Unfortunately this same scenario will be playing out starting this week as the 2008 Presidential Debates begin. The grocery store is The Commission on Presidential Debates. The exclusive detergents are Barack Obama and John McCain. The manufacturer is the corporate-sponsored Republican and Democratic parties.

Should the American voter have any other choices? Those in power certainly don’t think so. The fact is they will do everything they can to keep the majority from being exposed to other viable candidates. One candidate, on 45 out of 50 state ballots, is Ralph Nader. Infamous for his tough stances on corporations, is it any wonder that he isn’t invited to these corporate-sponsored debates? Does anyone else sense something drastically wrong here? Why has the USA sold out to private corporations such an important part of our election process?

Will the coming debates truly show the American people that they have a choice? A choice between two cut from the same cloth perhaps. We need Ralph Nader participating in these debates to ask the hard questions that won’t be asked otherwise. I don’t care if anyone votes for Nader. I do care that every voter is well informed of all issues and where each candidate stands. Only then can we have the most effective democratic election.

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seats of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The offspring of ideology and theology are not always bad but they are always blind. And that is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

Foreman said the outcome showed it is “profoundly wrong to put basic human rights up for a popular vote.” More than 200 years after the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, he said, “I don’t think we could win the freedoms of assembly, speech, religion or the press in most states at the ballot box — let alone desegregated schools, the freedom to marry people of another race, or access to contraception.”

In my perfect world opinions like this would be purely academic since basic freedoms such as the ability to demonstrate your love and committment to your significant other would be a given.

All in all, this was a very well researched book and at the very least should get any reader to at least appreciate the shear immensity and complexity of a seemingly simple drive-thru meal. But of course it goes much deeper than that, as the book hopes to show the enormous societal affects of this colossal industry. It is then left to the reader to determine if these affects are worth the super-sized quickie meals we’ve so quickly become accustomed to.

My own observations: for the $5 one might spend on a fast food meal, I can pickup several pounds of seasonal fresh fruit at the market. Not only is this just as ‘fast’, it is healthier, never gives me a bellyache, provides more than one meal, perhaps supports local farmers, AND has great juggling potential. Go ahead: I dare you to try to juggle a hamburger, fries, and softdrink!

UPDATE to the UPDATE:
Wow – it looks like there is hope for fast food. McDonalds will be phasing out supersize menu options. Here is the press release.

In my perfect world, the sounds of automobiles would be quenched for at least one (if not all) night each week.

Stay tuned for the final conclusion on this one, but already I’m feeling quite glad to have spent maybe $10 at fast food joints over the past 2 years. I think in My Perfect World, the idea of fast food would imply grabbing and crunching on an apple as one heads out the door.

Here is my question: isn’t candy supposed to be bad for you? Afterall if it were healthy then we would eat it everyday and leave the fruits and veggies for the holidays. The only thing that low carb candy will do will be to encourage people to eat more candy (which is great for the candy manufacturers – oh I’m sure they see the $$$ painted on the side of the bandwagon). Since when was candy meant to be “health food”? Removing all the sugar doesn’t magically instill candy with any nutrition. If we were really concerned about eating well, then maybe we should encourage people to shuffle on over to the produce department – you’d be hard pressed to go wrong there. But then of course there isn’t much money to be made in produce.

Regardless, quit messing with the candy! If I endulge in a heavenly dark chocolate amaretto cordial I want to feel the evil sugar rush after 2 pieces. I especially want to feel the sickening crash and burn after a few more pieces. Thats what reminds me to endulge sparingly and to spend more time with all those lovely fruits and veggies that make me feel great!

No, what the world of communication needs is telepathy. Yes, I refer to the far-fetched sci-fi notion of communicating via thought. Imagine instantaneous brain-to-brain transmission, completely effortless and completely painless. But then of course once we have mastered this skill look out for the inevitable telepathimarketers invading your very thought space trying to sell you the next great gee-whiz product. I think I would have to resort to completely shutting down my thoughts if it ever came to that. Perhaps some communication barriers are best kept just as they are.