Say Anything Blog

Hello my name is _____, and I’m addicted to Mt. Dew.

With lessons like this taught at an early age it is little wonder that fat people want to blame McDonald’s for their wide asses and gun violence victims want to blame gun companies for the things done to them.

Or blame the state for their poor choices in degrees…   the list just goes on and on... 

Yeah, I need to go buy some right now. 

I blame the schools.  Its a supply issue, if there weren’t pop machines kids wouldn’t buy the stuff at school.

Schools should not be subsidizing the Big Soda.

Rob,

I think you’re looking at this a little too broadly.  I can completely see your point, but you’re looking at it the wrong way.  We send out children to school to learn.  For those hours that they are at school, we entrust them to the teachers and employees of the school system.  There are regulations that tell the schools exactly what the "diet" in the school cafeteria must be.  Little good it does to only offer them milk, juice and water in the cafeteria when they can take their $0.50 out into the hall and buy a Mt.Dew.  

It’s not a ban on sugared soda.  You’ll still be able to get your fix at the local Stop’n’Go.  All it is is the schools and the distribution companies saying, "there’s a problem with the system" and fixing it.  Or at least taking a step in the right direction.  

When they start telling me that nobody under 18 can imbibe sugared beverages anywhere at anytime, then we can start yelling and screaming about beverage censorship and banning.

"Rob, Soda is bad for you."  How much do you drink in a day?  Does knowing that soda is bad for you help you reduce or eliminate your consumption?  How bout the rest of the SayAnything readership?  

Now, if soda were unavailable to you for 7-8 hours a day, would your consumption change?  Your consumption pattern would change for certain, but I’m willing to bet that you would also drink less. 

I’m rambling, so hopefully, most of this makes sense.

First ones free.

I think you’re looking at this a little too broadly.  I can completely see your point, but you’re looking at it the wrong way.  We send out children to school to learn.  For those hours that they are at school, we entrust them to the teachers and employees of the school system.

I see this point of view, but then why not let the decision be made at the school/school board level?  Why not let it be an actual decision made by parents through the representatives on the school board? 

How much do you drink in a day?  Does knowing that soda is bad for you help you reduce or eliminate your consumption?

Actually, I quit drinking soda about two months ago.  It has been hard.  I was a six Coke/day man, and it was doing wonders for my figure.  So I quit.  First two weeks were sort of bad, but now I don’t hardly notice it.

Regardless, it was my decision not something foisted on me by the Clinton Foundation. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It should be remembered that it was funding deals signed by school districts which led to this situation in the first place, and I’d suggest that this may be less than effective in removing pop from schools for that reason.  Lots of piglets are sucking soda money from the sow here, and there are plenty of lawyers who will do their part to keep them there.

<blockquote>Why not let it be an actual decision made by parents through the representatives on the school board?</blockquote>

From the news release:"The deal follows a wave of regulation by school districts and state legislatures to cut back on student consumption of soda amid reports of rising childhood obesity rates. Soda has been a particular target of those fighting obesity because of its caloric content and popularity among children. "

Congrats on getting off the stuff Rob. My point is that you’re my age, and I made the switch at 23.  I personally feel that a little less exposure to the stuff when I was younger would have helped a little.  Also, if you’ve ever made the switch to diet, the taste takes a little getting used to.  Once you’re used to it, it’s exactly the same going back to the regular stuff.  I used to drink Mt. Dew by the 6-pack and now I can’t stand the regular stuff.  Those of us that make the decision make it because we come to the realization that it’s truly bad for us.  Some don’t know any different.  We can’t expect all parents to take the responiblity.  There are some parents that just don’t care.  As sad as that is, it’s true. 

Wouldn’t it be considered responsible to provide students with a choice of drinks that are healthier than regular soda?

I think you’re only complaining about this because Clinton was involved. 

The deal follows a wave of regulation by school districts and state legislatures to cut back on student consumption of soda amid reports of rising childhood obesity rates. Soda has been a particular target of those fighting obesity because of its caloric content and popularity among children.

Great.  Why not just leave it at that?  Let the local school boards decide. 

I think you’re only complaining about this because Clinton was involved.

Again, Ryan, I know that "free people making free choices" is a hard concept for you to follow, but that dosen’t make it wrong. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

What difference does it make who made the decision? 

Also, lets remember that the phrase "free people making free choices" does not apply here.  How many school age children vote?  doesn’t sound like they are making very many free choices.  

If we leave it up to the parents, we end up with nothing done.  Why would we need a child welfare system if the ideal system were to just leave it to the parents?   

Another aspect to consider here: Why is my health or the health of my children of consequence to anyone else but me?  If I’m fat, that’s my problem.  If my kids are unhealthy, that’s my problem and their problem.

Where does this impulse come from to horn in on my business?  Well, the excuse given is that unhealthy people drive up insurance rates.  That’s true, I guess, but shouldn’t our reaction be to push for a health care/insurance system that places the burden on the individual instead of the collective?

That, to me, is a better solution than limiting basic freedoms.

Plus, what an argument this is against socialized medicine.  Can you imagine what the pressure will be like to regulate the diet of citizens once the government is footing the bill for health care? 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"Wouldn’t it be considered responsible to provide students with a choice of drinks that are healthier than regular soda?"

Trouble is not that the healthier alternatives are not available, but rather that students don’t choose them by and large.  Healthier alternatives have been in the schools for decades, but the cool kids still want a Coke.  It was true 30 years ago when Reagan spoke about this very issue in one of his radio addresses (before becoming President), and it’s true today.

I’m with Rob here.  Coercing things through an agreement like this (likely made under threat of litigation, don’t be naive here) only teaches students that they’re either pawns of the machine or one of the lucky few making the decisions.  That’s not a healthy situation.

What difference does it make who made the decision?

All the difference in the world.

Also, lets remember that the phrase "free people making free choices" does not apply here.  How many school age children vote?  doesn’t sound like they are making very many free choices.

I’m thinking about the parents.  This should be a decision made through the school board. 

If we leave it up to the parents, we end up with nothing done.  Why would we need a child welfare system if the ideal system were to just leave it to the parents? 

Because parents are people and people aren’t perfect.  Why do we need a police department?  Because people aren’t perfect.  But just because some people are criminals is no reason to opt for totalitarianism, and just because some kids are fat is no reason to take the decision on whether or not to have sodas in schools out of the hands of parents. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"If we leave it up to the parents, we end up with nothing done.  Why would we need a child welfare system if the ideal system were to just leave it to the parents?   "

Actually, when education was left to the parents, literacy was higher than it was today, and child abuse was far lower.  This is why the state is only allowed to intervene in exceptional cases in both of these areas.  It is simply an ineffective player and should therefore intervene only when absolutely necessary.

In the same way, to advocate day to day interference because the parents don’t do what "we want them to do" is the very essence of tyranny.

Never mind this; why is pop so cheap?  Perhaps because the government subsidizes (ahem) sugar and corn syrup, but not fruit?

I would bet that if we put it to a vote, that most parents would either not care, or would vote to do exactly what this agreement did. 

I would agree that unhealthy people drive up the cost of healthcare and that that needs to be fixed as you suggest Rob.  Problem is that going up against the Insurance industry is a little more difficult.  So why not try and stem the problem a little?

The problem we are having is that we all agree that soda is bad for children, but we just can’t decide who should make that decision.  I happen to think that if it were left up to the school boards, nothing would have gotten done.  It’s a step that needed to be made.  And while it should have been done by the board, it wasn’t.  Besides, nobody’s saying you can’t bring soda to school…

Caffine is as addictive as Nicotine.  Thats what the "experts" say.

Being a Caffine addict (Pepsi/Mt. Dew/Red Bull)  (Coke? Yuck) I know this is true.

Now, little kids getting fat is your concern because it drives up your healthcare costs. (Unless your like me and can’t goto the doctor since you cant afford it)

Fat people cost society money, just as smokers do.

Lost productivity on top of the health problems cost industry money and it costs taxpayers money because until we can get people off those programs, you’ll be paying for it.

And if you want to get people off the programs, quit allowing people to get addicted to junk at publicly funded schools.

Of course, if you own stock in these companies, you couldnt care less about people.  So think of your taxes.  

End Rant.

Now let me finish my Mt. Dew. 

The trouble with what you propose is that it’s a top-down socialistic, "greatest good for the greatest number of people" plan. Unfortunately, they don’t work because the secondary effects tend to drown out the intended primary effect.  In Reagan’s address, for example, it was found that the kids simply went off campus for their pop & hot dog fix, and the school was forced to cut programs and ask for more tax revenue to make up for lost pop revenues.

If you want people to take care of their own health, the cure is simple; don’t subsidize health care.  When six pack a day drinker Dad needs a $500 crown because of that Mountain Dew, he’ll figure out a way to remind his own family what pop does to you. 

Should schools be able to sell condoms, tobacco, pornography, guns, and alcohol on their premises? (Or, let’s see, what about services from prostitutes, methamphetamines, or IEDs?)

Continue considering this aspect when you answer:

"Why is my health or the health of my children of consequence to anyone else but me?  If I’m fat, that’s my problem.  If my kids are unhealthy, that’s my problem and their problem."

Unless you believe that all those items I listed should be allowed to be sold on school grounds, you do believe the government should prevent "free people" from making "free choices."

On the other hand, congrats on giving up pop. I did it about three years ago, for the same reason as you. I’d been putting on some extra weight, and I calculated all the calories I was wasting on pop (which was free at my place of employment), and it was scary! I quit for a New Year’s Resolution and have never had another one since (excusing the occasional Jake).

So, you’re always railing against government intervention by saying that private enterprise will make the best choices, then when an industry makes their own choice, with no government intervention, you are upset at their choice?  Why not just say that unless any entity does what you want it to do, regardless of whether it’s government-mandated or not, it’s a bad idea?  In a case like this, do you think that the government should intervene in order to mandate that schools sell soda?

If you say "free people making free choices" enough times with that make it so?

thatedeguy:

I would bet that if we put it to a vote, that most parents would either not care, or would vote to do exactly what this agreement did.

Great, at least it would be their choice.

I would agree that unhealthy people drive up the cost of healthcare and that that needs to be fixed as you suggest Rob.  Problem is that going up against the Insurance industry is a little more difficult.  So why not try and stem the problem a little?

By giving up our ability to make free choices?  No thanks. 

The problem we are having is that we all agree that soda is bad for children, but we just can’t decide who should make that decision.  I happen to think that if it were left up to the school boards, nothing would have gotten done.  It’s a step that needed to be made.  And while it should have been done by the board, it wasn’t.

That’s no excuse.  That’s a cop-out.  If we don’t make the decision for ourselves that’s our fault, not a cue for someone else to step in and make the decision for us. 

Now, little kids getting fat is your concern because it drives up your healthcare costs. (Unless your like me and can’t goto the doctor since you cant afford it)

Fat people cost society money, just as smokers do.

Lost productivity on top of the health problems cost industry money and it costs taxpayers money because until we can get people off those programs, you’ll be paying for it.

That’s a reason to end our collectivist health care system, not a reason to deny people free choices. 

And if you want to get people off the programs, quit allowing people to get addicted to junk at publicly funded schools.

Great.  Let’s ban salt too.  And sugar and everything else that is bad for us so that none of us get hooked and start costing society.

/sarcasm

Here’s a simpler solution: How about we just hold everyone accountable, in every way, for their own actions. 

Should schools be able to sell condoms, tobacco, pornography, guns, and alcohol on their premises? (Or, let’s see, what about services from prostitutes, methamphetamines, or IEDs?)

Don’t contort my position: I think the choice should be left to the school boards. 

So, you’re always railing against government intervention by saying that private enterprise will make the best choices, then when an industry makes their own choice, with no government intervention, you are upset at their choice?

They were coerced into this, I am sure, by threat of litigation.  I’m sure Coke, etc. did not want to become the next "big tobacco." 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

 I think the choice should be left to the school boards.

You think school boards should choose to sell IEDs and prostitutes in school? With all due respect, you are batshit insane.

You think school boards should choose to sell IEDs and prostitutes in school? With all due respect, you are batshit insane.

That’s not what I said.  I said that the choices about what goes on in a school should be left to the school boards.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

That’s not what I said.

Of course it is. I asked:

Should schools be able to sell condoms, tobacco, pornography, guns, and alcohol on their premises? (Or, let’s see, what about services from prostitutes, methamphetamines, or IEDs?)

You replied:

Don’t contort my position: I think the choice should be left to the school boards. 

So what is your position? Should school boards get to decide to sell IEDs, alcohol, and handguns in school?

Dave:

So what is your position? Should school boards get to decide to sell IEDs, alcohol, and handguns in school?

This is what you said previously:

You think school boards should choose to sell IEDs and prostitutes in school? With all due respect, you are batshit insane.

 I didn’t say the should sell IED’s and hookers, I said the decision should be theirs to make. And I’m right.  After all, we both know that no school board in America is about to let hookers in.  That’s an absurd idea.

For someone who pretends to be a libertarian, you sure aren’t displaying a lot of faith in the ability of the people’s representatives on the school board to make these decisions.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

you sure aren’t displaying a lot of faith in the ability of the people’s representatives on the school board to make these decisions.

Of course I am. I think they should be able to make these decisions. You’re a hypocrite in saying that schools should be able to choose to sell methamphetamines but no one else can.

You’re a hypocrite in saying that schools should be able to choose to sell methamphetamines but no one else can.

Dave, obviously the school board has to follow the law.  I don’t think anyone should be allowed to sell meth.

You offered an absurd argument, I stated clearly that I feel what goes on inside the school should be decided by the school board.  I guess I should have been more clear in indicating that the school board can’t act autonomously and ignore the laws of society at large.

But you knew that, and are just looking for an argument, right? 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So I have this straight: Governments can create rules for its citizens to follow (like banning meth), but school boards can NOT create rules for its citizens to follow (like banning soda). Gotcha: you make no sense.

All due respect to you all, but even thought he school board is an elected body, they are still mostly strangers to me.  I would no sooner leave the well being solely up to a stranger down the street than to the school board.  That’s all they really are, a bunch of elected strangers.  Granted they are usually qualified elected strangers.

I grew up with experimental drinks from my food scientist mom. Soda was a celebratory drink, something to reward yourself. I still use it as almost a last resort. Why not sell gatoraid or poweraid in schools instead? Then again, they might just be doing that right now. Nobody’s complaining about snack machines yet! I never went to any of these machines myself because I realized they were overpriced. Also, I would prefer a healthy lunch any day to a bunch of grease.

I don’t consider the cafeteria food to be very healthy, even though they say it has nutritional value. At least the "healthy" cafeteria food at my college had made me sick with food poisoning. Packing my own lunch and making my own food would be ideal, but I don’t have money nor the space to store it all.

Why don’t we actually focus on the meals at the cafeteria? And blame the health problems caused by eating too much manufactured food on the parents who allow their children to eat it, and the children who eat it?

 Chances are, if they ban soda in the student areas, they’ll still have teachers drinking it in the lounge, and maybe some lucky student will get some from a teacher…

Real  Coca Cola was available last month in specially  marked bottles.

If you missed it you will have to wait till next year.

Sugar sweetend rather than corn syrup.

WOOF, with the drug in it??

So I have this straight: Governments can create rules for its citizens to follow (like banning meth), but school boards can NOT create rules for its citizens to follow (like banning soda). Gotcha: you make no sense.

Governments and school boards are both instruments of the people, but there are also levels.  The school board can’t overrule the state government, for instance.  The school board can’t say "this school is our own little kingdom and everybody here is going to smoke crack because we say so."  So no, the school board can’t legalize crank.  But they can, and should, be responsible for developing policy on the sodas and snacks available in the school.  Of course, the state government can do that as well by developing policy for the whole state...and the feds could probably get their foot in the door too, but education is supposed to be an issue for the state.

Also, I’d point out that I have never once said that the school board can’t ban soda.  If you think I have, please point it out.  I have said that I don’t feel this is a decision that the soda industry should have been forced into. 

That I have to explain this stuff to you is kind of pathetic Davey, but I know you’re just trolling for a fight so, whatever I guess.  Just do what you gotta do.

All due respect to you all, but even thought he school board is an elected body, they are still mostly strangers to me.  I would no sooner leave the well being solely up to a stranger down the street than to the school board.  That’s all they really are, a bunch of elected strangers.  Granted they are usually qualified elected strangers.

If you don’t trust the school board to set policy for your children you have some options.  Like private school or home schooling.  But, just because you don’t trust the school board to set policies about soda pop doesn’t mean that policy should be forced on the soda pop industry by some busybody organization threatening lawsuits. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think schools should focus more on providing milk that isn’t expired, meals that have real meat in them (for non-vegetarians), sanitary conditions, and the rest of the basics. I remember finding that my family pays for cafeteria food, and that we basically paid for milk that had been expired for A WHILE.

I remember finding that my family pays for cafeteria food, and that we basically paid for milk that had been expired for A WHILE.

You shouldn’t drink milk at all. Problem solved!!!

The "EcoLab" van was always parked outside the the kitchen door at my high school.  Only 1 reason why I didn’t eat at school.

student2X "  with the drug in it??"

 No, but the drug is readily available in most schools.

Regarding "why not drugs, guns and hookers?" in school, there are a few basic issues.  For starters, drugs & prostitution do have a far more immediate harm than pop, and hence they’re illegal, and out of the realm of the decisions of the school board.

Regarding some of the legal items suggested, yes, a free educational system could make the decisions of that type.  In fact, schools used to sponsor shooting clubs, and parents were OK with it for the most part.  The same goes with condoms--and I’d guess that most parents would opt to have them removed from schools.

And again, we’ve got to get back to the central point; take a foundation whose motives you distrust.  Could be Ford or Rockefeller (or Clinton) on the liberal side, or maybe Olin on the conservative side.  Do you want them threatening legitimate businesses with litigation and forcing your local school district to change policy from 2000 miles away?

If not, this news should scare you, as it sets a truly horrific precedent.

Does anyone have any proof that there were threats of legal action?  IF not, please stop using it as a reason to distrust this agreement. 

No proof, but why else would companies "voluntarily" leave a profitable market that they’d negotiated with school boards around the country?  There’s gotta be something going on beneath the surface here.

The simple realization that they could modify their product line or risk losing their franchise.

Be there or be gone. 

Exactly, Woof, and keep in mind that it’s the Clinton Foundation, not school boards and parents, doing the threatening.  Companies don’t back out of legitimate and profitable businesses without some kind of threat.

Sugared soda water for children hasn’t a large constituency, the threat of exposing/organizing

parents was probably enough  to make the distributors back down.

Soda is a hard position to defend.  Vendors big deals in many places would not stand  scruitny.

On my way to the American Schools Nutritional conference in Hawaii, invitation only, all expenses paid. 

"There’s lots of shady characters, lots of dirty deals

It’s the lure of easy money, it’s got a very strong appeal"

Smuggler’s Blues 

Robert Perry,

Aaah, that’s not the Clinton Foundation.  That’s the infamous "Village"… the one that’s gonna raise our kids for us… trying to dictate what is and what is not good for them, and in this case, what they should and should not haveto drink. 

Americans are fat, their children are fat, and fat means propensity to a number of chronic illnesses including diabetes, cancer, heart disease and stroke.  Americans who choose to be fat should be made to pay for their own choices and not become part of the overall health care system but rather be segregated and not influence the rates the rest of us are forced to pay to amortize their free choices.

"Americans who choose to be fat should be made to pay for their own choices and not become part of the overall health care system but rather be segregated and not influence the rates the rest of us are forced to pay to amortize their free choices."

And in America, gay males are way more likely to indulge in behavior that risks the spread of HIV/AIDS.  So, by your logic we should exclude them from the overall health care system as well?

Come to think of it, pregnancy is a rather expensive health care issue as well.  Maybe we should exclude all women of child-bearing age as well?  That would certainly keep premiums down for the rest of us… the males. 

Of course there isn’t nearly the connection between weight and health that we’ve been told all of the time. Also many people who are unhealthy also become fat.  Starving them isn’t going to make them healthier.

But in general I agree that people should make and pay for their own health decisions.  

So are we ready to go on the medical savings accounts?