Rush Limbaugh stunned the world, in 2009, with his Defy the Laws of Nature Diet. The "Maha Rushie", as he likes to refer to himself, gave credit for that incredible weight loss, to Quick Weight Loss Centers, of Florida. Not everyone believed Limbaugh's explanation. I'll post links to a health website article that questioned Mr. Limbaugh's weight loss at the time, and to Rush's reaction to that article, the following day, when I conclude this post. Stick with me on this. One of this Fast Food Nation's icons, McDonald's, may be headed to court, again.
On June 22, 2010, The Center for Science in the Public Interest [CSPI] sent a letter to McDonald's CEO, Jim Skinner, and McDonald's President, Jan Fields, informing them that CSPI would be filing a law suit, against the McDonald's Corporation, if they did not "immediately stop using toys to market Happy Meals to young children". You can read the entire letter in PDF format here.
In a press conference, that same day, Michael F Jacobson, Executive Director of CSPI, gave a statement, titled "McDonald’s Unfair and Deceptive Use of Toys to Sell Happy Meals". You can read the entire transcript in PDF format here.
Needless to say, McDonald's was not real happy to receive this letter from the folks at CSPI. CSPI's offer, "to settle" with McDonald's, was good for 30 days. On July 6, 2010, two weeks into the 30 day settlement deadline, Skinner sent a response letter to CSPI telling them, basically, that they, the McDonald's Corporation, would not be adhering to CSPI's "demands". Not only did Skinner tell CSPI that McDonald's would "vigorously defend our brand, our reputation, our food and our people", he also suggested that CSPI owed the American public, and its children, an apology.
"We have a long history of working with responsible NGOs who are interested in serious dialogue and meaningful engagement; and we are open to constructive feedback. You say you want a dialogue with McDonald's, but your tactics and inflammatory rhetoric suggest otherwise. CSPI's twisted characterization of McDonald's as "the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children" is an insult to every one of our franchisees and employees around the world. When CSPI refers to America's children as "an unpaid drone army," you similarly denigrate parents and families, because they are fully capable of making their own decisions. You should apologize."
So, the stage has been set for the suit to proceed. Rush Limbaugh is thrilled that McDonald's CEO, Skinner, has taken this position saying this on his July 9, 2010 radio show. It was titled "McDonald's CEO Stands Up to Kook Leftist Attack on Happy Meals".
"I want to shout out big time today to McDonald's. McDonald's, I love you. I remember back in the days of the global warming craze when the wackos were suggesting don't eat McDonald's, don't eat beef because it leads to cow methane causing global warming. Remember I sent one of the Snerdleys over to McDonald's in Times Square and picked up 240 Quarter Pounders with cheese and Big Macs and brought 'em back to the studio and had the whole transaction take place on the phone, on the air, just to stand up and support McDonald's. And listen to this. You know, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, this wacko bunch of leftist kooks, statists, nannies, these are the people that banned coconut oil from your popcorn in movie theaters, have gotten rid of MSG, the flavoring in Chinese food, they wanted to ban Chinese food. These people want to get in your life and tell you what to eat. If you look at these people you wonder if they're barely alive, they're skeletal, they're miserable, they are unhappy, and they want to spread that misery to everybody else by having you eat basically nothing but tofu and cardboard, run around eating miniature rocks and berries as you traverse the deserts of the world. And their latest target was McDonald's Happy Meal."
More recently, on his October 4, 2010 show, Mr. Limbaugh made this amazing statement about ABC's "staff doctor", Dr. Nancy Snyderman, who had weighed in on the CSPI-McDonald's dust-up earlier that day.
"I was watching MSNBC this morning, it's always on in here, and they had on their staff doctor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, who happens to be from San Francisco, and she's wailing, moaning and whining, all out of sorts because of the number of calories in a Big Mac. What business of hers is it if somebody wants to eat a Big Mac or Quarter Pounder? It's a burger, for crying out loud. Whose business is it? This is the problem with the left and liberalism, they're making everything their business. They're not content to be unhappy in their own house. They want to spread their unhappiness and misery to everybody else. It frosts me. It really does. So what? Five hundred eighty calories in a Big Mac, big deal. You want to go buy one, buy one. You want to eat one, eat one. It's not going to kill you that day. It may not kill you ever. Who knows, but even if it does, so what? Who's business is it?
Anyway, here's the actual story: "San Francisco has a long history of bold public health and environmental stances, going after everything from plastic bags in grocery stores to cigarettes to sugary drinks. The latest target: Ronald McDonald. A proposed city ordinance would ban McDonald’s from putting toys in Happy Meals unless it adds fruit and vegetable portions and limits calories. The proposal would apply to all restaurants, but the focus has been on McDonald’s and its iconic Happy Meals." And, of course, the AP is very approving here as they write the story. Now, as they report this as the hotbed of reasonability, look at how our media just laughs at those crazy Tea Party people who complain about an intrusive government. They make fun of the Tea Party people for warning us about an all-too-powerful government, and here's the AP applauding the City of San Francisco for banning toys in Happy Meals unless McDonald's puts an apple in there? It's none of their business!"
It's almost as if Mr. Limbaugh wouldn't care if a McDonald's "Happy Meal" included:
- Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese.
- Large Fries
- Large Strawberry Shake
- Large Coca Cola Classic
I jest, of course. As promised, at the start of this post, here are those links. The first, is a link to the website that questioned Mr. Limbaugh's 2009 weight loss miracle. The nutritionist there tried to make sense of the physics of Limbaugh's weight loss using math and science. She threw in the towel in short order. The second, is to Mr. Limbaugh's website, and the reaction that he had, to the article, the next day. He titled the transcript "It's a Fascinating Phenomenon: Limbaugh Weight Loss Deniers" for his website.
Interestingly, the CalorieCount website wasn't denying that Mr. Limbaugh had lost the weight. They were hypothesizing about how he had lost the weight, in the time-frame that he claimed to have lost the weight. The science and math indicated that something was fishy and the nutritionist at CalorieCount spotted it.
When you look back through Mr. Limbaugh's 2009 transcripts, it's obvious to see just how Limbaugh really lost that weight. It's no big deal that he didn't want to admit it. More power to him. But, not everyone can afford the jet fuel that he used getting all that done, and he has no business telling the American people, and its children, the intelligent way to eat.