Gov't spending money if there is an inheritance tax. Maybe I'm missing something."

You're missing that fact that you are introducing additional variables into the equation. Absent a spending cut equivalent to the tax cut, the government is still going to spend that money. They'll get it from other taxes, either that same year (if there is a balanced budget or surplus) or in future years plus interest (if there is a deficit).

The issue here is whether it is better for the government to collect that theoretical $10k from wealthy heirs, or from the income tax.

|8.25.06 @ 3:34PM|#

The issue here is whether it is better for the government to collect that theoretical $10k from wealthy heirs, or from the income tax.

Then that's another example of how badly the tax code needs to be changed. Firstly, it's way too complicated. Secondly, it's arbitrary and unfair (which is almost like 1b, in that it's complexity ensures it will be arbitrary and unfair).

I'll admit I'm not much of an accountant, but a consumption tax seems most equitable to me...maybe with an exception or rebate if you can prove you make below a certain amount or below a certain percentage of average income in the US or whathaveyou.

Really, though, I don't see how anyone, even a beaurocracy loving person, can't see that taxes need to be waaaaay lower and the government needs to be streamlined. The waste is atrocious. If the US gov't was a business, we'd be bankrupt.

|8.25.06 @ 3:44PM|#

Joe,

RC is right---you don't get to invoke Godwin and throw up your arms in dispair just because someone uses the ____-nazi term. It's an accepted saying (Soup Nazi, anyone?), whereas comparing someone to Hitler or the Nazi Regime is a Godwin's Law candidate. If you think that someone using the "______-nazi" saying gives you a ticket to "safely ignore" their argument, well, I do smell a little bit of weaseling, if I don't say so meself.

Anyway, joe, your point about CSPI and "putting ideas out there" is valid in theory---except that it doesn't jive with reality. Jacobsen and the rest of his ilk consistently propose and lobby for regulations, restrictions and laws to achieve their health-obsessed agenda. At the same time, they use frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to get their way.

Believe me, joe, if CSPI stuck to just putting out their "don't eat this, don't eat that" newsletter, I'd be fine with them. But that's not the case.

FYI, joe: when someone lobbies and argues for oppressive restrictions, but doesn't actually make the laws themselves, it doesn't mean they're free of blame. If CSPI argues and lobbies for a ban on hamburgers, and congress enacts said law, then yes, Congress is partially to blame---but CSPI is as well. That is a far cry from simply "putting ideas out there".

grylliade|8.25.06 @ 3:50PM|#

Look at this statement: '"when people tell me what I can or can't eat, I get mad."

joe, you'd have a point if he'd said "when people tell me what I should or shouldn't eat." He specifically says "can or can't," though. In this context it is clearly referring to coercion, not persuasion. In fact, I don't see how it could possibly refer to persuasion, given the meaning that "can" has in modern English. "Can," as far as I know, has no denotative or connotative meaning of persuasion.

Warren|8.25.06 @ 4:07PM|#

Dog pile on the joe! Dog pile on the joe!

There are two parts - one, he gets mad when peole try to convince him in the marketplace of ideas to change his behavior. Two, he gets even madder when people try to coerce him into changing his behavior.

I've got no problem with Reason endorsing the second part of that statement, but their constant carping about the first, their attempt to pretend it's no different from the second, is a problem for a magazine that pledges its allegiance to free minds and free markets.

Wrong again joe. We don't pretend there's no difference, but you do. Several people have already pointed out that CSPI does in fact advocate imposing their worldview on everyone through the blunt instrument of the law. You want to pretend that we are also "carping" about CSPI exercising their free speech rights. What we are doing is nothing of the kind. We are exercising our free speech rights to disparage CSPI's moronic thesis (phrased so aptly by Swillfredo ) "the only good life is one free of any epicurean pleasure and focused only on maximizing lifespan. The YouTube parody makes the point well, it's funny because it's true.

|8.25.06 @ 4:17PM|#

joe's weak argument were just ITCHIN for a dog-pile, Warren. In fact, um, they WERE a dog-pile, if you catch my drifterino.

|8.25.06 @ 4:21PM|#

Evan!,

When the term is transparently being used to steal a base - to assert the totalitarian thugnishness of a party you are trying to argue is totalitarian and thuggish - the use of terms like "nazi" and "fascist" most certainly are causes for dismissal. I'm supposed to sit here and argue whether or not "food nazis" are unacceptable totalitarian? I'll pass, thanks, and wait for some substance.

grylliade, by bothering to include that second sentence, about the government 'doing their dirty work,' the speaker makes it clear that the first part is about speech and argumentation. That he chose the term "can't" to make his language more melodramatic doesn't matter.

Try this: "I don't like it when Catholic priests tell me I can't remarry. I like it even less when they get the government..." Am I saying that Catholic priests are coercing me from remarrying in tht first sentence? Of course not, I'm just using deliberately inflammatory language to hide the fact that they're, er, you know, saying stuff.

|8.25.06 @ 4:21PM|#

I pulled back a post questioning joe due to the dogpile factor. One of the few times I liked the server squirrels.

|8.25.06 @ 4:22PM|#

I pulled back a post questioning joe due to the dogpile factor. One of the few times I liked the server squirrels.

|8.25.06 @ 4:24PM|#

"People who support a marketplace of ideas don't generally call foul on somebody for putting ideas out there."

yes, they do. part of the marketplace of ideas is telling idiots (like CSPI) to shut the #$(#$ up. cause they are idiots. the marketplace of ideas means that GOVERNMENT has no right to tell them to shut up or regulate their content. it also means that i can and do criticize them .

" However, every time the CSPI, for example, points out that certain foods are unhealthy, the industr"

first of all, CSPI is a front group right up there with PCRM and PETA. their agenda is that meat is bad (mmkkay), milk is bad, and we should all be vegetarians. so, their 'science' (and i use that term extremely loosely) needs to be taken with a hyooooge grain of salt, sodium restrictive diet or not.

CSPI and especially PCRM and PETA often selectively promote certain "studies" and completely ignore contrary studies to try to prove all sorts of "science" that would promote their agenda - stop eating animal products

of COURSE, eating one of these burgers 3X a day would be bad for you. eating only carrots and lettuce would be bad for you two, but i digress.

i fully support free speech. that also includes the speech that says to CSPI - SHUT UP YOU MORONS

|8.25.06 @ 4:24PM|#

Let's concentrate on what's important. The actress in that video is way hotter than Paris, who looks like she is probably still working on the cheeseburger from her shoot. The Tofu-burger girl doesn't have that weird nose, either.

I confess that last night's dinner was two grilled bacon/cheddar burgers, w/lettuce and tomato, at a favorite watering hole. No onions, though. Onions suck.

Kevin

Warren|8.25.06 @ 4:29PM|#

The actress in that video is way hotter than Paris

Amen

|8.25.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Evan! and the other Godwin-Nazis,

That's not what Godwin's Law says. Godwin's law says that as a thread gets very long the probability of someone calling someone a Nazi becomes very high.

If someone notes the similarity of a position, policy, attitude, or belief, to those of the Nazis, and you think the comparison is inapt, explain why. If the comparison is apt, "calling Godwin" is supressing the truth.

|8.25.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Paris Hilton's smirk is forever.

|8.25.06 @ 4:33PM|#

Aaah, good old CSPI. I long for the days when they were promoting Transfatty-acids as the "healthy alternative" to beef tallow. At least in those days, McDonald's tallow fried potatoes had flavor, unlike now.

|8.25.06 @ 4:38PM|#

A hamburger is just ground meat on bread without the onion. The noble onion makes the burger. Make mine 1/4" thick and Spanish.

Oh, and Paris Hilton actually has several lucrative jobs that have made her very wealthy on her own account. She needn't touch her inheritance. Libertarians should applaud her genius at self-promotion and her demonstrated ability to keenly evaluate the low-brow tastes of Americans.

|8.25.06 @ 4:44PM|#

ed - low-brow taste is right. I saw her porn tape. I'm telling you, it was disgusting. Even after the 30th or 40th time I watched it, I still felt disgusted.

|8.25.06 @ 4:47PM|#

However, every time the CSPI, for example, points out that certain foods are unhealthy, the industry front groups like CCF call them Nazis and fascists and freedom haters,

http://www.cspinet.org/takeaction/index.html
CURRENT PROJECT INITIATIVES
Advertising and Promotion Reforms
CSPI proposals support restrictions on the time, place and manner of alcohol advertising. We oppose promotions and advertising aimed at college students; alcohol-company sponsorships of rock concerts and college sports; and the use of celebrities and youth-oriented characters in alcohol ads.

Q.E.D.

Warren|8.25.06 @ 4:54PM|#

NoStar, that was awsome.

Libertarians should applaud her genius at self-promotion and her demonstrated ability to keenly evaluate the low-brow tastes of Americans.

I do, even as I denigrate the low-brow tastes of Americans, as evidenced by the success of that bulimic, bubble-headed, bimbo.

|8.25.06 @ 5:00PM|#

Oh, I don't think HnR is a free marketplace of ideas when it comes to discussion about what should be done about latent health risks in foods or drugs.

|8.25.06 @ 5:22PM|#

whit,

I've got nothing against aguments against the messages of those who condemn unhealthy foods. As you say, that is the essence of the marketplace of ideas.

What I'm objecting to is the victim-mongering, the assertion of persecution, the implication that such messages are themselves anti-freedom or coercive.

|8.25.06 @ 5:25PM|#

joe-

1) The "when people tell me what I can or can't eat, I get mad" argument wasn't made by a Reason staff writer. It was made by somebody who also made a funny video, and quoted by a Reason staff writer who enjoyed the video.

2) If CSPI stuck to information, and at least tried to avoid hysteria, I'd be on your side here, without a doubt. But they seem to err on the side of hysteria, at the very least.

3) Even worse, they advocate controlling what you eat by law. So they are fair game.

|8.25.06 @ 5:26PM|#

joe,

At one time you claimed that you supported abortion because the subject concerned personal, bodily autonomy. You then distinguished this from economic liberty. Correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway, doesn't what I consume as food or drink also concern personal, bodily integrity?

|8.25.06 @ 5:38PM|#

You'll have to take my foie gras and duck fat from my cold dead hands. :)

|8.25.06 @ 5:40PM|#

The issue here is whether it is better for the government to collect that theoretical $10k from wealthy heirs, or from the income tax.

Except we all know that inheritance tax collections don't subsitute for income tax collections.

This isn't "should we have an inheritance tax so we can cut/avoid raising the income tax." No, its more like "we want a good chunk of your income while you're alive, and a good chunk of whatever's left over after we tax you your whole life when you die."

It's not either/or, its both/and.

|8.25.06 @ 6:01PM|#

You kiss your mother with that mouth, *? You shouldn't - she's got lice.

Joe's getting less creative with his mother-insults.

Warren|8.25.06 @ 6:06PM|#

R C,
You don't understand. Taxes are a zero-sum affair. If you cut one person's taxes you have to raise someone else's. And taxes paid by person A never effect the price and availability of goods and services to person B. People only have money because the government prints it up you see. So really they're just taking back what always belonged to them anyway. Render unto Washington that which is Washington's

|8.25.06 @ 6:18PM|#

No onions, though. Onions suck.


I agree, kevrob. They are vile. :)

|8.25.06 @ 6:35PM|#

smacky,

Onions are awesome. If you're ever in town you can come to our house and I'll cook some wonderful dishes which have onions in them.

|8.25.06 @ 6:51PM|#

PL,

Thanks for the offer, but I'm allergic. I wouldn't turn down any Southern cooking, otherwise, though. ^_^

|8.25.06 @ 6:57PM|#

My cybercrush on smacky has now gone into overdrive.

Smacky, if you like anchovies, I'll start saving up for a diamond.

Kevin
(What's 2-months worth of not much buy?)

|8.25.06 @ 6:59PM|#

kevrob,

Unfortunately, I do not have a thing for hairy fishies.

Does this mean no diamond? (I understand that the engagement is off, of course.)

Warren|8.25.06 @ 7:30PM|#

smacky,
I'll cook you whatever you want. I'll even feed it to you. I insist even.

|8.25.06 @ 8:46PM|#

joe,

Are you actually complaining about hedonsitic [i]libertinism[/i] of Reason?
I mean, where have you been, man?!? That's the whole point of Regnum Gillespi!
;)

Seriously, how are we destroying the ability of guys like CSPI from spreading their view? Eric Schlosser, Morgan Spurlock, and others sure haven't been having a hard time getting their view out in spite of this magazine's opposition...

|8.25.06 @ 9:07PM|#

some points... im all about points :l

I have a problem with ANY "science" that is actually agenda-driven to the extent that it ignores contrary evidence.

That was true during the ABSURD "ephedra trials" before congress - with bogus AER's and hysteria (an overweight athlete works out in 90+ degree heat in heavy clothing AND is on cocaine. but it's EPHEDRINE's fault that he had a heart attack, but i digress) all for "THE CHILDREN"

This has been true in congressional hearings on Marijuana. (I think marijuana is lame, but it should not be ilelgal)

It has been true with nearly EVERYTHING that comes out of CSPI, PCRM and PETA

Oh, and it was also true when congress scheduled AAS after the ben jonson 'scandal' even though both the AMA *and* the DEA recommended AGAINST scheduling steroids.

And don't even get me started on how supposedly pro- states rights justice scalia actually found that medical marijuana clinics were regulatable under the INTERSTATE commerce clause?!?!?!?!?

o my gawd

anyways, there is...

wait for it...

NO SUCH THING AS A FOOD THAT IS BAD FOR YOU

combinations of foods and/or certain things in excess are bad for you. no FOOD is bad for you. contrary to popular belief, we have better health with SOME saturated fat for instance (low saturated fat leads to low T levels and sometimes even depression)...

I am all for LABELING. that was a govt. regulation that i could get behind. force companies to let me know what's in their food.

and then LEAVE THE CHOICE to me.

CSPI does *not* want us to have choice, nor does PCRM and PETA.

i happen to live in an atrocious nannystate/city that bans everything from internet poker to lap dances, that fines people for putting recyclables in the trash, that fines people for smoking in ANY private business and up to 50 ft from the entrance (all passed by liberals but i digress)

burgers are not bad for you. period.

it is all about total kilocalorie intake, getting essential fatty acids, essential aminos, good portion of phytonutrients, hydration, anti-oxidants, etc. etc.

it is not about PCRM scare tactics.

i hate nannystate wankers!!!!

(not you... PCRM )

|8.26.06 @ 1:56PM|#

I think we need to give joe some credit here:

estate tax = good
humorous use of lowercase "nazi" = bad
CSPI = neutral at worst
CSPI critics = victim-mongers
rebuttal of health-nanny hysterics = invalid contribution to the marketplace of ideas

That's five weak arguments in one thread, possibly a personal best.

|8.26.06 @ 2:09PM|#

smacky,

Allergic to onions? How terrible! :(

Anyway, if you ever were over for supper you and my wife would more likely be treated to some French bistro classics. I do make a mean gumbo though and delicious po' boys though.

|8.26.06 @ 3:51PM|#

Watch out for that warren, smacky. I've cooked for women before, and I know what that means. Alas, I lift my lamp and once again go in search of a female who can stand being smooched after I've had a slice of anchovied pizza (without onion.)

But first, I may order that pizza, CSPI be damned!

Kevin

|8.28.06 @ 2:06AM|#

I do not envy the other joe's miserable, humorless existence.