Friday, September 22, 2006

Junk food & the Hamster

Things I wish I'd thought of in order to make shed loads of money for very litlle effort include velcro, catseyes and bottling water. The last in the list rears its head as an adjunct to all this food police stuff that our all controlling government announced yesterday. This was accompanied by pictures of pondscum Mallard dancing - yuck. I have several beefs with all this the principal of which is the familiar 'We know what is good for you and you will do as you are told'. All the press releases are awash with 'new regulations', 'compliance' and the like. Obesity bad? - yes. In most instances it is the result of personal choice that one ends up this way. Removing 'junk food' from school tuck shops a good idea? Probably and certainly defensible. Stopping kids going to the dairy and buying a mince and cheese number if they want to a good idea? Hell no. Teachers as an arm of the state looking into pupils' lunch boxes that have been prepared by their parents with a view to regulating what the kid eats? No way Jose. If people, despite the evidence, want to be fat - fine by me. But what about all the costs to the health system the ensuing health problems produce? Easy, user pays. If your health problem is deemed to be self inflicted you pay for it - and you can't claim a 'benefit' for it either. I think it is called personal responsibility. And how is all this going to cost $68mil of my money? I assume advertising is going to chew up most of that. Well, before that money is spent I want evidence that the propsed advertising has a good, no make that excellent, chance of achieving its aims. What of the bottled water? Rudman (that man again) points out that the substitute for the Coke being taken out of the schools should be the tap and not the snake oil of the 21st century, designer water.
We are not alone. I, like many, am deeply saddened by the Hamster's plight. I really like him and the entire Top Gear triumverate. I wish him a speedy and as complete recovery as possible and my thoughts are with his family. I hear this morning that a secondary focus in the UK surroiunding this is being led by their OSH equivalent. We hear that Top Gear has been in 'trouble' before for 'glorifying speed', for 'failing to emphasise the relationship between speed and danger'. Puuulease. Is driving a car at 100 mph dangerous? Yes. Is driving a car at 200 mph very dangerous? Certainly. I've never done this but would love to have a go; its sounds grrreat. Is driving at 300 mph exceedingly f***ing dangerous? Hell yes. I've never done this, don't want to, but really want to watch someone else doing it. This someone would be doing it of his own free will (not the sort of thing you do by accident or at the direction of the courts is it?) and they would also have the knowledge that it was potentially exceedingly f***ing dangerous. Their choice. F1 motor racing dangerous? Ask Ayrton Senna. Do people want to watch F1 motor racing? Ask Bernie Ecclestone. OSH would have you watch Top Gear for the mobility scooter reviews. I watch it for the car/boats, the Ferraris, the Atoms, the Aston Martins (especially the Aston Martins) and the humour of three very intellligent people having fun of their own volition in expensive and potentially dangerous bits of kit. They make squillions out of that show and I don't begrudge them one penny of it.
I see the state of California is suing six major car manufacturers for the damage their products cause to the state's evironment through global warming. What an apt post script and commentary on the state of play in the world this Friday morning.

No comments: