I find it absurd beyond belief that the FCC allows this type of visual image to be presented so casually in a program yet has an absolute fit when Janet Jackson briefly flashes a nipple during the Super Bowl. The fact that an incredibly violent act against a woman is treated so casually as to be background dressing for a standard cop show yet a millisecond of nudity results in hefty fines, apologies and a major decency crisis is incredible.

What kind of a message does this send to viewers? What kind of an attitude does this indicate with respect to the treatment of women? It is hard to imagine a world where advertisers line up to book time on a highly rated drama that features sexually mutilated corpses yet run for cover at the slightest suggestion of unintended nudity or sexuality. Yet this is the reality that is television, where even hardcore violence has filtered down to become yet another consumable to be processed by our couch-bound brains.

It may sound as though I am arguing against myself – railing both for and against censorship in order to tailor the content of what is broadcast to suit my personal tastes. That is not my intention. My aim is to ask you to ask yourself, what exactly do you, personally, find entertaining about absorbing such brutal and violent images? What do programs that feature these motifs bring to your life? And finally, what effect do you think being bombarded with ultra-violence has had on your perceptions of the world around you?

While these efforts are to be applauded – and don’t worry, companies like McDonalds and Taco Bell are getting the maximum publicity mileage out of each effort, no matter how small – there remains a significant source of pollution, waste and disregard for our planet that has yet to be addressed by any of the major players in the burger, fries and shake industry.

I’m talking about drive-thrus. The next time you stop by Wendy’s for a mid-day snack, count how many cars you see there just sitting, idling in line waiting for their food. Have you ever considered just how colossal a waste this is? I’m not going to lie – drive-thrus are convenient, especially when it’s cold or late at night and you just want to grab something quickly. But I’m having more and more of an issue with the idea of sitting in my car burning fuel and spewing out emissions just because I am too lazy to park and order from the counter inside.

Burger King & co might make ecologically-friendly overtures in the form of charitable donations and altered business practices, but in the one area where they could make a huge dent in global greenhouse gas emissions and take a strong leadership role when it comes to changing the habits of North American consumers, they have faltered.

The clean choice is clear – and it’s also the hardest choice. It’s obvious that a substantial percentage of profits are derived from drive-thru business, and if one chain were to shut down its windows they would lose customers to those who would forge ahead with the status quo. However, being the first also tends to have intangible benefits which could positively affect the bottom line further down the road, and the possibility of a strong consumer response could sway competitors to follow those brave enough to set an example.

Can our car culture divorce itself from the ‘need’ for drive-thru fast food service? What do you think?