|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 20, 2011 14:19:36 GMT -5
I am highly dissatisfied with the response I have received. I do not feel the argument in favour of the unabridged version of the song was valid, and it is certainly not strong enough to justify playing such words on the radio. I guess nobody told her that the world doesn't orbit around her and if she doesn't like it, shove it. I met people like that. The city was cleaning up the flood ditch behind my building and two older woman people started berating the backhoe driver for "destroying the natural habitat". They started taking pictures of the driver, the ditch, me standing besides the ditch, meanwhile never stopping to take a breath between the yapping. Finally I had enough, got my car camera started taking pictures of THEM. They DEMANDED to know who I was and what right I had to take pictures of them. Gee, what a surprise. Then it was my turn to threaten them and made sure they understood that I would sue them for everything they got if my building flooded. I told them that if they landed up on the street, I would sue them for the shopping cart they would be pushing around.....and I wasn't kidding. Amazingly, neither the driver, the city or I ever heard from them again.  Now back to this "offended" woman. If she is Christian, how would she feel if I demanded her church take down the cross because it offends me as an atheist? Does she eat meat? I'm offended by her support for the killing of poor defenseless animals to satisfy her murdering meat cravings. And the list of things that I can be offended by never ends. Has anybody told her that some people are truly offended by her claims of being offended but are willing to let her live/hear/see/do as she chooses.....and THEY expect nothing less. If nobody has told her yet, I'll volunteer. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jan 20, 2011 16:11:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 20, 2011 17:52:44 GMT -5
Fully agree with his view. The only problem is that there are others in the gay community who are far more militant and thin skinned......to say nothing of self anointed "center of the universe" non gay people.
A few days ago there was also a column/opinion in one of the papers about "right not to be offended" people who have complete disconnect with how slippery that slope is. But then again, by definition, it's only what they think that counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 20, 2011 21:43:28 GMT -5
Fully agree with his view. The only problem is that there are others in the gay community who are far more militant and thin skinned......to say nothing of self anointed "center of the universe" non gay people. I sincerely hope that self annoited crack was not directed towards me ... if so IT should be censored (COC and all) It is obvious that Foster did not read the ruling. The whole song was analyzed. So much so that the entire lyrics to the song are wrote in the judgement, and the CBSC ruled on Clause 10 (a) (as well as others). Clause 10a states CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 10 – Contextual Considerations
Broadcasts may fairly include material that would otherwise appear to breach one of the foregoing provisions in the following contextual circumstances:
1. Legitimate artistic usage: Individuals who are themselves bigoted or intolerant may be part of a fictional or non-fictional program, provided that the program is not itself abusive or unduly discriminatory.
So they did look at the context of the word and still ruled against it ... the word adds nothing to the song. For Foster to go off on a gay man's book is farcsical .... it is obvious to all, that a gay man's book about his life will contain such words and there is an obvious artistic element. That's a two way street ... but calling their views wrong, their feeling invalid is not the way to start the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 20, 2011 21:52:29 GMT -5
Well the CBSC is obviously receiving lots of emails and complaints from the public on their decision ....so much so that today they had to issue a press release to debunk all the misconceptions in the complaints.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some Important Clarifications about the CBSC’s Dire Straits Decision
It won’t be a surprise to persons looking at the CBSC website to know that there has been considerable reaction in the media to the decision of the Atlantic Regional Panel regarding the broadcast of the unedited version of the song “Money for Nothing”. Nor will it be surprising that many Canadians have contacted the CBSC objecting to the Atlantic Panel’s decision.
While it’s obvious that anyone may disagree with any CBSC decision at any time, many of those e-mails and news reports reflect misunderstandings, inadequate information or errors regarding the CBSC decision and the process. Here are some explanations of these in the form of FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions):
What’s the CBSC anyway?
The CBSC is a voluntary organization made up of (as of this moment) about 760 Canadian private radio and television broadcasters. They’re all free to stay or go, but they are all committed to the codes of ethics they created in the public interest. And the CBSC administers those codes.
Why did the CBSC ban the song?
The Atlantic Regional Panel did not ban the song. The CBSC has no authority to ban any song. Nor would it have any interest in doing that. The Panel only concluded that the word “faggot” is inappropriate for radio broadcast, and that principle applies to spoken word or musical broadcasts.
It should not be forgotten that there is no problem for broadcasters to play any edited version of the song or to mute the offending word. Moreover, Dire Straits themselves have frequently dropped or altered the problematic version of the song (see the FAQs below that deal with “other versions” and “live performances”).
What are the CBSC’s responsibilities?
Canada’s private broadcasters created a self-regulatory body, the CBSC, in 1990 to respond to complaints from the public about things they hear on the radio or watch on television. The CBSC does this by administering the codes that the broadcasters voluntarily apply to all their programming, whether talk radio, news, public affairs, music or anything else.
The CBSC has no responsibility for CDs, iTunes, the internet or content delivered on any platform other than those providing broadcast content.
Is the CBSC a government agency?
No.
Do I pay for the CBSC out of my taxes?
No. The CBSC is 100% funded by Canada’s private broadcasters.
Is there more than one version of “Money for Nothing”?
Yes. There is the original version from the album, Brothers in Arms and there is a radio-edited version. The offending word is not present in the radio version, and that is the version that has likely been used most, if not nearly all, of the time on radio broadcasts.
We should add that, like the radio version, numerous other recorded and live versions of the song do not include the word “faggot”. And all of these “edited” versions have been created by Dire Straits themselves.
It should also be noted that it was the edited version of the song that is on the classic 1990 Live at Knebworth album and on the band’s 1999 compilation album Sultans of Swing: The Very Best of Dire Straits.
What about the live performances of “Money for Nothing”?
Interestingly, Dire Straits (which Mark Knopfler dissolved in 1995) itself rarely used the offending word in its live performances, even from as early as 1985. This can easily be verified on YouTube, where none of the following nine live Dire Straits concerts include the word “faggot” in the band’s performances of “Money for Nothing”:
* 1985 – Live Aid; Wembley
* 1986 – Wembley
* 1988 – Wembley (Nelson Mandela’s 70th Birthday Tribute concert)
* 1990 – Knebworth
* 1992 – Basel; Nîmes; Bercy (Paris)
* 1997 – London (Royal Albert Hall, “Music for Montserrat Concert”) (M. Knopfler alone)
The words substituted by Dire Straits for “faggot” in the above concerts include: queenie, mother, trucker, mothertrucker, maggot, queen, mama.
The only two live concerts (on YouTube) at which Dire Straits themselves used the word “faggot” were the one recorded on their DVD On the Night (1993) and the Rotterdam concert of 1992.
How come this decision is only applying now to a song from 1985?
CBSC Panels never make their decisions on the basis of polls. Panel decisions are always based on whether a given broadcast is or is not in breach of a code. Whether the complaint is filed by a single complainant (as has happened in the vast majority of the 489 CBSC Panel decisions, all of which are on our website) or by 14,000+ complainants (as in the case of TQS re Dieu Reçoit), the Panel decision is based solely on the codified standard.
Who makes such Panel decisions?
The Atlantic Regional Panel decision, like all other CBSC Panel adjudications, is made by a Panel of Adjudicators, generally six in number, of whom half represent the public and half represent the broadcast industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 21, 2011 0:51:22 GMT -5
I sincerely hope that self annoited crack was not directed towards me ... if so IT should be censored (COC and all) . No Skilly, that wasn't directed at you. That's a two way street ... but calling their views wrong, their feeling invalid is not the way to start the debate. Calling their views wrong is right. Think about this.... One is a "right not to be offended" which is self centered, obtuse and a slippery slope. The other is about free speech, a basic fundamental human right. Canadian Charter of Rights..... 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Do you see anything in there for the "right not to be offended"? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 21, 2011 2:53:16 GMT -5
Dire Straits removes the word "faggot".
Mark Twain removes the word "black".
Pretty soon they are going to come for me?
Sure, some people get offended. everyone has a different tolerance level. The most liberal are also the most intolerant of others language usage.
If someone is gay, is everyone really hurt by a joke that uses a word that is offensive to some?
What is the politically correct term this year, negro, colored, black, African American? NAACP is the National Association for the advancement of colored people. Eskimos are either Intuit or Indigenous people? Calling a Muslim a Sunni would be very offensive if he was a Shiete.
Cripple, handicapped, able, challenged.
If conservatives would benefit from sensitivity training, liberals would benefit from thicker skin.
None of the above is evil or maliceous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 21, 2011 8:10:03 GMT -5
Calling their views wrong is right. Think about this.... One is a "right not to be offended" which is self centered, obtuse and a slippery slope. The other is about free speech, a basic fundamental human right. Canadian Charter of Rights..... 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Do you see anything in there for the "right not to be offended"? I kinda now think we are arguing two seperate points. I agree 100% with you that just because something is offensive does not mean one can not say it, write, sing it, etc .... you do not have a right to not be offended But my point, where I agree with the ruling (not the complaint), is that organizations such as radio channels (and HabRus) have a code of ethics (or conduct) that must be adhered to. This ruling (IMO) is the same as this forum. You do not have to be a member of the CAB (HabsRus), but if you choose to be, then you must follow the rules. Open Line shows on radio have delays, mainly so the public can not slander or name names, but also to allow the moderator to cut people off when they get vulgar and offensive. Radioes have been airing edited versions of songs for decades. This is nothing new (and I realise the counterpoint is "it doesn't make it right") .... .... I fail to see the slippery slope (perhaps an example?). I am not saying it doesn't exists, but what I mean is that not every complaint will result in a ruling similar to this. The complaint has to show that the radio station broke their own code of ethics, and not simply that the listener was offended. I guess, the other side of that is, if we allow such words to be aired on radio, where does that stop? Where is that line? How long before every second word is "F- this" and "F- that" .... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 21, 2011 12:51:49 GMT -5
Where is that line? How long before every second word is "F- this" and "F- that" .... The line? The line not to be offended by them ends at our noses. We simply turn the station. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 21, 2011 13:17:05 GMT -5
Where is that line? How long before every second word is "F- this" and "F- that" .... The line? The line not to be offended by them ends at our noses. We simply turn the station. I'd agree with you if this was the practice, but it isnt ... the CAB wrote their ethics and practices code so listeners wouldn't turn the channels. So do codes of ethics and conduct mean nothing? ... why write one if you are not going to adhere to it? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 21, 2011 13:49:31 GMT -5
There will always be a sense of decorum around the free airwaves, especially during prime-time viewing, listening.
The Super Bowl took all kinds of flack over Janet Jackson's wardrobe.
This year, the Super Bowl has turned down the adultery-promoting "Ashley Madison". Okay for the 2 a.m. crowd....but not prime-time.
Subscription media is a different story. I periodically listen to Raw Dog comedy on Sirius. There are commercials on there that wouldn't have a prayer getting on non-subscription radio--Ashley Madison being one of them.
Funny, though....censorship always revolves around sex, language, and discrimination. But show all the murders and violence you want. That's just fine. Show how sociopathic murderers plan and carry out their deeds. That's fascinating....and doesn't give others ideas at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 21, 2011 14:52:47 GMT -5
Funny, though....censorship always revolves around sex, language, and discrimination. But show all the murders and violence you want. That's just fine. Show how sociopathic murderers plan and carry out their deeds. That's fascinating....and doesn't give others ideas at all. As an aside conversation..... I never could understand this fascination with serial killer or stopping to look at the gore of a highway accident. He's a serial killer and he's CRAZY or there guts on the windshield and the person is DEAD....nothing more to see here, move on. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 21, 2011 22:22:13 GMT -5
The 1985 Dire Straits hit "Money for Nothing" may get a reprieve from a ruling that found it inappropriate for Canadian airwaves.
The CRTC, the government regulator, formally asked the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council on Friday to review the decision and the council agreed to take another look at the issue.
The council, a private industry watchdog, last week found the song unfit for radio because its lyrics include the anti-gay slur "faggot" three times.
But the CRTC found it was catching flak from angry Canadians who mistakenly blamed it for the ruling. It said it has received about 250 letters, most of them disagreeing with the finding.
It's sending the mail to the council, along with a request for another review of the song.
"The volume of letters and perceived overlap of responsibilities between the commission and the CBSC has created uncertainty for the public and for radio stations requiring information on the continued appropriateness of playing that version of the song," Robert A. Morin, secretary general of the CRTC, wrote to the standards council.
The commission asked the council to appoint a panel with a "national composition" to review the complaint regarding "Money for Nothing," as well as the original decision.
The council's Atlantic regional panel ruled the lyrics inappropriate after CHOZ-FM in St. John's, N.L., played the song last February. It provoked a complaint from a listener who wrote: "I find this extremely offensive as a member of the LGBT community."
The CRTC said the review should consider "the age and origin of the song and the date of its performance," "the prominence of the contested word in the song and the use of that word over time," and "the length of time and frequency that it has been playing on the airwaves."
The panel which made the original decision said it considered the origins of the song.
"The panel concludes that, like other racially driven words in the English language, 'faggot' is one that, even if entirely or marginally acceptable in earlier days, is no longer so," said its Jan. 12 decision.
The CRTC asked for a fast ruling and the council said in a news release it will be quick:
"The CBSC will appoint a national panel to deal with the 'Money for Nothing' matter on an across-Canada basis, in the light of additional information about the song that has been, and will be, forwarded to the CBSC by members of the public from across Canada. It will complete the review as expeditiously as possible."
Many have noted the offensive word in the song was meant ironically and was spoken by a character who was unimpressed with the rock stars he saw on MTV.
The original decision sparked an outcry from music fans around the world. Some Canadian radio stations continued to play the unedited version in protest.
Even Dire Straits keyboardist Guy Fletcher weighed in on his personal website, calling the ban "unbelievable."
"If old words offend, get over it," he wrote.
He also wrote: "A part of me understands the decision. It's still rather stupid and the fact that the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council can make a ruling such as this, completely missing the context in which it's used, says rather a lot about the society in which we live."
The council itself issued some explanatory comments on its website after publishing its findings.
"The Atlantic regional panel did not ban the song," the council said. "The CBSC has no authority to ban any song. Nor would it have any interest in doing that. The panel only concluded that the word 'faggot' is inappropriate for radio broadcast, and that principle applies to spoken word or musical broadcasts."
Oddly, the ruling came as an American publisher announced plans to issue a new edition of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, deleting a racial slur which has long made the book controversial.
"Money for Nothing" was a major hit upon its release a generation ago. It won a Grammy, reached No. 1 on the charts in Canada and the U.S. and spawned a famous music video that featured crude computer animation and became interwoven with the popularity of the then-fledgling music network MTV.the debate ain’t over
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 22, 2011 2:13:46 GMT -5
........ the word 'faggot' is inappropriate for radio broadcast, and that principle applies to spoken word or musical broadcasts."
Wow. Not only is this council the up-keepers of everything flowery and nice on radio, they extend it to the spoken word. Did God speak to them too? THIS is why I hate, hate, hate ANY censorship of ANY type in ANY place. Did I mention hate? When the Greek junta took over in the late 60's, they declared that anyone who spoke against the government was a traitor. A police investigation and torture was in your future for speaking against the government. I wish I had pictures of what happened to my uncle to see what one can suffer from "words". Never, ever again and not in my Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 22, 2011 9:41:29 GMT -5
........ the word 'faggot' is inappropriate for radio broadcast, and that principle applies to spoken word or musical broadcasts."
Wow. Not only is this council the up-keepers of everything flowery and nice on radio, they extend it to the spoken word. Did God speak to them too? THIS is why I hate, hate, hate ANY censorship of ANY type in ANY place. Did I mention hate? When the Greek junta took over in the late 60's, they declared that anyone who spoke against the government was a traitor. A police investigation and torture was in your future for speaking against the government. I wish I had pictures of what happened to my uncle to see what one can suffer from "words". Never, ever again and not in my Canada. When they say spoken word, they are referring to the spoken word on radio .. commercials, open line shows, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 22, 2011 9:44:15 GMT -5
Even Dire Straits keyboardist Guy Fletcher weighed in on his personal website, calling the ban "unbelievable." "If old words offend, get over it," he wrote. He also wrote: "A part of me understands the decision. It's still rather stupid and the fact that the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council can make a ruling such as this, completely missing the context in which it's used, says rather a lot about the society in which we live." Mr. Fletcher, why has Dire Straits made various editions of this song and why has the group only sung the word in question twice in all its live concerts in the last 25 years (that can be documented at the moment)? You obviously saw a problem with the word even BACK THEN, the word is even more sensitive today. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 22, 2011 9:50:41 GMT -5
The CRTC said the review should consider "the age and origin of the song and the date of its performance," "the prominence of the contested word in the song and the use of that word over time," and "the length of time and frequency that it has been playing on the airwaves." The only date of performance that should be considered is the date it was aired on the radio that spawned the complaint. The ruling states that it is not the word in 1985 that matters, the code of practice and ethics state that it has to recognize that words evolve and it is today's date that should matter. Yes the prominence ... the word adds so little to the song, that the group themself has replaced it was no less than 5-6 different other words. The length and time? Well, the song is 25+ years old, but the edited version is the one that has been playing the most and longest on the radio .... Nice window dressing CRTC .... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 22, 2011 10:45:19 GMT -5
bah, Skilly, the CRTC got some complaints and so are "acting" on them. the CBSC will look at the decision again and decide it was the right one.
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jan 22, 2011 12:45:56 GMT -5
Has the world got this sensitive in the last 26 years?  ??When my daughter told me of this so called ban I though she was talking about a recent release.....only in Canada you say......pity. HFTO |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 31, 2011 12:49:13 GMT -5
Not really a sign of the apocalypse... unless she wins, of course!
(what was HA saying about the ability to sue in California?)
Sean 'Diddy' Combs sued for $1 trillion, blamed for 9/11: report
Sean "Diddy" Combs is reportedly being sued for $1 trillion by a Los Angeles woman who claims he is responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Valerie Joyce Wilson Turks also sought a restraining order against the Grammy Award-winning hip-hop mogul, alleging Combs put her child in a wheelchair and stole a poker chip worth "zillions of dollars." A judge has denied the restraining order.
"(Combs) went through Kim Porter and Rodney King and knocked down the (World Trade Centre) and then they all came and knocked my children down," Turks writes in rambling court papers obtained by RadarOnline. "Set me up to be on disability and disabled my baby. He put my baby in a wheelchair."
Turks, who claims she has a 23-year-old child with Combs, wants $900 billion in child support, and $100 billion more for "loss of income."
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 31, 2011 13:53:46 GMT -5
1 trillion?
I guess it's a case of "go big or go home.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 1, 2011 2:56:33 GMT -5
Not really a sign of the apocalypse... unless she wins, of course! (what was HA saying about the ability to sue in California?) Oh sure, blame the old guy! LOL! On a right wing forum, after much deliberation and libation, we hatched KERPlan....(no, it's not a Klingon souvlaki, it's Kalipornia Emergency Rescue Plan). When the big one strikes, we go in and airlift all the 18-31 year old woman and right wingers. Then we all gather on the newly formed shores of Nevada and wave good by as Kalipornia sinks into the Pacific. It's not a great plan, but it will do for now.  P.S. Franko has already volunteered as a deprogrammer and realist re-educator. We have more openings. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 15, 2011 7:16:04 GMT -5
"But the cheese was extra!" 'Big guy' sues White Castle over small booths290-pound stockbroker says he can't fit into burger chain's seating Wedging White Castle burgers into his mouth has admittedly never been a problem for a 290-pound stockbroker from New York.
Trying to wedge himself into a seat at his local White Castle, however, has him mad enough to sue.
Martin Kessman, 64, has filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified financial damages against the fast-food chain, claiming that his local White Castle is in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act because the seating cannot accommodate a customer of his size. A federal lawsuit filed last week claims that in April 2009, Kessman smacked his knee into a metal post while trying to wedge himself into the stationary seating at a White Castle in Nanuet, N.Y., near his home. The rest here: today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44523370/ns/today-today_people/#.TnHrO10v7VY |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Sept 15, 2011 10:22:32 GMT -5
"But the cheese was extra!" 'Big guy' sues White Castle over small booths290-pound stockbroker says he can't fit into burger chain's seating Wedging White Castle burgers into his mouth has admittedly never been a problem for a 290-pound stockbroker from New York.
Trying to wedge himself into a seat at his local White Castle, however, has him mad enough to sue.
Martin Kessman, 64, has filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified financial damages against the fast-food chain, claiming that his local White Castle is in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act because the seating cannot accommodate a customer of his size. A federal lawsuit filed last week claims that in April 2009, Kessman smacked his knee into a metal post while trying to wedge himself into the stationary seating at a White Castle in Nanuet, N.Y., near his home. The rest here: today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44523370/ns/today-today_people/#.TnHrO10v7VYGod Bless America. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 15, 2011 10:59:24 GMT -5
"But the cheese was extra!" 'Big guy' sues White Castle over small booths290-pound stockbroker says he can't fit into burger chain's seating Wedging White Castle burgers into his mouth has admittedly never been a problem for a 290-pound stockbroker from New York.
Trying to wedge himself into a seat at his local White Castle, however, has him mad enough to sue.
Martin Kessman, 64, has filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified financial damages against the fast-food chain, claiming that his local White Castle is in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act because the seating cannot accommodate a customer of his size. A federal lawsuit filed last week claims that in April 2009, Kessman smacked his knee into a metal post while trying to wedge himself into the stationary seating at a White Castle in Nanuet, N.Y., near his home. The rest here: today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44523370/ns/today-today_people/#.TnHrO10v7VYGod Bless America. And who knows ... if White Castle were to accommodate him, someone, in a similar situation, would probably sue White Castle for "singling out overweight or large people." Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 16, 2011 11:00:51 GMT -5
"I'm not humongous...."
I agree. It's called "severely obese".
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 16, 2011 11:32:54 GMT -5
“I just want to sit down like a normal person,’’
...he's got a point. Given the percentage of overweight people in the US, one can defenitly say that these tables are NOT for a normal American.
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Sept 16, 2011 13:46:21 GMT -5
“I just want to sit down like a normal person,’’...he's got a point. Given the percentage of overweight people in the US, one can defenitly say that these tables are NOT for a normal American. It's one thing to expect assurances against an unsafe/dangerous environment for patrons (faulty equipment)...it's another to make DEMANDS upon a business solely to satisfy one's personal preference where seating comfort is concerned. Don't like a business's tables/chairs/barstools/their 1-ply toilet-paper.....then DON'T GO THERE, dummy!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 16, 2011 13:50:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 16, 2011 15:12:05 GMT -5
“I just want to sit down like a normal person,’’...he's got a point. Given the percentage of overweight people in the US, one can defenitly say that these tables are NOT for a normal American. Yet, how many commercials show that percentage? None. Always trim....and usually young, happy, and vibrant. I laugh at all of their commercials. The latest Tim Horton's bagel: Maple Cinnamon French Toast
A sweet bagel baked with cinnamon and maple syrup. Topped with a buttery cinnamon crumble.
A plain bagel has 360 calories....equivalent to 5 slices of bread. Add the sugar and butter...and you're over that. All carbs and fat. That's not a meal...that's dessert! A family member had a double-bypass last year. Full recovery. I shook my head every time I went to visit at the hospital...because just inside the front entrance is a Tim Horton's kiosk. Yep, before you visit your loved ones in the cardiac ward...how about about an artery-clogging bagel with cream cheese, a muffin, or a donut or two? Our hospital has a Tim's, too...and I'm sure many do. I guess the administrators figure, "People are going to bring it in anyway....why not make some money off it? Besides....it's good for future business." My question: Would they sell cigarettes in front of a cancer ward? No, that would be unethical.... Once educated about nutrition, people have no one to blame but themselves. [/rant] |
|
??When my daughter told me of this so called ban I though she was talking about a recent release.....only in Canada you say......pity.
