Can fast food be addictive?

The behavior of the guy who is the subject of the article below is certainly reminiscent of someone who has an addiction problem--or at least has some serious problems with self control.

Wow! This guy REALLY likes french fries!

Man Pleads Guilty in French Fries Rage

Monday, April 25, 2005

DuBOIS, Pa. - A man who angrily berated fast-food employees when a drive-thru clerk told him the restaurant was out of french fries pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in jail.

Gregg Luttman, of DuBois, pleaded guilty to assault, resisting arrest, institutional vandalism and other charges stemming from the confrontation on New Year's Day at a Burger King restaurant.

Luttman made an obscene gesture at a drive-thru clerk, cursed at restaurant staff and nearly hit an employee with his truck after workers told Luttman the restaurant had run out of french fries and onion rings, said police in Sandy Township, Clearfield County.

When police tried to arrest Luttman, he scuffled with officer and kicked out the back window of a police cruiser, police said.

In addition to jail time, Luttman last week was fined $150 and ordered to serve two years' probation.

We had an incident the other day in Florida at a drive up where a man was killed in an argument. The strange thing is this is the third time in 2 years. Stay out of the drive ups.

quote:

Originally posted by jojobeans

We had an incident the other day in Florida at a drive up where a man was killed in an argument. The strange thing is this is the third time in 2 years. Stay out of the drive ups.

I hadn't seen this ...

Was the "man" in the car or in the restaurant?

This scenario is pretty close to a movie of some years ago starring Michael Douglas. But you can call it addiction if you want to. I think I'd more likely call it loutish anti-social (and evidently criminal) behavior by a jerk.

You buy this as addiction, and hence the behavior the product of an "illness" beyond the perp's control, you come close to buying "the Twinkie Defense". As a San Franciscan, that causes me great angst.

BT--Lighten up! I am absolutely not a person who could accept the "Twinkie Defense" that was successfully used by that right-wing homophobe (hmmm...perhaps that is redundant) in San Francisco! What I wrote was in the spirit of poking a bit of fun at the bizarre scenarios that are available for public viewing nowadays.

As someone who was taught that it is always important to show more class than is displayed by some of those around us, I am perpetually confounded by the members of our society who play out their psychodramas in public. This anti-social creep, who clearly possessed no self-control, undoubtedly has many problems. It is a shame that he chose to visit those problems on innocent people.

Believe me--we are probably more alike in philosophy than you can imagine, and this was just my attempt at humor. Clearly, it fell short of my goal.

Hhhhmmmm??? First we hear about steroid rage, now it's saturated fats rage???

Just kidding... I think Ted nailed it in the last post. The people who we read about doing these things are unstable and tend to have many problems to begin with. It is just a a matter of time until something sets them off. Same reason for most of the raod rage we hear about. While most of us would just shrug our shoulders and move on, these people seem take it as a personal insult which they MUST respond to.

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear


BT--Lighten up! I am absolutely not a person who could accept the "Twinkie Defense" that was successfully used by that right-wing homophobe (hmmm...perhaps that is redundant) in San Francisco! What I wrote was in the spirit of poking a bit of fun at the bizarre scenarios that are available for public viewing nowadays.

As someone who was taught that it is always important to show more class than is displayed by some of those around us, I am perpetually confounded by the members of our society who play out their psychodramas in public. This anti-social creep, who clearly possessed no self-control, undoubtedly has many problems. It is a shame that he chose to visit those problems on innocent people.

Believe me--we are probably more alike in philosophy than you can imagine, and this was just my attempt at humor. Clearly, it fell short of my goal.

No, Ted, it didn't fall short. I got the humor, appreciated it and it's the sort of cynicism that I myself enjoy. But I wanted to make the point I did because there are people who actually buy the junk food addiction defense. Not us, but there are people . . . .

PS--My imagination is boundless

But what about MSG, on the topic of food being "addictive"? I remember all too well waking up in the middle of the night and standing by an open fridge door, spooning the Hidden Valley Ranch dressing into my mouth again and again. I don't buy the envelopes any more because it's cheaper to make from scratch, but I'm pretty sure the envelopes contain copious amounts of MSG. I don't wake up at 3 AM for my HVR "fix" any more. BT, you may have a professional opinion you'd like to share.

Ted:

If labelling all right-wingers as homophobes is an example of the "class" that you were taught, perhaps you could have used a different teacher.

Gee, Paulie, it's like how all Christians are being painted with the broad brush of homophobia because those who don't want to hurt gays and lesbians don't speak up. Remember how groups like "Focus on the Family" claim they don't want to hurt us, then proceed to scream that THEY are being discriminated against because they haven't yet been able to get their Constitutional Amendment to force my partner and me to pay twice the taxes for way fewer benefits? If there are any right-wingers who are truly not homophobic, they should stand up and be counted. They should stand with us and stand up for fairness.

Hi Michael;

I think part of the problem is agreeing on a definition of ****phobia. The definition that I believe is commonly accepted, and that's thrown around as slander as in Tedbear's post (forgive me if I've interpreted it incorrectly, Tb),is one who inherently hates Group **** and, as you've said, wants to hurt them. But the way I read the rest of your post, I sense that your definition also includes anyone who opposes any part of Group ****'s agenda for any reason and I can't agree with that definition. I believe that it's possible to have legitimate policy disagreements for reasons other than hatred and malice, don't you?

As an example, Senator Clinton of New York, according to her official website, believes that the U.S. needs to strengthen its border security and crack down on illegal immigration. Does that make her a Latinophobe? Or, back to Tedbear's post, are only right-wingers who hold similar positions Latinophobes?

Or, speaking to your example, the fact is that a large number of Christians do oppose gay marriage and civil unions based on their interpretation of the Bible. Yet they also do believe in loving their neighbor, be they gay, straight or anywhere in between. In other words their Biblical beliefs call on them to Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner. Obviously you have a different outlook based on your beliefs and experiences. But the fact that you disagree with that position doesn't mean that it's based on hatred or phobia.

Well, I'm done talking about politics; I'd prefer to read about someplace to get a good meatloaf sandwich (hard roll w/ gravy, warmed up, please). I probably overreacted, but Tedbear's post raised this right winger's hackles a little bit.

Regards.

PS; Hope my spelling, grammar & syntax are OK.

It seems that no one here is asking the key question: were they straight-cut, waffle or curly cue fries? If they were waffle fries, I can see getting a little out of sorts...

quote:

Originally posted by michaelgemmell

Gee, Paulie, it's like how all Christians are being painted with the broad brush of homophobia because those who don't want to hurt gays and lesbians don't speak up. Remember how groups like "Focus on the Family" claim they don't want to hurt us, then proceed to scream that THEY are being discriminated against because they haven't yet been able to get their Constitutional Amendment to force my partner and me to pay twice the taxes for way fewer benefits? If there are any right-wingers who are truly not homophobic, they should stand up and be counted. They should stand with us and stand up for fairness.

Well, gee, this is way off topic but nevertheless fun so I want to weigh in. Let me explain. I first subscribed to National Review in 1963 and worked hard to get Barry Goldwater elected in 1964. I considered myself a card-carrying "right winger" in the days when that meant the best government was the least government and a good government stayed out of peoples' private lives and, most especially, their bedrooms. Then along came Jerry Fallwell and the Silent Majority and all that subtly (at first) changed. I can't remember when I jettisoned the NR subscription, but by the early 90's I thought I had no choice but to become a Democrat because the party of my heritage and of Lincoln had become the party of the Christian ayatollas and, eventually, the party of massive deficit spending and foreign interventionism.

All that said, are there remaining non-homophobic right-wingers? I think so. All you have to do to see indications of their existence on a regular basis is read Andrew Sullivan's blog ( http://www.andrewsullivan.com ). Poor Andrew. He and I so want to be "right wingers" in the Goldwater mode (Barry hated Fallwell and once publicly threatend to kick his butt), but it's so hard these days. Still, he frequently provides links and references to sensible, non-homophobic conservative thought.

Meanwhile, Michael is certainly right that it would be a balm to a lot of just plain hardworking, taxpaying, Roadfood eating (and discussing) folks who happened to have been born with a minority sexual orientation if more outspoken advocates of contemporary Conservativism would cut out the bashing and support "family values" beyond their own experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Paulie

Hi Michael;

I think part of the problem is agreeing on a definition of ****phobia. The definition that I believe is commonly accepted, and that's thrown around as slander as in Tedbear's post (forgive me if I've interpreted it incorrectly, Tb),is one who inherently hates Group **** and, as you've said, wants to hurt them. But the way I read the rest of your post, I sense that your definition also includes anyone who opposes any part of Group ****'s agenda for any reason and I can't agree with that definition. I believe that it's possible to have legitimate policy disagreements for reasons other than hatred and malice, don't you?

As an example, Senator Clinton of New York, according to her official website, believes that the U.S. needs to strengthen its border security and crack down on illegal immigration. Does that make her a Latinophobe? Or, back to Tedbear's post, are only right-wingers who hold similar positions Latinophobes?

Or, speaking to your example, the fact is that a large number of Christians do oppose gay marriage and civil unions based on their interpretation of the Bible. Yet they also do believe in loving their neighbor, be they gay, straight or anywhere in between. In other words their Biblical beliefs call on them to Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner. Obviously you have a different outlook based on your beliefs and experiences. But the fact that you disagree with that position doesn't mean that it's based on hatred or phobia.

Well, I'm done talking about politics; I'd prefer to read about someplace to get a good meatloaf sandwich (hard roll w/ gravy, warmed up, please). I probably overreacted, but Tedbear's post raised this right winger's hackles a little bit.

Regards.

PS; Hope my spelling, grammar & syntax are OK.

Look, I know it raises hackles in a lot of readers, but they still have 99.9% of this site to their concerns about meatloaf sandwiches--and, lest anyone doubt it, I share those concerns. But it's rare to get an opportunity to have a POLITE, CALM discussion of these matters that go to the heart and soul of some of our lives. So at the risk of p_ss_ng off a few other Roadfooders, I just gotta get a few more things off my chest.

Here's how I read the above post. I see a person who believes themselves to be good-hearted and "God-fearing" in the most positive sense and also believes themselves to be "tolerant" of "alternative life-styles". But I also see someone who, deep down inside, shares with most Americans the fact that they "don't get it" when it comes to gay people.

The clues that lead me to seeing what I see are a few buzz words. The first is reference to a "group" (in this context, obviously, a homesexual) agenda. It is indisputably true that there are national and local organizations for gay people that advocate certain agendas but suggesting that what they advocate is subscribed to by all members of this particular group is like saying, well, saying that all "right wingers" subscribed to the gay-bashing agenda of the most vocal members of that group. All one has to do is look at politics in San Francisco, a city with a large enough gay population so that the lack of unanimity of opinion among gay people on almost every political issue is obvious. To put it succinctly, there is no agenda, including, incidently, gay marriage, that is a consensus view among gay people because gay people are like all people. Each one has a wide range of personal views and agendas.

The second buzz word, or more properly buzz argument that concerns me in what you say is the argument that the fact that many Christians believe their Bible argues against gay marriage is relevent to political discussion. You see, I consider myself a Christian, but I also know a little bit about American history and so I know that the first Americans, the Pilgrims and Puritans, came here to escape a secular legal code which incorporated religious views with which they did not agree. I further know that the descendants of those Americans, who created our government, attempted to make certain that everyone would be free to be religious and to practice their own religion in this country, but that our secular legal system would not embody anyone's religion in its code nor would our government give preference to any one religious viewpoint--including that of Christians. Hence the question is not what Christians believe but what Christians believe is a proper concern of government. And they are very wrong--beyond the pale wrong--if they believe that their interpretation of the Bible should be encoded in American civil and criminal law.

Nobody is suggesting that any religion be required to perform religious marriages of anyone they don't consider it appropriate to marry. In the case of Catholics, that would include a man and a woman, either of whom is divorced. But CIVIL marriage--marriage performed by the STATE without benefit of religious sanction--is another matter. Even if your religion finds the civil marriage of a same sex couple to be wrong, there are other religions that don't and so the secular legal system ought not forbid it. That way, persons in a same sex relationship who happen to adhere to your version of Christianity can foreswear marriage, religious or civil, and persons in such a relationship whose religious views tell them it's OK can follow the tenets of their own faith. That's the American way.

quote:

Originally posted by Paulie

Ted:

If labelling all right-wingers as homophobes is an example of the "class" that you were taught, perhaps you could have used a different teacher.

By way of clarification, I did not mean to imply that all people who are of the Conservative persuasion are homophobic. However, it surely seems that all of the homophobes who are given air time by the media are Conservatives. I hope that everyone can appreciate the distinction that I have drawn here.

I am sure that there are many people in the right-wing camp who truly believe the we are "all created equal". And, for the sake of the Conservative movement, it would be nice if those people were given as much air time as the more vocal homophobes.

Paulie, my partner and I suffer a wrong at the hands of our government. We wish to marry, but we are prevented from doing so. As a result, our combined tax bill is twice what it would be if we were married. This intolerable inequity basically shoots to hell any argument you might have about a "difference of opinion." You're entitled to your opinion--as well as your religion, but the US Constitution forbids you to use your religion to prevent others from enjoying equally the benefits of our government. BT and Tedbear can express it more eloquently as well as with flawless logic, but from me you get my raw emotion in reaction to the very real dollar figure John showed me of just how much we're losing to our Same Sex Couple Unmarriage Penalty.

"But the fact that you disagree with that position doesn't mean that it's based on hatred or phobia."

I don't care what "they" call it, Paulie. I want the same tax deal other couples get. Anything that stands in the way of that is wrong. Our Constitution is designed to protect minorities from unfair actions of the majority. Right now, the Constitution is being abused. Whatever "they" want to call it, it has to stop, and the Constitution must be upheld.

Oh. Yes. Just what makes "them" think we want to get married in THEIR churches? I sing with a man who's a minister, and when the day comes, I will ask him if his denomination will allow him to marry us. He'd be just charming, and it would increase the likeliness of my older relatives attending. It might encourage the young ones, too. I came to their weddings, now it's my turn. John won't do this until it's "for real," because he understands too well that I'm really looking forward to a big party!

If you will scroll back, you will see the first use of "homophobe" was in clear reference to one Dan White, the former Supervisor of San Francisco who murdered Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man voted into office here, had nothing to do with Dan White's precise legal trouble of trying to get his Supervisor job back after resigning in a snit. Yet Dan White killed him too. Sounds like homophobia to me, yep. Don't take it upon yourself to defend Dan White from homophobia. He committed suicide in a garage with car exhaust, right? He really wanted that civil-service job ffor all eternity, I guess.

I still want to know who knows about MSG.

quote:

Originally posted by michaelgemmell


If you will scroll back, you will see the first use of "homophobe" was in clear reference to one Dan White, the former Supervisor of San Francisco who murdered Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man voted into office here, had nothing to do with Dan White's precise legal trouble of trying to get his Supervisor job back after resigning in a snit. Yet Dan White killed him too.

Hate to nit-pick, but that's not historically correct. Harvey and Moscone were political allies and opponents of White, and Harvey was lobbying Moscone NOT to reappoint White as he was seriously considering doing but, at Harvey's urging, decided against. White knew about that because both Moscone and Milk had been interviewed on TV. So it's not so hard to understand (but very hard to justify) why his anger was aimed at both.

quote:

I still want to know who knows about MSG.

Sorry, I can't help you there. I know a little about MSG intolerance but not addiction (or, more properly, physical dependence).

If I'm not mistaken unless the code has changed within the last few years, married couples actually pay more in taxes than if they were single and living together. I know for a fact that many older folks live together rather than getting marrtied because they would lose some of their benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy2dogs

If I'm not mistaken unless the code has changed within the last few years, married couples actually pay more in taxes than if they were single and living together. I know for a fact that many older folks live together rather than getting marrtied because they would lose some of their benefits.

It depends on relative income levels. If the 2 spouses make about the same wages (or get taxable pension checks of about the same size), they pay more filing jointly than they would if they could file as 2 single people. But if one of them makes a lot more than the other, they pay less. That's because the tax laws are antiquated and stem from a time when most wives didn't work. When that's the case, they actually accomplish what they were intended to accomplish when written and create a saving for married couples.

I think that it is fascinating to contemplate how this thread began with me taking a light-hearted look at a news article on "fast food rage", or something to that effect. Now, we are arguing over human rights issues!

While this is an interesting discussion, I could never have predicted the direction that this would take!

My last words on this topic, interesting as it is, as a clarification.

I didn't intend to argue the case for or against homosexual marriage. I truly believe that a reasoned case can be made for each side of the issue, even before involving religion, and I also believe that resolving these differences is the role of the legislative branch of the state and federal governments. My concern was the sweeping generalization made, or implied (I didn't notice any distinction made in the original post, Ted), that all right wingers, not just Dan White, are homophobes. I wished only to point out that opposing something does not automatically translate into hating those who support it. Consider the years that Clinton was President and Democrats controlled Congress. I don't remember that they did much to advance the gay marriage cause (too busy implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I guess), yet I also don't remember hearing them referred to as left wing homophobes as a result. Does the Democratic Party platform support gay marriage today? I'm not certain, but my guess is that it doesn't. Again, where are the labels?

Thanks for the little bit of condescension, BT, but I believe that I "get it" when it comes to gay people. I just don't like having it implied that because I vote Republican I want to go out and beat up some homosexuals. That's all. I also believe that it's no more possible for me to separate my worldview from my religious beliefs than for Michael to separate his worldview from his orientation, and I make no apologies for that.

While I agree that it's refreshing to see a calm, polite political disagreement here, or anywhere for that matter, I'm signing off.

Talk among yourselves.

Paulie could change his religion, and that would change his worldview. He has constitutional protections now for making such a change. His religion is a choice. My sexual orientation is not a choice, it's something with which I was born. Despite this, I am subject to official discrimination, and people with whom Paulie identifies want to further codify that discrimination into our Constitution. We can't blame Paulie personally for repeating what the official gay-haters say, especially as the media seems to be intent upon giving the gay-haters huge amounts of free publicity. Some "liberal" media!

The so-called "marriage penalty" has been lessened, Tommy2dogs, if the party in power is to be believed. The fact that the current tax laws MIGHT not benefit same-sex couples does not justify denying us our choice. I'm sure you just wanted to make a reasonable and accurate point about tax law inequity. For John and me, like I said, our present situation works out to be a 50% Same Sex Couple Unmarriage Penalty.

I came to Roadfood today to see if there's more information about Uglesich's in New Orleans, and there's at least one new post there, but instead I continue to attempt to correct misinformation that costs John and me big bucks. I appreciate comments about "let's talk about the food," so I suggest those who send a topic into a major swerve to the right consider that their posts will be answered.