So I've been watching the Vancouver Olympics on and off (you're almost forced to watch because there's no new programming on any other station), and I was surprised to learn from several ads that McDonald's is the event's Official Restaurant. In fact, this is the company's 8th straight time to have this role at The Games. The McDonald's corporate website has a large section dedicated to their involvement in the games, including the three new restaurants they had to build in the Vancouver and Olympic Village areas in order to "serve our fresh, quality food to the thousands of athletes, media and fans".
Now maybe it's just me, but doesn't this seem like a strange partnership? On one side you've got athletes in peak condition who have probably been on restricted diets since they were kids. On the other side you've got got a worldwide purveyor of nutritionally-deficient fast food that pushes its customers to eat an unhealthy amount of calories (even if you're only eating there once a day). While it's understandable that Olympic athletes might enjoy the occasional greasy burger or salty fries, I find it difficult to believe that they eat at McDonalds on a regular basis - if that was the case, they probably wouldn't have been able to earn a spot on their nation's Olympic team.
So what does it say about the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that they gladly take money from McDonald's every two years in exchange for selling-out their ideals? I mean, isn't the Olympics about honoring the best that humans can be when it comes to health and fitness? Olympic athletes are supposed to be role models for kids - I can't even begin to count the number of news stories I've seen or heard about how this year's competitors are inspiring the next generation of Olympians. Yet at the same time, kids who are watching the Olympics on television are also being told that they should eat McDonald's food - not only for all the normal reasons the company offers up, but also because their new-found heroes eat it, too! To make things even worse, McDonald's runs a kids program that, according to their website, "gives children from around the world a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to experience the Games firsthand," including "attending Olympic Winter Games events, meeting athletes, visiting the Olympic Village, Vancouver, touring cultural sites, and more." If that kind of VIP treatment doesn't turn kids into Big Mac eating zombies for life, I don't know what would.
Yet once the games are over and the news ceases to be just another promotional vehicle for NBC's coverage, there will be stories (like there always are) about how more and more Americans are overweight, especially children. Then there will be lots of pundits debating the merits of legislation that would tax sugary sodas or otherwise discourage the consumption of unhealthy food. How dare the government ask us to eat less fattening food - the Olympic athletes eat fast food and look how healthy they are!
It would be great if some of the Olympic athletes told kids that achieving the height of fitness is really hard work, and that you can't expect to compete in the Olympics if you don't watch what you eat. But I bet they had to sign an agreement before getting to The Games, promising they wouldn't disparage any of the event's sponsors either on-camera or off. Because after all, it just wouldn't be right to put something as important as children's health above the IOC's profit.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
For the Greater Good
By now, we're all aware of the Mark Foley Congressional page scandal, and some of us are probably familiar with the scandals surrounding Curt Weldon, Jim Kolbe and Harry Reid. It may be three Republicans and one Democrat, but the tables could easily be turned, because in my opinion, they're all corrupt. And with only two choices at the polls, the poor American public is faced with choosing between corrupt and corrupter in most races. (Maybe someone can get Jim Carrey to do a sequel).
Yesterday, I read an article about how Democrats agreed on an election focus or "catch phrase," which can be boiled down to "for the common good". (Personally, I'd tweak that slightly to "for the greater good". The common good implies appealing to the lowest common denominator, while the greater good conjures up ideas of a better and more beneficial tomorrow for all Americans.) Regardless, with election (and scandal) season upon us, here are a few policy suggestions for the Democrats if the common good is truly their concern.
Congressional Term Limits
I'm sure there is a fairly large learning curve for new congressmen and senators, but let's face it -- after several years in Congress, our representatives lose touch with the people for whom they supposedly speak. When the Greeks invented the democratic and elective system, they intended for representatives to hold other jobs before and after serving "the people". In their minds, the idea of a "career politician" was a contradiction in terms because no person could continue to speak for the people after they had become fully integrated into a political machine.
Public Financing of Political Campaigns
Our current system favors the wealthy over the smart, the rich over the innovative, the out-of-touch over the of-the-people. Further aggregating the problem is our two party system which weeds out anyone who might have novel approaches to solving today's complex issues. If we removed the ability of individuals to directly contribute to their own and others' political campaigns and instead used a limited amount of tax dollars to fund all candidates equally, we'd end up with more than two unappealing candidates from which to choose on election day. In addition, elected officials wouldn't end up "owing" favors to big doners, and they wouldn't be motivated to overfill their coffers to fund future campaigns.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Most people may not know it, but Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (familiarly known as "The Oscars") uses to select their winners. It's a pretty simple and intuitive system -- voters rank candidates in order of preference. This is most easily understood by comparison to an everyday situation. My boyfriend often picks up breakfast for me in the morning. When he asks what I want, I usually say "A croissant, but if they don't have that, a muffin, preferably blueberry, or apple cinnamon if they don't have that". We've all been through a similar mental process. IRV is the same thing, just with political candidates.
The benefits of this system are many -- voters don't have to adopt an "either or" mentality, third parties have a better chance at winning and the so-called "spoiler effect" is eliminated. At the end of the day, the candidate who is most preferred by voters is the winner. For a real life example, look at the 2004 election where Nader was blamed for "stealing" votes from Gore. (This isn't really a great example because Gore lost his own state of Tennessee and more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than Nader, but it's the most widely cited case). Liberal voters could have ranked Nader first, Gore second and Bush third -- without having to feel like they were throwing away their vote -- because if Nader got the fewest votes, his votes would have been transferred to those voters' second choice, which in most cases would have been Gore. This would have resulted in a Gore win because Gore was most preferred by the electorate.
Subsidized Living Expenses for Elected Officials
When you are elected to a position that requires you to work away from home most of the time, you need a second home. As a former resident of the D.C. metropolitan area, I can attest that it's not cheap to live near the capital. For a few months, I considered running for a State Assembly position in California, but when I realized that I couldn't afford a second rent in Sacramento, it soon became an unrealistic goal. The ultimate result of this is that only wealthy people can afford to be elected officials, again eliminating the possibility of third party and "of the people" candidates running for office. But if the government subsidized housing and living expenses for congressmen and senators, the playing field would be leveled and voters would have more (and hopefully better) options come November.
All of these things would result in a more representative government, one that could make decisions based on the needs and desires of the people rather than those of corporations and wealthy campaign doners. Of course, the Democrats are just as opposed to these ideas as the Republicans, something that often comes as a shock to progressives who think that the Democratic party is more concerned about the average citizen than the GOP. And so I issue this challenge to the Democrats this election season -- if you truly believe that you are the party for the "common good", will you make good on your election year promises and return the power to the people as our Founding Fathers intended?
Technorati Tags: Elections, Democratic Party, GOP, Republican Party, Scandal, Mark Foley, Harry Reid, Curt Weldon, Jim Kolbe, Pages, Voting, Politics, Political Campaigns, Public Financing, IRV, Instant Runoff Voting, Campaign Finance Reform, Term Limits, Common Good, Greater Good
Yesterday, I read an article about how Democrats agreed on an election focus or "catch phrase," which can be boiled down to "for the common good". (Personally, I'd tweak that slightly to "for the greater good". The common good implies appealing to the lowest common denominator, while the greater good conjures up ideas of a better and more beneficial tomorrow for all Americans.) Regardless, with election (and scandal) season upon us, here are a few policy suggestions for the Democrats if the common good is truly their concern.
Congressional Term Limits
I'm sure there is a fairly large learning curve for new congressmen and senators, but let's face it -- after several years in Congress, our representatives lose touch with the people for whom they supposedly speak. When the Greeks invented the democratic and elective system, they intended for representatives to hold other jobs before and after serving "the people". In their minds, the idea of a "career politician" was a contradiction in terms because no person could continue to speak for the people after they had become fully integrated into a political machine.
Public Financing of Political Campaigns
Our current system favors the wealthy over the smart, the rich over the innovative, the out-of-touch over the of-the-people. Further aggregating the problem is our two party system which weeds out anyone who might have novel approaches to solving today's complex issues. If we removed the ability of individuals to directly contribute to their own and others' political campaigns and instead used a limited amount of tax dollars to fund all candidates equally, we'd end up with more than two unappealing candidates from which to choose on election day. In addition, elected officials wouldn't end up "owing" favors to big doners, and they wouldn't be motivated to overfill their coffers to fund future campaigns.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Most people may not know it, but Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (familiarly known as "The Oscars") uses to select their winners. It's a pretty simple and intuitive system -- voters rank candidates in order of preference. This is most easily understood by comparison to an everyday situation. My boyfriend often picks up breakfast for me in the morning. When he asks what I want, I usually say "A croissant, but if they don't have that, a muffin, preferably blueberry, or apple cinnamon if they don't have that". We've all been through a similar mental process. IRV is the same thing, just with political candidates.
The benefits of this system are many -- voters don't have to adopt an "either or" mentality, third parties have a better chance at winning and the so-called "spoiler effect" is eliminated. At the end of the day, the candidate who is most preferred by voters is the winner. For a real life example, look at the 2004 election where Nader was blamed for "stealing" votes from Gore. (This isn't really a great example because Gore lost his own state of Tennessee and more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than Nader, but it's the most widely cited case). Liberal voters could have ranked Nader first, Gore second and Bush third -- without having to feel like they were throwing away their vote -- because if Nader got the fewest votes, his votes would have been transferred to those voters' second choice, which in most cases would have been Gore. This would have resulted in a Gore win because Gore was most preferred by the electorate.
Subsidized Living Expenses for Elected Officials
When you are elected to a position that requires you to work away from home most of the time, you need a second home. As a former resident of the D.C. metropolitan area, I can attest that it's not cheap to live near the capital. For a few months, I considered running for a State Assembly position in California, but when I realized that I couldn't afford a second rent in Sacramento, it soon became an unrealistic goal. The ultimate result of this is that only wealthy people can afford to be elected officials, again eliminating the possibility of third party and "of the people" candidates running for office. But if the government subsidized housing and living expenses for congressmen and senators, the playing field would be leveled and voters would have more (and hopefully better) options come November.
All of these things would result in a more representative government, one that could make decisions based on the needs and desires of the people rather than those of corporations and wealthy campaign doners. Of course, the Democrats are just as opposed to these ideas as the Republicans, something that often comes as a shock to progressives who think that the Democratic party is more concerned about the average citizen than the GOP. And so I issue this challenge to the Democrats this election season -- if you truly believe that you are the party for the "common good", will you make good on your election year promises and return the power to the people as our Founding Fathers intended?
Technorati Tags: Elections, Democratic Party, GOP, Republican Party, Scandal, Mark Foley, Harry Reid, Curt Weldon, Jim Kolbe, Pages, Voting, Politics, Political Campaigns, Public Financing, IRV, Instant Runoff Voting, Campaign Finance Reform, Term Limits, Common Good, Greater Good
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
