I suppose that means I'm not banned. That's good.
It's quite obvious that you're not a fan of McDonalds', either (I am. I dislike Burger King, which has a virtual monopoly where I live). I don't wish to say that I don't value what you do; were business ventures not pestered by the likes of groups like you, they certainly would be far more tempted to act disreputably. It is nice to know that, were McDonalds' to substitute rat meat for the far more expensive beef they presently use, that groups like McSpotlight would raise high hell. Common Cause is also a fine group of folks; the mere act of attending the few state-level open meetings allowed by the legislatures back home kept many of them far more honest than they'd have liked to be.
This doesn't mean that I support what has been presented as alternatives. I eat meat, will likely continue to do so avidly, and am prepared to fight for my right to do so. I intend to continue accumulating wealth as well, and frequent fast-food establishments that give me quick, tasty food in return for a small part of it. I take what Frenchy said to heart - if you want to help the poor, or the homeless, do it on your own nickel. Thus, since I am sane, and partly because I know that the 'armies of the revolution' will be made from the starving and the destitute, I give up that nickel - person to person, without recourse to an intervening and affluent bureaucracy.
I wish an accomidation could be had between the activists and the common business folk. At one time, I was almost desperate for it. I can understand part of your fury; you hear someone like Frenchy, or me, and think of sweatshops in China (or Los Angeles), or oil spills off Alaska, or starving children in countries that export food to the West, and so on. What you don't necessarily see is what we see - that the pat answers given by many of the 'concerned' on these issues are meant to demonize the wealthy and corporate, perchance to rob them. I'm not wealthy, but I won't let them be robbed, no more than I'd let the poor starve (regardless of what Mrs. Rand, who I have much regard for, might have said on the matter).
Here's a thought. It might save you a great deal of effort, and do your pulse a world of good, if you'd let the locals shoot down ideas that you found sufficiently infantile or 'cheap'. I have found that the likes of Red Deathy, Lark, SDF, Nikail Jaikumar, and even the redoubtable Farinata can hold their own quite well in the face of us (not that we shirk their kind attentions either, when their own 'concerns' border on the imbecilic). I have corrected Nikail on his colorful use of statistics; although I do not agree with Farinata, and do not concede defeat, this person is obviously more knowledgable in the field of earth science than I (and has inspired me to look into the issues more deeply as well). On rare occasions, I even find myself forced to side with these denizens on simple principle, against such fine sages as Stuart Gort or Gee (or even myself), for no other reason than that they happen to be right.
In any case, I feel as if I am beating a dead horse. Lest the sorry beast find it's way into my Big Mac (or, far more likely, a Whopper), I should like to end my commentary on this fairly minor issue, and search for bigger game ...
(with an apology for those here not mentioned ... I only speak for those I've known 'virtually')
McSpotlight: Fair enough; thanks for your comment.