As IF Times

link Consumer group targets McDonald’s Happy Meal toys | Reuters.

In ways that make you want to scream, self appointed guardians of correct and acceptable behavior are constantly eroding people’s rights to live lives free from regulatory intrusion.  According to the story, this group, The Center for Science in the Public Interest is leaning on McDonald’s for their devious practice of linking toys to food.  Apparently the evil corporation is causing Pavlovian behaviour among innocent kids while parents stand by helplessly.

Does The Center for Science in the Public Interest not sound like some socialist government big brother agency you would find in an Orwell novel?  Or in China? or North Korea? Or in the old USSR? Who funds these guys? Does the government provide financial support for this group in order to manipulate acceptable behaviour by its own citizens?  You would have to think so given the clout they seem to have.  If this group is self funded, McDonald’s and others should tell them to go eat rice cakes.  

Frankly, if I was the parent of toddlers, I’d be insulted that these geniuses think that they know how to better rear my kids than I do.  Either they don’t  have kids or the ones they have are so spoiled rotten that they think the world needs regulation.  Bribery and inducement have always been the standard operating procedures for liberal parents.  This as opposed to the other, arguably more effective model of beating and berating practiced by most Asian families.  We know what happens to those poor kids: they wind up being doctors, dentists and scientists as revenge on their abusive parents.

But getting back to the bribery model so popular in modern society, eliminating this technique could incur consequences in unexpected ways.  For instance, the unemployment rate among Santa Clauses would spike in December.  The time honored deception of exhorting kids to be nice for fear of incurring Santa’s wrath would be disallowed if this group had their way.  Kids will have to be good for goodness’ sake.  As if.

Doing something in order to get something is the basis for life and is the standard operating procedure in all societies.  It is the basis for all advertising.  It is the basis for all human interaction.  That’s why we buy deodorant, cosmetics, clothes, cars and even homes.  Determining  which incentives are bad and which are good should not be for the government or any quasi government agency to decide in any free society.

What exactly is this consumer groups’ end game?  To bankrupt McDonald’s? To extort money from them for nutrition awareness? To push people off hamburgers?  If the food is so bad for you, why not just make it illegal?  Why not just put warning labels on the food wrappers as they do on cigarette packages?   I suggest perhaps pictures of very fat people on burger wrappers to scare off consumers.  WARNING, EATING THIS BURGER CAN TURN YOU INTO MICHAEL MOORE.  My guess is that at some point, the lure of Shrek toys to buy hamburgers will wane once the toddler gets to oh, say 25 years of age and they develop brain cells and some taste buds.  At some point, he will figure out that the toy isn’t worth eating the burger for.  This is a useful life skill.  At the very least it will prepare them for dating.

link Val Kilmer Fights Over Words in Bid to Convert New Mexico Ranch to B&B – WSJ.com.

This is the flip side of the free speech privilege.  Certainly you can say what you want in America for the most part, but people should know that there are consequences to what you say.  Hollywood celebrities are accustomed to having their pronouncements accepted as gospel by their adoring fans, agents and acolytes, but the fact is, much of what they say is plainly stupid, offensive or both and as in this case, people not in the fan circle may not be amused.  If you call your neighbours red neck drunks, don’t expect kisses blown at you if you meet them at the bar.  Whereas a witty wisecrack will get you a  mention in TMZ, in real life, it could get you a purple nerple.

Free speech means that opinions are offered for public consumption whether or not they have any basis of fact or redeeming value.  This blog is an example.   Hopefully the general public will over time be able to discern the nuggets of genuine thought from the verbal inanity that constitutes most of what passes as wisdom offered by ‘celebrities’.  By coincidence, I happened  to be browsing through a local bookstore recently and was amused to see weighty tomes of deep thought offered by the likes of Russell Brand, Steven Colbert and Jesse Ventura.  This should be an inspiration to all that in a free, capitalist society, even the likes of these people can convince a publisher to package their world views for public consumption.  As if the world is remotely interested.  We’re all awaiting the lucky publisher of Pee Wee Herman’s views on regressive taxation as well.

Can anyone imagine such pearls of wisdom being acceptable in places like Iran or China?   Anyone who argues that the western model of society is broken and that we should aim  to emulate  the socialist regimes of Cuba or Venezuela should attempt to have their lofty opinions published in those countries.  It’s altogether different  to have your thoughts exposed to an informed audience than it is to pander to a naive or uniformed fan base.  What most of these vocal celebs fail to grasp is that amusing people is not the same as enlightening people.  To paraphrase the inscription on the rear view mirrors of cars, “your opinions may matter less than you think”.

So, getting back to our hero Val, some intemperate comments made  about his neighbors in the past have come back to bite him.   All they’re asking for is an apology.  Frankly, I’d be surprised if anyone on the committee has lost a minute of  sleep over Kilmer’s past comments.  I think they’re just tired of ‘celebrites’ dissing the little folk without thought to consequences.  Come on Val, you’re an actor, act like you’re sorry.  That way you can believe that anyone really cares what you think.