Its only because Dakota likes the chicken noodle soup served in a
"bread bowl" that we are here. The other customers are glaring at me
because Jason is playing missile command with imaginary nukes falling
over the table. He is using the table number holder as the missile and
making not only launch noises but "incoming target acquired... Ready.
FIRE!!!!!!!"
Who said "F*** 'em if they can't take a joke"?
Anyway, what Who said. Besides the aggravating factor is probably that
to the other patrons, I seem disengaged with my kids' antics, as I
gamely tap away at my Blackberry. Foolish suburbanites, I am merely
typing the prologue to a Canonical Rant (tm).
[Mental note, register trademark]
Canonical Rant: Kid food.
Our paternalistic society lectures parents and everyone else about how
we are unhealthy in our eating choices, starting from childhood. The
blame is placed on mixed messages from society. True, but the gun is
pointed at the wrong hypocrisy. The problems are the odious paring of
toy food and toy-shaped kids food.
What the hell is wrong with people? We tell kids:
"Don't eat your toys" and give them impossibly tasty looking plastic
hamburgers, Play doh sushi makers, wood block carrots.
Then we say;
"Don't play with your food" and give them chicken nuggets shaped like
rocket ships and dinosaurs. By the way the word "food" for kids food
ought to be used loosely. There is little substantive difference
between the nutritional contents of a nugget and of the box it comes
in.
Nor do I accept the whole "make your kids fun easy organic food"
notion. This is America, damnit. its the land of convenient service.
Kids food should look like food and taste good and be healthy and be
cheap. Its a market failure when middle class people "opt out of
consumerism". Whatever the hell that means. Yeah, all those organic
food making appliances and supplies, not to mention your fetish farmers market food.
Way to opt out, comrade.
There is are several finishes to this canonical rant. I'll do all the variants.
Variant 1: regulate
There outta be a law.
The only really good way to change the balance of power between
relatively weak and diffuse consumer and the relatively large number
of offending food producers is to make kids food required on all
menus and to prohibit terrible kids food.
My conservative libertarian friends recoil in horror "you'll drive
restaurants out of business" and "its not free market. " There are
times I can see your point and not disrespect it, but in general this
isn't one of those times. Its hardly axiomatic that free markets
require caveat emptor and that society should accept the cost of
vendors selling Styrofoam sandwiches sprinkled in glass shards.
more importantly the claims that its overly paternalistic on consumers
is nonsense. Consumers don't want Styrofoam sandwiches but if vendors
refuse to stop making them, they will be forced to buy them. If you
don't believe that, then how else can you explain that I bought a
Yaris? Anyhow its the conservatives who are being paternalistic to
capitalists. Capitalists are ingenious. Tell them: make money selling
food but the rule is no Styrofoam sandwiches and they will figure it
out.
Get to work, Congress. Ban food that looks like toys and toys that
look like food.
Variant 2: litigate
Replace para 1 of the above with:
Everyone ought to sue everyone.
Replace the last paragraph with:
Civil litigation is a great tool of reform, especially against a
recalcitrant defendant with lobbying power. We owe the plaintiff's
bar a great debt for protecting our democratic ideals. I refer you to
Federalist Paper No. 51. Yes, its about a system of checks and
balances in the offices of government, but its also about the nature
of our courts to make power more diffuse. The diffusion of power
amongst all members of society is a disruptive but critical aspect of
society.
Variant 3: heartwarming anecdote
(This is an add-on to variant 1)
When I was in elementary school and my parents marriage was nearly done
for, my mom purchased a glass top coffee table for the living room.
The living room itself was an area ironically named in the waning days
of the marriage. In the 70's my parents entertained guests there and I
think when Eugene was left at home by himself he'd get into "risky
business" type mischief there; maybe that's just hero worship on my
part.
Anyhow, my mom decided that the thing to put on the monstrosity was a
glass candy dish and these horrendous hard candies. A glass bowl on a
glass surface + elementary school kids. Insanity, but somehow I didn't
break it. Instead, after a layer of dust got on the candy, I slid it
into the sun and it got gooey. Then I threw the candy out
"William, where did the display candy go?"
"Display candy, display for who?"
"Whom"
"Anyhow it got sticky... Gross"
"Oh... Good. Did you put your marbles in the bowl?!?"
"Yes... Don't they look tasty?"
"They do, actually"
Inside I was thinking about the fact that glass candy was hysterically
immoral and laughing.
It was a tough time for us (mom and I) back then but in retrospect, I
have a lot more sympathy for the idea that as her life became a
shambles, and the things she built up went down in flames, why not have
a piece of gleaming crystal interior decor on top of an ostentatious
and impractical furnishing? It could hardly be the worst thing that
one could do in response! Except if toy food was illegal. Then they
would have arrested me. I wonder if I would have been tried as an
adult.
Probably. Reagan was tough on crime.
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
