Kevin's Watch

Tulizar wrote:

Lucimay wrote:in a coffee shop, if there is a tip jar, i put a buck in.

i don't care what anybody else does. i don't care if it's "correct" or not.
i don't care if they're not bringing my coffee to my table.

i put a buck in.


this is what i do. i'm not tellin anybody else to. its just what i do.

Sometimes I do the same thing in a pizza place with a tip jar.

Generally I tip too much at restaurants. I can appreciate what it's like to bust your ass at work.

Hey, it's your hard-earned, dowhatchalike. I think the tim jars on the counter are cheesy and I refuse to use them.

I tip for service that goes beyond what is required - sometimes that's a sincere smile, sometimes it's a suggestion for something I wouldn't have tried - I avoid McBucky's like the plague, which gives me an opportunity to go back and tip for a really well made latte'.

(And yes, there is a range of skill involved in making a good latte'. Almost all of it centers around the attention to detail shown by the person making it. The rest involves starting with a good coffee bean, which is why I leave the Starbuck's alone.)

well...as i said before...i'm not such an afficianado (is that how you spell that?) that i can discern one bean from another. i can tell if the beans are roasted too dark (burnt) but other than that...

and the bucky's people will do things for me that other coffee shop personel will not...

i like my capuccino with 3 raw sugars but if i wait till they're done making it i have to put them in myself and stir with those stupid wooden sticks.
that doesn't stir up the sugar good enough and so i ask them to put the sugar in while they're making it...and stir it with their long spoons...make the foam brown so it has flavor.

they do extra stuff for me, usually with a smile. i tip.

Lucimay's sig wrote:unfettered is bettered

Just noticed the sig.

Just finished watching this. Horribly depressing - I've been following the CSPI for some time, plus, you know, I'm not an idiot, so it's not like I ever thought fast food was good for you, but still... having been a fast food junkie in the past (and I still haven't managed to cut it out completely), I am, quite literally, horrified by the effect it has on our bodies.

Top it off with the documentary Food Inc. and it will change your whole approach to food. The two documentaries give you a through education. I found Food Inc. a bit more optimistic.

There was another movie (lesser known, of course) made by someone who ate nothing but McDonalds for a month and they lost weight. It's not the restaurant, or the food, it's the consumer. McDonalds is not worse than other fast food. Many of its menus choices are better.

A little bit of fact (well, Wikipedia) to balance the depression:

Critics of the film, including McDonald's, argue that the author intentionally consumed an average of 5,000 calories per day and did not exercise, and that the results would have been the same regardless of the source of overeating.[13] He was eating solely McDonald's food in keeping with the terms of a potential judgment against McDonald's in court documents highlighted at the beginning of the film. However, in the comedic documentary reply Fat Head,[14] Tom Naughton "suggests that Spurlock's calorie and fat counts don't add up" and criticizes Spurlock's refusal to publish the Super Size Me food log; The Houston Chronicle reports: "Unlike Spurlock, Naughton has a page on his Web site that lists every item (including nutritional information) he ate during his fast-food month."[15] The film addresses such objections by highlighting that a part of the reason for Spurlock's deteriorating health was not just the high calorie intake but also the high quantity of fat relative to vitamins and minerals in the McDonald's menu, which is similar in that regard to the nutritional content of the menus of most other U.S. fast-food chains.

Soso Whaley, the owner of Literary Llama Productions (an independent film production company), made a reply[17] film called "Me & Mickey D."[18][19], in which she also ate all meals at McDonald's, yet lost weight -- 20 pounds over 60 days; 30 pounds in 90 days. Some of Whaley's requirements for her meals were the same as Spurlock's (had to eat everything on the menu over the course of the experiment, etc); but some were different (she didn't have to clean the plate -- Spurlock required himself to do so). Whaley also collected documentation in the form of itemized receipts for each meal, which Spurlock did not do. Whaley's results were quite different[20].

Likewise, fitness advocate Chazz Weaver also created a documentary[21] of his own 30-day McDonald's diet in response to Spurlock, and again results were entirely different from Spurlock's. Where Weaver's premise differed from Whaley's, however, was the commitment to exercise. Weaver acknowledged that without exercise, the fat-laden diet he ate at McDonald's would have resulted in a weight gain. The thrust of Weaver's thesis was an exercise plan. His result was weight loss (222 lbs down to 214 lbs), as well as improved blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides.

Bottom line: these movies can be entertaining, but don't treat them like a scientific experiment. Don't make decisions on nutritional matters (or even factual matters) based on movies. Documentaries are the most insidious form of fiction because they have the appearance of truth.

I enjoyed reading the book Fast Food Nation - a movie was made, but it seems to share only its title with the book. The book attempts to show the many facets of the entire US and/or global food distribution system, and our culture, that have been impacted/shaped by the rise of major fast food corporations/consortiums.
Vilify McDonalds all you want, but you still choose whether/when you eat McNuggets or not. There are some economic spillover effects on the rest of the food market from McD's actions - these are similar to the effect on your local grocery store from the WalMart that opened down the road. However, we are ultimately responsible for what we put in our mouths.
The only beef I have with McDonalds is ensuring that they make their nutritional information available. They have done this. So, as long as they aren't lying in their advertisements, they are who they are, and survive or not on their own merit. I eat their food when I decide to, but I can't call them evil while wiping McRib sauce off my lips, because that would just make me a hypocrite.

dw

OK, a few points:
1) The sample size for the movie was "1". This is hardly representative.

2) Eating the meals, but not forcing yourself to "clean the plate," is pointless - there's no way to account for what you did or didn't eat, so it's a worthless publicity grab for whoever did it.

3) Sporlock limited his steps every day to fit in with how much "average" Americans exercise. Make of that what you will. Many people, myself included, walk more than that in a day. Many people, on the other hand, walk less.

4) Results might not be typical (see #1), but is anyone seriously arguing that McDonalds' food is healthy? This food is not only nutritional garbage, it's also addictive because of all the fat & sugar. With those two facts combined, I'd say it's safe to assume that McDonald's is one of the leading contributors to obesity in the USA. Not that they're the only ones; I also blame the soda companies, the candy companies, the cereal companies and, especially, those lazy fat a**es who won't take care of their own bodies.

I have nothing against eating meat, but I don't think you need a 20 oz steak every night. Likewise, I have nothing against fat or sugar, consumed in the proper quantities. But certain types of food, such as fast food or frozen foods, tend to have disproportionate amounts of fat, sugar & salt. It's reasonable to limit your intake of such foods as much as possible, or even to cut them out entirely.

Tulizar wrote:I saw this movie last year. I remember a group of first graders are shown photos/pictures of famous historical figures such as George Washington, George Bush and Jesus among others. The one figure all of the children recognized was Ronald McDonald. Mmmm-mm supersize me!

When I was in high school I was convinced that Ronald McDonald was actually Ronald Reagan in disguise!
Here's Ronald...

Avatar wrote:

It's one of those movies I always mean to Watch. I've always been opposed to McDonalds though, mainly because of their corporate philosophy.

Apparently, their stated goal is to have nobody in the world more than 5 minutes from their nearest McDonalds.

I like the occasional fast food, but apart from anything else, it's too expensive to eat regularly.

--A

Corporate philosophy! Yeah. I hate every McDonald's commercial ever made, every slogan, every insipid, family friendly image...
But the worst ever was the series of condescending and racist commercials that suggested black people couldn't get jobs and that working for "Micky Dee's" would be an upward step!
This was while Public Enemy was at their peak, so you can imagine how much I hated that snide crap!

sgt.null wrote:i had Starbucks once. worst coffee i have ever had. i prefer prison coffee to the crap i had.
dunkin donuts makes the best ice coffee. except this one inmate who makes it taste just like sugar smacks. damn. diabetes cuts my coffee intake (i love the sugar in it)

Starbucks contains four times the caffeine content of regular coffee beans.
It is still overpriced and their corporate philosophy is second only to walmart as a prescription for ruining local businesses and encouraging suburban sprawl.
I really like the ice green tea latte!

___ wrote:

Cail wrote:There is nothing more perfect in life than a Dunkin' Doughnut's Boston Creme........

Krispy Kreme kicks Duncan's ass any day of the week.

Seconded.

If you liked "Super Size me" you might also enjoy "super high me," a documentary to study the effects of smoking pot non-stop for a solid month!

Sound like fun?

Wrong!

First he has to go one month without any drink or drugs to establish a baseline.

He also, in order to study the effects of cannabis on sperm count, forgo orgasms!

I saw that. It cracked me up that he actually did better on the SAT test when he'd been high for weeks than when he was sober.

Lord Zombiac wrote:

___ wrote:

Cail wrote:There is nothing more perfect in life than a Dunkin' Doughnut's Boston Creme........

Krispy Kreme kicks Duncan's ass any day of the week.

Seconded.

If you eat it as soon as the cashier hands it to you, then the Krispy Kream tastes like liquid sugar.

30 seconds later, it's either the same as, or worse, than any other donut (I say worse because some donuts have more than just sugar in them; these ones are better than the KKs).

And doesn't Duncan Donuts use Boyd's coffee? We used to have that at work, horrible stuff. While Starbucks might not be the best, at least I can drink it black. The mark of a good coffee is not needing to add anything to it.

Rigel wrote:Eating the meals, but not forcing yourself to "clean the plate," is pointless - there's no way to account for what you did or didn't eat, so it's a worthless publicity grab for whoever did it.

It may be worthless in terms of calculating exactly how many calories she ate. But since the Super Size me guy didn't provide his own food log, it's no worse than the original movie. It is certainly not worthless to show people that they can stop eating when they're full. Illustrating how to eat fast food and LOSE weight is an extremely worthwhile endeavor in our society. That's a much more empowering message than the victimhood message of the other movie.

Rigel wrote:3) Sporlock limited his steps every day to fit in with how much "average" Americans exercise. Make of that what you will. Many people, myself included, walk more than that in a day. Many people, on the other hand, walk less.

This is the part that's worthless. McDonalds isn't responsible for how much people exercise.

Rigel wrote:... is anyone seriously arguing that McDonalds' food is healthy? This food is not only nutritional garbage, it's also addictive because of all the fat & sugar.

I am arguing that McDonalds food is healthful ... or at least it can be if you eat in moderation and/or make wise choices. McDonalds offers 10 different salads, fresh fruit, oatmeal, grilled chicked, yogurt/fruit parfait, etc. Sure, they also serve burgers, fries and shakes. While these can be bad if over-consumed, they are certainly not "nutritional garbage" if you eat them in moderation. Potatoes are full of nutrients. Beef is an excellent source of protein.

Any food can make you fat if you overeat. Even salads and fruit.

The idea that this food is addictive has no basis in fact. Just because people like the way it tastes doesn't mean they have an addiction to it. That word that shifts the blame away from the consumer by reducing the relevance of their choice. People aren't addicted to burgers. They just don't give a damn about their health.

I eat grapefruit all the time. Multiple grapefruit a day. I guarantee you that I eat more grapefruit than most people eat burgers. I can't get enough of them. Am I addicted to grapefruit? It's silly to even pose the question. For some reason, we never accept the premise that fruits and vegetables can be addictive, no matter how much we eat them. Why? Probably because there is no PR campaign against them.

Rigel wrote:With those two facts combined, I'd say it's safe to assume that McDonald's is one of the leading contributors to obesity in the USA. Not that they're the only ones; I also blame the soda companies, the candy companies, the cereal companies and, especially, those lazy fat a**es who won't take care of their own bodies.

It's good to see you blame the individuals, too. But you might as well blame the cows if you're going to blame McDonalds. Or the grass which the cows eat. Or the sunlight which makes the grass grow. All of those are "contributing factors," if you go back far enough on the causal chain. In the end, the only thing that matters is personal choice. McDonalds isn't to blame--in any way--for people's choices. You might as well blame the car companies for reckless driving. After all, they make cars that go faster than the speed limit. Speed is addictive!

Rigel wrote:I have nothing against eating meat, but I don't think you need a 20 oz steak every night. Likewise, I have nothing against fat or sugar, consumed in the proper quantities. But certain types of food, such as fast food or frozen foods, tend to have disproportionate amounts of fat, sugar & salt. It's reasonable to limit your intake of such foods as much as possible, or even to cut them out entirely.

I agree it's reasonable to limit your intake of such foods. Even if we can agree on nothing else but this, then the movie has done a public service, and it should be praised for that. But on the other hand, in as much as this film obscures personal responsibility by giving people an exaggerated villian to blame for their own unhealthy choices, then it does just the opposite of a public service: it gives people an excuse to shift their responsibility away from themselves ... which is why I'm so passionately against it. Such anti-responsibility propoganda drives the irrational anti-corporatism and Big Government solutions that are destroying our sense of personal accountability and ultimately our freedom. Not only does it make people susceptible to arguments for more government regulation of the free market and personal choice, but it also fosters the illusion that one's personal health is out of our control, a proper issue for some bureaucrat to fix. If people would just make better choices, none of this would be necessary. Anything that obscures that fundamental truth robs people of their most precious, most powerful human trait: freewill. That belief system is catastrophically more damaging than any fast food.

McDonalds kills black children!

But the worst ever was the series of condescending and racist commercials that suggested black people couldn't get jobs and that working for "Micky Dee's" would be an upward step!

When my fiancée asked me if I wanted to see this I thought she said "Super Jaime!"