Jared vs. The Grimace, Round 38

Reader Ari Spanier points to a Wash Post article about the new head of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic, a low-fat version of Wyatt Earp, working to kick McDonald's off the medical complex's "sprawling campus."

A heart surgeon who has cleaned out a career's worth of clogged arteries, [center head Toby] Cosgrove didn't think Big Macs, supersize fries and inch-thick, six-cheese pizzas belonged in the lobby of a hospital renowned for its cardiac care. So he decreed the fast-food joints had to go.

Pizza Hut went quietly. But McDonald's, halfway through a 20-year lease, has refused to shut down a franchise that serves 12,000 doctors, nurses, janitors, secretaries, patients and visitors each week.

"Our menu is something we're all proud of," said Marty Ranft, a McDonald's vice president. "We've got a great relationship with the Cleveland Clinic. We are not interested in closing" the restaurant.

Whole story here.

That's setting up a showdown by the Subway sandwich shop at Cleveland Center. And just like in Tombstone (or Dodge City), it's kind of hard to know who the villain really is.

Jacob Sullum--who makes a cameo in the doc--looked upon Morgan Spurlock's anti-McDonald's Super Size Me and despaired.

Comments

[joe]

Next thing you know, they'll get rid of the smoking lounge at the American Lung Association offices.

[John Q]

Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic

Was the parenthetical really necessary?

[Call me snake]

With a western diet, 90% of the population has all the cholesterol/fat in their bloodstreams by age 16.

So, you ask, why don't 90% of the population have massive heart attacks by age 40?

Because the primary cause of a heart attack is not diet. It's low shear stress (low velocity of blood moving by it) at the wall of a coronary artery, which makes the artery wall highly susceptible to stenosis, or clogging.

In other words, smart researchers know that diet may be a contributing factor, but the geometry-adusted blood flow in the artery has much more to do with a heart attack.

[D Anghelone]

Because the primary cause of a heart attack is not diet. It's low shear stress (low velocity of blood moving by it) at the wall of a coronary artery, which makes the artery wall highly susceptible to stenosis, or clogging.

In other words, smart researchers know that diet may be a contributing factor, but the geometry-adusted blood flow in the artery has much more to do with a heart attack.

So how does one avoid the heart attack? Exercise?

[joe]

"I know that you, as the Anointed, would want to take that choice away and harm thousands of others who like to responsbily indulge themselves. Disgusting."

Wait wait wait - you aren't suggesting that this private property owner in infringing on anyone's freedom by deciding what goes on in his facility, are you?

Why, oh why, are you so determined to infringe on this private group's freedom of choice? Just because their choice offends you?

[Jim Fixx]

So how does one avoid the heart attack? Exercise?

Worked for me.

[andy]

Ayn Randian,

I think you may be suffering from liberal-in-your-head syndrome. I think Joe was being critical of the whole situation, in spite of his normal pinko self 🙂

[joe]

If you want to avoid a heart attack, realize that libertoid will sell out their "freedom of choice" principles the moment someone makes a choice that reflects a set of values beyond the pursuit of immediate pleasure. Otherwise, the reality of what they post could do you in.

"No one should impose their food values on anyone else, but the Cleveland Clinic isn't going to lease out food court space to the companies I'd prefer, so we should make federal and state funding contingent on serving McNuggets."

[andy]

wait, I was wrong.

Joe, McDonald's had a contract at the place. I don't know if you'd caught that.

[pigwiggle]

joe-
This private property owner should honor the 20 year lease.

[Ayn_Randian]

Furthermore, joe, CLEVELAND CLINC IS FAR FROM PRIVATE!

Sorry for the screaming, but maybe you missed the entire third paragraph of my post.

Furthermore, I don't care...I find most McDonald's food to be tasteless and terrible (other than the fries of course). What offends me is that this is another manifestation of your people's crusade as the Anointed the make decisions for the rest of us. The Clinic has federal and state aid, let the people decide how that money should be spent.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that contract.

[zero]

Joe:

Are you suggesting that a private property owner can just arbitrarily break a contract any time they want?

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that a contract is a contract. The Clinic can't just kick McDonald's out on a whim.

[joe]

That's odd - I put up a comment saying that breaking the lease was shady, but that wasn't the central point of the post, and it didn't take.

Yes, breaking the lease is shady.

I'm not making any decisions about what you eat, dearie. I'm saying that the people running the clinic have the right to decide who to let do business in their buildings, and who should not. Not a difficult concept.

And yes, the Cleveland clinic is allowed to decide who to lease to, even if they receive federal funding. If they want to have a Tofu Hut instead of a Burger King, who the hell are you to say they can't do that?

[Call me snake]

D Anghelone,

Daily cardio is definitely a great idea. By the end of this decade, technology will exist to reliably identify areas of low shear stress in coronary arteries so preventative action can be taken.

[joe]

Ayn Randian, the guy who rents the snack bar here in City Hall doesn't offer lattes. And he receives a subsidy to operate FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Could you work up some outrage, please?

[Ruthless]

Wouldn't it fun to hear here from one or two of the nurses who work under--so to speak--this insufferable doc?

[joe]

snake, have you read anything about how these areas develop?

[Ayn_Randian]

If the people want their money spent on lattes, then let them vote, joe. And what is the central point of your post then? Is it that a private business should be allowed to have what they want in their food courts? I would agree if the Clinic were private.

Speaking of which, who the hell am I? I am the guy (Ohio citizen) who just had to pay for their new heart center to the tune of 10 million dollars (at least). That's who the hell I am, the one paying for this boondoggle in the first place, and I will decide, as a taxpayer, what the hell they serve me, thanks so much.

[Gary Gunnels]

The food at McDonalds is nasty. Subway is far superior (for fast food).

[Mullah Henry]

I'm glad Joe posts on this forum. He's a constant reminder of why I hate government.

Fatwa on you!

[joe]

OK, take it public. Do a ballot initiative to compel the Cleveland Clinic to sell fast food. Or try to get your state rep to sponsor the bill. Knock yourself out.

Except that you'd get your ass kicked, and you know it. The public wants the Cleveland Clinic, not the state legislature, to manage the food service in its facilities. And on the merits of whether there should be a McDonald's at a cardiac care center, you're also in the minority.

[Gary Gunnels]

The food at McDonalds is nasty. Subway is far superior (for fast food).

[joe]

No, fatwa on you! Fatwa!

[Steve]

joe,

I think the issue is your comment about how funny it would be if they had a smoking lounge at the American Cancer Society. Ha ha. Truth is, some doctors smoke. Lots of otherwise healthy people smoke. I smoke sometimes. Your attitude is typical of the American Puritan's belief that tobacco is an evil substance, and anyone who uses is, ever, is an addict. The state of California even has an ad mocking "social smokers." Paid for with my tax money, and the money I use to buy cigarettes. Fuckers.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

As long as you say nothing negative about the Cracker Barrel, you're ok with me. 🙂

[Gilbert Martin]

i And yes, the Cleveland clinic is allowed to decide who to lease to, even if they receive federal funding. If they want to have a Tofu Hut instead of a Burger King, who the hell are you to say they can't do that?

A very enlightened perpesctive, Joe. I take it then, that you are also in favor of immediate repeal of all the federal rules and regulations like Title IX Athletics rules imposed on Universities that get any federal money and minority set-aside rules and the Davis-Bacon act (that requires any construction contractor on a federally funded project to pay the "prevailing" - i.e union - wage rates on those jobs) that are imposed on companies based on the hook that federal funding is involved.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to endorse that.

LOL

[Ruthless]

The issue here is whether McDonalds is putting a FAT-wa on us all.

[Ayn_Randian]

yes, joe, and given your newfound zeal for private property rights, perhaps you will change your views on central planning as it pertains to land use and zoning...I mean, after all, shouldn't private property owners be allowed to do with their land as they please? Who the hell are you to tell them they can't?

Gilbert, I imagine we'll both pass out together on this one.

[joe]

Gil, I believe that the recipients of federal aid should get used to having the shots called by the feds. Davis-Bacon, Title IX, etc., don't violate MY beliefs at all. They do, however, violate the beliefs of Ayn Randians - real ones, anyway. Just not the kind who think that serving the food they like in every facility is an enforceable right.

[joe]

Ayn, I'll repeat myself:

"OK, take it public. Do a ballot initiative to compel the Cleveland Clinic to sell fast food. Or try to get your state rep to sponsor the bill. Knock yourself out.

Except that you'd get your ass kicked, and you know it. The public wants the Cleveland Clinic, not the state legislature, to manage the food service in its facilities. And on the merits of whether there should be a McDonald's at a cardiac care center, you're also in the minority."

You were saying?

[Isaac Bartram]

Just think of the unintended consequences. The staffers who want pizza will drive accross town in their gas-guzzling SUVs which will cause global warming which will trigger the next ice age which will turn Cleveland into a frozen wasteland. And none of the people who stayed on the premises for healthy food will have enough body fat to survive the cold.

And just think how bad it would have been if Kerry had been elected (before thoreau sez it).

[joe]

"I mean, after all, shouldn't private property owners be allowed to do with their land as they please? Who the hell are you to tell them they can't?"

I'm the official, appointed by the democratically-elected government, to enforce the policies enacted by that government. Sort of like the Director of the Cleveland Clinic.

IF the director of the clinic gets to operate like a private property owner, then the presence of junk food on the campus is his call. If you don't like his decision, you're entitled to your feelings, but that's about it. He hasn't violated anyone's rights or freedom (by definition, since private operations don't impose on people's freedoms, remember?)

IF the director has to operate like a public employee and implement those policies desired by the people, then he will be removed if they don't like his decision, or orderred to change it. Which he won't be, I suspect, because most people will either support his decision, or decide to delegate such decisions to the director.

Either way, you're in no position to insist that he make the decision you'd prefer.

[Jennifer]

Joe-
Do you think private property owners have the right to arbitrarily break a lease ten years before it is due to expire? That seems to be the real issue here.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Gil, I believe that the recipients of federal aid should get used to having the shots called by the feds. Davis-Bacon, Title IX, etc., don't violate MY beliefs at all. They do, however, violate the beliefs of Ayn Randians - real ones, anyway. Just not the kind who think that serving the food they like in every facility is an enforceable right."

Translation:

Joe is a hypocrite who thinks federal funding can be used as an excuse to impose on the property rights of others to prevent them from doing as they please as long as that imposition is based on some policy he agrees with but it shouldn't be used to prevent another entitiy receivng federal funding from doing something he happens to like.

Oh and by the way Joe, contractors getting federal construction contracts are not getting "federal aid" - the "aid" is going to labor unions by essentially forcing the contractors to use union labor - and screw the taypyers (who are ultimately paying for the job) in the process by making the job cost more that it would if they could use non-union labor.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

They are called Randroids. 🙂

Isaac Bertram,

They are more likely to get it delivered I suspect. 🙂

[Isaac Bartram]

Gary Gunnels

Should be OK then, as long as the deliveryperson drives a hybrid car. 🙂

Oh, and by the way the family hasn't used that spelling since we crossed the Channel with William The Conqueror.

[Ken Shultz]

I posted this in another thread, but I've looked closer at the ads since then, and I'm tellin' y'all, it looks more and more to me like Jared's back to his fatso ways again. In the latest ads, he's always standin' with somethin' in front of his gut. Why would they shoot him like that unless he's gettin' sloppy?

I don't think Jared's gettin' the low fat combo anymore; I think he's gettin' the foot-long meatball with extra cheese, he's addin' two chocolate-chip cookies into the combo and he flushin' it all down with a 44 oz Coke--not the Diet Coke.

...and I think it's all goin' to his gut.

That's right, I think Jared's blubbin' up, I think he's got a fat ass again, and I think the bastards at Subway think they're gettin' away with sometin'. But sooner or later, somebody on 60 Minutes or somethin' is gonna get a shot of Jared's ass.

...that's what investigative journalism's all about, you know.

[fyodor]

joe,

Breaking the lease isn't just "shady," it's a violation of rights. And since you're always reading hidden motivations into libertoids' and Republicans' thought processes, how about this: perhaps the clinic director thinks the supposed higher morality of his dietary paternalism justifies said violation of rights?

[fyodor]

joe,

To elaborate, while I don't claim to know what the clinic director's thinking is per se, the justification I described above is at least as plausible, if not more so, than many of the speculations you cavalierly throw about with regularity. And if that description is accurate, then it makes perfect sense for libertoids to take offense at and want to discuss such an attitude that runs counter to liberty, as should we all.

[TWC]

It ain't hard to see the villian here at all.

Jennifer and others are correct, the contract says 20 years. They're half way through. I'd say someone should have given a bit more thought to the process BEFORE they inked the deal with Mickie Dees to serve fatburgers (Jeezus Chrysler if yer going to eat hamburgers you could at least eat good ones).

[joe]

Gil, close, but no cigar. I believe the government has the right to condition aid on the implementation of policies I disagree with. I don't think they should, but I recognize that they have the same ability to condition aid on, say, allowing military recruiters to come onto campus, as on offering healthy food choices. The question is, who decides.

Jennifer, as I said before, they should honor the lease, if indeed it does not spell out the power for the clinic to cancel it.

fyodor, I don't know what "violation of rights" or "liberty" you're referring to, since Big Macs aren't actually in the Bill of Rights, and the director is making a decision he is at libery to make (except for breaking the lease). "Violation of preferences," maybe?

As for the "paternalistic" attitude of the clinic director, I don't expect a Catholic Church to hand out copies of the Koran. I don't expect a battered women's shelter to have porn in the waitnig room. I don't see why a facility dedicated to improving cardiac health is supposed to have some kind of affirmative duty to provide artery-clogging food to its staff and patients.

[fyodor]

TWC,

To be fair, joe's point that the original post was not primarily concerned with the sanctity of contract law and leases is a valid one. While any reason one might have for kicking a legitimate leasee out before their lease up is equally illegitimate as a legal issue, one presumes that "fat police" angle is why Nick posted this particular story.

That said, to reiterate what I just said, if the belief that one has the right and even obligation to police others' diets gives people the idea that they can break leases when they would otherwise respect the law, then the "fat police" angle makes this a pertinent issue for those who don't think pet or trendy issues and paternalistic attitudes should trump property rights.

[Gary Gunnels]

Isaac Bartram,

Very sorry for the typo.

TWC,

They ought to have an Arby's there.

Presumably they could break the contract and pay damages (indeed, the contract ought to have a liquidated damages clause in it for that very purpose).

[fyodor]

fyodor, I don't know what "violation of rights" or "liberty" you're referring to, since Big Macs aren't actually in the Bill of Rights, and the director is making a decision he is at libery to make (except for breaking the lease)

joe, I don't always read other posts as carefully as I should, so I'll excuse you for missing that I said that it's the breaking of the lease that's a violation of rights. The point of my saying so was to say that you were pretending to address that while not really doing so by calling it "shady." Now you're admitting it's a violation of rights, but only parenthetically. To reiterate, trying to break a lease is what makes the clinic director's actions wrong. Thinking that his "fat police" attitude justifies such wrongness is what makes his attitude a valid concern.

As for your analogy to priests handing out Korans, there's some similarity and some big differences as well to what's going on here. But either way, if a priest thought his holiness made it okay for him to kick out Muslims in the middle of a lease, I think we'd both object to that.

[Gary Gunnels]

fyodor,

While any reason one might have for kicking a legitimate leasee out before their lease up is equally illegitimate...

Its not illegitimate so long as the contract allows for such, and presumably has a liquidated damages clause to cover any damages the leassee might incur due to the action. In this case the hospital would pay the leassee its expected future operating profits.

[Mullah Henry]

What a stupid argument.

I'll sum:

1) Breaking contracts is wrong.

2) McDonalds sells more than just fatty food. It also seems unlikely that any restaurant that replaced the McDonalds would sell only nutritious food. It seems even less probable that, if such a store did sell only nutritious food, no customer would overindulge. The director of the clinic should stop wasting his time with penny-ante bullshit. Fatwa on him.

3) I was amused the other day to realize that my organic granola seems to be, on a quick comparison of the nutritition labels, less healthy than my roommate's applejacks. This isn't pertinent, but I have some fatwas I haven't used yet, so fatwa on the granola manufacturers.

4) Joe is a government employee, so who cares what he says anyway. You are so fatwa-ed.

5) Fatwa on Ruthless, for totally lacking Ruth.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Gil, close, but no cigar. I believe the government has the right to condition aid on the implementation of policies I disagree with. I don't think they should, but I recognize that they have the same ability to condition aid on, say, allowing military recruiters to come onto campus, as on offering healthy food choices. The question is, who decides."

No Joe, based on your earlier post - I'm dead on.
You said the fact that the clinic received federal funding did not justify anyone else having any say in their decision. Either federal funding is a legitimate justification for external inteference in private decisions in all circmstances on all issues or it insn't a justifcation in any cirmcumstance on any issue.
It's either one or the other - not maybe yes or no based on your personal preferences about the issue in question.

Also you keep referring to federal money as "aid". Federal money is only "aid" when it a specific transfer payment that requires nothing from the private entitiy in return. Federal contracts for construction (or research at Universities, etc.) are not "aid" they are business contracts just as it is between two private parties.

If I hire a contractor to repave my driveway, that doesn't give me any authority to make the contractors hiring decisions, employee pay rates, personnel policies, etc. I am not providing "aid" to the contrator - I hired him to do a job. The same is true when the feds hire a contractor to build a new highway.

[fyodor]

my organic granola seems to be, on a quick comparison of the nutritition labels, less healthy than my roommate's applejacks.

On what basis?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"And on the merits of whether there should be a McDonald's at a cardiac care center, you're also in the minority."

Anyone who spends three minutes reading the article would know that the YakDonalds in question does a "brisk business". Apparently there's enough people in joe's minority who are supporting this francise, including day-to-day workers who either can't or won't go to the site's relatively expensive cafeteria.

And I agree that Herr Director is being highly selective. He's ignoring all the other sources of unhealthy food in the complex, including all the vending machines and the menu offered by his own cafeteria. This is more about politics, crusades, and demagoguery then anything else.

[Phil]

In this case the hospital would pay the leassee its expected future operating profits.

Great. Now, who here thinks that that's a useful dispensation of the Cleveland Clinic's funding -- paying off restaurant leases (and we're talking McDonald's here) based on the prejudice of the Clinic director.

The Cleveland Clinic is one of -- if not the -- leading hospital for cardiac treatments and surgeries and cancer treatment in the United States. Why the hell are they wasting time, money and energy on this nonsense?

[Gary Gunnels]

Phil,

I'm not saying that its a good idea, just that the contract likely has a clause which allows for the breaking of the lease.

[rst]

I wonder how long until somebody notices that our diets of high sodium with low potassium, partially hyrdogenated soybean oil, BHT, and phenylketones do far more long-term damage than high LDL. Heart attacks are the in-thing in medical science. Blaming somebody else for your lack of self-control is the in-thing in society. Bad combination.

The public wants the Cleveland Clinic, not the state legislature, to manage the food service in its facilities.

Dude, the public wants to eat lunch. Feeding is so instinctive you might as well model the food-consuming public as cattle. They're not standing in line worried that Tony is watching them, they're waiting to scarf a Big Mac. There is no medical need to avoid McDonald's entirely; it is irresponsible and inappropriate for Dr. Cosgrove to act based on the unfounded premise that there is such a need. Of course it's neither illegal nor unconstitutional for him to try to chase McDonald's away, merely stupid and wasteful.

[Gary Gunnels]

Our local hospital has an Au Bon Pain in its food court. I seriously doubt that all the brie I eat there is good for my heart. 🙂

[Ruthless]

"Fatwa on Ruthless, for totally lacking Ruth."

Mullah Henry,
Since you feel so strongly about it, I'll stop licking Ruth already.

[Ken Shultz]

"I don't think Jared's gettin' the low fat combo anymore; I think he's gettin' the foot-long meatball with extra cheese, he's addin' two chocolate-chip cookies into the combo and he's flushin' it all down with a 44 oz Coke--not the Diet Coke."

I can see more than one side to what you guys are talkin' about, but I don't see how what you're talkin' about has anything to do with Jared's ass.

...I'm not sayin' he's got a fat ass; I'm just sayin' I don't have any evidence either way.

[joe]

I'm done correcting you, Gil. Every time I do so, he defends himself with an ever more-error-filled post. Boring.

I've noticed that the partriarchs at the Reason Institute don't sell The Daily Worker. Just as the partriarchs at the Cleveland Institute don't want to sell Big Macs.

The institute isn't forbidding its staff and patients from eating pizza or burgers. They still have that liberty. There are plenty of burger and pizza joints in Cleveland. It's just a little less convenient to make that choice. We all acknowledge that failure to make an action more convenient is not the same thing as infringing on people's liberty to perform that action, right?

The Institute has decided it's a good idea to make that choice less convenient, just as Reason has. The Institute has decided that it would be wrong to make money by furthering the consumption of heart-harmful food, just as Reason has decided it would be wrong to make money by furthering the spread of Communism. Even if making it easier for people to read The Daily Worker wouldn't actually spread Communism, I can still respect Reason's decision to disadvantage the spread of those ideas, even if only symbolically. It would send the wrong message - as would offering Big Macs for sale at a cardiac care center.

As for the assertion that eating Big Macs isn't bad for your heart - you'll all understand if I side with the huge majority of scientists, doctors, and nutritionists over y'all, right?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Eating Big Macs isn't bad for your heart if you consume them as an occasional treat. Duh.

[rst]

As for the assertion that eating Big Macs isn't bad for your heart

Your statement is too general; the agreement you would get would be based on ignorance of scientific principles and/or a pre-existing bias. The correct statement is, "eating more Big Macs than your activity level can sustain is bad for your heart."

I've noticed that the partriarchs at the Reason Institute don't sell The Daily Worker. Just as the partriarchs at the Cleveland Institute don't want to sell Big Macs.

One difference is that the former is a decision that likely everybody at the Reason Institute would support; its members would be no more likely to read that rag (were it still in circulation, I guess the appropriate analogue would be People's World) than the people who decide what the Reason Institute sells. And the Cleveland Clinic doesn't sell Big Macs. McDonald's sells them. Cleveland Clinic leases space to a restaurant to give people something other than hospital food to eat. Eating too much McDonald's wasn't any "better" for you 10 years ago; maybe the Clinic should have considered that before they signed on the dotted line.

[Gilbert Martin]

"I'm done correcting you, Gil. Every time I do so, he defends himself with an ever more-error-filled post. Boring."

LOL

You never "corrected" me Joe - I gotcha and you have no answer.

YOU LOST!

[joe]

"Eating Big Macs isn't bad for your heart if you consume them as an occasional treat."

Actually, they are. It's just a question of how bad. Your body is capable of taking a certain amount of punishment before you suffer actual harm, but they're still not good for you.

"And the Cleveland Clinic doesn't sell Big Macs. McDonald's sells them." Oh, please, rst. They make money off the leases, it's being done from their property. But yes, it was a mistake to offer them the lease 10 years ago.

OK, Gil. I lost. Go celebrate. Buh bye.

[Ayn_Randian]

Regardless of all this, joe is failing to admit that this is just another Anointed crusade against the face of what they think ails us all. Too much consumerism? go after Wal-Mart. Too much smoking? Go after RJR. Too much fatty food? Ban McDonald's...that's the ticket.

"I'm the official, appointed by the democratically-elected government, to enforce the policies enacted by that government. Sort of like the Director of the Cleveland Clinic.

IF the director of the clinic gets to operate like a private property owner..."

Yeah, but guess what joe? How can a public official get to act like a private property owner in this case and not in the case that Gil brought up about unions?

[joe]

And you seem to assume that no one but true believing libertoids utilizes the Reason Institute or RPPI. I don't think that's accurate, nor is it their mission.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Yeah, but guess what joe? How can a public official get to act like a private property owner in this case and not in the case that Gil brought up about unions?"

Don't ask for any consistency from Joe. "Private property rights" as a principle for non-interference are only invoked by him when the "private" decision happens to coincide with something he likes.

[joe]

"How can a public official get to act like a private property owner in this case and not in the case that Gil brought up about unions?"

He isn't exactly a public official - he's the director of a nonprof that gets public money. My point was that whether he's subject to the constraints of a public official, or has the freedom of action of a private property owner, he still gets to decide what goes on in the clinic he's running.

In neither case is he compelled to sell McNuggets - even if YOU really, really think he should.

[Ayn_Randian]

Except that he's neither because the Clinic is a non-prof that receives government funds...kind of like a public university with a big endowment doesn't get to restrict freedom of speech. Furthermore, I somehow doubt you would've seized on this with the same zeal or posted your first smarmy comment if it had been the organic yogurt stand getting booted.

I have never really expected consistency, Gil, just some kind of sense.

[Ellie]

The issue here is whether McDonalds is putting a FAT-wa on us all.

I laughed way too damn hard at that.

[joe]

How does being a non-prof that receives government funds leave them with an affirmative duty to sell unhealthy food?

No, I wouldn't be as supportive if they got rid of an organic yogurt stand, because eating organic yogurt isn't causing high levels of heart disease. But at least you're in the ballpark, addressing this on the merits of selling fast foot at a cardiac center, rather than insisting on some kind of "right" to buy the slop.

[Junyo]

Your body is capable of taking a certain amount of punishment before you suffer actual harm, but they're still not good for you.

So you don't suffer any actual (i.e. " existing in act and not merely potentially") harm, but you're still harmed? Financially, emotionally, what? Help me out, someone... anyone...

[rst]

but they're still not good for you.

Neither is coffee, but I don't see Tony firebombing the Starbucks like a WTO protester.

affirmative duty to sell unhealthy food?

There is no affirmative duty for the clinic to sell food at all. They have a legal obligation to honor the lease they signed ten years ago, way back when the Big Mac had 30g of fat like it does today, we knew the difference between LDL and HDL cholesterol, and just as many were dropping dead of heart disease anyway. The Clinic had no complaints then. Why now?

But yes, it was a mistake to offer them the lease 10 years ago.

Exactly, a mistake they must live with for another ten years. But perhaps when the lease is up, Tony can get rid of the McDonald's and while he's at it, demolish the Ronald McDonald house over on Euclid. After all, there's no honor in housing the homeless if your funding comes from selling Deathburgers and Fries.

To say nothing for the drug store that sells cigarettes.

And while we're at it, so much air pollution -- to which is attributed the meteoric rise in childhood asthma (which is actually due to the diagnosis thereof, not incidence) -- is generated by the half-dozen parking lots, and right near the cancer center no less!

They make money off the leases, it's being done from their property.

It's where I think you're going with this that scares me. Legal liability in this country is already heavily skewed towards pussies who couldn't possibly be held responsible for their own shortcomings. I see dystopic times ahead, when some overweight, retired nurses decide to sue the Cleveland Clinic for signing the lease that put the McDonald's within temptation's reach of their widening asses. I'd rather nip that nonsense in the bud now.

[Gilbert Martin]

"How does being a non-prof that receives government funds leave them with an affirmative duty to sell unhealthy food?"

How does receiving government funds leave a Univeristy with an affirmative duty to create womens sports teams in proportion with mens teams?

Either govt funding is a justification for external influence over internal decisions of the recepient entity in ALL circumstances or NO circumstances.

[rst]

errrr..."Toby". My b.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

You need to stop the windmill charging.

________________________________________

You know one thing the good director could do is to set up a fund where he gives people discount coupons to visit Subway. It would take only a modest amount of seed money for a $1-2 discount (with maybe a free sandwich day thrown in) and I bet a heck of lot of area businesses would love to chip in, including Subway; of course the good director could also contribute to this fund. I dunno, that's just one idea from this bleeding-heart libertarian. 🙂

[joe]

Coffee IS good for you; you take that back, rst!

As for the chain of liability - easy there, big fella. Just as media outlets and parade groups have the right to exclude speech they dislike, so do property owners have the right to exclude commerce they dislike. That's the only place I'm "going with this."

But, just as a general suggestion, rejecting facts or principles because somewhere down the line, they could be used to justify a policy you dislike, is bad mental hygeine. A statement doesn't become any less true because you're afraid someone could use that statement to make a political argument.

"How does receiving government funds leave a Univeristy with an affirmative duty to create womens sports teams in proportion with mens teams?"

It's called Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, Gil. Do you have a similar citation that requires recipients of federal funds to sell low-quality cheeseburgers?

[Gary Gunnels]

Area businesses would of course have the option of advertising on the "heart healthy" coupons. 🙂

[Shem]

Can someone please explain to me what exactly the group that gets Federal money and therefore has to live by Federal discrimination/hiring/wage standards has in common with this situation? As far as I can tell, the Feds have yet to demand affirmative action for crappy food, and the rules against breach of contract are codified into law, not the stipulations for further receipt of monies, so how is bringing those issues up anything other than a strawman?

[Ken Shultz]

"I can see more than one side to what you guys are talkin' about, but I don't see how what you're talkin' about has anything to do with Jared's ass."

It's pretty obvious to me that you're all talking around the real issue here, which is, of course, the size of Jared's ass.

[Gilbert Martin]

"It's called Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, Gil. Do you have a similar citation that requires recipients of federal funds to sell low-quality cheeseburgers?"

LOL

I know what the source of the federal regulation is.

That's not the point - the inconsistency of your stated position is.

Everyone here knows it no matter how much you try to wriggle out of it.

[db]

God DAMN it!

It's simple:

Breaking Contract: wrong!

Eating McD's after 4x bypass: Inadvisable!

Subsequently dying of Heart Attack due to said ingestion of fast food: YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT!

So stop trying to piss on the McDonald's, since there are plenty of other options for food at the hospital.

[thoreau]

In another thread related to obesity, Matt J wrote:

Libertarians may be quick to dismiss external factors, but you seem quick to dismiss personal responsibility.

I think this basically sums it up. Everybody else doesn't seem to care that external factors might affect obesity, and joe doesn't seem to care that personal responsibility might affect obesity. So everybody argues past each other like a bunch of college students up late at night arguing nature vs. nurture, failing to recognize that the most interesting insights usually come from studying the interplay of different factors rather than a stark A vs. B debate.

So, by all means, continue the food fight!

[Ayn_Randian]

Here's how it breaks down:

first, joe thought this was a good idea because having McDonald's in a heart hospital is like having a smoking bar...blah blah blah. He ignored the fact that there are occasional indulgers and social eaters, and that this attempt completely ignores those people.
(SHIFT)
second, he shifts the attack to "libertoids" by trying to throw property rights back in our face. I shut him down by telling him that the Clinic is not entirely private. oops.
(SHIFT AGAIN)
third, he then states that the director is a public offical we've entrusted to make the decisions about the Clinic and basically said this guy gets to act like a private property owner with public money. Gil brings up the example of universities and Title IX and joe makes some disanalogous statement that there's a law for discrimination.

Joe, your constant shifting doesn't make your position any more tenable. Gil's right, either public money means you get to regulate what they do or you don't, doesn't matter if there's a law for one and not for the other. The public pays for Cleveland clinic, let them decide about McDonald's.

And don't forget that contract...

[J]

...and what the hell is this "The Grimace" shit? His name is just Grimace.

[mac]

This seems like a damn good libertarian attempt to influence eating habits. A hospital offering Big Macs, despite the advice of its own physicians, is not necessarily an ethical entity. They are, of course, helping to ensure better cash flow by encouraging doctors, nurses and patients to harden more arteries...

A hospital getting rid of McDonalds is NOT government interference. It is a private entity practicing its own policies, to advance its own goals--in this case, eating fewer Big Macs.

They are asking to buy out McDonalds contract; McDonalds would be wise to take them up on it, or McD's will continue to get negative press, even in Libertarian publications like this one.

[thoreau]

Should the NASA gift shop carry literature from the Flat Earth Society?

[Ayn_Randian]

mac maybe you missed where the argument is over what the Clinic can do because it receives beau coups public funds, paid for in part by yours truly

[TWC]

Fyodor, I wasn't ragging on Joe and I do officially note right here that I saw his comment wherein he specifically states that breaking the lease isn't kosher.

I also agree that if the Fat Polezei from the heart ward want McDonalds out it's okay (except for that pesky little lease part).

RE: "finding the villian" --A direct response to Nick's remark that "it's kind of hard to know who the villain really is". Still say it isn't. The Fat Police Heart Surgeon is the villian for his inability to respect the contract and act nice. He may well be right about getting the fast fooders out on principal but it's pretty thin when he wants them out. Or Frikking Else.

Further agree that Nick's angle was the FAT issue more than the lease issue, but the lease is what makes it interesting.

And I was making an attempt to simplify as if we lived in a world far less polluted with public entities, tax supported services, etc, etc, etc

[Ken Shultz]

"...and what the hell is this "The Grimace" shit? His name is just Grimace."

Stop trying to change the subject!

Yes, Grimace has a fat ass. What does that have to do with the size of Jared's ass?

...nothing!

[pococurante]

In a perfect world, patients emerging from visits to the cardiologist would follow their doctors' advice and avoid the in-house McD. In the real world, however, all free will goes out the window when the smell of those fries wafts down the corridor. 😉 Seriously, though, I wonder if any patients complained. Ethically (not legally), obviously it sets a bad example by suggesting that a) the hospital approves of McD's menu and judges it wholesome or b) the hospital is interested only in profits/recouping losses at the expense of patients' (and staff's) health.

What if they had a mini-McD's serving only salads and milk? Would that be acceptable?

[David Rollins]

"Eating Big Macs isn't bad for your heart if you consume them as an occasional treat."
Actually, they are. It's just a question of how bad. Your body is capable of taking a certain amount of punishment before you suffer actual harm, but they're still not good for you.
Joe, I can't believe no one is mentioning the guy in the movie who eats 3-4 big macs a day. Didja see thay guy? He is rail-thin. His secret, according to his wife: no fries.

Ken, you're cracking me up. Do you have any documentary evidence or Jared websites for consideration by the H&R brain trust?

[foobie]

Point 1: MacDonalds food sucks.

Point 2: joe is wrong. The justification for Title IX was the receipt of federal funds by the universities and not the other way around. Either receiving public funds is justification for overriding the private interests of an organization in all cases, or it is justification in no cases. Picking and choosing is just hypocracy.

Point 3: Jared and Grimace are both fat asses.

Point 4: If the clinic in the armpit of the world (oops, I mean Cleveland) can break the 20 year contract by paying a buyout cost, then the management of the clinic is guilty of fiduciary misconduct for squandering funds (whether public or private) for making what is going to be nothing more than an empty gesture. Gesticulating wildly and pontificating about the evils of food with some fat in it does nothing to address the real problem, which is the willing abrogation of personal responsibility. I know that liberals like to think that personal responsibility is a myth and does not exist, but personal responsibility is the only thing that will actually improve one's health (among other things). The intervention of government agencies and snivelling nanny-bots have zero value whatsoever.

Point 5: MacDonalds food still sucks.

[Warren]

"MacDonalds (sic) food sucks"

Yep, that explains why so few people eat it... oh wait

[Dogzilla]

It seems to me the good doctor, in biting the hand that feeds his (future) patients, is trying to dry up business for his own clinic.
And why do public health kommisars always insist too many people are dying from cardiovascular disease? What would they prefer? Heroin overdoses? Gunshot wounds? Dying of a heart attack or stroke is (usually) proof you've made it to old age. Supersize it, oldsters!, you've earned it.

[kevrob]

I'm the official, appointed by the democratically-elected government, to enforce the policies enacted by that government. - joe

And when said policies contravene the fifth amendment's ban on uncompensated takings, you are acting ultra vires and should resign, along with the idiot legislators who wrote the unconstitutional laws, and any bureaucrats who wrote the implementing regulations.

Kevin

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"They are asking to buy out McDonalds contract; McDonalds would be wise to take them up on it, or McD's will continue to get negative press"

I disagree. They should fight this over principle, or they will be overwhelmed by the nanny-bots at the end. Look at Big Tabacco. Since they started apologizing, and making deals with the government, the looked like a bunch of fucking douchbags. I'm actually hoping now that they get cornholed.

Hardee's just came out with a Monster Thickburger as a "fuck you" to the anti-supersize fascists. I believe it's about 2/3 of "beef" and bacon substance, and probably taste like ass, but I'll buy one anyway. From what I understand, the lawyers are already mobilizing against Hardee's.

[Russ D]

I don't see why a facility dedicated to improving cardiac health is supposed to have some kind of affirmative duty to provide artery-clogging food to its staff and patients.

Jeez, ever heard of drumming up business??

[Lowdog]

foobie - yes, you are correct sir! On all counts.

[David Rollins]

From what I understand, the lawyers are already mobilizing against Hardee's.

Do you really have any evidence to support this, or does it just embellish your point? Hardee's doesn't have nearly the deep pockets of McD's.

However, I also enjoy the "fuck-yous" to the food nazis. Whenever I'm on the west coast I love the double double at In & Out.

Hardee's used to have this sourdough burger / breakfast sandwich combination back in the mid-90s (perhaps they still do). It used to vie with the BK croissanwich as the most unhealthy (and delicious) thing you could possibly put in your mouth. The denouement is putting so much butter on the bread.

[drf]

gary,

there's an au bon pain at the CCF too - it's at the beginning of the skyway leading from the A building.

it's funny, the mc donalds wasn't there when i did my summer jobs there, but that's years ago back when the A building was still new, all the prefixes were 444-xxxx, and internal calls were the simple final four digits....

and i don't remember seeing it when i was there as a patient a few years ago, but then again i don't remember much from those days...

as a 501 C3, not for profit, saying it's "not private" is stretching it a bit.

one thing about health that drives me crazy is that people aren't willing to walk across the rubble and modify their lifestyles. diet and exercise. avoid trendy, strange diets.

hmmmmmm.

[kevrob]

Hardee's sister company, Carl's Jr., has brought out a burger/egg combo, The Breakfast Burger.

http://www.qsrmagazine.com/shells/full.phtml?id=4366

The Breakfast Burger features a fried egg, bacon, hash brown nuggets, cheese, ketchup, and a charbroiled all-beef patty, on a sesame-seed bun. Participating Carl's Jr. restaurants will offer The Breakfast Burger during morning hours, for a suggested retail price of $2.39.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..................

Kevin

[joe]

Randian, "The public pays for Cleveland clinic, let them decide about McDonald's." The public, through their elected representatives, have chosen to delegate that power to the Director. If they find his service unsatisfactory, they are free to fire him, or order him to change his policies.

You can keep sqeezing the trigger on the hypocrisy gun and hoping you hit a target, but the central fact of the debate remains - what goes on in that clinic is the Director's call. He decided that selling McDonald's and Pizza Hut was contrary to the Institute's mission. You can either demonstrate that this decision violates some right (except for the breaking the lease, a tangential point we all agree on), or you can demonstrate that selling high fat, high sodium, high cholesterol food is NOT contrary to the mission of an organization that promotes cardiac health. You've done neither; all you've managed so far is to say "I don't like his decision," on the grounds that deciding which food to serve ont he basis of its health is a violation of "the spirit of freedom."

Why does the Director have a responsibility to make sure McDonald's is served in his clinic? Hint: "joe's a hypocrite" does not answer that question.

kevrob, the people directed by the Constitution to determine the allowable scope of government power disagree with you on the definition of "uncompensated takings." If my marching orders change, I'll adjust accordingly, but you aren't in charge of making that determination.

[kevrob]

kevrob, the people directed by the Constitution to determine the allowable scope of government power disagree with you on the definition of "uncompensated takings."

More's the pity. That doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.

If my marching orders change, I'll adjust accordingly, but you aren't in charge of making that determination.

I'd have hoped that a statist who is for some reason compelled to continually visit and comment on a libertarian site might get a clue that many of us consider you a tool of the "enemy." Oh, and that "marching orders" stuff - but Godwin forbids.

Kevin

[drf]

"Randian, "The public pays for Cleveland clinic, let them decide about McDonald's." "

it is not a publically funded institution. it's a 501 c3. it does get grants from public and private sources. but it is private with its own board of governors. it issues bonds. etc. it has been great for the community, although not always viewed as such.

maybe breaking the lease was wrong, maybe not. but yes they have the right to do so. notre dame fired their coach before time , after all.

but it is most definitely not sucking at the public teat.

[David Rollins]

Lay off of joe, he may be a statist but he is occasionally on target. Though not on this issue, certainly.