this is hard to follow, and i wrote it. i apologize.

i've been wondering when the lawsuits against fast food chains would start. i've recently stopped, as they've started. it doesn't surprise me. we want both things at the same time. we, of course, being americans. we want our food, we want it now, we want it deluxe and double and extra and supersized, and with as large a percentage of it fried as possible. oh and in an oil that has no redeeming qualities, while we are at it. and then we also want to not die because of diet and weight related issues.

most of all we want every freedom we can possibly amass to be able to live in a society where this is possible. in at least a few european countries, it is illegal to advertise to children through television. perhaps more specifically or more broad than i have just said, but something to that effect. while we claim everything from asbestos litigation to less msg is for the children, we let advertisers turn them into consumer advisors for every home. it would be a good idea to not allow this [and many other similar things] to happen, but companies spend money to tell lobbyists to tell politicians, and us that this is bad and dangerous and unconstitutional. like it was dug from the earth and is unchangeable. [and don't get me started on equal application of..]

then we want to punish those who allow us such fattening possibilities. perhaps they should be punished, perhaps not. but even if they should be, giving millions or billions of dollars to hapless individuals doesn't do anything. the government won't allow the companies to be shut down because of court cases. if nothing else bankruptcy can keep that from happening. and then seventy people become millionaires because they ate improperly for years. perhaps give them a few thousand each, maybe. the rest should go to education, or the environment. it should. but then the government would just allow such things to continue, either subsidizing or privatizing funding for them, getting the gov't off the hook. again problem continues. it would be nice if we could just boycott them out of business, but fat chance of that happening. pun intended.

what i want to know is, how it went from cigarettes to fast food, and just sort of forgot about alcohol. i realize it is personal inability to do anything in moderation [see: this], but i find it curious. many people are quick to point out that smoking is a bad habit, or that it is a drain on society when they have to be taken care of. but alcohol, oh why it is a magical elixir of social lubrication and merriment. of course i think anyone should be free to do either, or whatever else they want.. i'm just curious.

and the other day i was thinking about university and degrees.. used to be that you could get by without anything more than high school, and with a bachelor's you could have a nice career. now it is almost laughable without a master's degree to do anything non-menial. and in a society with continually rising educational standards, or a continually rising intelligence level, such a thing would seem necessary. but we're about as stupid as we've ever been. so with more people going to university now, i'm wondering if this is a way for the rich to stay ahead. the standard gets set at a certain level for that year, and a horribly backwards plan is concocted that will take ten or twenty years to implement, meaning it will be only a decade late. in the meantime the standard has moved, and so no relative progress has been made. economic disparity is growing, why not educational. the two aren't unrelated.


baby listen
hear the train?" -ani


< << < : : >> > >
number 9.. .   .? andy andy andy, get your adverbs here

dinner's for suckers