Thread View: misc.headlines
61 messages
61 total messages
Page 1 of 2
Started by Tim Campbell
Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:44
Page 1 of 2 • 61 total messages
Junk Food Nation
Author: Tim Campbell
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:44
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:44
234 lines
10861 bytes
10861 bytes
Junk Food Nation: Who's to Blame for Childhood Obesity? By Gary Ruskin and Juliet Schor The Nation 29 August 2005 Issue In recent months the major food companies have been trying hard to convince Americans that they feel the pain of our expanding waistlines, especially when it comes to kids. Kraft announced it would no longer market Oreos to younger children, McDonald's promoted itself as a salad producer and Coca-Cola said it won't advertise to kids under 12. But behind the scenes it's hardball as usual, with the junk food giants pushing the Bush Administration to defend their interests. The recent conflict over what America eats, and the way the government promotes food, is a disturbing example of how in Bush's America corporate interests trump public health, public opinion and plain old common sense. The latest salvo in the war on added sugar and fat came July 14-15, when the Federal Trade Commission held hearings on childhood obesity and food marketing. Despite the fanfare, industry had no cause for concern; FTC chair Deborah Majoras had declared beforehand that the commission will do absolutely nothing to stop the rising flood of junk food advertising to children. In June the Department of Agriculture denied a request from our group Commercial Alert to enforce existing rules forbidding mealtime sales in school cafeterias of "foods of minimal nutritional value" - i.e., junk foods and soda pop. The department admitted that it didn't know whether schools are complying with the rules, but, frankly, it doesn't give a damn. "At this time, we do not intend to undertake the activities or measures recommended in your petition," wrote Stanley Garnett, head of the USDA's Child Nutrition Division. Conflict about junk food has intensified since late 2001, when a Surgeon General's report called obesity an "epidemic." Since that time, the White House has repeatedly weighed in on the side of Big Food. It worked hard to weaken the World Health Organization's global anti-obesity strategy and went so far as to question the scientific basis for "the linking of fruit and vegetable consumption to decreased risk of obesity and diabetes." Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson - then our nation's top public-health officer - even told members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association to "'go on the offensive' against critics blaming the food industry for obesity," according to a November 12, 2002, GMA news release. Last year, during the reauthorization of the children's nutrition programs, Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois attempted to insulate the government's nutrition guidelines from the intense industry pressure that has warped the process to date. He proposed a modest amendment to move the guidelines from the USDA to the comparatively more independent Institute of Medicine. The food industry, alarmed about the switch, secured a number of meetings at the White House to get it to exert pressure on Fitzgerald. One irony of this fight was that the key industry lobbying came from the American Dietetic Association, described by one Congressional staffer as a "front for the food groups." Fitzgerald held firm but didn't succeed in enacting his amendment before he left Congress last year. By that time the industry's lobbying effort had borne fruit, or perhaps more accurately, unhealthy alternatives to fruit. The new federal guidelines no longer contain a recommendation for sugar intake, although they do tell people to eat foods with few added sugars. The redesigned icon for the guidelines, created by a company that does extensive work for the junk food industry, shows no food, only a person climbing stairs. Growing industry influence is also apparent at the President's Council on Physical Fitness. What companies has the government invited to be partners with the council's Challenge program? Coca-Cola, Burger King, General Mills, Pepsico and other blue chip members of the "obesity lobby." In January the council's chair, former NFL star Lynn Swann, took money to appear at a public relations event for the National Automatic Merchandising Association, a vending machine trade group activists have been battling on in-school sales of junk food. Not a lot of subtlety is required to understand what's driving Administration policy. It's large infusions of cash. In 2004 "Rangers," who bundled at least $200,000 each to the Bush/Cheney campaign, included Barclay Resler, vice president for government and public affairs at Coca-Cola; Robert Leebern Jr., president of federal affairs at Troutman Sanders PAG, lobbyist for Coca-Cola; Richard Hohlt of Hohlt & Co., lobbyist for Altria, which owns about 85 percent of Kraft foods; and José "Pepe" Fanjul, president, vice chairman and COO of Florida Crystals Corp., one of the nation's major sugar producers. Hundred-thousand-dollar men include Kirk Blalock and Marc Lampkin, both Coke lobbyists, and Joe Weller, chairman and CEO, Nestle USA. Altria also gave $250,000 to Bush's inauguration this year, and Coke and Pepsi gave $100,000 each. These gifts are in addition to substantial sums given during the 2000 campaign. For their money, the industry has been able to buy into a strategy on obesity and food marketing that mirrors the approach taken by Big Tobacco. That's hardly a surprise, given that some of the same companies and personnel are involved: Junk food giants Kraft and Nabisco are both majority-owned by tobacco producer Philip Morris, now renamed Altria. Similarity number one is the denial that the problem (obesity) is caused by the product (junk food). Instead, lack of exercise is fingered as the culprit, which is why McDonald's, Pepsi, Coke and others have been handing out pedometers, funding fitness centers and prodding kids to move around. When the childhood obesity issue first burst on the scene, HHS and the Centers for Disease Control funded a bizarre ad campaign called Verb, whose ostensible purpose was to get kids moving. This strategy has been evident in the halls of Congress as well. During child nutrition reauthorization hearings, the man some have called the Senator from Coca-Cola, Georgia's Zell Miller, parroted industry talking points when he claimed that children are "obese not because of what they eat at lunchrooms in schools but because, frankly, they sit around on their duffs watching Eminem on MTV and playing video games." And that, of course, is the fault not of food marketers but of parents. Miller's office shut down a Senate Agriculture Committee staff discussion of a ban on soda pop in high schools by refreshing their memories that Coke is based in Georgia. A related ploy is to deny the nutritional status of individual food groups, claiming that there are no "good" or "bad" foods, and that all that matters is balance. So, for example, when the Administration attacked the WHO's global anti-obesity initiative, it criticized what it called the "unsubstantiated focus on 'good' and 'bad' foods." Of course, if fruits and vegetables aren't healthy, then Coke and chips aren't unhealthy. While such a strategy is so preposterous as to be laughable, it is already having real effects. Less than a month after Cadbury Schweppes, the candy and soda company, gave a multimillion-dollar grant to the American Diabetes Association, the association's chief medical and scientific officer claimed that sugar has nothing to do with diabetes, or with weight. Industry has also bankrolled front groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom, an increasingly influential Washington outfit that demonizes public-health advocates as the "food police" and promotes the industry point of view. Meanwhile, public opinion is solidly behind more restrictions on junk food marketing aimed at children, especially in schools. A February Wall Street Journal poll found that 83 percent of American adults believe "public schools need to do a better job of limiting children's access to unhealthy foods like snack foods, sugary soft drinks and fast food." Two bills recently introduced in Congress, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy's Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention (HeLP) America Act, both place significant restrictions on the ability of junk food producers to market in schools. Interestingly, this is a crossover issue between red and blue states. Concern about obesity and excessive junk food marketing to kids is shared by people across the political spectrum, and some conservatives, such as Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs and the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, as well as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, have argued for restricting junk food marketing to children. This may be one of the reasons New York Senator Hillary Clinton has once again become vocal on the topic of marketing to children, although Senator Clinton has called not for government intervention but merely for industry self-regulation, requesting that the companies "be more responsible about the effect they are having" - exactly the policy the industry wants. A vigorous government response would clearly garner the sympathy of the majority of Americans. The growing chasm between what the public wants and the Administration's protection of the profits of Big Food is a powerful example of the decline of democracy in this country. Let them eat chips!
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Tim May
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:35
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:35
33 lines
2855 bytes
2855 bytes
In article <ddnqo5$re7$7@blue.rahul.net>, axlq <axlq@spamcop.net> wrote: > In article <uCFLe.30391$Kx6.420@fe12.lga>, Mr. R <nospam@nochance.com> wrote: > >So this is Bush's fault, too? Get real. Do you remember Clinton and his > >jogging, followed by stops at McDondalds? > > Non sequitur. Clinton's eating habits aren't related to an > administration's policies toward major food companies. It's _never_ the function of government to take any position whatsoever on what people choose to eat. Those who wish to fund the development of "food pyramids" are welcome to fund such efforts, read the books of these kind of people, etc. And those who prefer to eat certain kinds of foods are free to do so. But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. This means government is misusing our taxes any time it develops recommended menus, food pyramids, food hexagrams, whatever. Though they like pork, they should "pork butt out." (And, yes, I think those who willingly use our tax money for non-legitimate purposes should be marched into rendering tanks. There are four to five times more people worthy of extermination than were in Europe 70 years ago. Washington needs to be exterminated, along with several other major nests of thieves.) --Tim May
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:21
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:21
15 lines
1747 bytes
1747 bytes
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:35:27 -0700, Tim May <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote: >(And, yes, I think those who willingly use our tax money for >non-legitimate purposes should be marched into rendering tanks. There >are four to five times more people worthy of extermination than were in >Europe 70 years ago. Washington needs to be exterminated, along with >several other major nests of thieves.) > > >--Tim May How cozy, Adolph Eugenics raises his napy little head to spew hatred, so un-evolved, so typical...
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:01
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:01
28 lines
2680 bytes
2680 bytes
"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message news:140820052235276093%timcmay@removethis.got.net... > In article <ddnqo5$re7$7@blue.rahul.net>, axlq <axlq@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> In article <uCFLe.30391$Kx6.420@fe12.lga>, Mr. R <nospam@nochance.com> >> wrote: >> >So this is Bush's fault, too? Get real. Do you remember Clinton and >> >his >> >jogging, followed by stops at McDondalds? >> >> Non sequitur. Clinton's eating habits aren't related to an >> administration's policies toward major food companies. > > > It's _never_ the function of government to take any position whatsoever > on what people choose to eat. > > Those who wish to fund the development of "food pyramids" are welcome > to fund such efforts, read the books of these kind of people, etc. And > those who prefer to eat certain kinds of foods are free to do so. > > But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), > to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. > In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is "promote the general welfare" of the people. So this is part of it.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:06
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:06
21 lines
2326 bytes
2326 bytes
In article <_JydnfyShqjye53eRVn-jQ@rcn.net>, news@nadelberg.com says... > > But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), > > to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. > > > > In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is > "promote the general welfare" of the people. So this is part of it. More specifically, Article I, Section 8 says: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;" -- ================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay! Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Uncle Jimbo
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:42
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:42
38 lines
3884 bytes
3884 bytes
"Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote... >> But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), >> to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. >> > > In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is > "promote the general welfare" of the people. So this is part of it. But what about the "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Liberty means the right to choose what you eat, and you can't be happy if the government forces you to eat tofu and bean sprouts instead of the bacon cheeseburgers you love. The problem with this idea (of taxing unhealthy food) is that it is a totalitarian idea, thoroughly British in the way it reduces people to livestock and forces them to behave in a way the nanny state believes is best for them. I imagine that after we're forced to eat nothing but bean sprouts and tofu, that the government will begin requiring us to jog at least 5mi a day because it is good for us. Combine the above ideas with socialist national health care, and you can the nightmare that awaits us if we give in and allow the government to dictate what we eat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself - anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: 'facecrime,' it was called." -- George Orwell, "1984" ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:44
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:44
19 lines
2203 bytes
2203 bytes
In article <He6Me.870$AT7.709@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, jimbo@hunting.killing.net says... > > In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is > > "promote the general welfare" of the people. So this is part of it. > > But what about the "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness" in the > Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is a marvelous document, but it does not have the force of law. -- ================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay! Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Dennis
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:40
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:40
36 lines
2981 bytes
2981 bytes
Where is the indignation about giving billions to the oil companies? Search on your name and tax breaks oil - didnt get a single hit. Watch your pennys why the dollars fly by. Think the pyramids are crap. But government should fund research. The problem is in dumbing down the results to something "useful". Dennis Tim May wrote: > > > > It's _never_ the function of government to take any position whatsoever > on what people choose to eat. > > Those who wish to fund the development of "food pyramids" are welcome > to fund such efforts, read the books of these kind of people, etc. And > those who prefer to eat certain kinds of foods are free to do so. > > But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), > to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. > > This means government is misusing our taxes any time it develops > recommended menus, food pyramids, food hexagrams, whatever. > > Though they like pork, they should "pork butt out." > > (And, yes, I think those who willingly use our tax money for > non-legitimate purposes should be marched into rendering tanks. There > are four to five times more people worthy of extermination than were in > Europe 70 years ago. Washington needs to be exterminated, along with > several other major nests of thieves.) > > > --Tim May
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:56
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:56
22 lines
2374 bytes
2374 bytes
> > (And, yes, I think those who willingly use our tax money for > > non-legitimate purposes should be marched into rendering tanks. There > > are four to five times more people worthy of extermination than were in > > Europe 70 years ago. Washington needs to be exterminated, along with > > several other major nests of thieves.) > > > > > > --Tim May Not a problem...as long as I get to decide what's legitimate and what's not. Of course, you might not like the way I define it, just as I might not like the way *you* define it, which is why we have a constitution -- it's really a wonderful document; you should read it some time. -- ================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay! Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: axlq
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:25
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:25
39 lines
2809 bytes
2809 bytes
Uncle Jimbo <jimbo@hunting.killing.net> wrote: >"Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote... >>> But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), >>> to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. >> >> In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is >> "promote the general welfare" of the people. So this is part of it. > >But what about the "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness" in the >Declaration of Independence. The Declaration has no force of law behind it. It mystifies me why anybody continues to bring that up as a basis of what the government can and cannot do. The basis of our government is the Constitution. The Declaration is completely separate and irrelevant; its only purpose was to list grievances against the King of England and establish the U.S. as a separate nation. >Liberty means the right to choose what >you eat, and you can't be happy if the government forces you to eat >tofu and bean sprouts instead of the bacon cheeseburgers you love. Rights that aren't enumerated or implied in the Constitution do not exist in our system of government. >The problem with this idea (of taxing unhealthy food) is that it is >a totalitarian idea, thoroughly British in the way it reduces people >to livestock and forces them to behave in a way the nanny state >believes is best for them. Encouragement does not equal force. Taxation doesn't "force" you to change your behavior. Look at all the extra taxes levied on cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline. Those taxes aren't "forcing" anyone to change their buying habits. We still have plenty of smokers, drunks, and SUVs. -A
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Michael Sierchio
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:27
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:27
6 lines
1925 bytes
1925 bytes
axlq wrote: > Rights that aren't enumerated or implied in the Constitution do not > exist in our system of government. Cf. the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:30
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:30
17 lines
2154 bytes
2154 bytes
> >The problem with this idea (of taxing unhealthy food) is that it is > >a totalitarian idea, thoroughly British in the way it reduces people > >to livestock This is the second time thins week I've seen the claim that the British live under a totalitarian regime, which leads me to ask: Has a wormhole opened up, enabling these people to come here from whichever universe they normally (so to speak) inhabit? -- ================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay! Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:31
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:31
51 lines
3411 bytes
3411 bytes
"axlq" <axlq@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ddr89n$b0a$3@blue.rahul.net... > Uncle Jimbo <jimbo@hunting.killing.net> wrote: >>"Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote... >>>> But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), >>>> to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. >>> >>> In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is >>> "promote the general welfare" of the people. So this is part of it. >> >>But what about the "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness" in the >>Declaration of Independence. > > The Declaration has no force of law behind it. It mystifies me why > anybody continues to bring that up as a basis of what the government > can and cannot do. > Lincoln started that. It's not what we can and can not do. It is what we should or should not do. Not that this idea is followed either, except where convienent. . > >>Liberty means the right to choose what >>you eat, and you can't be happy if the government forces you to eat >>tofu and bean sprouts instead of the bacon cheeseburgers you love. > > Rights that aren't enumerated or implied in the Constitution do not > exist in our system of government. > Well, not really. The tenth amendment says: >>The problem with this idea (of taxing unhealthy food) is that it is >>a totalitarian idea, thoroughly British in the way it reduces people >>to livestock and forces them to behave in a way the nanny state >>believes is best for them. > > Encouragement does not equal force. Taxation doesn't "force" you > to change your behavior. Look at all the extra taxes levied on > cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline. Those taxes aren't "forcing" > anyone to change their buying habits. We still have plenty of > smokers, drunks, and SUVs. > > -A
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:34
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:34
16 lines
2162 bytes
2162 bytes
ack! Somehow hit the wrong key. "axlq" <axlq@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ddr89n$b0a$3@blue.rahul.net... > Rights that aren't enumerated or implied in the Constitution do not > exist in our system of government. > The tenth ammendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" This has been used to grant various rights to the people that are not enumerated in the Constitution.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:35
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:35
12 lines
2105 bytes
2105 bytes
"Michael Sierchio" <kudzu-usenet1@tenebras.com> wrote in message news:ZqWdnZ2dnZ2OQ1u2nZ2dnY64nN6dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@speakeasy.net... > axlq wrote: > >> Rights that aren't enumerated or implied in the Constitution do not >> exist in our system of government. > > Cf. the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. Oh, and the ninth. I tihnk I'll get out of this one now. Not doing at all well in it.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:39
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:39
5 lines
1477 bytes
1477 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:40:55 -0700, Dennis <nwdrs@yahoo.com> wrote: >Where is the indignation about giving billions to the oil companies? Take your off topic SPAM out of co.food you jerkwad.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:39
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:39
6 lines
1484 bytes
1484 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:27:50 -0700, Michael Sierchio <kudzu-usenet1@tenebras.com> wrote: >axlq wrote: Off topic and OFF charter for co.food - leave.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:17
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:17
8 lines
1634 bytes
1634 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:30:02 -0400, spammersmustdie@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey E. Salzberg) wrote: >This is the second time thins week I've seen the claim that the British >live under a totalitarian regime, which leads me to ask: Why re you posting this off-topic SPAM to co.food?
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:18
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:18
7 lines
1521 bytes
1521 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:34:04 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: >The tenth ammendment says: The co.groups charter says you are OFF TOPIC for co.foods.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Tim May
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:26
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:26
45 lines
3443 bytes
3443 bytes
In article <_JydnfyShqjye53eRVn-jQ@rcn.net>, Jon Nadelberg <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: > "Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message > news:140820052235276093%timcmay@removethis.got.net... > > It's _never_ the function of government to take any position whatsoever > > on what people choose to eat. > > > > Those who wish to fund the development of "food pyramids" are welcome > > to fund such efforts, read the books of these kind of people, etc. And > > those who prefer to eat certain kinds of foods are free to do so. > > > > But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), > > to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. > > > > In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is > "promote the general welfare" of the people. So this is part of it. > The Constitution says that powers not explicitly provided to the government are denied to it. The general language about "provide for the general welfare" is just boilerplate in the intro section. It doesn't mean government has any power or authority to ban certain foods, to promote other foods, to require certain ingredients, to ban others. Government has no business advising people on what they should eat, any more than it has business advising on clothing, or recommended recreational activities, or advising on hobbies, etc. Simply not an enumerated power. Lastly, for now, "general welfare" does not have the meaning many today ascribe to it. (The same situation as with "well-regulated militia," which has nothing to do with government regulations in the modern sense, but everything to do with the 18th century meaning of "regulated," closer to "well-oiled" in the modern sense than in anything having to do with government laws, which the Second explicitly was set up to bar.) --Tim May
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53
9 lines
1521 bytes
1521 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:26:58 -0700, Tim May <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote: >The Constitution says The co.groups charter says you are OFF TOPIC for co.foods. Take it somewhere else!
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53
43 lines
3284 bytes
3284 bytes
"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message news:150820051826585509%timcmay@removethis.got.net... > In article <_JydnfyShqjye53eRVn-jQ@rcn.net>, Jon Nadelberg > <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: > >> "Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message >> news:140820052235276093%timcmay@removethis.got.net... > >> > It's _never_ the function of government to take any position whatsoever >> > on what people choose to eat. >> > >> > Those who wish to fund the development of "food pyramids" are welcome >> > to fund such efforts, read the books of these kind of people, etc. And >> > those who prefer to eat certain kinds of foods are free to do so. >> > >> > But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.), >> > to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort. >> > >> >> In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is >> "promote the general welfare" of the people. So this is part of it. >> > > > The Constitution says that powers not explicitly provided to the > government are denied to it. The general language about "provide for > the general welfare" is just boilerplate in the intro section. > That boilerplate is there to give reason for the Constitution, and the rules within are laid out so as to do the things in the Preamble. What do you think those rules are all for? > It doesn't mean government has any power or authority to ban certain > foods, to promote other foods, to require certain ingredients, to ban > others. > No, but the Constitution does grant the government the ability to do that. And since they are doing it whether you like it or not, not much you say about it is going to change that.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:44
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:44
10 lines
1692 bytes
1692 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:02:00 -0700, Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> wrote: >Sam Bam wrote: > >> The co.groups charter says you are OFF TOPIC for co.foods. > >Hey, here's some food-related stuff: go choke on a fish bone. Hey, vewy witty, you should work the Catskills!
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:45
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:45
17 lines
1727 bytes
1727 bytes
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:01:49 +0000 (UTC), axlq@spamcop.net (axlq) wrote: >In article <ms92g1lv2n2i103v191t9fl8eqvovj6s3s@4ax.com>, >Sam Bam <the hand> wrote: >>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:27:50 -0700, Michael Sierchio >><kudzu-usenet1@tenebras.com> wrote: >> >>>axlq wrote: >> >>Off topic and OFF charter for co.food - leave. > >[and you dishonestly snipped the part that was relevant to food] > >Go gag on some gristle, dolt. Bite me!
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:45
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:45
17 lines
1920 bytes
1920 bytes
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:04:12 +0000 (UTC), axlq@spamcop.net (axlq) wrote: >In article <qq92g1580bons4gqcrqsmppaqsc05js0i8@4ax.com>, >Sam Bam <the hand> wrote: >>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:40:55 -0700, Dennis <nwdrs@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Where is the indignation about giving billions to the oil companies? >> >>Take your off topic SPAM out of co.food you jerkwad. > >TAKE *YOUR* OFF-TOPIC NETCOPPING OUT OF ALL *.FOOD NEWSGROUPS, >SHITHEAD. Note the post you complained about referred to the food >pyramid. Not at this point it doesn't. You wanna discuss carbs and meats go for it.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:48
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:48
36 lines
3008 bytes
3008 bytes
"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
news:150820051948047469%timcmay@removethis.got.net...
> In article <O-OdnRGabb-m2pzeRVn-hg@rcn.net>, Jon Nadelberg
> <news@nadelberg.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
>> news:150820051826585509%timcmay@removethis.got.net...
>
>>
>> > It doesn't mean government has any power or authority to ban certain
>> > foods, to promote other foods, to require certain ingredients, to ban
>> > others.
>> >
>>
>> No, but the Constitution does grant the government the ability to do
>> that.
>> And since they are doing it whether you like it or not, not much you say
>> about it is going to change that.
>
> This subthread started with my comments about some of your kind
> complaining about the government's various versions of "food pyramids."
Which would be my kind? There could be so many you may be referring to.
You know, Tim, whatever demons you have they are getting worse as time goes
on.
>
> There are many reasons why government "food pyramids" (or whatever
> shape the advice is in) are terrible, terrible ideas. Something our
> Founders recognized, and specifically said that such powers ("not
> enumerated") were thus outside the scope of government.
Congress shall make no law regarding food pyramids? I must have missed that
one.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:50
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:50
27 lines
2467 bytes
2467 bytes
"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message news:28o2g19r3bj6ops8dd02i22q56p3tvline@4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:58:42 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" > <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: > >> >>"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message >>news:mmh2g19l5b9nk7uab221l072j0vlh0cjt1@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:26:58 -0700, Tim May >>> <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The Constitution says >>> >>> The co.groups charter says you are OFF TOPIC for co.foods. >>> >>> Take it somewhere else! >> >>You know, it IS about food.... > > > No, at this point it is not.... These things happen on newsgroups. Topics veer off into different areas. At its base, though, it is about food pyramids.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Michael Sierchio
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:57
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:57
8 lines
2143 bytes
2143 bytes
Jon Nadelberg wrote: > At its base, though, it is about food pyramids. That New Age crap -- pyramids, crystals, and Sedona, AZ. Ob food: tomatoes from a friend's friend's garden, ricotta salata, basil, olive oil, garlic, and homemade strozzapreti.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:03
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:03
33 lines
2370 bytes
2370 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:50:46 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: > >"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message >news:28o2g19r3bj6ops8dd02i22q56p3tvline@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:58:42 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" >> <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message >>>news:mmh2g19l5b9nk7uab221l072j0vlh0cjt1@4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:26:58 -0700, Tim May >>>> <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>The Constitution says >>>> >>>> The co.groups charter says you are OFF TOPIC for co.foods. >>>> >>>> Take it somewhere else! >>> >>>You know, it IS about food.... >> >> >> No, at this point it is not.... > >These things happen on newsgroups. Topics veer off into different areas. > >At its base, though, it is about food pyramids. > It needs to get back on topic then.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:04
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:04
15 lines
1990 bytes
1990 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:57:25 -0700, Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> wrote: >Jon Nadelberg wrote: > >> At its base, though, it is about food pyramids. > >That New Age crap -- pyramids, crystals, and Sedona, AZ. Where they have energy vortices... >Ob food: tomatoes from a friend's friend's garden, ricotta salata, >basil, olive oil, garlic, and homemade strozzapreti. Now THAT's good eating!
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Tim May
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:13
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:13
54 lines
4202 bytes
4202 bytes
In article <5oGdnQNKiYOO_5zeRVn-sw@rcn.net>, Jon Nadelberg
<news@nadelberg.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are many reasons why government "food pyramids" (or whatever
> > shape the advice is in) are terrible, terrible ideas. Something our
> > Founders recognized, and specifically said that such powers ("not
> > enumerated") were thus outside the scope of government.
>
> Congress shall make no law regarding food pyramids? I must have missed that
> one.
As others have also mentioned, you missed the Tenth. Powers not
enumerated are left outside the realm of government. This is why
government cannot regulate our clothing, our hobbies, our vacation
preferences, our diets, our viewing habits, and so on, for nearly
everything we do.
(Of course, they try. And many of us think those who do need killing.
Some of these miscreants have already been killed, including a few
Chief Executives. Kennedy was evil, and it was good that he was
killed.)
Government may no more regulate what kind of food is served in local
schools or advertised (spoken about) than they may regulate the sizes
and shapes of furniture, the kinds and colors of clothing, or anything
else outside the powers specifically granted them (power to make war,
power to regulate commerce amongst the states, etc.)
(Side note: the commerce clause was about the feds being the only ones
who could set tariffs and trade restrictions, to stop states from
setting up trade barriers. It had nothing whatsoever to do with, for
example, a restaurant choosing its customers. It took the creative
shystering of the 1964 Civil Rights Movement to get a cowed Court to
decide that if a restaurant could freely choose its customers then this
might have have some ripple effect on trade a hundred miles away, blah
blah, and this would be "altering interstate commerce." Gee, by the
same logic the Feds should be able to regulate which books are sold, as
surely some books have some effects on who travels to some states.)
And, by the way, the laws against advertising tobacco and alcohol are
slam dunk violations of the First. The First did NOT contain any
exemptions whatsoever for "commercial" or "unhealthy" speech; in fact,
commercial speech restricted by the Crown was very much part of what
the Founders were reacting to.
If I want to advocate smoking cigarettes, and can pay someone to run my
speech, it is speech.
Of course, this country needs to have its hard drive reformatted. A
low-level reformat.
--Tim May
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:16
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:16
16 lines
2322 bytes
2322 bytes
"Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> wrote in message news:O76dnYwizL27-ZzeRVn-jw@speakeasy.net... > Jon Nadelberg wrote: > >> At its base, though, it is about food pyramids. > > That New Age crap -- pyramids, crystals, and Sedona, AZ. > > Ob food: tomatoes from a friend's friend's garden, ricotta salata, > basil, olive oil, garlic, and homemade strozzapreti. > > What is it about the combo of tomatoes, basil and olive oil that is so freaking good? Toss in some mozzarella, and it's perfect.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:17
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:17
38 lines
2848 bytes
2848 bytes
"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message news:qbp2g1ddbsbsqc5nb8eee4mop30je28a5q@4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:50:46 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" > <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: > >> >>"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message >>news:28o2g19r3bj6ops8dd02i22q56p3tvline@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:58:42 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" >>> <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message >>>>news:mmh2g19l5b9nk7uab221l072j0vlh0cjt1@4ax.com... >>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:26:58 -0700, Tim May >>>>> <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The Constitution says >>>>> >>>>> The co.groups charter says you are OFF TOPIC for co.foods. >>>>> >>>>> Take it somewhere else! >>>> >>>>You know, it IS about food.... >>> >>> >>> No, at this point it is not.... >> >>These things happen on newsgroups. Topics veer off into different areas. >> >>At its base, though, it is about food pyramids. >> > > It needs to get back on topic then. Yes Sir!
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:18
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:18
19 lines
2427 bytes
2427 bytes
"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
news:150820052113264837%timcmay@removethis.got.net...
> In article <5oGdnQNKiYOO_5zeRVn-sw@rcn.net>, Jon Nadelberg
> <news@nadelberg.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > There are many reasons why government "food pyramids" (or whatever
>> > shape the advice is in) are terrible, terrible ideas. Something our
>> > Founders recognized, and specifically said that such powers ("not
>> > enumerated") were thus outside the scope of government.
>>
>> Congress shall make no law regarding food pyramids? I must have missed
>> that
>> one.
>
> As others have also mentioned, you missed the Tenth.
Actually, Tim, I quoted the tenth and left off the ninth.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Uncle Jimbo
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:23
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:23
19 lines
2748 bytes
2748 bytes
"Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote... >> The Constitution says that powers not explicitly provided to the >> government are denied to it. The general language about "provide for >> the general welfare" is just boilerplate in the intro section. >> > > That boilerplate is there to give reason for the Constitution, and the rules > within are laid out so as to do the things in the Preamble. What do you > think those rules are all for? Okay then, I've actually heard leftists quote the same "general welfare" as a requirement that the government provide welfare payments to poor people. I guess it's like xians of different ideologies arguing that Jebus would have said one thing or another, just like we are arguing what the founders would say if they heard someone say the government should ban meat and force people to eat tofu instead. My guess is that if King George had done such a thing, that the right to eat what you want would indeed be enshrined in the Constitution.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Tim May
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:29
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:29
23 lines
2681 bytes
2681 bytes
In article <D7qdnVQcoZA39ZzeRVn-qw@rcn.net>, Jon Nadelberg <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: > > What is it about the combo of tomatoes, basil and olive oil that is so > freaking good? Toss in some mozzarella, and it's perfect. > One of my most often made "easy dishes" is shell noodles, finely chopped sun-dried tomatoes (either truly dried or packed in olive oil), olive oil, and parmesan. Served cold, of course. The little bits of dried tomatoes get inside the shells, the olive oil coats everything, and the parmesan adds its own flavor. This has the advantage of everything being storable for months, so always available, without prior planning or shopping. (And for the parmesan, I've tried the fresh-grated kind, but the Kraft form in the green can works best, to my taste. And stores forever.) --Tim May
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Uncle Jimbo
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:31
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:31
23 lines
3418 bytes
3418 bytes
"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote... > Government may no more regulate what kind of food is served in local > schools or advertised (spoken about) than they may regulate the sizes > and shapes of furniture, the kinds and colors of clothing, or anything > else outside the powers specifically granted them (power to make war, > power to regulate commerce amongst the states, etc.) Well, actually they could regulate school food and they do. If the schools are public schools, the government running them has every right to decide what to serve the students. They could not, however, ban food the child's parents packed in a bag lunch (except perhaps alcohol). My school in Texas had the weirdest rule; we had two vending machines side by side, one with Coke and other carbonated beverages and the other with Lipton Tea, Hi-C, and other non-carbonated beverages. We were free to buy the carbonated beverages before and after school, but not at lunch. At lunch they actually locked up the carbonated machine and we would pry apart the chain link and buy Coke and security would actually confiscate it from us! Nevermind that Lipton Tea and Hi-C had just as much sugar, apparently they were "healthier" because they were non-carbonated. But of course they were not required to sell either type of beverage, they could have allowed only orange juice to be sold in the cafeteria. As you might expect, the rule quickly changed as Coke "persuaded" local school boards to allow their beverage to be sold at lunch ($$$).
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:31
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:31
22 lines
2254 bytes
2254 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:41 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: > >"Michael Sierchio" <kudzu@tenebras.com> wrote in message >news:O76dnYwizL27-ZzeRVn-jw@speakeasy.net... >> Jon Nadelberg wrote: >> >>> At its base, though, it is about food pyramids. >> >> That New Age crap -- pyramids, crystals, and Sedona, AZ. >> >> Ob food: tomatoes from a friend's friend's garden, ricotta salata, >> basil, olive oil, garlic, and homemade strozzapreti. >> >> > >What is it about the combo of tomatoes, basil and olive oil that is so >freaking good? Toss in some mozzarella, and it's perfect. Tart, savory, pungent and hot = heaven. The fat just makes it sinfully good.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Sam Bam
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:32
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:32
45 lines
2755 bytes
2755 bytes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:17:13 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: > >"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message >news:qbp2g1ddbsbsqc5nb8eee4mop30je28a5q@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:50:46 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" >> <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message >>>news:28o2g19r3bj6ops8dd02i22q56p3tvline@4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:58:42 -0700, "Jon Nadelberg" >>>> <news@nadelberg.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Sam Bam" <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote in message >>>>>news:mmh2g19l5b9nk7uab221l072j0vlh0cjt1@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:26:58 -0700, Tim May >>>>>> <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The Constitution says >>>>>> >>>>>> The co.groups charter says you are OFF TOPIC for co.foods. >>>>>> >>>>>> Take it somewhere else! >>>>> >>>>>You know, it IS about food.... >>>> >>>> >>>> No, at this point it is not.... >>> >>>These things happen on newsgroups. Topics veer off into different areas. >>> >>>At its base, though, it is about food pyramids. >>> >> >> It needs to get back on topic then. > >Yes Sir! > Hey did you salute too? <g>
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jon Nadelberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:35
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:35
28 lines
3015 bytes
3015 bytes
"Uncle Jimbo" <jimbo@hunting.killing.net> wrote in message news:JSdMe.1869$hF1.721@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... > > "Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote... >>> The Constitution says that powers not explicitly provided to the >>> government are denied to it. The general language about "provide for >>> the general welfare" is just boilerplate in the intro section. >>> >> >> That boilerplate is there to give reason for the Constitution, and the >> rules within are laid out so as to do the things in the Preamble. What >> do you think those rules are all for? > > Okay then, I've actually heard leftists quote the same "general welfare" > as > a requirement that the government provide welfare payments to poor people. > I guess it's like xians of different ideologies arguing that Jebus would > have said one thing or another, just like we are arguing what the founders > would say if they heard someone say the government should ban meat and > force people to eat tofu instead. My guess is that if King George had > done such a thing, that the right to eat what you want would indeed be > enshrined in the Constitution. > Since the document is interpreted, it can mean many things to many people. It has also changed over the years too, as it has gone through different interpretations.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Tim May
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:56
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:56
73 lines
5314 bytes
5314 bytes
In article <J_dMe.1876$hF1.1232@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, Uncle Jimbo <jimbo@hunting.killing.net> wrote: > "Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote... > > Government may no more regulate what kind of food is served in local > > schools or advertised (spoken about) than they may regulate the sizes > > and shapes of furniture, the kinds and colors of clothing, or anything > > else outside the powers specifically granted them (power to make war, > > power to regulate commerce amongst the states, etc.) > > Well, actually they could regulate school food and they do. If the schools > are public schools, the government running them has every right to decide > what to serve the students. I mainly meant the Federal Government, as they are the ones regulating school lunch programs. This is clearly unconstitutional (as is the entire "Department of Education" or HEW or HHS or whatever permuation it may be called by). Even states should not run schools. It used to be that counties and "school districts" did. The situation where legislators in distant capitals and in Washington could decide what was served in schools is bad for a lot of reasons. (As I said in another post, even the tofu and sprouts crowd here, who are arguing for a government food pyramid of their liking, should realize that it was this government control that gave us the emphasis on "Salisbury steak" and "chiliburgers" and on, probably, way too many dairy products in school diets. Think about this when you argue that Senator Jesse Helms ought to be able to tell your kids what they must eat in school lunches.) But as for public schools in general, all of my friends (at least the bunch I can think of right now that have school-age kids) have their kids in private schools. Whether Catholic, Montessori, Mount Madonna, Siliesian Sisters, Monte Vista Christian Academy, whatever, these are the private schools they put their kids in. No gladiator schools for their kids. And hence no USDA-Required lunches. The time for public schools ended a long time ago, especially once "locality" was lost (with busing of kids to balance races and to bring down high-achieving Asians and whites). Whatever arguments once existed for the "community school" are now long gone, what with dozens of choices. All that exists now is taking from the rich to give to the poor. Which I despise, but still better to just steal from the rich but let everyone choose where to spend their vouchers. Eliminate public schools completely. Your next amusing point" > They could not, however, ban food the child's > parents packed in a bag lunch (except perhaps alcohol). Au contrare. Local school districts have been banning things in bag lunches (not just alcohol and tobacco). Even as they install "revenue centers" (soda machines, which they get a percentage of). The local public school district nearest to me (Pajaro Unified) attempted to ban "junk food" in bag lunches. Some parents called the district and threatened any teachers who took their kids' food with "bodily harm." The district contacted the District Attorney, who said the threats probably weren't real (fucking idiots...of course they were real...you steal my kid's food, it's an honor to take you out with a sniper rifle from a safe distance) but suggested that the "confiscation" was unconstitutional. (Do you doubt me? Google on "freedom pajaro junk food") Fact is, this is what Big Mother is leading us towards. --Tim May
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Tim May
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:57
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:57
18 lines
2377 bytes
2377 bytes
In article <00r2g1t7jpvqmf9nqfrceikjk7d99bhoqf@4ax.com>, Sam Bam <patriot@bailey.bz> wrote: > > > >What is it about the combo of tomatoes, basil and olive oil that is so > >freaking good? Toss in some mozzarella, and it's perfect. > > Tart, savory, pungent and hot = heaven. The fat just makes it > sinfully good. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MISC.HEADLINES!!!!!! Stop cross-posting this kind of stuff to misc.headlines or I will take action against you. --Tim May
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:58
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:58
17 lines
2505 bytes
2505 bytes
In article <150820052156058346%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, timcmay@removethis.got.net says... > I mainly meant the Federal Government, as they are the ones regulating > school lunch programs. This is clearly unconstitutional (as is the > entire "Department of Education" or HEW or HHS or whatever permuation > it may be called by). Absolutely correct, except for the part about any of the above being unconstitutional. -- ================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay! Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Uncle Jimbo
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:53
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:53
27 lines
3618 bytes
3618 bytes
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <spammersmustdie@volcanomail.com> wrote...
> In article <150820052156058346%timcmay@removethis.got.net>,
> timcmay@removethis.got.net says...
>
>> I mainly meant the Federal Government, as they are the ones regulating
>> school lunch programs. This is clearly unconstitutional (as is the
>> entire "Department of Education" or HEW or HHS or whatever permuation
>> it may be called by).
>
> Absolutely correct, except for the part about any of the above being
> unconstitutional.
But AFAIK, the DoE operates with constitutional parameters, it never FORCES
states and counties to follow its recommendations, it simply withholds
federal funding for them until they comply. The federal government is not
required to give money to states, the states have CHOSEN to accept it in
exchange for complying with certain rules. Just like the national 55mph
speed limit or the 0.08% blood alcohol limit, the feds have no right to
impose those things, they simply blackmailed ("greemailed" it's called)
the states into adopting those rules or lose billions of dollars in
federal highway funds. It's not my fault if a school district is too timid
to tax its residents sufficiently to fund the local schools and feels it
must whore itself to the feds to get enough money to operate. No, I don't
like this, it runs contrary to basic constitutional principles of separation
of powers, but apparently Americans across the country have decided they
would rather pay taxes to the feds to distribute to their states than just
pay higher state and local taxes.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Tim May
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:06
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:06
105 lines
7265 bytes
7265 bytes
In article <TKpMe.3233$Hn3.2173@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, Uncle
Jimbo <jimbo@hunting.killing.net> wrote:
> But AFAIK, the DoE operates with constitutional parameters, it never FORCES
> states and counties to follow its recommendations, it simply withholds
> federal funding for them until they comply. The federal government is not
> required to give money to states, the states have CHOSEN to accept it in
> exchange for complying with certain rules. Just like the national 55mph
> speed limit or the 0.08% blood alcohol limit, the feds have no right to
> impose those things, they simply blackmailed ("greemailed" it's called)
> the states into adopting those rules or lose billions of dollars in
> federal highway funds. It's not my fault if a school district is too timid
> to tax its residents sufficiently to fund the local schools and feels it
> must whore itself to the feds to get enough money to operate.
As someone who recently paid $6500 in property taxes to the State of
California, $24,400 in state income taxes, and $65,000 in Federal
income taxes, (plus various utility, energy, gasoline, sales, etc.,
taxes), I think I am taxed quite enough, thank you.
Further, property taxes, which are set by the state as a percentage of
the assessed value, ARE SENT TO SACRAMENTO, then doled out for various
purposes.
Inviting local school districts to FURTHER tax us, given the bloated
size of government already, and the kind of obscene tax levels
mentioned above, is absurd.
Lastly, I think you were the one who said you just moved here from
Texas. (If not, sorry.) You may not be aware of the "Lottery System."
The California lottery was proposed as a way to fund the schools. This
was how it was sold to the voters ("Our schools win, too!!," the ads
gushed). I voted AGAINST it, not because I don't like the idea of a tax
on stupidity--which is what lotteries are--but because it is never
permissable for government to run an operation (gambling) which they
outlaw when individuals do it.
(What's next, state-run brothels? Gives new meaning to "proposition.")
Our schools are crummy not because they aren't funded well enough...the
real dollars funding is higher now than it was in 1960, I recently
read. Which makes sense, given the real dollar taxation rates today as
compared to 1960.
However, unlike in 1960, today's school districts are bloated-up with
"administrators" and "support personnel," the kind of jobs a lot of
teachers aspire to (gets them out of the classroom and into cushy,
unionized, civil service jobs where nobody really knows or cares what
they are doing in their cubicles). And today's schools are mostly
baby-sitting facilities for working parents...much of the local school
budget near me is spent on "after-school" programs, which is a fancy
way of saying "places to keep kids busy until their parent can pick
them up that evening."
Public schools can only rarely kick out disruptive students. Public
schoolsl are gladiator schools, where gangs recruit members, where the
minority hooligans chant "reading be fo whitey," and where the teachers
still in the classrooms are those without the political pull or
ass-kissing ability to get into "Administration."
The teachers union of course claims that all these problems would be
solved if only teacher salaries were increased still further. Ha.
Meanwhile, here you are saying that the funding problems are because
local communities don't have the guts to raise taxes still further.
Double ha.
America is a kleptocracy, with an unprecedented amount of personal
wealth taken and spent by those working for the state. Not even in the
U.S.S.R. were such levels of effective taxation seen. Not even in the
days of serfs. (For the unitiated, "Tax Freedom Day" is that day each
year when the point between "working for the state" and "working for
oneself" is reached. This varies from person to person, and is earlier
in the year for less-skilled workers, and later in the year for
more-skilled workers (because they are taxed at escalating rates, in
true "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need" Commie Democrat style). This year the estimated average Tax
Freedom Day is 31 May. Meaning, we worked for Uncle Sam, Uncle Arnold,
Uncle Local Leader for the first five months of the year.
A summary of this is at <http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/>
And, actually, if Socialist Security taxes (which is what they are,
though they are called "contributions") are taken into account, Tax
Freedom Day gets pushed out still further.
Further, the "debt bomb" of 50-70 trillion (thousand billion) that is
part of the "unfunded liabilities" is likely to explode around 2025,
plus or minus a few years. ("Unfunded liabilities" are of the various
things the govenment has promised to pay out but for which no money is
currently set aside.)
It's likely that for nearly everyone of college age and younger today,
that in 20-25 years they'll be working 10 months out of every year just
to pay taxes. (Since many of the jobs are increasingly "McJobs," this
may not even be enough. That coffee slinger may have to pay 90% of
everything he makes to pay for this debt bomb.)
Meanwhile, taxes are already way, way too high.
--Tim May
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:10
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:10
15 lines
2358 bytes
2358 bytes
In article <160820051406090622%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, timcmay@removethis.got.net says... > And, actually, if Socialist Security taxes I assume you included that comment just in case anyone was still not sure that you're a wacko. -- ================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay! Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: David Arnstein
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:14
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:14
17 lines
1720 bytes
1720 bytes
In article <MPG.1d6c204eec6f8bb398a388@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Jeffrey E. Salzberg <spammersmustdie@volcanomail.com> wrote: >In article <160820051406090622%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, >timcmay@removethis.got.net says... > > >> And, actually, if Socialist Security taxes > >I assume you included that comment just in case anyone was still not >sure that you're a wacko. I certainly disagree with a lot of what Tim May writes. But in this case he is correct: the American Social Security system is indeed socialist. I defy you to argue otherwise. -- David Arnstein arnstein+usenet@pobox.com
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Steve Pope
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:17
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:17
9 lines
1424 bytes
1424 bytes
David Arnstein <arnstein+usenet@pobox.com> wrote: >I certainly disagree with a lot of what Tim May writes. But in this >case he is correct: the American Social Security system is indeed >socialist. I defy you to argue otherwise. Damn straight it's socialist. And it's staying that way! Steve
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:30
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:30
34 lines
2746 bytes
2746 bytes
In article <ddtogu$2np$1@reader2.panix.com>, arnstein@panix.com says... > In article <MPG.1d6c204eec6f8bb398a388@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > Jeffrey E. Salzberg <spammersmustdie@volcanomail.com> wrote: > >In article <160820051406090622%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, > >timcmay@removethis.got.net says... > > > > > >> And, actually, if Socialist Security taxes > > > >I assume you included that comment just in case anyone was still not > >sure that you're a wacko. > > I certainly disagree with a lot of what Tim May writes. But in this > case he is correct: the American Social Security system is indeed > socialist. I defy you to argue otherwise. Well, I'm at a diadvantage, being sane and all, but here goes: so�cial�ism n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. There's no sane way to argue that Social Security fits into that definition. -- ================================================== Take back the Congress without DeLay! Contribute to Nick Lampson's congressional campaign: http://www.lampson.com/
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Uncle Jimbo
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:05
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:05
42 lines
4398 bytes
4398 bytes
"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote...
> As someone who recently paid $6500 in property taxes to the State of
> California, $24,400 in state income taxes, and $65,000 in Federal
> income taxes, (plus various utility, energy, gasoline, sales, etc.,
> taxes), I think I am taxed quite enough, thank you.
>
> Further, property taxes, which are set by the state as a percentage of
> the assessed value, ARE SENT TO SACRAMENTO, then doled out for various
> purposes.
>
> Inviting local school districts to FURTHER tax us, given the bloated
> size of government already, and the kind of obscene tax levels
> mentioned above, is absurd.
But if the federal government ceased funding public schools the federal
income tax could be lowered, your local taxes increased, and the net
result might be about the same.
> Lastly, I think you were the one who said you just moved here from
> Texas. (If not, sorry.) You may not be aware of the "Lottery System."
> The California lottery was proposed as a way to fund the schools. This
> was how it was sold to the voters ("Our schools win, too!!," the ads
> gushed). I voted AGAINST it, not because I don't like the idea of a tax
> on stupidity--which is what lotteries are--but because it is never
> permissable for government to run an operation (gambling) which they
> outlaw when individuals do it.
Yeah, I'm the Texas dude. Texas did the same thing, shortly before I
moved (back) there. They sold the lottery as a way to provide extra
money for public education, then as soon as it was created the Texas
legislature cut state funding by about the same amount as the money
the new lottery was bringing in. And like you said happens here in
California, there was something they called "Robin Hood" funding,
where local school district tax revenues over a certain set amount
were required to be sent to the state to redistribute communist-style
to poorer school districts. So now they are trying to reform the
system, one idea being abolishing local school taxes and creating a
new statewide tax. Also, by sending your money to Sacramento to
redistribute to local school districts, you lose your local voice
to determine how your local schools should be run. Just like the
feds funding it.
Re: Junk Food Nation
Author: Dennis
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:36
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:36
107 lines
7320 bytes
7320 bytes
The amount you paid in taxes (100K) is the same as the salary for
someone who inched into the top 10%. Seems you dont have much to
complain about.
Have never seen the teachers claim that higher salaries would solve
school problems. Personally I think that the schools are messed up
because most parents are fucked up, all differently. Save your
indignation for the "intelligent design" group. They have no concept of
science and want to foist that lack of knowledge on entire school
districts. But instead you want to sit there, complain about your taxes
and not worry about the future since you have at most 20 years left.
Dennis
Tim May wrote:
>
>
> As someone who recently paid $6500 in property taxes to the State of
> California, $24,400 in state income taxes, and $65,000 in Federal
> income taxes, (plus various utility, energy, gasoline, sales, etc.,
> taxes), I think I am taxed quite enough, thank you.
>
> Further, property taxes, which are set by the state as a percentage of
> the assessed value, ARE SENT TO SACRAMENTO, then doled out for various
> purposes.
>
> Inviting local school districts to FURTHER tax us, given the bloated
> size of government already, and the kind of obscene tax levels
> mentioned above, is absurd.
>
> Lastly, I think you were the one who said you just moved here from
> Texas. (If not, sorry.) You may not be aware of the "Lottery System."
> The California lottery was proposed as a way to fund the schools. This
> was how it was sold to the voters ("Our schools win, too!!," the ads
> gushed). I voted AGAINST it, not because I don't like the idea of a tax
> on stupidity--which is what lotteries are--but because it is never
> permissable for government to run an operation (gambling) which they
> outlaw when individuals do it.
>
>
> (What's next, state-run brothels? Gives new meaning to "proposition.")
>
> Our schools are crummy not because they aren't funded well enough...the
> real dollars funding is higher now than it was in 1960, I recently
> read. Which makes sense, given the real dollar taxation rates today as
> compared to 1960.
>
> However, unlike in 1960, today's school districts are bloated-up with
> "administrators" and "support personnel," the kind of jobs a lot of
> teachers aspire to (gets them out of the classroom and into cushy,
> unionized, civil service jobs where nobody really knows or cares what
> they are doing in their cubicles). And today's schools are mostly
> baby-sitting facilities for working parents...much of the local school
> budget near me is spent on "after-school" programs, which is a fancy
> way of saying "places to keep kids busy until their parent can pick
> them up that evening."
>
> Public schools can only rarely kick out disruptive students. Public
> schoolsl are gladiator schools, where gangs recruit members, where the
> minority hooligans chant "reading be fo whitey," and where the teachers
> still in the classrooms are those without the political pull or
> ass-kissing ability to get into "Administration."
>
> The teachers union of course claims that all these problems would be
> solved if only teacher salaries were increased still further. Ha.
>
> Meanwhile, here you are saying that the funding problems are because
> local communities don't have the guts to raise taxes still further.
> Double ha.
>
> America is a kleptocracy, with an unprecedented amount of personal
> wealth taken and spent by those working for the state. Not even in the
> U.S.S.R. were such levels of effective taxation seen. Not even in the
> days of serfs. (For the unitiated, "Tax Freedom Day" is that day each
> year when the point between "working for the state" and "working for
> oneself" is reached. This varies from person to person, and is earlier
> in the year for less-skilled workers, and later in the year for
> more-skilled workers (because they are taxed at escalating rates, in
> true "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
> need" Commie Democrat style). This year the estimated average Tax
> Freedom Day is 31 May. Meaning, we worked for Uncle Sam, Uncle Arnold,
> Uncle Local Leader for the first five months of the year.
>
> A summary of this is at <http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/>
>
> And, actually, if Socialist Security taxes (which is what they are,
> though they are called "contributions") are taken into account, Tax
> Freedom Day gets pushed out still further.
>
>
> Further, the "debt bomb" of 50-70 trillion (thousand billion) that is
> part of the "unfunded liabilities" is likely to explode around 2025,
> plus or minus a few years. ("Unfunded liabilities" are of the various
> things the govenment has promised to pay out but for which no money is
> currently set aside.)
>
> It's likely that for nearly everyone of college age and younger today,
> that in 20-25 years they'll be working 10 months out of every year just
> to pay taxes. (Since many of the jobs are increasingly "McJobs," this
> may not even be enough. That coffee slinger may have to pay 90% of
> everything he makes to pay for this debt bomb.)
>
>
> Meanwhile, taxes are already way, way too high.
>
>
> --Tim May
Page 1 of 2 • 61 total messages
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads