Unhappy Meals

Did you see the latest outrage in control by the politically correct crowd here in the U.S., in San Francisco, this time? Now that the U.S. government has virtually castrated Americans with entitlements which they bottom feed and sell their souls and freedoms to get, the freebies that have turned us into a bad copy of failed socialist Europe, there is now even an attempt to control the simplest of child pleasures....the McDonald's Happy Meal.

I bought many Happy Meals (consisting of a small hamburger or chicken nuggets, french fries, a drink and the Happy Meal toy) for Jane and her friends when she was small. It's understood that Happy Meals are not models of nutrition, but should the government try to ban them on the basis of their being less nutritious than ideal? Kids need fun and fun food as much as they need a regimented diet of so called "healthy foods".

To try to legislate menus of p;rivate businesses is outrageous. But in this society where governemnt is mommy and daddy and we are all hooked on entitlement give-aways, it's not surprising that there has been little protest against such stupidity.In an effort to encourage kids to be "healthier", legislation was approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that would prevent toys from being included with Happy Meals, unless the meals met their approved set of nutritional guidelines. In other words, those bureaucrats are forcing a private business (Mc Donald's) to design a product to fit their own concept of proper child care. What happened to free enterprise?

But collectors of Happy Meal toys in San Francisco can breathe at least a momentary sigh of relief. They may be able to get the toys at McDonald's restaurants located in San Francisco ... for now. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsome, has bravely bucked the bueareaucrats and vetoed their bill, saying "Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money." San Francisco is concerned about the health of their children, but should lawmakers decide to make the decision about what should kids, and ultimatelty adults, be allowed to eat? Mayor Newsome's decision can be overturned, so we shall see if political ccrrectness will eventually trump reason.

Demogueging Mc Donald's and other fast food places as the cause for the above average rate childhood obeisety in the U.S. is bad enough, but personal decisons about kids should always be made by parents, unless there is specific abuse or harm from the parental choices. To any reasonable person, ordering a hamburger, french fries and a drink for a child does not qualify as abusive. In fact depriving children of such fun, bonding experiences may be more abusive to the psyche than is than feeding them a meal with a bit too much fat is abusive to the body.

Those who support this kind of crazy legislation should think about the ramifications of too much government intervention into private matters. Parents who dislike the Happy Meal experience should prepare the food they want their child to eat or, if not able to resist the pressure to take their little on to Mc Donald's choose something else on the menu for them.

It's such a tiny issue, yet it screams of what is a huge problem in U.S. today. That is, why do so many here want the government to make even the simplest decisions for them?