BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Soon air will carry a warning label

89 comments on Soon air will carry a warning label

Soon air will carry a warning label

: Today’s absurd news from the nanny culture:

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, supported by other health advocates such as Childrenís Hospital Boston, petitioned the Food and Drug Administration Wednesday to require warnings on soft drinks to alert consumers about over-indulging.

It suggested sample warnings such as ìDrink less (non-diet) soda to help prevent weight gain, tooth decay and other health problems,î or ìTo help protect your waistline and your teeth, consider drinking diet sodas.î It also suggested a label that bears a notice that caffeinated drinks are inappropriate for children.

How absurd. The nanny culture treats us as if we are all stupid and the nannies are the only ones who know what’s best for us — in food, in culture, in language.

89 responses to “Soon air will carry a warning label”

  1. W.J. Smith Avatar
    W.J. Smith

    I just sat down with an ice-cold Coke, which I don’t need considering the head congestion I’m fighting right now.
    Or maybe it’s okay.
    I really need that label on the Coke, “colas don’t help head congestion,” so I’ll know for sure — and then I’ll drink the damn Coke anyway.

  2. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Maybe they are trying to cut nuisance suits off at the head.
    “Coffee is hot”
    “Objects in mirror are closer than they appear”
    “Entertainment news is neither entertainment nor news.”

  3. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    The thought of people being free to make up their own minds on anything without first reading a warning or seeking approval and permission is to a bureaucratic bully, repellent. They simply MUST regulate, inspect and control every aspect of our lives, leaving no form unfilled. What they despise most of all is freedom, one’s personal freedom to take one’s life into one’s own hands, freedom of the press, freedom of advertisers; any kind of freedom you care to imagine.
    Bureaucrats and terrorists, today’s twin threats to freedom.

  4. KirkH Avatar
    KirkH

    Hyponatremia – a condition known as “water intoxication,” which isn’t uncommon among marathoners and triathletes.
    I can see it now. Surgeon General’s warnings on the side of every faucet.

  5. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    The warning label on the air here today is Level Orange. Sorry, JJ, you’re way behind the curve.
    Microwave much? There is often a line in the instructions to the effect that you need to remove the plastic wrap first. To get the food out of the package. But my favorite is on a pseudo Mexican brand, saying “authentic food”.

  6. Adam Avatar
    Adam

    To play devil’s advocate, obesity is a very serious problem in both economic and health terms. Food manufacturers don’t care about the effects on health of their products and fill them up with as much fat and sugar as possible. Even though it has been known for decades that trans fat (artificially modified fat of which shortening was an example) was horrible (worse than lard) for cardiac health and provided little if any taste benefit (it was cheaper though), it took enormous effort for it even to be listed on nutriton facts.
    So these organizations are basically trying to balance the enormous weight of the food lobby, which frankly doesn’t care if you keel over and if they enormously burden the health care system.
    Now the label may be a bit excessive, but on the other hand a can of soda has 40 frickin’ grams of sugar and about 160 calories. Abstaining from non-diet soda is an easy way to reduce caloric intake without reducing food consumption.
    You can complain about the “nanny culture” but what methods do you suggest for reducing the burden on the health care system and promoting a longer life? Just let people drop like flies? I mean no one likes being badgered but I don’t see another way. I think this is different than the dumb warning labels that are just there so that no one can ever sue them.
    It’s about combating the top killers in our society.

  7. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Maybe the family of 5 fat slobs who show up (waddling and sweating) at the beverage center with 7 garbage bags of empty Mountain Dew, Root Beer, and Coke cans and 2-liter bottles need the warning.
    You don’t think all these cases of juvenile diabetes are costing you money? When my health insurance, which I pay for myself, goes up 10%+ a year, it pisses me off.
    And I realize that I am paying for people who kill themselves with sugar and tobacco.
    Here, save us all the trouble, take this .30-06 bullet (only $.60) and get it over with more efficiently.

  8. G. Kell Avatar
    G. Kell

    What are you going to do with people like Adam (above), who completely miss the point.
    Adam, food purveyors aren’t trying to poison anyone. They’re trying to sell product. They’ll go whichever way the market tells them to go. The individual gets to vote with his feet and his wallet.

  9. John Avatar
    John

    Itís also an effort by beverage manufacturers to head of any future lawsuits. You may call it the “Nanny Culture” but in the last thirty years the amount of soda a twelve year old drinks has gone from 26 gallons a year to over 50. My wife works at Texas Children’s Hospital, which has one of the largest childhood obesity clinics in the country, which would have been unheard of fifteen years ago. She now specializes, and in works at the Cancer Center at TCH but has personally diagnosed 3 kids with type 2 diabetes in the last year and a half. Even five years ago when she was at Yale and specialized in Juvenile (type 1) diabetes they didn’t really cover Type 2 in Kids because it was so rare. Choice is, and always will be the best way to control your own, or your familyís behavior but then again you don’t have billions of marketing dollars to influence good, healthy choices.

  10. whodat Avatar
    whodat

    I’m not sure badgering will help much. We are a country of lardos. I don’t see it as a viable tool to promote health. And I’m curious about its efficacy. Any stats on there being less burn victims because now there are warnings on the coffee lids? It’s a CYA and like other posters said, a sales initiative like “Low Fat”.
    And the tobacco users are more than paying their fair share. Whenever we need money we drop a tax increase on them–sometimes a state and local hike. But even that is proving to be less fruitful: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17312

  11. Easycure Avatar
    Easycure

    Warning:
    When you have a blogs’ comments turned on, they may be absurd.

  12. KirkH Avatar
    KirkH

    There are arguments that smokers (not sure about the obese) are less of a burden on society because they don’t suffer in a state funded home for 20 years suffering with alzheimers disease. But numbers of years of being alive is apparently the above poster’s only definition of quality of life, freedom to do what I want isn’t part of that equation.

  13. nick Avatar
    nick

    Despite the what the name implies, The Center for Science in the Public interest is not really all that scientific and their only interest is their own. These are the people that decided a few years ago that Apples could kill you. Give them the attention they deserve which is none at all.
    But the “Nanny State” comment is interesting. What’s that mean exactly? Why is this label applied to things like this and yet never to things like the ban on gay marriage? Only one of these examples actually involves the state.

  14. Amrit Hallan Avatar
    Amrit Hallan

    I think in an over-indulgent society where people get obese drinking soft drinks and eating fast foods such warnings make hell of a sense. Some people are aware, but most are not. Most people don’t know how harmful it is to regularly consume cold drinks.

  15. Ben Sparks Avatar
    Ben Sparks

    Adam: Just let people drop like flies?
    yup… thin the herd.

  16. Jeff Hess Avatar
    Jeff Hess

    Shalom Y’all,
    I’ve long argued that the gateway drug in western society is caffeine and that children are introduced to it in the form of sugar-sweetened, carbonated beverages.
    Too many people assume that in the absence of any warning, something cannot harm them.
    Having said that, adults have a right to do stupid things. Children, on the other hand, should recieve some protection from their own ignorance.
    B’shalom,
    Jeff Hess

  17. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Nanny Culture? How about a culture so obsessed with corporate profits that it lets companies market bad nutrition directly to kids? Corporations are driven by fiduciary duty and are inherently amoral, so they have no qualms about promoting sugar drinks to kids–even in their schools!
    A can of soda has 12 teaspoons of sugar in it and now more and more Americans get most of their calories from sugared drinks!Bad nutrition is literally a national health crisis. A label is really the least we can do. (Well, the least we can do is nothing, but that really isn’t working…)

  18. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Isn’t it sad that three of the most visible symbols of America are both based on peddling garbage?
    McDonald’s, Marlboro, and Coca Cola.
    Embarrasing really.
    Imagine being an executive at Coke. Your job is to figure out how to poison more people, how to appeal to their purchasing impulses into wasting more money on sugar water and phosphoric acid. How proud must you be of yourself?

  19. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Jeff Hess:
    Honestly, do you think a child would read a label before drinking a soda, let alone comprehend it’s meaning and then decide not to drink it? Come on, not going to happen.
    Skate:
    Oh no, those evil companies are marketing to children!! You know those children who don’t have to answer to their parents and who after a hard day’s work spend their money on sugared drinks!! Give me a break.
    Adam:
    You don’t start combatting the top killers in the country with warning labels.
    If you start putting labels on everything that can make you obese you will essentially dilute the effect a warning label would have. Just think of all the items that would now need warning labels: candy, soda, ice cream, and etc. And then every menu for any restaurant would have to be labeled. It just goes on and on.
    No matter what you would like to see done by the government or these evil companies, the final decision is left to the parents. And you could also attack this problem during school: how about some focused nutrition courses in Health class when the kids are young and gym class where kids actually play games and run around. Warning labels wouldn’t do a thing.
    On a side note about health insurance, why haven’t they come up with a plan (or plans) where people who are more fit (i.e. not overweight) with a healthy lifestyle (non-smoker) pay less than those who are not?

  20. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    @ Mike, who wrote “Oh no, those evil companies are marketing to children!! You know those children who don’t have to answer to their parents and who after a hard day’s work spend their money on sugared drinks!! Give me a break.”
    No, Mike, I won’t give you a break. Bad nutrition is a serious crisis in America. Why don’t you give american children a break? Kids are heavily influenced by advertising and young children can’t differentiate marketing hype from truth.
    Children’s eating patterns are set when they are young. Clearly, their parents have to watch out for them, but they can’t be there 100% of the time, especially at schools where increasingly the fast food industry is sinking its talons into school lunch programs and soda pushers are installing vending machines.
    Remember that the US already has enough food, so the only way a fast food marketer can get you and your kids money is to get people to switch from another vendor or get them to eat more than they need. They aren’t interested in your kid’s well being, only in getting them to consume more and increase the corporate bottom line.
    I think marketing bad nutrition to children is morally reprehensible and should be banned. Lying with phrases like “An important part of this balanced breakfast” when the cereal being advertised is an irrelevant part of the depicted breakfast should also be banned. All marketers must be forced to make only truthful statements.
    These simple measures of fairness would be a first step in helping to empower parents do their job. If we can rate movies and video games, perhaps we can mark foods, too..

  21. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Imagine being an executive at Coke. Your job is to figure out how to poison more people, how to appeal to their purchasing impulses into wasting more money on sugar water and phosphoric acid. How proud must you be of yourself?
    God forbid someone might actually like the taste of Coca-Cola, or McDonalds, or Marlboro cigarettes. Oh no, that can’t be, it’s only in their mind that was tricked and coerced by those clever commercials into spending that dollar on 20oz. Coke when they could have just sipped water from a hose!

  22. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    No, Mike, I won’t give you a break. Bad nutrition is a serious crisis in America. Why don’t you give american children a break?
    I’m always concerned when someone says it’s for the children. Just curious Skate, how many kids do you have? I currently have one, and my wife and I are already planning on teaching her proper nutrition.
    Clearly, their parents have to watch out for them, but they can’t be there 100% of the time, especially at schools where increasingly the fast food industry is sinking its talons into school lunch programs and soda pushers are installing vending machines.
    Parents can put pressure on the schools to change their lunch programs. I know I will take a keen interest in that when my kids start attending school. Or of course, the Parents could make their kids lunches for them, thus eliminating the fast food problem.
    I think marketing bad nutrition to children is morally reprehensible and should be banned.
    That’s just ridiculous. Why not go that extra mile and just ban everything that’s not nutritious! That’s really what you’re after.
    These simple measures of fairness would be a first step in helping to empower parents do their job.
    Another absurd statement. Parents don’t need empowerment to do their job, they are empowered the day their kid is born. Parents hold a much greater influence over what their kids eat than a 30 second commercial or any other advertisement.
    Children’s eating patterns are set when they are young
    Exactly, we are in agreement with that statement, but the parents are most responsible for that!

  23. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    Isn’t it sad that three of the most visible symbols of America are both based on peddling garbage?
    I’m sure the French are similarly embarrassed by their exports of butter-rich food and wine. To imply America is unique in this respect is, I must say, strangely provincial.
    People are people. Generally, we like sweet and salty things, and enjoy stimulants and depressants, depending on our mood. Seeking some sort of moderation is an individual challenge.

  24. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    @ Mike, who wrote “how many kids do you have? I currently have one, and my wife and I are already planning on teaching her proper nutrition”
    Good for you. Why not help other parents by regulating the power of corporations to target your children with multi-million dollar ad campaigns? Why wouldn’t you want this?
    “I’m always concerned when someone says it’s for the children.”
    Agreed, ‘Just think of the kids’ is overused. But in the case of **children’s** nutrition it’s kind of hard to avoid!!! Who the heck else would it be for? The converse in this case would be ‘Think of the corporations.’ I, for one, think they should stick to marketing to grownups and leave kids alone.
    Oh, and I don’t have kids yet. But that doesn’t prevent me from having insight into corporate marketing techniques, neither does your having children mean that you have instant insight or moral high ground.
    “Why not go that extra mile and just ban everything that’s not nutritious! That’s really what you’re after.”
    What are you, Sylvia Browne? You don’t know what I’m after so please don’t pretend that you do. There is no such thing as bad food, only bad diet. The fast food companies are marketing bad diet directly to children. Why you would defend this reprehensible practice rather suspect.
    “Parents hold a much greater influence over what their kids eat than a 30 second commercial or any other advertisement.”
    Would that it were only one 30 second commercial! It is an entire marketing scheme. I why you would actually want to make your life harder to have to constantly deprogram your child is beyond me. I think you greatly underestimate the marketing influence the your child will be exposed to.
    Nothing you have said suggests that you are anything but a good parent, but I really fail to understand why you want children to be marketed to. There is no fundamental right of corporations to market to children.

  25. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    People need to stop listening to the Spurlock nannies who lie as much as any evil corporate marketer. The fact is, kids are getting fat because they are LAZY. Parents allow them to play video games and watch TV rather than play outside. They are so pursuaded by the fear news pumps into them that they don’t let their kids out of their site. Growing up, I had one rule in the summer- be home by dark. Now parents keep their kids on such a tight leash they are sedintary. And I’m only 30 and live in a city, so I’m not talking about “the good old days” in a rural town.
    And to the people who support this kind of nonsense, why don’t you understand it is NOT a legitimate function of government to make sure you are healthy, or to help raise your children?

  26. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    And Skate, regardless of the marketing to kids and your view of it, who makes the actual purchases of food? I don’t know many 5-year-olds who do the family grocery shopping.

  27. penny Avatar
    penny

    How about a culture so obsessed with corporate profits that it lets companies market bad nutrition directly to kids?
    Somewhere missing from that equation is a parent with control over the grocery list and the tv. It’s not like Hershey’s exercises mind control over the masses.
    Yes, yes, Skate, the evil corporation!!! A predictable simplistic adolescent response.
    Corporate profits are a good thing. Without them you don’t have a viable business; then, you don’t have a job or shares of other profitable companies in your pension plan.
    Isn’t it sad that three of the most visible symbols of America are both based on peddling garbage?
    Sadder and more profound is the cultural garbage exported by Hollywood abroad.

  28. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    This thread reminds me of Jon Stewart’s rip on Bernard Goldberg (author of 100 People who are Screwing up America) last night. Aren’t there bigger problems to delve into than whether there are warninig labels on a can of soda? Is a warning label really that great of a threat to liberty?

  29. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    For Penny, who wrote, “Yes, yes, Skate, the evil corporation!!! A predictable simplistic adolescent response.
    Corporate profits are a good thing. Without them you don’t have a viable business; then, you don’t have a job or shares of other profitable companies in your pension plan.”
    No, Penny, I never said corporations are evil–inspire of your implication. They are, however, amoral in the truest sense of the word. Note that I didn’t propose **banning** corporations but proposed **regulating** certain aspects of their behavior. Corporations are not people and they do not have unlimited rights nor are they exempt from laws and regulations. Regulating their ability to profit at the expense of our nation’s youth is not a simplistic adolescent response, unlike your free-market corporations can do no wrong attitude.

  30. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    BTW, Penny and Mike, do you also feel that those oppressive “ingredients” and “nutrition” labels on food are also horrible government intrusions into corporation’s rights? The food industry fought both of those regulations tooth and nail.

  31. scree Avatar
    scree

    As a Canadian who does a lot of my business in your country, I’ve got to take Mike’s side on this. We have basically the same kinds of warnings on our food products as you do (in French, too) yet our obesity and diabetic rates are nowhere close to yours. He suggests “some focused nutrition courses in Health class when the kids are young and gym class where kids actually play games and run around.” Nutrition classes are pretty much universal here and active gym classes are compulsory up through the tenth grade. Some combination of his focus on parental responsibility and Hubris’s call for “some sort of moderation” as an “individual challenge” seems to strike closer to a solution. (Skate, kids were getting fat well before any fast food conglomerates got their feet in the doors of public schools, but you’re still right there to oppose it.)
    And I’d leave it at that except for the fact that it seems to be taking a huge economic toll on your health care system so that it’s probably every American’s concern. So, letting people eat and drink themselves to death doesn’t seem to be a viable option since too many individuals don’t seem up to the challenge for which Hubris wishes.
    I’m not one of those Canadians who immodestly takes delight in taking shots at “fat Americans.” I see as many fat people in LA and NY as I do in Toronto and Vancouver. However, whenever I do business in the South (namely, Texas and Arkansas), that’s where the obesity is glaring. We have fat people in rural areas here, too, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but it’s not on the scale of what I witness down south. And I notice that every time I return from a trip to San Antonio, I’ve gained a few pounds. It strikes me, then, that obesity is a cultural phenomenon that grows regionally. In Texas, I can’t avoid over-eating because my peers are ordering dinners in “Texas sized” portions (larger than extra-large) and it’s completely acceptable in their culture. And they’re not eating to stave off depression (although I’m sure depression and anxiety often have a lot to do with it on an individual scale; just check out a trailer park) but because that’s just what everyone around there does. It’s even celebrated. (We don’t have eating contests here, or any that I know of.)
    How do you change a culture of eating? I’ve no idea (although I’m sure Malcolm Gladwell has some in “The Tipping Point”). Our government gets as involved as it can only because we have universal health care which comes from all our pockets. So it’s in my best interests to not only be my neighbour’s keeper, but his jogging partner as well.
    Sorry for my bloggish intrusion. Keep it up.

  32. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Corporations are not people and they do not have unlimited rights nor are they exempt from laws and regulations. Regulating their ability to profit at the expense of our nation’s youth is not a simplistic adolescent response, unlike your free-market corporations can do no wrong attitude.

    Huh? People are also not exempt from laws and regulations. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just worded that incorrectly. Skate, the parents have to buy these products for the kids, they’re the ones making the choices not the kids. The parents also regulate what their kids eat when they are young and they should be teaching their kids about nutrition at the same time. Your beef should be with parents who don’t give a damn what their kids get, as long as their kids don’t pester them about it!!!
    And no Skate, I actually think the nutrition labels are a good thing. And those nutrition labels are the reason why a warning label or regulations on marketing by these “amoral” companies is stupid and nonsensical. You have all you need to know right in front of you with that nutrition label. If you don’t know that eating something with a lot of fat or a lot of calories, and then choosing to not work that off through activity, will get you fat, then a warning label isn’t going to help anyway!

  33. penny Avatar
    penny

    Corporations are not people
    The Matrix is really a movie, Skate.
    Corporations are made up of people – from the CEO to the employees to the shareholders. All are people.
    Corporations respond to all of the above plus the consumer. They respond to public demand if they want to stay in business. McDonald’s offers more salads, for example.
    People drive recklessly and die in cars. GM isn’t evil for selling those dimwits cars. GM could not anticipate their alcohol problem.
    I like candy bars. Hersheys can’t be held responsible if I eat 1 or 50 a day.
    Flaws so far, Skate?……….

  34. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Mike wrote, “Huh? People are also not exempt from laws and regulations. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just worded that incorrectly. ”
    Mike, I wrote “Corporations are not people and they do not have unlimited rights nor are they exempt from laws and regulations.”
    This is worded correctly. You have incorrectly parsed it to mean that the converse must be true. By pointing out that corporations are not people, I’m trying to emphases that the regulation of corporate speech is different than the regulation of the speech of individuals. I make this differentiation because I do have a fondness for liberty and freedom but I don’t believe, nor is it the case, that corporations are entitled to all of the rights as a person.
    Should my beef be with bad parents? That is a much trickier area to deal with. In very rare circumstances, morbidly obese children have been taken from grossly negligent children with cause; however, that is not a solution for our nation’s poor health and nutrition problems.
    To be sure, cracking down on marketing to children will not make irresponsible parents responsible but it will cut down on the misleading noise kids get which fights for attention with the teaching they receive from their parents and school.
    Kids deserve every advantage we can give them. If we can protect them from advertising by regulating marketing to kids, I think we owe it to them to try and do it. It isn’t a complete solution, but it is part of one. I don’t see a downside to cracking down to marketing to kids.

  35. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    So Skate, since you can’t deal with individual “bad parents” you’re solution is to involve government. I what way do you think this is a legit function of government?

  36. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    “So Skate, since you can’t deal with individual “bad parents” you’re solution is to involve government. I what way do you think this is a legit function of government?”
    A legitamate question, Richard, and I would say it is a matter of degrees. And I’m going to go out on limb here and bet that you agree with me at least in some part.
    Should people be allowed to give 4 year-old kids heroin? We have **government** regulation that makes it illegal. Is that a “nanny society” making laws instead of dealing with bad parents. I’d say not.
    You can debate where you want the line to be drawn, but I don’t doubt that you want it drawn somewhere.

  37. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    And I’d add that regulating corporations from marketing to kids is not a terribly onerous regulation.

  38. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    Everyone commenting on this should read Consuming Kids

  39. penny Avatar
    penny

    Hey, Skate, let’s not jump from giving children candy bars to heroin otherwise you could be accused of going from the sublime to the ridiculous.
    And I’d add that regulating corporations from marketing to kids is not a terribly onerous regulation
    Then you’re back to parents, Skate, as they ultimately control tv viewing and groceries. It isn’t against the law to have a tv-less household. Corporations can blow all they want on ads, but it’s not much good and goes away if adults aren’t making the purchases. Makes sense to me.
    You seem to be impling that individuals have no free will against corporate interests. Sorta insulting to most of us, isn’t it?

  40. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Michael Zimmer wrote, “Everyone commenting on this should read Consuming Kids”
    Kinda hard since it isn’t out yet. But here is some of the description:
    “The average American child sees about 40,000 television commercials every year. Companies target younger viewers all the time, selling everything from sugar cereals to minivans, and cross-promotional marketing influences everything from the food stocked in school vending machines to the characters who appear in childrenís books. Kids are requesting specific brands as soon as they can talk. American corporations spend over $15 billion yearly on marketing to children in an effort to cultivate nagging, insatiable, ìcradle-to-graveî consumers.
    In this shocking and engrossing exposÈ, psychologist Susan Linn reveals how the marketing industry preys on kids from the day theyíre born, exploiting their vulnerabilities and skewing their values in order to influence what they eat, wear, and play with. This advertising blitz stifles creativity and exacerbates obesity, eating disorders, violence, sexual precocity, and substance abuse. Linnóa mother herselfórecognizes that parents alone are no match for the marketing experts. What they need is the concerted help of healthcare professionals, educators, and legislators who have childrenís best interests in mind. Consuming Kids is a call to action for anyone who cares about the well-being of children.”
    Perhaps we should reconvene and have a book club? Inspite of my forceful argumentation, I do pay attention to the points others make and consider them. I may change my mind at some point. However, I do think one point in the book’s description is quite salient, which is the question of whether a parent “is a match” for a multibillion dollar marketing onslaught which uses advanced psychology and testing to influence children.
    Mike, I think, would point out that the parent is the gatekeeper. I’d say that today’s marketing is a very, very big battering ram.

  41. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    I think the answer, when it comes to what children eat or watch (and many other things too), is exactly what several people here have suggested – it’s up to the parents to decide what is or is not appropriate for their children to eat and to see. No regulatory agency can do for parents what parents themselves should be doing.
    I’m always a little wary when someone tells me they know better than other people, are more ëenlightenedí, and are really concerned about protecting the ‘vulnerable’ and the ‘victims’ of society who are unfortunate enough not to have had a proper education but have had to learn about life through real experience.
    I have found that this is the siren song of the bureaucratic bully, the bedrock on which rests their legitimacy for telling people what to think and how to live. I often hear people wonder where the Naziís came from. How did millions of ordinary Germans (a minority of their population) become monsters overnight? My answer is that they were always there and are always around us, not just in Germany, but all over the world. Look around you! That parking attendant ticketing someoneís car who has just nipped in to fill a prescription; the unhelpful person at the customer service counter who can help you but chooses not to; the security guard in your lobby who wonít let you pass because your i.d. card expired yesterday, even though he knows from the computer that youíre still employed and your supervisor is wondering upstairs why the hell youíre so late; the nosy neighbor who peeks out their window and spys, desperate to call the police and report on you.
    Give people like these real authority and legitimacy with an organization to back them up and they will take pleasure in making everybodyís life miserable just because they can.

  42. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    Skate, I don’t think your point stands. Heroin is illegal (although it shouldn’t b for adults), food is nourishment. I simply don’t buy the argument that marketing and food are the culprits in American’s becoming fat asses. The problem with groups like the CSPI is that they do sloppy research, and say things that respectable research does not support. Then the media picks up a new scare (obesity is a health-care crisis) that then becomes fact in the public mind. Then lawmakers jump on the bandwagon and get govenment involved in an issue they have no business being in at all
    Problem is, it’s all based on bs. Caloric intake among children has only increased about 1-2% over the last 20 years. INACTIVITY has increased quite a bit (about 13%). The fact is, Coke and McDonnalds have been around for decades, people used to live on meals made of the most “unhealthy” foods around and didn’t used to be so fat. You can eat nothing but healthy foods, but if you eat 3500 calories a day, and only burn 1000, you’re going to be a fat ass, regardless of where those 3500 calories come from. The resposibility is on the individual, and in children’s cases, the parent.

  43. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    From Penny,
    “you seem to be impling that individuals have no free will against corporate interests. Sorta insulting to most of us, isn’t it?”
    Not insulting if you are talking about young children, and we are, since they have an inherent inability to differentiate marketing hype from truth.
    “Hey, Skate, let’s not jump from giving children candy bars to heroin otherwise you could be accused of going from the sublime to the ridiculous.”
    No sublime needed, though I have used argumentum ad absurdum, aka reductio ad absurdum, to show that people don’t really believe that government regulation is wrong.
    (This is related to the element of truth in an old joke where “a man asks a woman if she’d sleep with him for a million dollars. When she says yes, he asks if she’d sleep with him for five dollars, and indignant, she exclaims ‘What do you think I am?’
    He answers, ‘We’re already established what you are, ma’am, now we’re just haggling over the price.’”)
    Thus, it is not a question of whether to regulate but where to draw the line…

  44. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    Right on Noel!

  45. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Richard wrote, “Skate, I don’t think your point stands. Heroin is illegal (although it shouldn’t b for adults), food is nourishment.”
    Well, heroin isn’t illegal because it’s illegal–it is illegal because we think it is bad for society. I do appreciate that you have a consistent approach to reduced regulation in saying it shouldn’t be illegal for adults but you also admit that we need to be more protective of children with our laws than of adults. We just differ on where to draw the line.
    You make an important point about inactivity vs. caloric intake. This is a big problem with diet in the Midwest, which grew out of the caloric needs for people who were actually getting out and working. However, the reduced activity of today’s youth is well known, marketing additional calories to children when companies know the additional intake will be detrimental to the majority is irresponsible.
    My point about marketing to kids is larger than just food products. I don’t think corporations should be able to market directly to young children. I don’t think it is in our interests as society to allow them to aim all of their marketing prowess at our impressionable youth.
    If, as many have proposed, parents are the gatekeepers to youths then let corporations market to adults who have children and not directly to children.

  46. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    There’s no point in this forum in obscuring simple meanings by couching them in fancy latin phrases. None of us here will be either impressed or intimidated. Your argument either has merit or it falls splat on its nose.

  47. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Noel wrote, “I’m always a little wary when someone tells me they know better than other people, are more ëenlightenedí, and are really concerned about protecting the ‘vulnerable’ and the ‘victims’ of society who are unfortunate enough not to have had a proper education”
    It is good to be wary. I’m wary of corporations, you are wary of regulating corporations. Which of us is more wary?
    “I have found that this is the siren song of the bureaucratic bully, the bedrock on which rests their legitimacy for telling people what to think and how to live.”
    There are many people who do this. Advertisers who want to tell us what to buy, and both liberals and conservatives who tell us what to think.
    “I often hear people wonder where the Naziís came from. How did millions of ordinary Germans (a minority of their population) become monsters overnight? My answer is that they were always there and are always around us, not just in Germany, but all over the world.”
    Do you really think that suggesting that corporations shouldn’t market to children is somehow related to Nazi appeasement? I, perhaps, should remind you that fascism is a confluence of Corporate and Government interests. Regulating corporations from potentially abusive behavior is the opposite of fascism. You are really out on a limb here.
    “the nosy neighbor who peeks out their window and spys, desperate to call the police and report on you.”
    Sorry, regulating advertising to children does not equal police state, nor fascism.
    Richard, I respected your salient points but the idea that you would endorse the equivocation of regulating marketing to children with Nazism is disturbing and non-sensical.

  48. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Noel wrote, “There’s no point in this forum in obscuring simple meanings by couching them in fancy latin phrases. None of us here will be either impressed or intimidated. Your argument either has merit or it falls splat on its nose.”
    Penny said I was being absurd, I agreed and explained why and why that actually proved my point. The latin isn’t why I was right, just some information on logic and argumentation for those who are interested.
    Well, I can lead you to a fountain of knowledge…
    Speaking of having an argument falling on its nose, see my comments on your ridiculous assertion that regulation of marketing to children is the equivalent of Nazi appeasement.

  49. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    Just for clarification, I was agreeing with Noel’s overall point that bitter little people with a little power suck. Not that marketing or regualation have any correlation with Nazi’s. :)
    The biggest problem I have with this kind of regualation, and the argument that it’s “for the kids” is that it is not the government’s job to regualate our habits, or our kids habits. The smoking bans in some states/cities comes from the same mindset of “WE know better than you, you can’t be trusted to make your own choices, let US force you to behave the way we think you should”. In the smoking ban cases, we have let government interfere with private business, hurting many of them, just because some people don’t like smoke. Like the CSPI, the arguments are made with sloppy science, half-truths and scare tactics. Things like this food regulation are just part of the death by a thousand pin-pricks to our liberties. Wait until THEY decide something YOU enjoy is bad for kids….

  50. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    Hello again Skate. The tendency to fascism is unfortunately a part of human nature. One day they will find the gene, the bureaucratic fascist gene, and irradicate it. Okay, maybe they won’t, but I wish they would.
    Whether it’s corporate regulation or people regulation, I am firmly against all unnecessary regulation. However, no matter what your opinion is, the power here really does lie with the consumer and in the case of children, with the parents.
    I may disapprove of parents who give in to children’s fits, whether their kids are throwing fits about the latest gizmo they saw on a billboard or on TV or whether its for a second ice-cream from their local street vendor. I might even tell them so, but the difference between you and me is that I recognize that this is my point of view. It would never occur to me to try to regulate them or write a law forcing them to live their lives the way I see fit.

  51. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    It’s kind of fun to listen in on this theoretical dispute. Children are not windup toys, neither the corporate marketers nor their parents will have total control over them. My two hyperactive children were given only pure foods at home – but at friends’ houses, even well-meaning family, they got sympathy and trash food.
    We had an annual ‘freak week’ when they had all the sugar coated cereals, Ho-Hos, sodas, McDonalds and Krispy Kremes they could stomach. And their behavior was the problem of their grandparents, who let them wreak havoc on themselves. Worked pretty well, and kind of reinforced the health food regime – they wouldn’t admit it for the longest time, but they were miserable the whole time.
    Warning labels? How about “Handle with CARE” and put it on the kids.

  52. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Richard wrote, “things like this food regulation are just part of the death by a thousand pin-pricks to our liberties. Wait until THEY decide something YOU enjoy is bad for kids…”
    You make an interesting point about government regulation of activities that you can do–eating, smoking, whatever. I’m proposing regulating what we can advertise and target at kids. I haven’t in these posts proposed regulating what kids should eat or what kind of things they should be able to buy (well, with the exception of the heroin I mentioned earlier.)
    I appreciate your slippery slope argument, but I’ve only proposed regulating marketing. I don’t see that as regulating your behavior–unless you are a company that targets kids.
    PS,
    I do support smoking bans inside business and public buildings, though. The restaurant and bar industry said it would ruin them, first in CA then in NY. Both claims were false. I think filling a room with smoke is ridiculous and unhealthy for employees and non-smoking customers. But I think your arguments against regulation might hold up better to my support of smoking bans than to my support of banning marketing to children.

  53. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    Skate, re: “your ridiculous assertion that regulation of marketing to children is the equivalent of Nazi appeasement” – you know I never said that. You are misinterpreting my words deliberately.
    One of the nice things about blogging is that it is not a verbal debate. People can go back and see exactly what I said and any attempts to distort my meaning or take things that I’ve said out of context will fall splat on their nose!

  54. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Ruth wrote, “It’s kind of fun to listen in on this theoretical dispute.”
    Is it theoretical? We actually do have some advertising limits for children’s TV shows. We can regulate marketing to children, within the limitations of corporate free speech, if we have a will to do it.
    Was it the kids who suffered more or the grandparents? :-)
    (Regardless of my in any post, I always wish parents the best for their children…)

  55. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Ruth wrote, “It’s kind of fun to listen in on this theoretical dispute.”
    Is it theoretical? We actually do have some advertising limits for children’s TV shows. We can regulate marketing to children, within the limitations of corporate free speech, if we have a will to do it.
    Was it the kids who suffered more or the grandparents? :-)
    (Regardless of my in any post, I always wish parents the best for their children…)

  56. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    Tell me Skate, do you even have children? And if you do, do you buy them every latest faddy thing that they see? Are they traumatized if you refuse? Is your TV on all day? Or do you have an off button?
    Decide for yourself what’s right and what’s wrong for your children, as I do.

  57. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    But it’s the same point Skate. You are advocating government to regulate a perfectly legal activity you find distateful. Same with smoking bans. And how do you avoid marketing to certain age groups? MADD wants beer companies to stop targeting teens, and lobby for legislation of such. Well, how do you market to a 21-25 year old male without also appealing to a 17-year-old? Be it food, smoking or alcohol, government should not be interfering with our choices, or the ability of companies who provide our food and vice to sell them.

  58. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    I think the European warning labels for cigarettes are the best. Blunt and graphic. “Flaccid” cigarettes, black lungs, disgusting smiles under yellowed moustaches.
    Of course, they all still smoke, but whatever.
    It would be great if soda cans, Lunchables, and all the other box-o’-chemical foods carried labels like these:
    This product is why you’re fat and smelly.
    Have a glass of water and an apple instead. You might get laid more often.
    You are drinking a chemical used as a rust remover.
    5% natural! Buy some actual food instead.
    Don’t complain about the price of gas when you’re spending $2 per gallon on corn syrup and water. And that’s on sale, lardass.

  59. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Noel wrote, “skate, re: “your ridiculous assertion that regulation of marketing to children is the equivalent of Nazi appeasement” – you know I never said that. You are misinterpreting my words deliberately.”
    Not at all. That is how I read your statement. You are the one who brought up Nazis in a thread about warnings on soda.
    “One of the nice things about blogging is that it is not a verbal debate.”
    Actually, this isn’t blogging. What Jeff does is blogging. Also, it **is** a “verbal debate.” What it isn’t is an “oral debate.” Perhaps you should have paid attention to the “fancy latin” in school:-)
    You really should be careful throwing around those wishes for people to fall “splat on their nose.”

  60. Dak Avatar
    Dak

    Mike writes: On a side note about health insurance, why haven’t they come up with a plan (or plans) where people who are more fit (i.e. not overweight) with a healthy lifestyle (non-smoker) pay less than those who are not?
    Indeed, you get more of that which you encourage.
    But what do we encourage?
    The liberal mantra is for disciplined Americans who play by the rules, to always bear the costs of the undisciplined who don’t. Since self discipline nearly always leads to success, the disciplined are also expected to willingly assume the blame as well, for the sorry situations poor choices invariably bring to the undisciplined.

  61. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Richard wrote, “Well, how do you market to a 21-25 year old male without also appealing to a 17-year-old?’
    That can be tricky. What if I proposed no marketing to pre-teens?
    Also, I agree with people who say we need to be responsible for our choices. But I also think we need a reasonable basis for our decision. Marketing is about getting you to buy a product by convincing you you need it, whether you do or not and whether it is good for you or bad for you, or whether or not it is the best product. Marketing is about subverting your decision making psychology in ways you don’t even recognized. You are not always making the rational choice you think you are. But we are adults and have to live with such facts. I think that we should protect children from deliberate psychological manipulation by strangers! (Yup, I’m using another legitimate way to look at marketing to kids to see if anyone, anyone has any outrage over this…)

  62. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    Skate, I’m not wishing for you personally to fall splat on your nose. I’m pointing out that your arguments do not hold up and therefore fall splat on their noses! And you haven’t answered my question: Do you have children of your own and is your TV on all day?
    Overregulation is a way to bully without fists, whether it’s regulating soda or telling me for the good of my children what they should be allowed to watch on TV. I’ll make that decision thank you very much without the government needing to lift a finger. Think of all the taxpayer dollars we’ll save!
    And since you’re nitpicking, according to the law a verbal agreement is one that is spoken and not written down. According to the law, Skate … you know, regulations on a pedestal.

  63. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Dak wrote,”Since self discipline nearly always leads to success,”
    This the conservative mantra. It is also false. Who works harder, the 100 million dollar CEO or the minimum wage janitor holding down multiple jobs to send his kids to college. Pay in the US is not proportionate to the amount of effort the job requires. The CEO probably does work very hard and is very good at his job, but there are plenty of people who work just has hard and only get minimum wage.

  64. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    Skate says: “I think that we should protect children from deliberate psychological manipulation by strangers!”
    Are you a friend of my children? As far as I’m concerned you are a stranger.
    I happen to agree that too much TV or advertising is unhealthy for children. I also very strongly believe that the excessively violent games that come out for Playstation etc. are extremely unhealthy for children and teenagers. My solution is to make sure they never get into my home. However, if there weren’t a market for these products, no company would produce them. It is society that has to change and no amount of government regulation is going to solve that problem. That is up to each individual in each society. In cases where you are living in a society that does not mirror as closely as you would like the standards you have for your children, my solution is to move rather than to try to force everyone to conform to my views.

  65. penny Avatar
    penny

    Pay in the US is not proportionate to the amount of effort the job requires.
    How about risk and education as factors? The janitor should make the same as a pediatric neurosurgeon?
    The more you yak, the more you give away about yourself. My guess is that you are very young, have a sheeple spouting(corporations, bad; war, bad; conservatives, bad; capitalism, bad, etc) good enough education and aren’t a serious contender in the work force. No Kids, minimal responsibilities. Lots of learned leftist mantras not tested by reality yet.
    Continuing a dialogue with you as an adult is a time waster. Your not ready to open your mind.

  66. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Noel, wrote “And you haven’t answered my question: Do you have children of your own and is your TV on all day?”
    Or, you could just try reading the thread! Say, wasn’t it you who pointed out how great it was that the whole discussion has a reviewable record? The fact is that this has been asked and answered. Your ignorance is not my problem nor my responsibility.
    “And since you’re nitpicking, according to the law a verbal agreement is one that is spoken and not written down. According to the law, Skate … you know, regulations on a pedestal.”
    Ouch! Wrong again and with the same words! That would be an “Oral Agreement” you are thinking of, though you are one of many who make this common misuse of the term. Verbal basically means “with words” and doesn’t differentiate between spoken or written. If you wish to define a contract which is only spoken, then “oral” is the correct word. I gotta say, that Latin which you mocked me for really would have helped you here…
    You are awfully happy with yourself for someone who is wrong… You should probably stop now before you try for a hat trick.
    In a separate post, “Are you a friend of my children? As far as I’m concerned you are a stranger.”
    I’m a stranger. Thank you for figuring that out. Of course the obvious difference you are ignoring is that **I’m** not marketing to your children!

  67. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Penny wrote, “How about risk and education as factors? The janitor should make the same as a pediatric neurosurgeon?”
    Ah, how simplistic your inference is. Should a CEO who makes 100 million dollars bankrupting a corporation make more than a doctor saving lives in Nigeria?
    Sorry to disappoint you Penny, but I’m not a raving soc ialist. However, the current multiple of CEO earnings to average worker pay is not making America stronger. I’d say the excessive salaries are part and parcel with the sense of entitlement and greed that fueled all of the recent massive corporate frauds.
    “Continuing a dialogue with you as an adult is a time waster. Your not ready to open your mind.”
    You first Penny. Show me a post where your open mind has been swayed to the other side? BTW, blinding accepting your opinion as fact is not the same as having an open mind.

  68. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    Skate, you’re right. It does mean with words but it is used primarily with reference to speech. In the common man’s tongue, i.e. two thousands years after latin fell out of common use, verbal and oral are interchangeable, but you will not hear ‘verbal’ being used to mean ‘written’ unless perhaps you are a UK solicitor.
    Re: “Of course the obvious difference you are ignoring is that **I’m** not marketing to your children”
    If you had the power to regulate advertisers, you would be in the position of making decisions on behalf of my children for me and those decisions would reflect your personal preferences.
    I think you are clever and you argue well, but it is not the government’s job to run our lives. They simply help the machinery that supports our civilization to tick over and they do this with a lot of wasted money and wasted time. It is up to each individual to decide how to live and what restrictions to their liberties they are willing to allow.

  69. Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet) Avatar
    Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet)

    I have always wondered whether there have been any scientific studies as to whether warning labels are really effective?
    It is remarkable that this has not been discussed by Skate or anyone else on the thread. It has been my impression, for example, that warning labels do not deter anyone who is truly interested in drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes.
    Any links to studies showing these things are effective?
    I have a hunch they are at best palliative in the sense that they make legislators and regulators feel like they have “done something”.
    That said, I also think they are not much of a burden on the manufacturer, (unlike nutritional information which costs something for an assay plus some quality control to assure accuracy).
    Further, they don’t burden consumers much, because, I believe, they are seldom read or heeded.

  70. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Noel wrote, “If you had the power to regulate advertisers, you would be in the position of making decisions on behalf of my children for me and those decisions would reflect your personal preferences.”
    I have proposed both a blanket prohibition on advertising to children and also a prohibition on advertising bad nutrition to children, by which I mean fast food and sodas, primarily. While you can argue over definitions for the latter, I don’t think you can make a good case that reducing advertising to your children is the same as making decisions on their behalf since advertising is the marketing of a product, not the ability to purchase it–which I have not advocated in this forum to regulate.
    ” It does mean with words but it is used primarily with reference to speech. In the common man’s tongue, i.e. two thousands years after latin fell out of common use, verbal and oral are interchangeable, but you will not hear ‘verbal’ being used to mean ‘written’ unless perhaps you are a UK solicitor.”
    I’m going to disagree with you here. When you are trying to be specific, and you were, about the idea of something that is specifically spoken and not written, verbal is not the right word to use. While common usage blurs the line slightly, since verbal still means written and oral it is not clear communication if you try to use it to mean only spoken. Your previous example of a “verbal contract” being one not written is a good example. In that case, using the wrong words actually would have legal implications.
    “In legal usage, an oral argument and an oral contract are spoken rather than written. And a few states allow an oral (or nuncupative) will under special circumstances. A verbal agreement is spoken or written, i.e., expressed in words rather than implied by conduct. Random House Webster’s Dictionary of the Law explains that “An offer of contract may be accepted either verbally or by conduct manifesting agreement, such as commencement of performance.”
    [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010626]
    While Latin is not commonly spoken, the term “verbal” is of Latin derivation, hence the reason knowledge of Latin would have been useful to you in this discussion.
    “but it is not the government’s job to run our lives. ”
    I remain unconvinced that restricting advertising to children constitutes the government running your life.
    “It is up to each individual to decide how to live and what restrictions to their liberties they are willing to allow.”
    I don’t think it should be up to advertisers to decide if they are going to use multi-million-dollar psychologically based marketing campaigns to manipulate your children without your permission.

  71. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Jim wrote, “I have a hunch they are at best palliative in the sense that they make legislators and regulators feel like they have “done something”.”
    You are probably right. Note that I have primarily been arguing to restrict advertising to children rather than for more warning labels.
    I believe that the nutrition labels have been a bit of a bust. I certainly use them. However, they were watered down by the food industry who manipulated the portion sizes to artificially low levels to make their foods seem healthier. A twenty-four ounce size of soda claims to have “3 servings” and only gives the total calories nutritional info for the “8 ounce serving,” even though a 12 ounce can is “one serving.” Note other products that list silly portions such as 1 cookie.
    Would a warning label help. I’d love to see some data. At the very least, it would seem to inject at least a chance that people would pay attention. But I wouldn’t want to go overboard with the warnings, I’d rather see some teeth in regulations governing food safety in meat packing plants. Got to start somewhere, safety should be first

  72. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    Skate writes: “This the conservative mantra. It is also false. Who works harder, the 100 million dollar CEO or the minimum wage janitor holding down multiple jobs to send his kids to college. Pay in the US is not proportionate to the amount of effort the job requires. The CEO probably does work very hard and is very good at his job, but there are plenty of people who work just has hard and only get minimum wage.
    Skate, America was built on the conservative mantra. Nothing else has ever worked like it…anywhere. It is faltering now, with the liberal premise that everything is someone else’s fault or responsibility.
    My Dad would not marry or have children until he could afford to. He was started out very poor, having dropped out of school in the 9th grade to support his Mom, and five siblings after his Dad died. It took him to age 30 to get where he could support a wife and any children that might result.
    Somehow we’ve gotten away from that type of taking personal responsibility.
    A man with a minumum wage job has no business creating a family until he has moved himself up the ladder beyond minimum wage.
    Minimum wage is for kids…first jobs…when you are first learning.
    Yeah, stuff happens, (as in poor choices) like pregnancies and early marriage. When they do life gets harder.
    Surely that’s not the government’s fault, or the fault of other people.
    Unless disabled, you do have the choice not to remain at minimum wage…even if you foolishly take on a family before you’ve advanced beyond it. It’s just a much tougher haul.
    My Uncle supported a wife and kids with a fulltime job, while going to a community
    college at night. Needless to say, for both he and his wife, for many years there was little but work in both their lives.
    Should my Uncle have been paid more than a janitor, when later he made profitable deals for his company? You bet. Particularly as he created wealth (profits) within the corporation he worked for. Surely he deserved a bigger chunk than the guy washing the floor and thinking about ..whatever.
    Though the janitor works hard, he’s an expense, not a wealth creator. He doesn’t create one penny of the cash it takes to pay himself and others a higher salary.
    I have only a high school education, and was left alone with two small children to raise at age 29. I worked non-stop for many years owning and operating a small grocery. As I created profits (wealth) , I was able to raise, support and educate my children. It hasn’t been easy.
    On top of a 15 hour day, seven days a week, I went home afterward and was homemaker and mother. And now, at a time when I should be retired, I am attempting to reinvent myself, as a dishonest employee I foolishly trusted, ruined me.
    But that’s the risk that goes along with creating any sort of profits or wealth. Sometimes you win big, but when you lose, the losses are big too.
    It seems at times, liberals think some were put on earth to become job creators, while the only roles of the rest are as job takers.
    The beauty of America…is that even though liberals promote weakness and dependency by encouraging you to blame others and the government to take responsibility for you, your own behavior truly does get to affect the outcome of your life …….like nowhere else on earth.

  73. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Lynn wrote, “It seems at times, liberals think some were put on earth to become job creators, while the only roles of the rest are as job takers.”
    And it seems that conservatives think the Earth was put under us to be raped and pillaged as quickly as possible, leaving only the spoils for our decedents.
    The neo-conservative agenda blurs the distinction of who is “conservative.” I wouldn’t call the budget busting fiscal priorities of the current administration conservative by any means. Conservative used to try and pin the Reagan era budget deficits on the Democratic congress, though studies have shown that claim to be false. Now with a Republican congress and a Republican Administration we can see that budget busting is a Republican fault (and don’t try and blame the war in Iraq for the budget–Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn’t have weapons of mass destruction making the war with Iraq a Republican choice.)
    Lynn, I think you are right in thinking personal responsibility and success are linked but the linkage is far from perfect. Does anyone think GW would be president were it not for the advantages given to him by his family? That premise wouldn’t pass the laugh test.
    Not everyone can rise to the top. The size of the top is not unlimited and our economy depends on having lots of people at the bottom. The people who pick your food are as important to our economy as the people at the top. However, we are increasingly outsourcing everything, from food production, manufacturing, programing, customer service and data processing–all with the full support of Conservatives who see every temporary profit as a gain without looking at the bigger picture of what is good for America in the long run. Eventually, even the CEO’s and shareholders will be outsourced (China is trying to buy Unocal) and America could be left with nothing but low paid service employees. America can’t stay great selling each-other fried chicken. The Conservative mantra has been corrupted–which wasn’t very hard to do since it was always about personal gain in the first place.
    In contrast to the professed conservative love of personal responsibility and accountability comes a deliberate lack of accountability for the corporations who make up the backbone of our economy. Even in the wake of world record accounting scandals, the Republicans didn’t pass any significant public accountability for individuals who run public corporations.
    The Republican ideals would be a lot better if what was good for the goose was applied to the gander as well. What are the conservatives doing right now? They are out in force defending a man who identified a covert agent by falsely smearing the man who showed their exaggerated claims of Iraqi WMDs to be false. Yeah, that is personal accountability for sure…

  74. tonynoboloney Avatar
    tonynoboloney

    Great posts today, by everyone. Bravo!
    Skate, it looks like you came on about 2:00pm and last posted at 11:30 perhaps you should cut back on the caffeine.

  75. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    Not everyone can rise to the top. The size of the top is not unlimited and our economy depends on having lots of people at the bottom. The people who pick your food are as important to our economy as the people at the top.
    True Skate, and the entry level (high school and college students) worker will always need an entry level job and those jobs that need to be done cheaply need the entry level worker.
    But those are not the jobs a responsible person aspires to raise a family on.
    It was always about personal gain in the first place
    Yes, and it works. It brings the highest percentage of it’s citizens above poverty than any other system in the world. In it, the poorest can rise to the richest. Your own performance and discipline determines your level. You are free to overcome your initial circumstances.
    Some of us were born rich and became poor. Some were born poor and became rich. Some overcame disabilities, or were perfect physically but overcome abusive upbringing etc. Life cannot be made fair. But one’s station in life in America is at least fluid – you do not have to remain where you are. You can improve upon the hand you were dealt. You can succeed, and you can fail.
    Personal gain is the carrot that drove many like my uncle above and beyond what would have been accomplished under other systems.
    There are millions of corporations financially supporting the people of this country with jobs and benefits – the majority are not scandalous.
    Corruption in other countries is rampant compared to that here.

  76. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    Does anyone think GW would be president were it not for the advantages given to him by his family?
    Who knows, Skate. He comes from a loving family, who have equipped him with more than money. There have probably been US Presidents who did not begin life with financial advantage.
    It makes the point though…in that this whole thing circles back to parents. I believe it was Thomas Sowell, who once wrote something along the lines of:
    “We can’t expect others to love our children more than we, their parents, do.”
    Society, the government and your neighbors can’t be blamed if YOU fail your children.
    If you make bad choices and your children wind up without tools to go thru life with, and they wind up making messes of their lives too, that is not society’s fault.
    Money is nice, but “tools for life” aren’t necessarily financial.
    Tho I was not given an extra dime by my parents beyond food, clothing, and an occasional toy, (in fact, I was earning money and paying weekly board by the age of 8) I was loved. I was given a work ethic, and shown a moral compass.
    So, when the going got really tough, even with kids, and no education and no money, I was able to call on those intangible tools, to rise beyond where I was.
    Kids raised without good parenting are a problem for society, not a problem from society.

  77. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Lynn wrote, “Who knows, Skate. [GW] comes from a loving family, who have equipped him with more than money. There have probably been US Presidents who did not begin life with financial advantage.”
    I can’t say for sure, but I doubt GW’s lack of intellectual curiosity and mediocre grades would have catapulted him to #43. The advantages I alluded to were more than financial, they were also political. They also got him in to Yale and Harvard, out of the draft, got him major positions in corporations, put him in touch with all manner of oil people and political insiders, and Karl Rove–who orchestrated GWs political career.
    I don’t think GWs talent or work ethic is commensurate with his position, but that is my opinion.
    I also don’t think pure soc ialism works, either. People need a motivation to strive for greatness. But where you start has a great deal to do with where you end up. Of course there are many exceptions, but that is why we call them exceptions!

  78. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    Skate, the thing we’re fundamentally disagreeing on is not the correct use of words derived from latin in the english language. Your education could not extend past the third grade, but if your argument has merit, the means of expressing it don’t really matter so long as people understand your meaning, as they would if you said, “Yo bignose, why don’t you do us all a favor and throw the damn TV out the window?” Not very eloquent, I admit, but I think people would understand your point of view.
    Your point of view would be less clear if you were to say, “O person of proboscus of unusual size, have you considered the possibility of removing the offending instrument from your place of habitation? I have a little TNT obtained from a select emporium which you could use to disintegrate said instrument and thus protect the sanctity of your child’s cranial contents with the added advantage of retaining the contents of your wallet,” people would still be able to understand you even if they cringed a little while they read your post.
    I don’t think anyone in this thread is confused about my point of view in this matter. If you don’t like what comes on your TV, shut it off. If you don’t think certain foods are good for your children, don’t buy them. This is how I solve it and it works very well without the government having to put pen to paper, excuse me, I meant finger to keyboard. And when at other times that tendency to look to the government to regulate what you don’t like, to force other people to live their lives according to your wishes, stop and think. Just how much power are you willing to give the government to regulate our lives and how much of it really should come back to personal responsibility. In my view, there should be as little interference in our lives from the government as possible, and also as little interference in business from the government as possible.
    As I’ve said, excuse me, written, somewhere else before, the more of a stranglehold bureaucracy gets on people, the less people pay attention to the rules. The more micro-managed we are, the less the authority is respected. Rules, rules and no judgment … and people rebel. The only solution is to become more flexible and stay out of areas that are unnecessary to regulate. Not every aspect of our lives requires a policy manual.

  79. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Skate:
    Actually, to answer your speculation, I’m not sure whether the suffering in Freak Week was not equally distributed, but it had good results for all.
    As to the original topic, about warnings on soda: see today’s findings about chemical contamination in unborn children, (not chosen by them or by their parents): ‘The report, by the Environmental Working Group, is based on tests of 10 samples of umbilical-cord blood taken by the American Red Cross. They found an average of 287 contaminants in the blood, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical PFOA.’
    See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401693.html
    In this age of ‘voluntary compliance’ enforcement of health standards, it would appear that our children’s safety is threatened by larger forces than indifferent parenting.

  80. tracelan Avatar
    tracelan

    It’s the carbonation in soda that causes tooth decay not the sugar. When the CO2 comes out of solution it forms carbonic acid which eats away peoples teeth. The advice to drink diet to help protect your teeth is bad information. Not that I have anything against soda.

  81. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    But where you start has a great deal to do with where you end up. Of course there are many exceptions, but that is why we call them exceptions!
    Hi Skate,
    Yes, that can be quite true! But the most important thing is …in our country, where you start doesn’t HAVE to be where you end up.
    And while it may be the exception for an individual to go from 0 to 100, it’s POSSIBLE and many do make it.
    If not in their generation, perhaps then in the boost given to their children. Our country’s greatness has been enhanced by so many wanting “something better” for their children.
    Perhaps the parent(s) only got thru high school, (and only got to 25 or 50 on the scale) but made it possible for the kids to get thru college. (Or perhaps they didn’t give anything but moral support and like my uncle, and the kid worked his way thru over a period of five or six years while working) Or maybe the parents started a business and the kid took it over.
    The baton has been passed and the way is now open for that kid to have a very comfortable if not exceptional life.
    The important thing is that someone in the family has to START the ball rolling.
    It is not society’s “fault” if somewhere along the line, a person fails himself or his/her children.
    It may not feel “fair” if you are in the position of starting that ball rolling, but even our maker gave us all different starting positions. We are not all equal physically and mentally. We all have different strengths and talents and weaknesses.
    None of this is society’s fault, nor can we attempt to equalize what the creator made unequal. Our constitution just guarantees the right to pursue it in whatever legal ways one and one’s family can get the ball rolling.

  82. whodat Avatar
    whodat

    “In this shocking and engrossing exposÈ, psychologist Susan Linn reveals how the marketing industry preys on kids from the day theyíre born, exploiting their vulnerabilities and skewing their values in order to influence what they eat, wear, and play with.”
    In other news, sun rises for 149,483th consecutive day.

  83. John Avatar
    John

    Impressive number of comments here…one question though for Lynn, Skate and Noel. Does work and or sleep interfere with your copious posts?

  84. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    Whodat wrote, “In other news, sun rises for 149,483th consecutive day.”
    Just because something is common doesn’t mean we should ignore it!

  85. whodat Avatar
    whodat

    It does if there are other fish to fry–or better ways to fry these fish. Maybe they should be promoting fish.
    They’ve seen the nuisance suits and they’ve seen Super Size Me. It’s a CYA and marketing tool. Nutrition values should be taught in grammar school and there should be promotional blitzes about this sort of thing. Labels won’t help. If there really is someone who doesn’t know that soda contains mass sugar and makes them fat, I truly doubt they are capable of doing their own grocery shopping.

  86. Skate Avatar
    Skate

    whodat wrote, “Nutrition values should be taught in grammar school and there should be promotional blitzes about this sort of thing. ”
    I’d agree with that. My concern is that the 3 hours of instruction kids will get is completely drowned out by the 1000s of hours of multi-million dollar marketing aimed at nullifying that education to get gets to buy tasty food with bad nutrition.
    Warning labels? Well, not so much, but restricting marketing to kids and keeping soda sellers and fast food vendors out of schools I’d say would be a good idea.

  87. Noel Guinane Avatar
    Noel Guinane

    John, no. I don’t sleep anymore. As for work, nothing interferes with work, except perhaps my children occasionally. I’m working on some regulations though that will keep them in line.

  88. D.P. Breckenridge Avatar
    D.P. Breckenridge

    Please forgive me: This being the 89th comment, perhaps one of the previous 88 mentioned this and I missed it. That said, is it not true that, all the time we’ve been hyperventilating over the horrifying public-health issue of childhood obesity, the average American life span has continued to increase? As the anthropologist Lionel Tiger put it, “Powerful people enjoy it when they are able to define and restrict the pleasure of others.” The corollary: Everybody gets pleasure from complaining about the flaws, failings and excesses of others. Nothing new here, folks; move along, move along …

  89. pst314 Avatar
    pst314

    How about mandatory warning labels on all leftist publications? “Caution: This organization, while purporting to be an advocate for ‘the children’ or ‘the people’ is in reality a force for ever-greater government intrusion into every aspect of daily life. To increase your liberty and the health of your society, pay less attention to these people.”