Peds want soda ban

JG wrote:

Do I have any studies? No. Does the AAP have studies
showing that
obesity among schoolkids would be reduced if vending
machines were
removed? No. (At least not to my knowledge.) *They* are
the ones
who apparently believe the mere presence of soft drink
vending
machines fosters (promotes, nurtures, contributes to,
advances... use
whatever term you choose) obesity.

Well, we do know that drinking a lot of sugary drinks is
associated with increased wieght.


Availability of soft drinks doesn't MAKE people consume
them!

Who said it did?

No one. I'm simply saying that the mere
presence/availability of
something, ipso facto, doesn't "make" people use (consume)
it.

Well, sort of. Availability certainly does affect choice.
The one thing we do know is that if the soda is not
available it will not be purchased and consumed. Also, if
the soda is much more readily available (say it is in the
machine on the way to class but the cafeteria is closed or
some distance away) that this will affect decisions.



Availabilty is *a* factor, not the only factor, in what
people
eat/do.

Obviously.

But it is a big factor.



I actually know many people (including myself) who
routinely choose
diet sodas or other low- and no-calorie drinks over
sugar-laden
beverages, even though they might prefer the taste of the
latter,
presumably because they're aware of the caloric
difference. It's
called discipline. Soft drinks are inanimate objects; any
"pull" is
in consumers' heads.

Personally, depending ont he situation, I often prefer water
to soda and generally prefer diet sodas to sugared. By now I
fond the "regular" sodas to taste like drinking syrup and
not at all thirst quenching. However, that is just me and it
is completely besides the point.

If the school is making these types of choices so readily
avaibale they are undermining the parents ability to contrl
the situation and instruct the kids as they see fit. keep in
mind that these kids (witht he exception of a few seniors)
are minors and the parents still have the legal authority,
if not the responsibility, to help them make choices. The
school should be supporting this - not interfering with it.


I don't know of any studies that have been conducted
specifically
addressing the issue of soda machines. I do know that
there's
a wealth of work showing that when more food is
available, people
eat more.

*Some* people eat more.

Most people eat more.


If this were a universal truth, we'd *all*
(those of us in North America and Western Europe, at
least) be
butterballs.

A lot of us are.


Obviously *a* source of soft drinks would be eliminated,
but where's
the AAP's proof that soft drink consumption would
decrease? (I mean
c'mon! They didn't even do a survey, to my knowledge,
asking kids
what they'd do [Find another source, perhaps home or a
grocery/convenience store? Switch to drinking the
"healthy" beverages
of which the AAP approves?] if the machines were taken out
of their
school!)

Many schools do not allow the kids to leave during schol
hours and many, if notmost, are not within easy walking
distance to a market. What would in all likelihood happen is
that the kids would be restricted to drinking what they
bring or buy from the cafeteria. I doubt this would end up
being more than one serving of soda for all but a few of
them.


I think their objective
was to cover budget shortfalls and the decisions were
merely
unwise.

Hindsight's wonderful. g IME, it's usually much more
difficult to
take something back (revenues derived from soft drink
sales and
contracts, in this case) than to forgo it in the first
place.
(Witness welfare programs.)

I think that is the problem with removing them now. You and
Rog are arguing that the effects are unproved (although I
doubt many reasonable people really share these doubts) but
no one is arguing that the machines are a good idea on
anything other than a fiscal level. At best these machines
can be termed a poorly characterixed potential health
hazzard. At worst they are a big problem. It seems to me
that if someone wants to use this as a scheme to make money
(and little else) the onus should be on them to show that
the potential for harm is nil. The fact that they managed to
get the machines in without anyone raising the issue does
not mean the AAP is wrong to raise it now.



I just don't think it's productive to
argue about any proposed action as if it were a much more
extreme action that has not in fact been proposed.

Okay. I think any proposal to remove soda machines
merits community
(taxpayer) discussion/debate, however, and that such
discussion should
include the fact that contracts with soft drink companies
have proved
lucrative for the schools; i.e., that there'd be a
downside to booting
the vending machines.

Wouldn't it have been better if this discussion took place
before the machine were put in? Presumably if that were the
case then there would be some pressure to show that there is
no dangerof harm.

As for the government interventions stuff (mostly snipped) -
I'm not really sure where it is comming form. The AAP is not
he government.

--
CBI, MD

JG wrote:

No, Chris; you're deluded. What I've occasionally said
about AAP
policy statements/recommendations *that deal with safety*
(guns, lawn
mowers, bike helmets, seat belts...) is that the AAP has
no special
expertise in such matters--they are out of pediaticians'
purview

Funny thing is that you say the same things when they are
discussing matters directly related to children's health
(like vaccines).


Humph. Tell you what; since there's no way to prove
intent, or what
you "truly believe," I'll give you a pass for now IF you
admit you
were mistaken.

Sorry - no.

--
CBI

JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message
om...
(abacus) wrote in message
. com...

Message ID:

The link doesn't work, Chris...

Its not a link - its a message ID from Google.

Roger Schlafly wrote:
"CBI" wrote

That is going to help your argument that she wants to
censor
the AAP!!!!

Funny how excessive editing can change the meaning, huh?


Give it up. You are a pathetic moron, and you cannot
justify your
claims.

This comming from the mathematician that doesn't understand
basic statistics and persists in posting a "FAQ" that has
been thoroughly debunked numerous times.

JG wrote:

Btw, Chris, have you learned *anything* more about
libertarianism in
the past two years?

Yes, its not very popular in my state (it is no longer an
offically recognized party). Also that may of its proponents
think it should apply differently to them and others.

--
CBI

"CBI" wrote in message
link.net...
JG wrote:

No, Chris; you're deluded. What I've occasionally said
about AAP
policy statements/recommendations *that deal with safety*
(guns, lawn
mowers, bike helmets, seat belts...) is that the AAP has
no special
expertise in such matters--they are out of pediaticians'
purview

Funny thing is that you say the same things when they are
discussing matters directly related to children's health
(like vaccines).

Hehehe. Okay, find those, too.

Humph. Tell you what; since there's no way to prove
intent, or what
you "truly believe," I'll give you a pass for now IF you
admit you
were mistaken.

Sorry - no.

Do your kids know why you're too busy to do stuff with them today? g
Happy hunting!

"CBI" wrote in message
link.net...
JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message
om...
(abacus) wrote in message
. com...

Message ID:

The link doesn't work, Chris...

Its not a link - its a message ID from Google.

Then you should have provided a link to the Google Groups "Advanced
Search" page (http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en) and
told people to cut & paste the ID # in the "Message ID" box...

JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message

link.net...
JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message
om...
(abacus) wrote in message

. com...

Message ID:


The link doesn't work, Chris...

Its not a link - its a message ID from Google.

Then you should have provided a link to the Google Groups
"Advanced
Search" page
(http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en) and
told people to cut & paste the ID # in the "Message ID"
box...

Should I tell you how to start your computer as well? It was
clearly marked as a message ID.

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"JG" wrote in message
...

[...]

It was SARCASM, Jonathan, for heaven's sake! (FWIW, schools'
failure to
adequately teach our youth--to enable them to be considered
"educated"--isn't merely an opinion; considerable research shows it
to
be a fact.)

OK - care to share?

http://www.policyreview.org/jul98/nation.html
http://www.michamber.com/miforwrd/ar...tionReform.pdf
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2695
http://4brevard.com/choice/internati...est-scores.htm

My experience is that my school, and the
school district as a whole, are doing an outstanding job in
providing
an education.

How do you know; i.e., on what are you basing your assessment?

Involvement

Standardized test scores?

Yes

Graduation rates?

Yes

Percentage of students
furthering their education?

Yes

Other means of comparison (to other
schools/districts)?

Yes, local, regional, state and national.

I'm happy for you that you're in a "good" district; so am I. (Although
apparently just about everyone thinks *their* schools are doing a good
job!) The US public education system IS doing a great job in one area:
Instilling high self-esteem. We may be dumbing down, but what the heck!
We feel {{{{good}}}} about ourselves!

I am involved - aren't you?

Quite.

If your student body were switched, en masse, with
that of an inner-city school (one in which the students hail from a
considerably lower socioeconomic background) can you asset, with
certainty, that *those* students would do as well?

Why is this an issue.

Because "good" schools--good teachers, good materials, a good
curriculum--should be able to produce "good" (educated) graduates. If
your school is truly as exemplary as you believe, it should be able to
get the same results with virtually any and all students, regardless of
their "quality" at the time they enroll.

I am less concerned with the performance of
schools than I am with the performance of schools that impact on me.

Aren't we all? g You're thinking a bit too locally, Jonathan. (More
below.)

If others do not value education and abdicate responsiblity, I have no
right to impose my value on them - OR?????

So you (and your kids) never have to deal with, let alone (heaven
forbid!) rely on or
(worse yet!) answer to anyone other than graduates of "your" schools?
Cool! g

(IME, kids from
families that place a premium on education--that have high
expectations
for their kids' educational success--tend to do well regardless of
the
school in which they find themselves.)

Excuse me - BUT - the partnership of schools and parents is an
essential component of education. The term is synergy.

I disagree. Parental involvement IS important ("nice"), but it's not
essential.

Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that schools
are doing a good job.

Fine. We disagree.

No, not fine -

I feel sorry for your kids. And if YOUR childrens' school is NOT
providing the eductation that YOUR kids deserve, what is YOUR excuse?
Why do you let this happen? Aren't you at all ashamed of being a
mediocre parent?

And you base this opinion ("mediocre parent") on what, the fact that I
disagree with you about the quality/status of American education? LOL!
BTW, no need to feel sorry for my kids; I think they (two daughters, 28
and 16) turned out okay (and, after all, isn't that what counts in
"Jonathan's World"?). I imagine they think so, too, though not because
some teacher(s) inculcated this belief in them!). If I had to do it
(their schooling) over again, starting today, I'd probably opt for
private (or maybe even home) schooling.

I think (public) schools, overall, are doing a
mediocre job at best ...and that they're still declining.

I am also of ther opinion that the role of the
school extends well beyond simply teaching the three Rs.

Sorry, that's too vague to respond to adequately; go ahead and
enumerate, if you wish, just what other things (presumably more than
offering additional subjects--"social studies," art, P.E., music,
and
the like) you think schools should/ought to be doing, i.e., what
other
roles they should be fulfilling.

Socialization perhaps?

Hehehe. I don't know where in CA you are, but would be willing to
enroll your kid(s) in, say, a Compton school for a year? I'm sure the
"socialization" would do them, and you, good.

(I'd settle for simply producing a literate populace;

The literacy rate in the US is 97% - and considering the large
immigrant population, this is a pretty high number.

Whoa! Sorry, Jonathan, but I'll have to ask you to provide a
citation
for taht figure.

UN

Bwahahaha! Too funny!

And when I speak of literacy, I'm talking about
"functional literacy,"

Do what you want. I refer to the statistivs that are comparable
across countries based on an accepted metric.

Then we--the US--really ARE in trouble. Look at the TIMSS results.
(There's a good article at
http://www.fitpsy.org/cached/TIMSS/T...es20001206.htm).

a "...level of literacy which includes not only
reading and writing skills but also numeracy skills. The skills must
be
sufficiently advanced to enable the individual to participate fully
and
efficiently in activities commonly occurring in his life situation
that
require a reasonable capability of communicating by written
language."
(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/techno...eflemms94.html)
According
to the 1994 National Adult Literacy Survey (a new one's due next
year, I
believe), 21-23% (40-44M) of US adults fell into the lowest level
(1,
of 5) of literacy while ~50M more were classified as "Level 2."
(See
http://nces.ed.gov//naal/resources/e....asp#litskills.) Maybe
97%
of the adult population can sign their names on a document, but that
doesn't mean (by a long shot!) that they *understand* the contents
of
the document (let alone the implications of affixing their signature
to
it).

If you want to make PhD level capability as a criterion, then
obviously you wouldn't be considered literate.

One *shouldn't* need anything more than a high school diploma to
properly fill out job or loan applications and simple legal documents
such as leases and car-rental agreements.

"education," IMO, is a personal endeavor.) We (society) have
already
added students' mental/psychological well-being to list of
things we
expect schools to achieve/ensure, and now, apparently, the APA
wants
to
charge schools with the task of seeing that kids slim down by
(initially)--tada!--banning the sale of soft drinks.

Some schools didn't wait for the APA to address the issue of
nutrition
in schools.

No; questions regarding the propriety of schools entering exclusive
contracts (esp. with the marketers of foods/beverages of
questionable
nutitional value) arose shortly after they came into vogue.

So, when the question of the effect is raised, you have a problem?

Yes. There's *still* no proof that removing soda machines from schools
would have any impact on kids' weight.

I'm not a big fan of the infuences of mass marketing on young people -
and I am an advocate of the responsibility of parents in providing
guidance - I am having a problem with balancing the preferences of
parents with the freedom of commercial speech - and the income that
provides - you?

That's what the issue boils down to, isn't it? Which is more important
*to the majority*: Having the revenue soda sales/contracts generate, or
not having machines from which kids might be tempted (horrors!) to
purchase "junk" drinks accessible to them? (BTW, if we're talking about
*public* schools, the thoughts/wishes of all patrons, not just parents,
should
be considered.)

[...]

The largest district in my area apparently gets about $500,000 a
year
from their deal with Coca Cola Inc., enough, I'd guess, to pay the
salaries of 17 teachers (or 5 administrators? g). News reports
here
didn't quote any Coke representatives, only a district
spokeswoman--who
made it very clear that the district wasn't about to ban the sale of
Coke products: "...Colorado Springs largest school district doesn't
agree with the [AAP] recommendation. Elaine Naleski, District 11's
Director of Communications says the machines will stay where they
are.
She says removing the machines won't make any difference at all in
the
obesity of children, and adds exercise, and sensible eating is the
best
solution." (http://krdo.com/DisplayStory.asp?id=6959)

So your school district has sold out...how does that make you feel?

First of all, I don't live in the district mentioned. My district does
have an "exclusive" contract (also with Coca-Cola), however, and it
doesn't bother me a bit. I can conveniently grab a can of pop or a
bottle of water on my way out the (school) door (though I rarely do;
I usually bring one from home), and the money generated from the
contract and vending-machine sales has enabled the school to buy all
sorts of stuff
(e.g., a climbing wall in the gym).

I
bet there are some internet photogaphers that could generate even more
revenue - care to draw a line?

To what are you alluding? Are you comparing the presence of soft drink
machines on campuses to the distribution/sale of pornography? Talk
about stretching it! If porn producers wish to give money to schools,
it's fine by me.

[...]

Health, with the possible exception of communicable diseases, is a
private issue.

Exactly. Say it a little louder, so Utz, CBI, and Riley can hear
you.g

I will not tolerate adverse influences on MY choices for MY children.

The mere presence of a soft drink machine is an "adverse influence" on
your kids? Boy, when do you find time to live *your* own life? Do you
honestly think you're doing them a favor by making (apparently) ALL
their choices for them?

But as anything, "private" issues have societal
externalities. Moreover, "private" issues set the standard moral
and
social fiber.

Again, you're being terribly vague. (Love the liberal- [or is it
edu-?]
speak, though!... "externalities"..."social fiber"...)

Well - it would be the first time I was called liberal. Externalities
is an economics term, BTW.

An externality is an externality is an externality. Sure, the term is
used in econ, mostly when
one person or group wants to bolster their opinions/agenda by showing
that something of which they're in favor has "positive" externalities
(or, conversely, that something to which they are opposed has "negative
externalities"). Assigning costs to externalities is usually quite
subjective. You're only concerned about *your* school(so) and the job
it's/they're doing, huh? Want to discuss the "negative externalities"
of the nation's (as a whole) dismal public education system? Why don't
we start with the costs employers (= consumers, eventually--including
the Smiths) have to pay for the remedial education of ill-prepared
workers?

It is apolitical and has a distinct and
specific meaning.

It means nothing more than "the state of being external," though the
definition has somewhat more specific meanings in different
fields/disciplines,
e.g., psychology, philosophy, and the previously mentioned economics. I
hear it used more often by liberals/leftists.

the gubmnt's only
basis/rationale for intervention in this arena

Is to respond to and support the will of the people.

Which has been ascertained HOW, in this case? Via the whinings of
small
groups of people (POOFS--Parents of Overly Fat Students?
Anti-corporate
Greenies? The AAP?). These groups may be vocal, but to assert that
they represent "the people" is stretching it a bit, don't you think?

No, not at all. My experience in my school district in which I am
personally involved which restrcts access to sugared drinks represents
the overwhelming majority of parents. We are a small community of
very participative parents - maybe we are unique.

Maybe. Certainly rare. (Ask Mark P. how difficult it is to get even a
modest number of parents involved in school oversight.)

Look, these groups can protest/plead/write letters all they want.
Where
were they when their school boards were considering/discussing
proposal
to enter into exclusive, multi-year contracts to place soda machines
in
the schools, hmmm?

There are none in our school district. And in the school in which I
am involved, there NEVER have been. Because WE DID NOT WANT them.
Perhaps in your school district the parental involvement is lacking?

It varies from school to school. IME, the schools in the more affluent
neighborhoods see greater parental involvement, probably for several
reasons. Many parents in these neighborhoods likely "earned" their way
there by virtue of having received a solid education themselves (and
thus value education highly); it's also likely they have the
discretionary time to devote to their kids' affairs.

Do you honestly think that voters in every district
would vote to ban pop machines if *all* the facts--especially how
much
money the district was receiving and the uses to which it was, or
could
be, put--were known? I don't.

I do - we had this discussion as part of the local PTA - it was
related to an opportunity proposed by the local ADIDAS rep - as
parents we opted to self fund the equipment and uniforms. How about
that. The rep has kids in the school.

It sounds as if you're in a community where money wasn't an object.
(Much easier to stand on principle when that's the case, isn't it?!)
The choice might be harder for "poorer" schools.

is the claim that
weight-induced health problems (diabetes, cardiovascular
disease,
etc.)
among those receiving public assistance (Medicaid, Medicare)
impose
a
financial burden on taxpayers.

If that's what you believe the only rationale to be, you missed
the
bigger picture. Many (most?) parents prefer NOT to have junk food
and
soda readily available in schools where they may have limited
ability
to control their Childs access.

Not in my area, apparently. Then again, we're one of the "fittest"
states in the nation (Colorado is the only state in the nation in
which
fewer than half of the adults are overweight), as well as one of the
"best educated" (Colorado's number one in the nation for percentage
of
residents with a bachelor's degree); we're savvy enough to know that
removing soda machines from schools would be merely a token gesture,
and
that it's not their presence that makes kids fat.

Big whoop. The local elementary school principal has a PhD

A Ph.DO., or an Ed.DO.? Regardless, I bet the students/parents call
him,
"DR. ____," right? (Advanced degrees, including doctorates, are
ubiquitous in our district.)

- we have
more doctorates per capita than any other school district in
California and the median income is in excess of 100K. We also have
diversity, multilingualism, and the fewest number of obese
adolescents.

Good for you. (Big whoop?) You really should get out more, though.
(Or at least read more about life outside your Shangri-la.)

I can do it when we are at home and
when we are out as a family - but in school, I need some help.
And
that is the ROLE of the school board, the state and local
government,
and the parent teacher association.

Fine. If you want to relinquish your high scholar's

OK - JIG - this is an elementary and junior high initiative. I have
no
problem with high scholars making decisions - my goodness, they drive
cars and have sex. I'm talking about 4th graders and 7th graders -
not quasi adults.

There are no soft drink/junk food vending machines in our local
elementary
and middle schools, only in the high schools. I'd be surprised if any
elementary schools, anywhere, have pop machines that kids may use. (I
don't imagine too many middle schools have them, either.)

responsibility (for making healthy choices), so be it. (No wonder
the
ability to analyze/synthesize information is declining in the US!)

(This is a separate subject open to
debate. Perhaps public assistance recipients who have a
weight-induced
disease will die younger because of it, thus potentially saving
"us"
$$$
in the long run.) At any rate, gambit health programs should
never
have been instituted in the first place. (Anyone care to cite
just
where in the Constitution "public assistance"--publicly funded
assistance to *individuals*--is addressed?)

My PRIVATE health insurance premiums are in part driven by the
group
risk - and that includes the lard butt families.

Not a good argument: If you check with your insurer, I bet you'll
find
that "lard-butts" are paying higher premiums (as do smokers) because
of
their condition.

You provide me an example where halth status - specifically weight -
is a criterion for premiums. Prove it.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/28/pf/s...tonyourwallet/
(Doing a Google search using "health insurance, premiums, overweight"
returned 17K+ hits; this article included a chart.)

[...]

What
I (yet again!) find outrageously silly, however, is that the AAP's
apparent belief that it has some sort of special knowledge
("distinctive
competence") regarding a widely discussed issue (weight/obesity, in
this
case).

Read the medical literature.

??? How does/would that show that medicos have distinctive (exclusive)
knowledge about soft drink machines? The same info (i.e., that soda pop
isn't particularly nutritious, that eating too much/exercising too
little -- excess weight; ...) can be found in numerous "mainstream"
publications and is also available from other media (that is if
someone's totally unobservant of the people around them and can't put
two and two together for themselves!).

[...]

Obesity is a prevelant and expensive problem in the US - or do you
disagree?

No, I agree, but society ("the US") as a whole shouldn't/needn't bear
the
costs--the "negative externalities"? go--of personal problems.

do you? Each "individual butterball" must live, or die, by
his/her
choices. The gambit (and food manufacturers/distributors,
including
schools) hasn't made anyone fat; it's not its responsibility to
make
anyone healthy, either.

It is their responsibility to support the needs of the people they
represent. In the case of the APE, it is a recommendation that
raises
public awareness.

Of what, exactly? That kids are getting fatter?

On average - yes.

And just who needed the Asp's recommendation (to ban soda machines) to
know this? (Gee, Jonathan, your school community obviously didn't need
it. Are you guys just special in some way?)

That (some) kids
consume a lot of "empty" calories in the form of soft drinks?

sure.

Ditto.

That
schools have/use alternative means (other than taxes) of generating
revenue?

Not at the expense of students health - or do you advocate child
exploitation of all kinds?

Exploitation? Bwahahahaha. The kids in question--high
scholars--aren't being *used* (let alone victimized!) for anything,
Jonathan.

In the case of the state of Maine, the mandate came
from a student/parent/nutrition committee - this wasn't something
some
loud mouth bureaucrat dreamed up - it was grass roots.

Golly gee! They did all this WITHOUT the ASAP policy statement in
hand--they didn't need the Asp's advice/guidance? How prescient can a
group get?!

I don't doubt that every state/locale has groups, even lone
individuals,
that have "issues" they'd like to see dealt with as *they'd* like.
The
nature of politics these days is that so few are actively involved
that
those who are get the attention of elected officials and
bureaucrats.
That doesn't mean that they (the activists) represent/reflect the
wishes
of the majority, however.

In my school district it is the case. But, regardless, if you
abdicate your responsibility and do not become involved then you have
no one else to blame but yourself. If, in your school district, you
want to propose that increasing revenues is more important than
restricting access to fattening foods - YOU have the right to propose
and support that.

Gee, thanks, Jonathan! snicker I come from an area where personal
responsibility is esteemed, I.a., where people are generally held
accountable for their willful behavior. I haven't heard of any plans to
remove the machines from the schools in any of the region's schools.

I like the idea of how Maine responded to its citizens - and that,
Ms
JIG, is the role of the gumbo.

No, it's not. The role of government--any government--is to secure
the
rights and freedoms of individual citizens.

Where do you come up with this?

Say what? Where are you from, Jonathan (I'd bet not the US)? Try
reading the Declaration of Independence sometime, and do us a favor:
Have your kids read it, too. All the Smiths might take a glance at the
Constitution as well. Sheet.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men..." (TO. Jefferson)

Voters in southern states
("Dixie," perhaps, to you Yankees go) wanted racial segregation.

And they had it until they changed their mind.

You think they changed their minds? ...You think they *voted* to
rescind segregation laws?

Voters in Colorado wanted to impede homosexuals' use of the legal
system.

And Ohioans outlawed Sam sex marriage.

(1) Colorado citizens, not their legislators, voted *directly* to deny
some basic rights to homosexuals. The vote was then overturned by the
US Supreme Court (Roomer vs.. Evans).

(2) Ohioans haven't voted to ban gay marriages; the Ohio *legislature*
is considering the measure. (You really aren't very up on politics, are
you, Jonathan?) As of now (1/28), the bill is going back to the Ohio
House for final approval; Taft apparently requested a delay until after
his "state of the state" address tonight.

(3) It remains to be seen whether the pending Ohio law (and other
states' similar laws) will be upheld in the courts.

Voters in Texas wanted to make homosexual sodomy a crime...

I lived in a town where open liquor was illegal.

You really don't get it, do you? What "the people" (majority) want can
be determined to be unconstitutional, often when it's found that the
rights of one group or another (a minority) are being encroached upon.
"The government" quite often CANNOT give people what they want; it can't
always "support the will of the people."

Get
it? (You'll find many more examples by simply doing a Google
search
using "state laws, overturned, unconstitutional.")

And? Voters in California wanted caps on property taxes...so?

What's unconstitutional about that? Whose rights would be diminished by
such a measure?

You are as much a bigot as you proport others to be. But you want to
couch yours in left wing political correctness and assume that makes
your bias acceptable?

HUH? Left wing??? You must be kidding! Bias? Against whom am I
biased?

JG

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand
by itself.
--Thomas Jefferson

The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas
is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
--H.L. Mencken

If you have ever seen a four-year-old trying to lord it over a
two-year-old, then you know what the basic problem of human nature is --
and why government keeps growing larger and ever more intrusive.
--Thomas Sowell

"JG" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"JG" wrote in message
...

[...]

It was SARCASM, Jonathan, for heaven's sake! (FWIW, schools'
failure to
adequately teach our youth--to enable them to be considered
"educated"--isn't merely an opinion; considerable research shows it
to
be a fact.)

OK - care to share?

http://www.policyreview.org/jul98/nation.html

The authors cite TIMSS as their evidence. Scores in the 500's on the
TIMSS are an indicator of ignorance and failure? Did you note the top
5 countries? Are you that sure that there isn't a bit of a cultural
bias in education outcomes as measured by the TIMSS?

http://www.michamber.com/miforwrd/ar...tionReform.pdf

Two thirds of the students are doing quite well in Michigan.

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2695

Here's John Brown's pivotal remark -

"Providing students opportunities at school does not guarantee success
if students watch television rather than do their homework—and
parents let them. By assuming that any set of reform ideas can
magically create a well-educated citizenry, we oversell the role of
policy-making. Education requires initiative, a trait notoriously
difficult to create or impose."

The failure as you put it may well rest in your own home. Personal
responsibility? You suggest that poor scores are indicative of poor
schools - perhaps it's an indictment of poor parents?

http://4brevard.com/choice/internati...est-scores.htm

"Dr. Schmidt, who oversees the research effort into the TIMSS results,
says the actual cause for the failures appears to be weak math and
science curricula in U.S. middle schools."

So the basis for the conclusion that education in the US sucks is,
according to the expert, based on a "weak" middle school curricula -
in two subjects. Is a good education best measured by science and
math skills alone?

Did you see the 2001 PIRL results? Weren't you the one ****ing and
moaning about literacy in the US? Amazing, isn't it?

My experience is that my school, and the
school district as a whole, are doing an outstanding job in
providing
an education.

How do you know; i.e., on what are you basing your assessment?

Involvement

Standardized test scores?

Yes

Graduation rates?

Yes

Percentage of students
furthering their education?

Yes

Other means of comparison (to other
schools/districts)?

Yes, local, regional, state and national.

I'm happy for you that you're in a "good" district; so am I. (Although
apparently just about everyone thinks *their* schools are doing a good
job!) The US public education system IS doing a great job in one area:
Instilling high self-esteem. We may be dumbing down, but what the heck!
We feel {{{{good}}}} about ourselves!

Yeh, but how many Japanese basketball stars play in the NBA?

I am involved - aren't you?

Quite.

If your student body were switched, en masse, with
that of an inner-city school (one in which the students hail from a
considerably lower socioeconomic background) can you asset, with
certainty, that *those* students would do as well?

Why is this an issue.

Because "good" schools--good teachers, good materials, a good
curriculum--should be able to produce "good" (educated) graduates. If
your school is truly as exemplary as you believe, it should be able to
get the same results with virtually any and all students, regardless of
their "quality" at the time they enroll.

Two things - first, my school district has a very interesting dynamic
in that there are three very distinct groups of students - there are
first generation Americans where the immigrant parents are Asian.
Second, about 20% of the school is hispanic and third, you have your
typical white upper middle and upper class suburbanites. Guess how
performance shakes out?

Second, you can throw as much technology and resources at students and
if they aren't motivated to learn, they won't. One of your citations
says exactly that. Without parental reinforcement, good nutrition,
stable home life, education is an uphill battle.

Can you imagine the plight of a 12 year old asking his father how to
solve three equations with two unknowns when dad can't add without
taking off his shoes? And more importantly, when dad tells the kid
that education is less important (or not important) because he'll
never get ahead anyway, it doesn't help.

I am less concerned with the performance of
schools than I am with the performance of schools that impact on me.

Aren't we all? g You're thinking a bit too locally, Jonathan. (More
below.)

I act locally.

If others do not value education and abdicate responsiblity, I have no
right to impose my value on them - OR?????

So you (and your kids) never have to deal with, let alone (heaven
forbid!) rely on or
(worse yet!) answer to anyone other than graduates of "your" schools?
Cool! g

OK - let's fine parents for their child's poor performance. If you
look at the social approaches and mindsets regarding achievement in
eastern industrialized cultures it becomes quite clear why TMMS scores
are what they are.

(IME, kids from
families that place a premium on education--that have high
expectations
for their kids' educational success--tend to do well regardless of
the
school in which they find themselves.)

Excuse me - BUT - the partnership of schools and parents is an
essential component of education. The term is synergy.

I disagree. Parental involvement IS important ("nice"), but it's not
essential.

it is absolutely essential - except perhaps in boarding schools. Read
the introduction to Chapter 4 of the PIRLS report.

Don't you support the NCPIE initiatives?

Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that schools
are doing a good job.

Fine. We disagree.

No, not fine -

I feel sorry for your kids. And if YOUR childrens' school is NOT
providing the eductation that YOUR kids deserve, what is YOUR excuse?
Why do you let this happen? Aren't you at all ashamed of being a
mediocre parent?

And you base this opinion ("mediocre parent") on what, the fact that I
disagree with you about the quality/status of American education? LOL!
BTW, no need to feel sorry for my kids; I think they (two daughters, 28
and 16) turned out okay (and, after all, isn't that what counts in
"Jonathan's World"?). I imagine they think so, too, though not because
some teacher(s) inculcated this belief in them!). If I had to do it
(their schooling) over again, starting today, I'd probably opt for
private (or maybe even home) schooling.

I think (public) schools, overall, are doing a
mediocre job at best ...and that they're still declining.

I am also of ther opinion that the role of the
school extends well beyond simply teaching the three Rs.

Sorry, that's too vague to respond to adequately; go ahead and
enumerate, if you wish, just what other things (presumably more than
offering additional subjects--"social studies," art, P.E., music,
and
the like) you think schools should/ought to be doing, i.e., what
other
roles they should be fulfilling.

Socialization perhaps?

Hehehe. I don't know where in CA you are, but would be willing to
enroll your kid(s) in, say, a Compton school for a year? I'm sure the
"socialization" would do them, and you, good.

(I'd settle for simply producing a literate populace;

The literacy rate in the US is 97% - and considering the large
immigrant population, this is a pretty high number.

Whoa! Sorry, Jonathan, but I'll have to ask you to provide a
citation
for taht figure.

UN

Bwahahaha! Too funny!

Why? It's a recognized international standard.

And when I speak of literacy, I'm talking about
"functional literacy,"

Do what you want. I refer to the statistivs that are comparable
across countries based on an accepted metric.

Then we--the US--really ARE in trouble. Look at the TIMSS results.
(There's a good article at
http://www.fitpsy.org/cached/TIMSS/T...es20001206.htm).

Look at the PIRL results - the ones that actually measure LITERACY.
The hard science focused TIMM results seem to inversely correlated -
but I didn't run the statistic.

a "...level of literacy which includes not only
reading and writing skills but also numeracy skills. The skills must
be
sufficiently advanced to enable the individual to participate fully
and
efficiently in activities commonly occurring in his life situation
that
require a reasonable capability of communicating by written
language."
(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/techno...eflemms94.html)
According
to the 1994 National Adult Literacy Survey (a new one's due next
year, I
believe), 21-23% (40-44M) of US adults fell into the lowest level
(1,
of 5) of literacy while ~50M more were classified as "Level 2."
(See
http://nces.ed.gov//naal/resources/e....asp#litskills.) Maybe
97%
of the adult population can sign their names on a document, but that
doesn't mean (by a long shot!) that they *understand* the contents
of
the document (let alone the implications of affixing their signature
to
it).

If you want to make PhD level capability as a criterion, then
obviously you wouldn't be considered literate.

One *shouldn't* need anything more than a high school diploma to
properly fill out job or loan applications and simple legal documents
such as leases and car-rental agreements.

OK - so is it a problem in the US and NOT a problem elsewhere? In a
study of literacy at Harvard, the researchers found that functional
literacy was associated with being foreign born, not a high school
graduate, and being from a lower sociaeconomic strata. Less than 20%
of high school graduates scored at NASL level 1. That means that high
school graduates, the overwhelming majority, are quite capable to
accomplish what you propose is functional literacy activities. Of
course, these are 1992 data.

"education," IMO, is a personal endeavor.) We (society) have
already
added students' mental/psychological well-being to list of
things we
expect schools to achieve/ensure, and now, apparently, the APA
wants
to
charge schools with the task of seeing that kids slim down by
(initially)--tada!--banning the sale of soft drinks.

Some schools didn't wait for the APA to address the issue of
nutrition
in schools.

No; questions regarding the propriety of schools entering exclusive
contracts (esp. with the marketers of foods/beverages of
questionable
nutitional value) arose shortly after they came into vogue.

So, when the question of the effect is raised, you have a problem?

Yes. There's *still* no proof that removing soda machines from schools
would have any impact on kids' weight.

So? As a parent I do not want my school contracting with Coke to put
soda machines in the school.

I'm not a big fan of the infuences of mass marketing on young people -
and I am an advocate of the responsibility of parents in providing
guidance - I am having a problem with balancing the preferences of
parents with the freedom of commercial speech - and the income that
provides - you?

That's what the issue boils down to, isn't it? Which is more important
*to the majority*: Having the revenue soda sales/contracts generate, or
not having machines from which kids might be tempted (horrors!) to
purchase "junk" drinks accessible to them? (BTW, if we're talking about
*public* schools, the thoughts/wishes of all patrons, not just parents,
should
be considered.)

The responsibility of the school is to the education of the children -
you said it yourself. Schools are not in the profit making business.
I find it offensive and degrading. I am willing to pay taxes to
support the schools. I am willing to support parent fund raisers to
support school activities. I am NOT in favor of selling my child to
mass marketers.

[...]

The largest district in my area apparently gets about $500,000 a
year
from their deal with Coca Cola Inc., enough, I'd guess, to pay the
salaries of 17 teachers (or 5 administrators? g). News reports
here
didn't quote any Coke representatives, only a district
spokeswoman--who
made it very clear that the district wasn't about to ban the sale of
Coke products: "...Colorado Springs largest school district doesn't
agree with the [AAP] recommendation. Elaine Naleski, District 11's
Director of Communications says the machines will stay where they
are.
She says removing the machines won't make any difference at all in
the
obesity of children, and adds exercise, and sensible eating is the
best
solution." (http://krdo.com/DisplayStory.asp?id=6959)

So your school district has sold out...how does that make you feel?

First of all, I don't live in the district mentioned. My district does
have an "exclusive" contract (also with Coca-Cola), however, and it
doesn't bother me a bit.

That's good for you. My school district prohibits these
relationships. I support that.

I can conveniently grab a can of pop or a
bottle of water on my way out the (school) door (though I rarely do;
I usually bring one from home), and the money generated from the
contract and vending-machine sales has enabled the school to buy all
sorts of stuff
(e.g., a climbing wall in the gym).

We have twenty seven new computers this year - these were funded by
the PTA through a book fair and the older kids had a car wash. The
kids learned a lot about team work and were rewarded for their
efforts. I think I like that leason.

I
bet there are some internet photogaphers that could generate even more
revenue - care to draw a line?

To what are you alluding? Are you comparing the presence of soft drink
machines on campuses to the distribution/sale of pornography? Talk
about stretching it! If porn producers wish to give money to schools,
it's fine by me.

[...]

Yeh - that would be your position. Sure, I almost believe it. Where
do you draw the line? How about school uniforms with logo spots on
the back to sell to advertisers? How about "educational" TV with
commercials? How about billboards in the hallway? I can come up with
dozens of fund raising activities that involve crass commercialization
of our young people - do you really buy into this?

Health, with the possible exception of communicable diseases, is a
private issue.

Exactly. Say it a little louder, so Utz, CBI, and Riley can hear
you.g

I will not tolerate adverse influences on MY choices for MY children.

The mere presence of a soft drink machine is an "adverse influence" on
your kids?

That isn't what I said - I said the presence of the machine has an
adverse influence on MY choices for my children. The consumption of
sweetened drinks has an adverse impact on my children. Don't twist my
words, please.

Boy, when do you find time to live *your* own life? Do you
honestly think you're doing them a favor by making (apparently) ALL
their choices for them?

Who said anything about making all of their choices? Once again -
don't make these inferences. It is dishonest.

But as anything, "private" issues have societal
externalities. Moreover, "private" issues set the standard moral
and
social fiber.

Again, you're being terribly vague. (Love the liberal- [or is it
edu-?]
speak, though!... "externalities"..."social fiber"...)

Well - it would be the first time I was called liberal. Externalities
is an economics term, BTW.

An externality is an externality is an externality. Sure, the term is
used in econ, mostly when
one person or group wants to bolster their opinions/agenda by showing
that something of which they're in favor has "positive" externalities
(or, conversely, that something to which they are opposed has "negative
externalities"). Assigning costs to externalities is usually quite
subjective.

No, not at all. Not anymore subjective than costing other effects.

You're only concerned about *your* school(so) and the job
it's/they're doing, huh?

Yep. It is in my sphere of influence.

Want to discuss the "negative externalities"
of the nation's (as a whole) dismal public education system?

I'm not convinced it is dismal.

Why don't
we start with the costs employers (= consumers, eventually--including
the Smiths) have to pay for the remedial education of ill-prepared
workers?

This assumes that there are hordes of these running about. We conduct
training all the time - and I hire a lot of scientists, many with
PhDs. Makes them more effective. So does teaching Macdude how to run
a cash register.

It is apolitical and has a distinct and
specific meaning.

It means nothing more than "the state of being external," though the
definition has somewhat more specific meanings in different
fields/disciplines,
e.g., psychology, philosophy, and the previously mentioned economics. I
hear it used more often by liberals/leftists.

Well - my context is not as a liberal or leftist.

the gubmnt's only
basis/rationale for intervention in this arena

Is to respond to and support the will of the people.

Which has been ascertained HOW, in this case? Via the whinings of
small
groups of people (POOFS--Parents of Overly Fat Students?
Anti-corporate
Greenies? The AAP?). These groups may be vocal, but to assert that
they represent "the people" is stretching it a bit, don't you think?

No, not at all. My experience in my school district in which I am
personally involved which restrcts access to sugared drinks represents
the overwhelming majority of parents. We are a small community of
very participative parents - maybe we are unique.

Maybe. Certainly rare. (Ask Mark P. how difficult it is to get even a
modest number of parents involved in school oversight.)

We don't fill the auditorium but we certainly could if there was a
controversial issue.

Look, these groups can protest/plead/write letters all they want.
Where
were they when their school boards were considering/discussing
proposal
to enter into exclusive, multi-year contracts to place soda machines
in
the schools, hmmm?

There are none in our school district. And in the school in which I
am involved, there NEVER have been. Because WE DID NOT WANT them.
Perhaps in your school district the parental involvement is lacking?

It varies from school to school. IME, the schools in the more affluent
neighborhoods see greater parental involvement, probably for several
reasons. Many parents in these neighborhoods likely "earned" their way
there by virtue of having received a solid education themselves (and
thus value education highly); it's also likely they have the
discretionary time to devote to their kids' affairs.

Two type A high income earners have discretionary time? No - we MAKE
the effort to make the time. But regardless - it supports my ;premise
perfectly - it is a parental effort and a social attitude toward the
value of education that differentiates educational success from
failure. It isn't a failure of the school, the teacher, or the system
- it is a failure of the parent. Take responsibility for the eduation
of your children. Be part of the solution and stop playing the blame
game.

Do you honestly think that voters in every district
would vote to ban pop machines if *all* the facts--especially how
much
money the district was receiving and the uses to which it was, or
could
be, put--were known? I don't.

I do - we had this discussion as part of the local PTA - it was
related to an opportunity proposed by the local ADIDAS rep - as
parents we opted to self fund the equipment and uniforms. How about
that. The rep has kids in the school.

It sounds as if you're in a community where money wasn't an object.
(Much easier to stand on principle when that's the case, isn't it?!)
The choice might be harder for "poorer" schools.

As I explained earlier - we are a very diverse school district. We
have money - but we don't spend any more per student than other school
districts in the state. Throwing money at schools without changing
the educational dynamic in the home is a waste of money and time.

is the claim that
weight-induced health problems (diabetes, cardiovascular
disease,
etc.)
among those receiving public assistance (Medicaid, Medicare)
impose
a
financial burden on taxpayers.

If that's what you believe the only rationale to be, you missed
the
bigger picture. Many (most?) parents prefer NOT to have junk food
and
soda readily available in schools where they may have limited
ability
to control their Childs access.

Not in my area, apparently. Then again, we're one of the "fittest"
states in the nation (Colorado is the only state in the nation in
which
fewer than half of the adults are overweight), as well as one of the
"best educated" (Colorado's number one in the nation for percentage
of
residents with a bachelor's degree); we're savvy enough to know that
removing soda machines from schools would be merely a token gesture,
and
that it's not their presence that makes kids fat.

Big whoop. The local elementary school principal has a PhD

A Ph.DO., or an Ed.DO.? Regardless, I bet the students/parents call
him,
"DR. ____," right? (Advanced degrees, including doctorates, are
ubiquitous in our district.)

A PhD - no O.

- we have
more doctorates per capita than any other school district in
California and the median income is in excess of 100K. We also have
diversity, multilingualism, and the fewest number of obese
adolescents.

Good for you. (Big whoop?) You really should get out more, though.
(Or at least read more about life outside your Shangri-la.)

Yeh - maybe. And might I recommend you try and get out more from
under your impoverished little rock?

I can do it when we are at home and
when we are out as a family - but in school, I need some help.
And
that is the ROLE of the school board, the state and local
government,
and the parent teacher association.

Fine. If you want to relinquish your high scholar's

OK - JIG - this is an elementary and junior high initiative. I have
no
problem with high scholars making decisions - my goodness, they drive
cars and have sex. I'm talking about 4th graders and 7th graders -
not quasi adults.

There are no soft drink/junk food vending machines in our local
elementary
and middle schools, only in the high schools. I'd be surprised if any
elementary schools, anywhere, have pop machines that kids may use. (I
don't imagine too many middle schools have them, either.)

I don't have kids in high school. Howell Elementary, Howell, NJ does.
Capital School District, Dover, DE - signed a contract for $652K to
put them in the middle and elementary schools. They got astro turf for
the football field. Now that's an important improvement in education!

Albemarle (Charlottesville VA) has a set of rules ten pages long. It
puts some machines on a timer though the rules are for the high
school.

California had them up until a year or so ago.

responsibility (for making healthy choices), so be it. (No wonder
the
ability to analyze/synthesize information is declining in the US!)

(This is a separate subject open to
debate. Perhaps public assistance recipients who have a
weight-induced
disease will die younger because of it, thus potentially saving
"us"
$$$
in the long run.) At any rate, gambit health programs should
never
have been instituted in the first place. (Anyone care to cite
just
where in the Constitution "public assistance"--publicly funded
assistance to *individuals*--is addressed?)

My PRIVATE health insurance premiums are in part driven by the
group
risk - and that includes the lard butt families.

Not a good argument: If you check with your insurer, I bet you'll
find
that "lard-butts" are paying higher premiums (as do smokers) because
of
their condition.

You provide me an example where halth status - specifically weight -
is a criterion for premiums. Prove it.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/28/pf/s...tonyourwallet/
(Doing a Google search using "health insurance, premiums, overweight"
returned 17K+ hits; this article included a chart.)

[...]

This applies only to private individual coverage - a rarity.
Pre-existing conditions and health status other than weight are
premium drivers, not weight by itself.

What
I (yet again!) find outrageously silly, however, is that the AAP's
apparent belief that it has some sort of special knowledge
("distinctive
competence") regarding a widely discussed issue (weight/obesity, in
this
case).

Read the medical literature.

??? How does/would that show that medicos have distinctive (exclusive)
knowledge about soft drink machines?

Who said it was exclusive?

The same info (i.e., that soda pop
isn't particularly nutritious, that eating too much/exercising too
little -- excess weight; ...) can be found in numerous "mainstream"
publications and is also available from other media (that is if
someone's totally unobservant of the people around them and can't put
two and two together for themselves!).

So? Are you harping about the medical communities effort to promote
better health? Somehow this is not a good idea?

Got Milk?

[...]

cute - snip away.

Obesity is a prevelant and expensive problem in the US - or do you
disagree?

No, I agree, but society ("the US") as a whole shouldn't/needn't bear
the
costs--the "negative externalities"? go--of personal problems.

Huh? I don't think anyone is giving us a choice.

do you? Each "individual butterball" must live, or die, by
his/her
choices. The gambit (and food manufacturers/distributors,
including
schools) hasn't made anyone fat; it's not its responsibility to
make
anyone healthy, either.

It is their responsibility to support the needs of the people they
represent. In the case of the APE, it is a recommendation that
raises
public awareness.

Of what, exactly? That kids are getting fatter?

On average - yes.

And just who needed the Asp's recommendation (to ban soda machines) to
know this? (Gee, Jonathan, your school community obviously didn't need
it. Are you guys just special in some way?)

We have a couple of pediatricians in our community.

That (some) kids
consume a lot of "empty" calories in the form of soft drinks?

sure.

Ditto.

That
schools have/use alternative means (other than taxes) of generating
revenue?

Not at the expense of students health - or do you advocate child
exploitation of all kinds?

Exploitation? Bwahahahaha. The kids in question--high
scholars--aren't being *used* (let alone victimized!) for anything,
Jonathan.

As I pointed out - this is NOT a high school only issue.

In the case of the state of Maine, the mandate came
from a student/parent/nutrition committee - this wasn't something
some
loud mouth bureaucrat dreamed up - it was grass roots.

Golly gee! They did all this WITHOUT the ASAP policy statement in
hand--they didn't need the Asp's advice/guidance? How prescient can a
group get?!

Gosh - and so did the state of California. Now, what about Delaware?
No crystal ball for them?

I don't doubt that every state/locale has groups, even lone
individuals,
that have "issues" they'd like to see dealt with as *they'd* like.
The
nature of politics these days is that so few are actively involved
that
those who are get the attention of elected officials and
bureaucrats.
That doesn't mean that they (the activists) represent/reflect the
wishes
of the majority, however.

In my school district it is the case. But, regardless, if you
abdicate your responsibility and do not become involved then you have
no one else to blame but yourself. If, in your school district, you
want to propose that increasing revenues is more important than
restricting access to fattening foods - YOU have the right to propose
and support that.

Gee, thanks, Jonathan! snicker I come from an area where personal
responsibility is esteemed, I.a., where people are generally held
accountable for their willful behavior. I haven't heard of any plans to
remove the machines from the schools in any of the region's schools.

Well - so be it. The funny thing is - that's exactly what I value -
personal responsibility. I have taken the responsibility to act to
the benefit of my child by limiting his access to sweetened beverages.
Now, if you feel threatened that not having access to a soda machine
will negatively impact on your child, then perhaps you can slip a can
or two into his lunch bag?

I like the idea of how Maine responded to its citizens - and that,
Ms
JIG, is the role of the gumbo.

No, it's not. The role of government--any government--is to secure
the
rights and freedoms of individual citizens.

Where do you come up with this?

Say what? Where are you from, Jonathan (I'd bet not the US)? Try
reading the Declaration of Independence sometime, and do us a favor:
Have your kids read it, too. All the Smiths might take a glance at the
Constitution as well. Sheet.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men..." (TO. Jefferson)

I kinda like the bit about "...promote the general Welfare" in the
Constitution But I guess you missed that part. Seems the basis for
the US form of governemnt is derived from the Constitution, not the
Declaration of Independence.

Maybe you focused to much on science and math and forgot
constitutional civics and social studies in your curriculum?

Voters in southern states
("Dixie," perhaps, to you Yankees go) wanted racial segregation.

And they had it until they changed their mind.

You think they changed their minds? ...You think they *voted* to
rescind segregation laws?

Huh?

Voters in Colorado wanted to impede homosexuals' use of the legal
system.

And Ohioans outlawed Sam sex marriage.

(1) Colorado citizens, not their legislators, voted *directly* to deny
some basic rights to homosexuals. The vote was then overturned by the
US Supreme Court (Roomer vs.. Evans).

(2) Ohioans haven't voted to ban gay marriages; the Ohio *legislature*
is considering the measure. (You really aren't very up on politics, are
you, Jonathan?) As of now (1/28), the bill is going back to the Ohio
House for final approval; Taft apparently requested a delay until after
his "state of the state" address tonight.

(3) It remains to be seen whether the pending Ohio law (and other
states' similar laws) will be upheld in the courts.

OK - so unless there's a direct vote of the people rather than
legislation passed by duly elected representatives of the people then
it doesn't reflect the wants of the people? Welcome to California.


Voters in Texas wanted to make homosexual sodomy a crime...

I lived in a town where open liquor was illegal.

You really don't get it, do you? What "the people" (majority) want can
be determined to be unconstitutional, often when it's found that the
rights of one group or another (a minority) are being encroached upon.
"The government" quite often CANNOT give people what they want; it can't
always "support the will of the people."

I'm sorry - but somewhere along the line you seemed to have missed the
part with the 27 amendments. Now, #28 is pretty close to being
ratified.

Get
it? (You'll find many more examples by simply doing a Google
search
using "state laws, overturned, unconstitutional.")

And? Voters in California wanted caps on property taxes...so?

What's unconstitutional about that? Whose rights would be diminished by
such a measure?

It's been challenged under the equal protection clause. Where have
you been.

You are as much a bigot as you proport others to be. But you want to
couch yours in left wing political correctness and assume that makes
your bias acceptable?

HUH? Left wing??? You must be kidding! Bias? Against whom am I
biased?

Libertarian? Let's start with organized medicine. Heaven help them if
they should ever make a policy.

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand
by itself.
--Thomas Jefferson

The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper.

The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas
is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
--H.L. Mencken

Nature abhors a moron

If you have ever seen a four-year-old trying to lord it over a
two-year-old, then you know what the basic problem of human nature is --
and why government keeps growing larger and ever more intrusive.
--Thomas Sowell

Facts do not "speak for themselves." They speak for or against
competing theories. Facts divorced from theories or visions are mere
isolated curiosities

But all the quotations aside - we don't disagree on the premise of
individual responsibility - However, I just have this concept that
putting temptation in front of a 10 year old doesn't build character
and isn't innocuous in its affect. I also happen to agree with a lot
of what APA says - and I have seen far too many stupid human tricks to
think that reminding people routinely is wasted effort.

AAP has this issue about guns and kids - wonder why?

"(19 October 2002, Portugal) Parents take note! Catering to a child's
tantrum can have dire consequences, as a Caldelas mother recently
discovered. When her four-year-old son refused to eat his soup unless
she let him play with a gun, she handed it over -- and was promptly
shot in the stomach by an accidental discharge."

Lawn mower safety - is this relevant for AAP? Well, it seems to be
relevant for all sorts of health practitioners - wonder why? 2300
kids in the ER each year.