You have an unlikely ally, Pat Robertson (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december262010/robertson-pot-approval-tk.php).Hehe, not the spokesman anyone would want for any issue. He's a little cuckoo.

Hehe, not the spokesman anyone would want for any issue. He's a little cuckoo.

Why are you always hung up on the messenger instead of the message?

Why are you always hung up on the messenger instead of the message?
LOL! Your post was about the messenger. :D

Steve why the Colts insigne ?

LOL! Your post was about the messenger. :D

And the message he sent.

You have an unlikely ally, Pat RobertsonHello again, Steve:

Yeah, the old codger finally came around... I don't know what's gotten into him. How can somebody go his whole life thinking that people should be in JAIL for smoking pot, and then change his mind. It's mind boggling...

I'm a funny guy... Every single crime that I think somebody should be in jail for, they actually, really SHOULD be in jail for.

excon

Oh really? I can't think of one fat kid that I know, I don't see fat kids running around the neighborhood or walking around the schools.

I'm a little late to the party but you defintely need to get out more if you don't see obese kids anywhere.

The E-Cig ban is ridiculous and everything else you guys are talking about I have no knowledge on.

P.S. I dislike Peyton "6.6sec 40" Manning

I'm a little late to the party but you defintely need to get out more if you don't see obese kids anywhere.

I live in a neighborhood with kids, pass a high school every morning on the way to work, see dozens and dozens at church every week... heck, I have 40 something nieces and nephews. I still can't think of a fat kid among the bunch. I should know, I'm me.


P.S. I dislike Peyton "6.6sec 40" Manning

I have no idea what "6.6sec 40" refers to, but I'm a huge fan of the guy.

Steve why the Colts insigne ?

It was an inside joke, tom. But, since my Cowboys suck so bad I might as well pull for someone else to win it all. I see the Gnats rolled over again, too.

For you to think there's not an obesity issue just because you don't see "fat kids" is ridiculous. Just because I've never seen a Roll's Royce doesn't mean they don't exist.

THe 6.6sec 40 is referring to his 40 time. Obviously he doesn't run a 6.6 but I am referring to how slow the guy is. It makes me laugh when I watch him (or Eli) try to scramble for a few yeards. :D

Peyton is one of the few QBs I consider a must have to have a successful fantasy team .In the last decade he has taken his team to the playoff round 8 times. This weekend he will probably lead the Colts to their 9th.

For you to think there's not an obesity issue just because you don't see "fat kids" is ridiculous. Just because I've never seen a Roll's Royce doesn't mean they don't exist.

For you to believe I "think there's not an obesity issue" is also ridiculous. I was replying to a specific post and relaying what I see in MY area and circle of influence. I know and see a lot of kids and I can't think of a fat one among them, so someone is doing a pretty good job of keeping their children healthy. If they're obese where you are I can't help that, but I don't deny there's a problem. There is however a problem with the nanny state running amok.


THe 6.6sec 40 is referring to his 40 time. Obviously he doesn't run a 6.6 but I am referring to how slow the guy is. It makes me laugh when I watch him (or Eli) try to scramble for a few yeards. :D

Hey, when you've thrown for 4,655 completions, 54,564 yards and 397 TD's, who needs to run? He does have 17 rushing touchdowns though. :)

Peyton is one of the few QBs I consider a must have to have a successful fantasy team .

I had a great QB in Rodgers, an every week defense in the Steelers and a great TE... I just couldn't get anything else going. I haven't checked yet today, how's your game going?

Hello again, Steve:

As long as the thread has been stolen, I'm on board... How about we ALL form a fantasy baseball league, and compete against each other?

I'm not allowed to WIN money in the stupid provincial state that I live in, but I'd LOVE to kick your collective a$$'s.

Ok, back to serious stuff.

excon

I had a solid team to start the year and completely revamped my team with a 10 player trade. Still made it to the semifinals. Didn't help my starting RB (one of them) and my star TE are out until the playoffs. I too had the Steelers. Very solid defense to have on your side.

I agree that Peyton doesn't need to worry about running. There's no denying that he's a stud. But... that doesn't mean I have to like him. Now that I think about it, I don't like the Colts, not just Peyton.

(mayb e it's because my H.S. Uniform were exact reps. Of theirs. Logo and everything. We just turned the logo sideways to look like a F'ed up "C") ;)

As long as the thread has been stolen, I'm on board... How about we ALL form a fantasy baseball league, and compete against each other?

It was my thread, I guess I can steal it. :D

I tried that with football and only got 2 takers. Last year my niece kicked our a$$es and this year it could be a ladies league again if tom can't beat my favorite piano player. I'll think about it though, as much as I know about fantasy baseball you probably would kick mine.

IT, I may be losing to tom... but I'm kicking some a$$ in other leagues. :D

I agree. I love the sport but I have never played fantasy baseball. I would have loved a fantasy football league though. (damn it, I'm always late to the party)

Punctuality is over-rated! ;)

Hello again,

I don't know nuthin about baseball. I'm a perennial loser. What I LIKE about it, though, is there's stuff to do every day - not just once a week.

ESPN has leagues for, what, $29.95? Yeah, I know. It's FOOTBALL time... But, my hawks ain't going to beat St. Louis.

excon

I do the baseball if we can get takers. There are free leagues so that is not an issue.

Don't give up on the Hawks . But I do have issues with a 7-9 team getting in the playoffs.

Steve I'm almost 50 pts up going into the final week. Hopefully that is the cushion I need.

50 points is a pretty good cushion.

IT, we may get an opening next year, who knows?

I love the sport but I have never played fantasy baseball.
I don't know nuthin about baseball

2 types of leagues. There are the head to head ones that are similar to fantasy football ;and the more complex Rotisserie league baseball where specific stats are tracked daily and accumulated for an end of the season total. Each stat category is totalled and each fantasy team is ranked based on their strength of the individual stat category. If you are weak in something like HRs you make roster moves to strengthen your teams stats and hopefully not weaken another strength.

Hello again, tom:

Oh, I know about fantasy baseball. I played in a couple of leagues. The rotisserie ones. When I said that I didn't know anything about baseball, it's true. I NEVER traded for the right guy at the right time, and always kept losers too long.

Plus, I drafted a lot of Mariners. BIG mistake. You know I'm a sucker for the underdog.

excon

I'll take King Felix in the 1st round if he's available.

Congratulations on winning the big one yesterday... and condolences on the other Gnats missing the playoffs. They should have been playing in the NFC West this year.

Hello Steve:

Thanks. Yup. Champs with a losing record... At least THAT'S a first... Somehow it don't FEEL like we're champions...

excon

Actually I was congratulating tom for being king of our fantasy football league, but congrats to you and the Seahawks, too... they won it by winning one more game than my 6-10 Cowboys.

Lori is a great player . I barely hung on to the 1st week lead.

Told you she was tough to beat. She's been whipping up on my teams for years.

Lions 6-10, 4gm win streak (no longer active streak in the NFL besides the Pats) we're hungry, determined and angry. We've learned to win and not give it away in the 4th. Too bad the seasons done!

It should be an interesting draft!

Lions 6-10, 4gm win streak (no longer active streak in the NFL besides the Pats) we're hungry, determined and angry. We've learned to win and not give it away in the 4th. Too bad the seasons done!

It should be an interesting draft!

Megatron was a big part of one or two of my fantasy championships this year. Didn't matter who was throwing to him, he was solid.

That is true. I am eager to see what Detroit does with Shaun Hill, he had a huge role in the late success of the Lions and to just dump him when Stafford gets back would be horrible.

Even as a backup he is worth more then ever letting go. Especially with Stanton being #2 if Hill leaves. Ewww... (I'm a huge State boy but Stanton just isn't performing like Hill)

The draft will be exciting that's no doubt. Hill is a free agent now and I'm concerned they're just going to dump him. What a mistake.

I didn't understand why SF let Hill go, his play helped Singletary get the head coaching job.

Time for a nanny state update. No surprise here, the latest city to seek a ban on Happy Meals (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263974/new-york-introduces-un-happy-meal-julie-gunlock) instead of dealing with real issues is... New York City.

We aren't happy people . I wonder when Comrie will propose banning dirty water hot dog stands ?

Want to see how long it takes for NY to ban being rude?

I don't suggest holding your breath,

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino just banned sugary drinks (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/10/boston-mayor-thomas-menino-kos-soda-oks-alcohol/#ixzz1JDoEgnpb) from city property.

“I want to create a civic environment that makes the healthier choice the easier choice in people’s lives, whether it’s schools, work sites, or other places in the community," said Menino in the press release issued last week about the soda ban.

Menino announced the ban to force people into healthier choices the day after reaching an agreement to allow the sale of mixed drinks at Fenway Park, as Coke is obviously the healthier choice when mixed with Jack Daniels.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino just banned sugary drinks (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/10/boston-mayor-thomas-menino-kos-soda-oks-alcohol/#ixzz1JDoEgnpb) from city property.

“I want to create a civic environment that makes the healthier choice the easier choice in people’s lives, whether it’s schools, work sites, or other places in the community," said Menino in the press release issued last week about the soda ban.

Menino announced the ban to force people into healthier choices the day after reaching an agreement to allow the sale of mixed drinks at Fenway Park, as Coke is obviously the healthier choice when mixed with Jack Daniels.
Obviously something that would happen in Leftychusetts,

I think they should ban wealthy Senators from parking yachts elsewhere to avoid paying taxes to the state they represent.

Or prevent them from Harping on alternative energy like wind power then like the hypocrites they are... work to ban them in their own back yard.

Speech, or at least living in the state he is a Senator for:)
Check out Oregon, politicians are elected but don't even reside here! Is that crazy? Ohhh I have not been up to date on all the issues of late, been out of commission, I can't wait to go read a good year of CRAP you guys write about! LMAO

Start, or showing up for work instead of being "fleebaggers" in another state.

I just need to get back into the swing of things and see what the hell is happening around this world. I will get back with you... LOL

Nice to see you back. :)

Some Chicago schools are now banning lunches packed from home (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,2614451,full.story). No word yet on whether they'll allow the sale of mixed drinks.

Some Chicago schools are now banning lunches packed from home.
I read that in this morning's paper. The kids who packed their own lunches brought chips and soda and cookies. The school principal hoped the school would give them a better variety and more nutritious food. The kids are throwing it away.

Go back to chips and sodas and cookies?

I'm thinking the school should involve the kids in making up the menu. Both should compromise.

I can't imagine the ruckus my mom would've made if they prevented us from bringing in the lunches she made for her 5 children.
Actually... yes I can imagine it. She stormed the gates of the schools more than once.

I can't imagine the ruckus my mom would've made if they prevented us from bringing in the lunches she made for her 5 children.
Actually ...yes I can imagine it. She stormed the gates of the schools more than once.
She sent you to school with a lunch of chips, soda, and cookies? I think not! That is exactly why the principal is doing this -- the kids are packing their own lunches -- and badly. What would you have put in your lunch bag?

She sent you to school with a lunch of chips, soda, and cookies? I think not! That is exactly why the principal is doing this -- the kids are packing their own lunches -- and badly. What would you have put in your lunch bag?

I used to get chips and a sandwich, Soda was available in the machine at school and I got an allowance so I could get cinnamon rolls that they baked fresh daily and smothered in butter. So why should the state control the foods people eat?

So why should the state control the foods people eat?Hello dad:

Or the herbs they smoke?

excon

Hello dad:

Or the herbs they smoke?

excon

Lets not even go there. They won't even consider hemp as a renewable source for bio fuel and its cheaper to grow and process then corn (food).


Yet they want control of everything so long as they are exempt from it.

Go figure.

So why should the state control the foods people eat?
So they don't become obese monstrosities and run up the cost of health insurance?

And the state isn't doing this. It's only one little woman, the principal -- and maybe the board of ed. (i.e. parents). She believes in recess too.

So they don't become obese monstrosities and run up the cost of health insurance?

And the state isn't doing this. It's only one little woman, the principal -- and maybe the board of ed. (i.e., parents). She believes in recess too.

I believe it was stated in the article that other schools are also participating in the ban. Its not stated as to which ones. So far as obese goes what's to stop them from eting more then one meal or when at home doing nothing outside and only playing video games? What studies are now showing is that the more active the children the worse off the diet is because of quick easy choices being made by the parents.

This is just another infringement upon peoples rights.

I believe it was stated in the article that other schools are also participating in the ban.
Ban? If the parents refuse to feed their kids correctly, SOMEone has to.

From the article, "A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals."

It's not a state "ban."

So far as obese goes what's to stop them from eting more then one meal or when at home doing nothing outside and only playing video games?
Then, whose responsibility is it?

What studies are now showing is that the more active
The children the worse off the diet is because of quick easy choices being made by the parents.
That makes no sense.

infringement on people's rights
Then the parents need to talk with the principals.

Ban? If the parents refuse to feed their kids correctly, SOMEone has to.

From the article, "A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals."

It's not a state "ban."

Then, whose responsibility is it?

That makes no sense.

Then the parents need to talk with the principals.



It's the responsibility of the parents and the doctors treating the children to consult on eating habits if it has become a problem. If its not a problem then there is no reason to butt into it. Unless you believe the goobermint will save us all from what we do.

Do you really believe in one size fits all type of programs?

She sent you to school with a lunch of chips, soda, and cookies? I think not! That is exactly why the principal is doing this -- the kids are packing their own lunches -- and badly. What would you have put in your lunch bag?

Sometimes cookies... sometimes chips too . Usually the sandwich was some brand of bologna conconction or peanut butter (would the school even permit me to bring that into school these days ?),on some soggy bleached white bread .It's the best my parents could do at that time .

When I got lunch money it was usually purchase ice cream from the school ,and save the balance for candy from 7-11 on the way home. On days the school served hot dogs or some chef boyardee concoction I usually got the hot lunch.

What you are saying is that the principle is assuming the parents will act irresponsibly and has decided to assume the role of parent. This is all nanny statism . Yeah there are always good intentions . But bottom line ,it is not their place to decide what parents feed their kids.

Maybe they should concentrate instead on what they are paid to do. Teach the kids!!

And here is the rest of the story. Seems its being pushed by the Federal Goobermint.

Nachos for lunch? Yes, every day - Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-11/health/chi-school-lunches-11-jun11_1_nachos-school-lunch-child-nutrition-act)



So today's menu is...

Chartwells Schools (http://www.chartwellsschooldining.com/lpsma/content/menus.asp)

I read that in this morning's paper. The kids who packed their own lunches brought chips and soda and cookies. The school principal hoped the school would give them a better variety and more nutritious food. The kids are throwing it away.

Go back to chips and sodas and cookies?

I'm thinking the school should involve the kids in making up the menu. Both should compromise.

I maybe ate lunch at school a half dozen times through sixth grade. I walked home the 5 blocks for lunch 99 percent of the time. In Jr High and High School I got an allowance for lunch, more often than not I ate anywhere but the school cafeteria. Face it, the food sucked and I would never force kids to eat school food or more importantly, say parents can't send their kids to school with a lunch.

Ban? If the parents refuse to feed their kids correctly, SOMEone has to.

Bullsh*t. The state should mind its own business unless the kids are abused and/or neglected. If I want to feed my kids fish sticks and cookies the state has no say in it.

Bullsh*t. The state should mind its own business unless the kids are abused and/or neglected. If I want to feed my kids fish sticks and cookies the state has no say in it.
It's not the state. It's the principal of your school. Then you talk with him or her, if you're not happy.

principal = in loco parentis

Would you scream if they took recess away from your kid? Or handwriting? Or sentence diagramming?

It's not the state. It's the principal of your school. Then you talk with him or her, if you're not happy.

principal = in loco parentis

Would you scream if they took recess away from your kid? or handwriting? or sentence diagramming?

Those issues would motivate me to speak up. When mine were in school they knew me by first name. I wasn't knitpicky but I did stand up against the system a few times. I also had a principle tell me that my son had surpassed the capacity in a subject for the private school he was in and they were surprised when I pulled him out of it the next day. Go figure.

It's not the state. It's the principal of your school. Then you talk with him or her, if you're not happy.

Who pays the principal? The people. He is "the state," of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country. I'm still the parent, not him.


Would you scream if they took recess away from your kid? Or handwriting? Or sentence diagramming?

Yes. The end of cursive? (http://abcnews.go.com/US/end-cursive/story?id=12749517)

Who pays the principal? The people. He is "the state," of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country. I'm still the parent, not him.
So then parents will attend PTA meetings, parent-teacher conferences, and be comfortable in the principal's office talking about school policies and procedures -- and reaching compromises.

Yes. The end of cursive? (http://abcnews.go.com/US/end-cursive/story?id=12749517)
Well, recess is gone, as is handwriting and diagramming. Someone didn't speak up.

Michelle Obama probably has her big fat behind involved in this.

After all, Bertha Butt herself has a lot to say about big bums.

Michelle Obama probably has her big fat behind involved in this.
Nope. It's just common sense.

Yes. The end of cursive?

Yeah they probably dropped calligraphy and the use of the abacus too.

Nope. It's just common sense.

You missed my point on that... ever see her butt? I'm serious... its HUGE same with her legs.

Now plenty of people are big, and some can't help it... but "people who live in glass houses......"

yeah they probably dropped calligraphy and the use of the abacus too.

The abacus was gone when I was in school but we hadn't switched to calculators either, we had to think. You know, the next generation won't even be able to read the Declaration of Independence.

You missed my point on that.....ever see her butt? I'm serious...its HUGE same with her legs.

Now plenty of people are big, and some can't help it....but "people who live in glass houses......"

I've never paid any attention to any First Lady's butt, especially Hillary's - though I bet excon did.

Someone better start translating it to various acronyms suitable for texting .
Then again, the language has evolved . Try reading the Declaration in the original text ;or some classic old English novels .

Someone better start translating it to various acronyms suitable for texting .

LLATPOH, dude.


Then again, the language has evolved . Try reading the Declaration in the original text ;or some classic old English novels .

I have a nearly 400-year-old framed page out of a King James bible, Genesis IV. Did you know Cain flew able?

LLATPOH, dude.

I hadn't realized that the translation was already done. Duh At one time I had an acronym dictionary that I c/p'd from the net, and for a while was able to convince my daughter that I knew text language.

I've never paid any attention to any First Lady's butt, especially Hillary's - though I bet excon did.

If you notice they tend to avoid framing her from the waist down. True its her constitution that she packs it on below the waist. Which from a health perspective is better than packing it on in the upper body, but that's not something you choose.

But her yapping about that is like me yapping about why every guy doesn't have six-pack abs. (being I have a bit of a paunch I need to lose)

Oh Hillary has beefy legs... if you are into that sort of thing.

Neither of those two at any point of their lives were what I personally considered attractive (by my tastes). But they weren't all that bad either compared to some.

But if they strike anyone's fancy... more power to them. To each his or her own.

LA schools to remove chocolate, strawberry milk (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd-milk-20110428,0,4817363.story) from campuses. I have no idea what they're going to replace it with, probably soy milk. I'm sure that'll be a hit.


Healthier offerings could cost more, however, and prove less popular, jeopardizing federal funding if student consumption drops. That same concern holds with eliminating flavored milk, although the menu change itself will have no added cost.

About 75% of milk sold is flavored, Oliver noted on the Kimmel show.

The only milk I drank as a kid was chocolate, though I did use plain milk in my Sugar Pops. I also had lots of toast and margarine, bacon, sausage and eggs, peanut butter and jelly for breakfast... I've ballooned to a 34 waist.

What happened to 'choice' in this country?

Cocoa has a high fat and carbohydrate content that is true . But it is loaded with a variety of vitamins minerals and antioxidants/flavanoids . It also increases serotonine levels in the brain which is a positive. Combine that with the fact that many kids do not drink milk without the flavoring and one can only conclude that chocolate milk is an essential part of a balance diet.

LA schools to remove chocolate, strawberry milk (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd-milk-20110428,0,4817363.story) from campuses. I have no idea what they're going to replace it with, probably soy milk. I'm sure that'll be a hit.



The only milk I drank as a kid was chocolate, though I did use plain milk in my Sugar Pops. I also had lots of toast and margarine, bacon, sausage and eggs, peanut butter and jelly for breakfast....I've ballooned to a 34 waist.

What happened to 'choice' in this country?

Then you have the people with soy allergies... are they going to ban it like they have peanut butter some places.

San Francisco, the city which has apparently nothing better to do than monitor every aspect of its denizens' lives, is taking up another nanny state ban. Ed Driscoll takes up the issue:

Making a Mountain of a Mohel (http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/04/27/making-a-mountain-of-a-mohel/)


“San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision,” Reuters reports. But since the San Fransisco Examiner noted in March that “San Francisco [is] becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines,” and even the Associated Press was forced to report in 2005 that “San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city,” this issue is yet another self-defeating reduction in freedom for the city and its residents.

As I wrote last month, all of this makes you wonder: when the next San Francisco far left loony rails on against the dangers of Happy Meals, Junior ROTC, family-friendly SUVs or heck, circumcision, what’s the point of passing these laws when there are fewer and fewer kids left in the city?

Have they banned freedom of religion in San Fran, too?

Exit question: How long before progressives make themselves an endangered species?

Didn't they already ban deodorants and women's razors? That may be connected to the decline in births. I know I am less inclined to want to bang a hairy smelly female. Of course in SanFran, you can add pompous and self righteous and assure a near total lack of desire to procreate.

The only milk I drank as a kid was chocolate, though I did use plain milk in my Sugar Pops. I also had lots of toast and margarine, bacon, sausage and eggs, peanut butter and jelly for breakfast....I've ballooned to a 34 waist.

What happened to 'choice' in this country?Hello again, Steve:

I HATE margarine... Give me BUTTER..

But, I think you're confused my friend... Choice is still with us. I know, cause I had a doughnut for breakfast.. Besides, education doesn't take your choice away. If anything, it enhances it. Course, you people would just rather not know stuff.. I don't know why.

Oh, I just figured it out. Knowing stuff makes you elite. And, for sure, you don't want to be that.

excon

Well, I do know in San Francisco you can CHOOSE all manner of public perverseness (http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/), but don't take your kid for a Happy Meal. Maybe if McDonald's allowed gay sex in their restaurants they'd drop the Happy Meal ban.

I know there are a large share of those that would rather bang the cow than eat it.

Well, I do know in San Francisco you can CHOOSE all manner of public perverseness (http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/), but don't take your kid for a Happy Meal. Maybe if McDonald's allowed gay sex in their restaurants they'd drop the Happy Meal ban.Hello again, Steve:

So, we've got a trade off happening here... In San Francisco, I can CHOOSE to purchase marijahoochie and not get thrown in the pokey... If I have to give up happy meals in order to do that, that's a trade I'll make...

But, in YOUR neck of the woods, I can get a happy meal, but if I really want to get happy, YOUR nanny state is going to PROTECT me from myself, by putting my a$$ in jail... Let's talk about THAT.

excon

We've already been there, you know I'm not opposed to you gettin' happy. So, if we can allow you to get happy and kids to get their Happy Meals, can you agree that allowing public gay sex is not a good thing?

can you agree that allowing public gay sex is not a good thing?Hello again, Steve:

Are you kidding? I LOVE public gay sex.

excon

Federal law still prevents anyone from that form of "getting happy". And no elected state peon can change that.

So you are willing to trade-off a mom's freedom to buy a Happy Meal in exchange for your right to get happy and have public gay sex.

Federal law still prevents anyone from that form of "getting happy". And no elected state peon can change that.Hello again, smoothy:

So, states rights have NO place in your right wing Tea Party platform? I figured. You want people to be free. You just want 'em to be free to do what YOU WANT 'EM TO DO. I understand.

excon

States don't have 'rights'. States have 'powers' .

So you are willing to trade-off a mom's freedom to buy a Happy Meal in exchange for your right to get happy and have public gay sex.Hello again, Steve:

That about sums it up... But, I'm no bigot. I believe in NON gay public sex too...

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

So, states rights have NO place in your right wing Tea Party platform?? I figured. You want people to be free. You just want 'em to be free to do what YOU WANT 'EM TO DO. I understand.

excon

You mean like the Civil rights act shouldn't be imposed on the public... etc? Or just those things you don't agree with?

How about OBAMAcare as the latest gov intrusion?

Fact is the Federal government trumps states rights in many areas... and you can thank the Democrat party for expanding where they can meddle. The Democrat party is the party of big brother... And Obama is the current ringleader for the gov to have their nose in everything you do..

But a hamburger and a toy is off limits?

But a hamburger and a toy is off limits?

Unless the kid wants to marry the cow... and bang the toy, in school in the auditorium in front of the student body and call it art.. Then he will have supporters to his cause in SF.

By the way, next up is advertising (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/business/29label.html?_r=1&ref=business). No more Cap'n Crunch, Tony the Tiger, Ronald McDonald, Chuck E. Cheese or Keebler Elves.

I see choice is still expanding in the liberal world.

The deal with the Obots is that they have a hands off policy when it comes to illicit drugs... but try selling illicit foods like... mmmm... milk... then watch out!
Feds sting Amish farmer selling raw milk locally - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/)

Raw milk -- why buy it when the chances of also buying e. coli, listeria, and staph are possible. Low-temp vat pasteurization is cheap enough that any farmer can do that.

Perhaps it's an Amish cultural thingy??

It used to be an immigrant German farmer thingy, but my ancestors didn't sell milk to anyone. Only the family drank it. I've drunk raw milk still warm from the cow, but my grandfather took exceeding care with washing the cows' udders and the collection buckets and large vats he poured the milk into. The milk was immediately refrigerated unless some of it was used for breakfast or supper. Do the Amish take such good care? Will you bet your digestive health on that?

The Amish can do what they want with their unpasteurized milk. I'm surprised such a gentle people are so greedy that they are selling it.

Trust me... he wasn't making a living selling it. The Feds sent an agent to fill up a plastic jug . The agent gave him $2.00 for it.

One could ask what is the greater risk . A cup of raw milk fresh from the farm ;or some of the processed foods mass produced even under the most stringent Federal Guidelines ?
Pasturization does a good job eliminating contaminents that's true... then to make it nutritious to replace the nutrients lost in the processing , they vitamin fortify the end product.

There are no other Amish selling raw milk to the public?

What's the harm? Have you ever had an infection caused by e. coli or listeria or staph? I have. I wouldn't want to wish it on my worse enemy.

I grew up on unpasteurized, un homogenized whole milk. From the dairy we got refilled in 1/2 gallon glass jugs we took every week. Right up until they outlawed it and the dairy shut down as a result.

While I had the standard childhood diseases at the time... I actually have not had the flu but twice in the last 40 years... and I'm 49. In fact I made it through Jr and Sr High school without being sick at all.

Shaking it up was a PITA... but it tasted a LOT better than anything in a paper or plastic carton.


Yeah there was always a possibility of some of those... but I never knew anyone that actually had it... and most of my friends, family and neighbors drank the same stuff.

I grew up on unpasteurized, un homogenized whole milk. from the dairy we got refilled in 1/2 gallon glass jugs we took every week. Right up until they outlawed it and the dairy shut down as a result.

While I had the standard childhood diseases at the time....I actually have not had the flu but twice in the last 40 years...and I'm 49. In fact I made it through Jr and Sr Highschool without being sick at all.

Shaking it up was a PITA.... but it tasted a LOT better than anything in a paper or plastic carton.
I agree -- nothing better. I've got nearly 20 years on you, so remember it even better than you do. We never got intestinal upsets from raw milk, but then the dairy farmers were very, very careful and we knew them well. I wouldn't trust farmers today, unless I knew them personally.

(We didn't shake -- we skimmed the cream off the top for pie, etc.)

Hello again:

Didja see what the nanny state is doing now?? They're actually trying to protect your children from getting cancer. How dare them?

The rules, which go into effect in a year, (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/science/15sun.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23) will also ban sunscreen manufacturers from claiming their products are waterproof or sweatproof because such claims are false. Instead, they will be allowed to claim in minutes the amount of time in which the product is water resistant, depending upon test results.

And only sunscreens that have a sun protection factor, or SPF, of 15 or higher will be allowed to maintain that they help prevent sunburn and reduce the risks of skin cancer and early skin aging.

Can you believe the balls of this government??

excon

Yeah ,I heard they are going to lose the numerical rating and switch to color coding .
Next they will be making sunshine illegal.

As it is there are people who need Vit D supplementation because they douse that stuff all over themselves as if it were marinate.

The chemicals in sunscreen could very well be more harmful to you than the harmful effects of sun rays.(see oxybenzone
PABA and Oxybenzone. What are PABA / Oxybenzone and why are they dangerous. (http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/paba-oxybenzone.html) )
As you know ,I favor government regulation of chemicals.

Chemicals, OK. Vegetables, no.

Chemicals, OK. Vegetables, no.Hello again, Steve:

Marijahoochie is a vegetable...

excon

I thought it was an herb.

Hello again, Steve:

It grows. It's green. It's vitamin packed. Herb is the name of my barber.

excon

Have you seen the timeline on this monograph ? The FDA began considering label changes in 1978 , published them in 1999, and waited for now for the major players in the industry to adjust their labelling . It will be the small manufacture /label brands that will bear the brunt of this . Again ,government regulation will weed out the small fry and consolidate the industry for a few major players .

Again ,government regulation will weed out the small fry and consolidate the industry for a few major players .Hello again, tom:

Yeah... It costs a LOT of money to adhere to government regulations... On the other hand, we could just let 'em make snake oil and CALL it sunscreen. But, I'd rather have it the way it is.. I LIKE the FDA testing stuff. You guys want to test stuff on your kids?? Don't make sense to me.

excon

50 bucks a bottle coming your way

Most of the approved drugs are experiments on people . In 2008 2.7 million hospital stays and emergency room visits were due to adverse drug reactions.
Snake oil may have a better track record come to think about it. I know I can safety put the mineral zinc oxide on my skin and have better sun protection than the toxic brew they approve.

In 2008 2.7 million hospital stays and emergency room visits were due to adverse drug reactions.
Because the drug was at fault, or because the patient didn't take it the way he/she was supposed to? -- like my client Heather who would take the entire day's worth of prescribed depression/OCD/HBP meds at one time before bed (they were supposed to be spaced out throughout the day), promptly threw up, and then cursed the medical community.

Or like my wife, who endured a litany of expensive tests, months of stress and agony to find out why she was swollen like a balloon only to discover it was a drug reaction.

By the same token ;you could improperly apply sunscreen exposing your skin to hamful UVs .

WG ;how many approved drugs have later been removed from the market ? Humans are very often the Guinea Pig .

Let's go to nutrition which is the basis of this op.

What is the latest consensus on salt ?The Journal of The American Medical Association published in May a study that concluded that that as salt intake went up, cardiovascular deaths went down. In other words ;lowering your salt intake increases your risk of heart disease.
So , at very least the consensus is divided (my own opinion is that bleached process salts are the culprit if there is any adverse effect of salt intake) .

Why should the nanny state then attempt and make law to control people's salt intake if there is no conclusive evidence about it being harmful ?

Or like my wife, who endured a litany of expensive tests, months of stress and agony to find out why she was swollen like a balloon only to discover it was a drug reaction.
That's the fault of her doctor (not the drug), not to recognize a drug reaction. How many other patients have had the same bad reaction? Has the drug been taken off the market?

no conclusive evidence about it being harmful ?
Which study does one believe? Which study has been done correctly? Who has been tested? How often?

Do consumers ever read those papers that a pharmacist gives with each prescription?

Which study does one believe? Which study has been done correctly? Who has been tested? How often?

Do consumers ever read those papers that a pharmacist gives with each prescription?

then what value is labelling specs that the FDA spent 3 decades finalizing ?

That's the fault of her doctor (not the drug), not to recognize a drug reaction. How many other patients have had the same bad reaction? Has the drug been taken off the market?

Darn it, should have just asked you since you obviously know all about the situation.

If doctors weren't forced to cover every base due to this litigious society and shark lawyers, they could be doctors again.

Darn it, should have just asked you since you obviously know all about the situation.
Actually, I went through a similar thing with an IV solution I was given, but the doctor jumped right on it and saved my life.


[If doctors weren't forced to cover every base due to this litigious society and shark lawyers, they could be doctors again.
Ever listen to one of those drug ads on TV, or read all the caveats on magazine pages?

Actually, I went through a similar thing with an IV solution I was given, but the doctor jumped right on it and saved my life.

Not every situation is the same.


Ever listen to one of those drug ads on TV, or read all the caveats on magazine pages?

Really?

Let's go to nutrition which is the basis of this op.

What is the latest consensus on salt ?The Journal of The American Medical Association published in May a study that concluded that that as salt intake went up, cardiovascular deaths went down. In other words ;lowering your salt intake increases your risk of heart disease.
So , at very least the concensus is divided (my own opinion is that bleached process salts are the culprit if there is any adverse effect of salt intake) .

Why should the nanny state then attempt and make law to control people's salt intake if there is no conclusive evidence about it being harmful ?

Hi Tom,

Without actually seeing the report I would think the conclusion is not that simple. You are correct when you say there is no direct link between salt intake and cardiovascular disease. Salt intake and cardiovascular disease will probably never show a direct link. This is because there are far too many contributing factors. At best I would say that scientists would claim that salt is a contributing factor in exactly the same way as lack of exercise is a contributing factor. Another example would be the physical make up of each individual. Some people are able to tolerate higher levels of salt.

What would normally happen is the relevant authorities would isolated the contributing factors. Some success can be obtained by banning salt. In other words, they can control at least one contributing factor.

The government cannot regulate for exercise. The best they can hope for is to encourage people to do more exercise. In summary, it is the wide spread regulation of, 'the dooable' contributing factors that gives the impression of nanny state bans.


Tut


Tut

You are correct when you say there is no direct link between salt intake and cardiovascular disease...

What would normally happen is the relevant authorities would isolated the contributing factors. Some success can be obtained by banning salt. In other words, they can control at least one contributing factor.


Quite the contrary ,they found a link between low salt intake and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. I think the real culprit is processed bleaching of salt which replaces valuable nutrients in salt ,and replaces it with cr@p like anti-caking ingredients.
For this op though the government is attempting to control salt intake when there is no conclusive proof it does any good . It is just a power grab.

So , at very least the concensus is divided (my own opinion is that bleached process salts are the culprit if there is any adverse effect of salt intake) ?

Hi Tom,

As far as the consensus being divided? I would suggest that it is far from divided if only because more studies have been done on the adverse outcomes of a high salt diet. This does not mean to say that in the future low salt studies won't confirm some type of strong link with heart disease. It is just the way governments do business.

Governments can't sit on their hands forever waiting for results on alternative studies. Governments tend to act on what is before them. If in the future high salt diets decrease the risk of heart disease then the appropriate legislation will be put in place.

It is not a power grab. With respect. Tom, you worry about conspiracies where they are none.

Tut

You don't live in NY... indeed it is a power grab by a soft tyranny .


Governments can't sit on their hands forever waiting for results on alternative studies. Governments tend to act on what is before them.

Yeah that's what governments do... and thalidomide is the result.

You don't live in NY ....indeed it is a power grab by a soft tyranny .



yeah that's what governments do .... and thalidomide is the result.

Hi Tom,

I agree with you. I am sorry if I have offended you in any way. I will withdraw from the discussion. I will also delete my other post on climate change.

Best wishes

Tut

Well put it this way... I am buying up incandescent bulbs as fast as my budget will allow because I refuse to convent to those ridiculous and dangerous mercury filled CFL bulbs that the nanny state government in it's infinite wisdom will mandate next year .
This will at least buy me the time to work out the logistics of conversion to LED illumination for my home .

well put it this way..... I am buying up incandescent bulbs as fast as my budget will allow because I refuse to convent to those rediculous and dangerous mercury filled CFL bulbs that the nanny state government in it's infinite wisdom will mandate next year .
This will at least buy me the time to work out the logistics of conversion to LED illumination for my home .

Conversion to LED is easy Tom you just pay twice as much as CFL which are about ten times the price of incandescent but I tell you that I haven't changed a light bulb since I converted but I do need to upgrade some of the bulbs which are a little dim on startup. I still have all my old incandescents in reserve, I shouldn't need any light bulbs for yonks and that goes for a lot of other people so I expect the incandescent manufacturers in Asia will be out of business soon

Those darn South Carolinians may be challenging that incandescent ban (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/09/south-carolina-taking-light-bulb-ban-into-its-own-hands/) with the South Carolina Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act.

And those CFL's? Turns out their energy savings are 73% less than anticipated and something I already knew from experience, the burnout rate is higher than expected.

Good news, the nanny state has decided which images designed to make you vomit (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/health/policy/22smoke.html?_r=1), to place on cigarette packs next year.

Next up, really fat naked people on bags of potato chips.

Hello Steve:

Since when did you become so PC? Wassa matter, you want to PRETEND that smoking is good for you?? Don't you think it's FAIR that the person who smokes should KNOW what the drug he is consuming is doing? Is keeping it SECRET doing anybody any good??

Oh, that's right... The tobacco companies love it.. I don't know why you righty's support those merchants of death. Do you own stock?

excon

I don't know what stock I own, but having shares in mutual funds, probably.

Dude, I've never supported smoking bans or red light cameras and I think it's stupid to force 13 year old kids to ride in car seats. I don't need a nanny, do you?

Finally, the truth comes out. The First Lady, nutrition czar, wife of the man who's administration is banning potatoes for poor people on government programs - admits her favorite food is french fries. Atta girl...


Michelle Obama: 'I can't stop eating French fries. But eat your vegetables.' (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/michelle-obama-i-cant-stop-eating-french-fries-eat-your-vegetable#ixzz1QENYt6CF)

By: Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ByronYork | 06/23/11 3:47 PM

During her visit to South Africa, First Lady Michelle Obama stopped by the University of Cape Town for an event with young people. She told the audience how she came from modest circumstances and was able to attend top schools and build a career at a big law firm, saying they too can achieve their dreams if they try hard enough. After her speech, she was asked a series of soft questions like, "What advice can you give the youth today?" But at the end of the session, one young person in the audience asked Mrs. Obama, who has devoted much of her time in the White House to promoting nutrition and healthy eating, what her favorite foods are.

"My favorite?" Obama said. "Oh, this is a tough one. "It is tough, you know, because if I say something not healthy, people will be, like, you aren't really committed to health. If I say something healthy, you know -- I do -- honestly, I like all kinds of foods."

Obama mentioned Indian food, and then Mexican food, and then said: "No, if I picked one favorite, favorite food, it's French fries." The audience began to laugh. "Okay? It's French fries," Obama continued. "I can't stop eating them." As the students laughed more, the First Lady quickly returned to her role as advocate of health eating. "But eat your vegetables," she said, to still more laughs. "And exercise."

With examples like that and your chili dog loving hubby, childhood obesity will be vanquished in no time!

With examples like that and your chili dog loving hubby, childhood obesity will be vanquished in no time!
Yup, you can tell by how the Obama family looks that they pig out on fries and other bad stuff all the time. Oh, and you didn't bold the "vegetables" part of what she said.

Yup, you can tell by how the Obama family looks that they pig out on fries and other bad stuff all the time. Oh, and you didn't bold the "vegetables" part of what she said.

My post, I'll emphasize what I want to emphasize. So the nutritionist in chief telling kids to "do as I say and not as I do" is OK with you?

That's the second time in this thread that someone has defended the Obama's hypocrisy and poor example for children, but I'm not surprised. You know how kids are, they see someone telling them one thing and modeling something else. They aren't hearing "eat your vegetables, they see role models eating chili dogs and fries.

they see someone telling them one thing and modeling something else. They aren't hearing "eat your vegetables, they see role models eating chili dogs and fries.
I can unemphasize it when I quote you. :)

And that's all they see, him eating chili dogs and fries. No WH garden, no wife talking about the foods the family eats. Just chili dogs and fries. Why not bring up his former smoking habit too?

I can unemphasize it when I quote you. :)

Nah, you can divert but you can't unemphasize it. :)


And that's all they see, him eating chili dogs and fries. No WH garden, no wife talking about the foods the family eats. Just chili dogs and fries. Why not bring up his former smoking habit too?

I thought about it, but the chili dogs and fries are current bad habits.

I thought about it, but the chili dogs and fries are current bad habits.
A habit is something done frequently. How often does he eat chili dogs and fries per week?

A habit is something done frequently. How often does he eat chili dogs and fries per week?

Here is at least one menu that they did give access to.

White House Super Bowl Menu: Obama's Beer & Food Lineup (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/06/white-house-super-bowl-menu_n_819312.html)

here is atleast one menu that they did give access to.
What did you eat at your Superbowl party? Or 4th of July picnic? Or Christmas Eve nosh? Or New Year's Eve party? Or on Thanksgiving?

What did you eat at your Superbowl party?

Steak and baked macaroni and cheese and salad :)

Washed down with a Carona.

Steak and baked macaroni and cheese and salad :)

Washed down with a Carona.
Not plain yogurt and water?

Not plain yogurt and water?

Why would I want to eat that ? Part of living life is partaking in the flavor it has to offer. If they are that worried about a child being healthy then they should bring back games at recess and allow for sports to be played during P.E. periods instead of cutting out those programs. Kids today need to put away the game controlers and get outside more.

If they are that worried about a child being healthy then they should bring back games at recess and allow for sports to be played during P.E. periods instead of cutting out those programs.
"They" ARE worried, and that's exactly what's happening -- bringing back...

I don't begrudge them their chilidogs ;fries ,devil burgers .To me it's the most normal thing I've seen from them.

The way I see it ;the left gets a lot of fun out of pointing out hypocrisy of the family values crowd who get caught with their pants down. Same here . I love seeing them stuffing ice cream cones in their face while preaching that we eat brussel sprouts.
It's FLOTUS' Marie Antoinette moment .

stuffing ice cream cones in their face while preaching that we eat brussel sprouts.

Dairy Queen doesn't sell Brussels sprouts, but they are in the WH garden. Have you ever had any?

Brussel sprouts ? Yeah can't stand them . I tried ;I really did . I'm part Irish and can't stand cabbage either unless it's pickled into slaw or kraut.

I even grew them in my garden last year until the ground hog destroyed the crop.

I've tried them sauteed ,grilled ,roasted ,in a salad ,all types of ways.. The closest I came to actually liking them is smothered in au gratin.

brussel sprouts ? yeah can't stand them . I tried ;I really did .
Aaaaaaah, Brussels sprouts in a butter or cheese sauce. Nirvana!

I'll bet you hate asparagus and broccoli too -- and cauliflower.

Aaaaaaah, Brussels sprouts in a butter or cheese sauce. Nirvana!

I'll bet you hate asparagus and broccoli too -- and cauliflower.

Every so often I get a craving for Brussel sprouts - I can't explain it. There must be a nutrient in them that my body knows it needs, but hasn't reached my consciousness. I eat them for a week then, nutritionally satisfied, they're off the menu for another year or so.

I wonder what it is about New York pizza that causes the same craving? This one occurs almost daily.

There must be a nutrient in them that my body knows it needs
Vitamins A and C. My kids wouldn't eat them until we grew them in our garden.

I do like broccoli and califlower ;not asparagus... which is also in the garden this year for the 1st time. Add beets to the list I don't like and that is about it. All the other veggies I consume.

Vitamins A and C. My kids wouldn't eat them until we grew them in our garden.

A and C - wow. Who knew pizza was so good for you? Good news.

A and C - wow. Who knew pizza was so good for you? Good news.
Brussels spouts too. Put them on the pizza for a double dose of vitamins. Even better than peas.

Brussels spouts too. Put them on the pizza for a double dose of vitamins. Even better than peas.

Dear God, save us from those who would put peas on pizza. I'm a pizza purist - the NY thin crust with the crust slightly charbroiled leaving those blackened burnt spots.

No question about it ;there is nothing better than authentic NY pizza dripping in olive oil and the chesse so thick it slides off the slice. I'd love to see the President order a slice ,and try to fold it properly for consumption while running to catch a subway train.

NY pizza is the perfect health food . It is low in carbs because of the thin crust ;has all your food groups ,is baked ,the olive oil is a monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA). MUFA is a healthy dietary fat... and you can portion control by the slice. I add extra garlic and oregano ;and sometimes red pepper ,often extra mushrooms or green Italian peppers... more health foods .

Hello again, tom:

While OTHER Republican state legislatures are voting to CURB people's rights, last night, the NY Republicans did the opposite. They voted to take nanny OUT of the room when people propose to each other...

That should please you... Unless, of course, you don't LIKE what's going on in the room, in which case you'd want nanny right back in there... Would that apply to you?

While we're at it, do you think nanny should BE in the doctors office when a pregnant woman wants an abortion?? I think you DO.

excon

Lol ,the homosexual community demanded that the state go into their bedrooms in this case.
If they really wanted government out of the bedroom they'd champion the ending of all state sponsored marriage. The state's only interest in this is the contractual end . So let the state govern that and not take a stand on who is "married " and who isn't .

I've said it all along that this will not be resolved at the State level . What happens to these couples when they move to another state ? Are their "marriages" annulled ? Nope ;States that had no say about NY laws are Constitutionally compelled to honor it under the 'Full Faith and Credit "clause.

Also ;to get this into law the State Senate did a tap dance to exempt religious organizations from discrimination if they refuse to participate.
You know it and I know it that before a month goes by there will be challenges to that provision under the 14th Amendment. All the exemptions did was give cover to the spineless Republicans of NY who needed political cover to vote for the law. They of course will never tell you the real reason they voted for it... Bloomberg threatened to pull his $$ support to the NY Republican organization.
In other words ;it had nothing to do with defending homosexual rights ;they were bribed into it. Such is the sad state of the Republican party in my state.

As for abortions... as you know... the state should never permit the snuffing of innocent human life.Call that nanny state if you wish... I call it a legitimate role of government .

A habit is something done frequently. How often does he eat chili dogs and fries per week?

The nutrition czar's favorite food is french fries, she can't stop eating them. What do you not get? That's a habit and I repeat, you know how kids are, a role model telling them one thing and modeling something else is not good.

Brussels spouts too. Put them on the pizza for a double dose of vitamins. Even better than peas.

Blechhh!

I do like broccoli and califlower ;not asparagus ....which is also in the garden this year for the 1st time. Add beets to the list I don't like and that is about it. All the other veggies I consume.

Asparagus is so good, I have some growing in my garden this year.

Dear God, save us from those who would put peas on pizza. I'm a pizza purist - the NY thin crust with the crust slightly charbroiled leaving those blackened burnt spots.

We don't get NY pizza here, I like to make my own. Sometime with all the cholesterol.

Obama planned to spend only about two hours in Iowa. His first stop was Ross' 24-Hour Restaurant, a local diner in the town of Bettendorf. Among the president's orders was a "Magic Mountain", a house specialty that includes Texas toast and mounds of ground beef.

"I hope he brought his antacids because he said he's going to need one after," quipped Cynthia Freidhof, the daughter of the restaurant's founder.
White House insists economy, not politics, on Obama's agenda at aluminum factory in Iowa | CanadianBusiness.com (http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/31338--white-house-insists-economy-not-politics-on-obama-s-agenda-at-aluminum-factory-in-iowa)

The First Lady, who has been criticised before for failing to practise what she preaches when it comes to her health food drive, made a quick stop at a small restaurant in a Botswanan village on Saturday to sample some of the local fare - fat cakes and French fries.
Michelle Obama tucks in to fat cakes and French fries on trip to Botswana | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008507/Michelle-Obama-tucks-fat-cakes-French-fries-trip-Botswana.html#ixzz1Qb6tcool)

Texas toast and mounds of ground beef - fat cakes and French fries.
Yeah, you'd think that two people with all the weight they carry and all the health problems they have would know better.

Hello again, tom:

Al Gore can't fly in an airplane and Michell Obama can't feed her kids a french fry WITHOUT you or your wrong stream media complaining... Who says they're being given a pass?

Is Brietbart checking on their bathroom habits?? I'll bet he IS.

excon

With their diet I wouldn't be surprised if they were irregular.

I don't care what they eat. Just stop being pompus preachers about a healthy diet when they clearly don't practice what they preach.


Yeah, you'd think that two people with all the weight they carry and all the health problems they have would know better.
If they said pig out on fried food and exercise then at least they'd be consistent . But the 1st Lady makes it a point to have one standard for us and another for her .

with their diet... they clearly don't practice what they preach.
Three meals a day every day are loaded with fat and "bad" foods.

If they said pig out on fried food and exercise then at least they'd be consistent .
They do exercise. And they don't pig out on fried food.

Three meals a day every day are loaded with fat and "bad" foods.

They do exercise. And they don't pig out on fried food.

You keep missing the point which I've made several times now. It doesn't matter that the Obama's exercise and look fit, in publicly eating unhealthy foods they're modeling bad behavior to the children while preaching something else. Besides, one doesn't need to be fat to have dangerous cholesterol levels.

You keep missing the point which I've made several times now. It doesn't matter that the Obama's exercise and look fit, in publicly eating unhealthy foods they're modeling bad behavior to the children while preaching something else.
Michelle already dealt with that. You've never seen them with healthy food in public?

Michelle already dealt with that. You've never seen them with healthy food in public?

Why are you so determined to excuse this hypocrisy being modeled in front of children?

1) WH garden (veggies not fatback)
2) state dinner menus
3) personal exercise programs
4) frequent dog walking
5) participation in sports
6) WH chef prepares healthy food swaps and uses lean beef and low-sugar ketchup; dessert is a special treat served only on the weekends (order direct from Michelle Obama)
7) treadmill on presidential plane
8) Michelle recently demonstrated skill with hula hoop, one of her personal exercise routines
9) daughters' extracurricular activities include tennis, aerobics, dance, and football
10) WH much-used basketball court replaced tennis court

Why are you so determined to excuse this hypocrisy being modeled in front of children?
Why are you so determined to not allow healthy people some not-so-healthy food at times? The Obamas have always maintained a balance is necessary. You can't eat broccoli 24/7.

If they looked like Chris Christy even after he had stomach stapling and who gets driven 100 yards in a limo to watch a kid's game, then, yes, I would agree with you.

Why are you so determined to not allow healthy people some not-so-healthy food at times? The Obamas have always maintained a balance is necessary. You can't eat broccoli 24/7.

If they looked like Chris Christy even after he had stomach stapling and who gets driven 100 yards in a limo to watch a kid's game, then, yes, I would agree with you.

I give up.

Why are you so determined to not allow healthy people some not-so-healthy food at times?
You don't see the poor pr going on here ? Michelle was talking healthy food to the kids in South Africa ,and when asked what foods she liked best she said "frys" .

Why are you so determined to not allow healthy people some not-so-healthy food at times? The Obamas have always maintained a balance is necessary. You can't eat broccoli 24/7.

If they looked like Chris Christy even after he had stomach stapling and who gets driven 100 yards in a limo to watch a kid's game, then, yes, I would agree with you.

What's wrong with broccoli? I would rather eat broccoli than that garbage that comproses the average hamburger

Why are you so determined to not allow healthy people some not-so-healthy food at times? The Obamas have always maintained a balance is necessary. You can't eat broccoli 24/7.

If they looked like Chris Christy even after he had stomach stapling and who gets driven 100 yards in a limo to watch a kid's game, then, yes, I would agree with you.


I had to smile at this. Obviously the Obamas eat healthy - just look at them.

Now look at Christie. This morbidly obese man reflects his political philosophy - the fat get fatter and the poor get poorer. Redistribute the wealth - take from the poor and give to the rich.

Which is precisely what he did in New Jersey by supporting the rich at the expense of the elderly poor.

Like so many of his ilk, his sense of privilege is so great that he was clueless about using the state helicopter to go to his kid's little league game. Only after the public uproar, did he deign to agree to reimburse the taxpayers. HEY, you can't make this stuff up!

Like so many of his ilk, his sense of privilege is so great...
You are speaking of the Chris Christie that was born and raised in Newark NJ of Irish and Italian parents . Who went to the University of Delaware and Seton Hall eventually getting a law degree . He eventually became a US District Att. For NJ and then Governor.
That "privileged " "ilk".

For a minute I thought you were speaking of John Kerry who parks his yacht in another state to avoid paying Mass. Rates... or Claire McCaskill who bills the US taxpayers $76000 for her private plane use.Or Democratic Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri who has come under attack recently because he billed the State $400,000 for the cost of his junkets.

Hello again, tom:

Al Gore can't fly in an airplane...
Excon

This essay speaks of Gore ,but could just as easily make the Obamas it's subject.


But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess. If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiple mansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.
It is not enough to buy carbon offsets (aka “indulgences”) with your vast wealth, not enough to power your luxurious mansions with exotic low impact energy sources the average person could not afford, not enough to argue that you only needed the jet so that you could promote your earth-saving film.

You are asking billions of people, the overwhelming majority of whom lack many of the basic life amenities you take for granted, people who can’t afford Whole Foods environmentalism, to slash their meager living standards. You may well be right, and those changes may be necessary — the more shame on you that with your superior insight and knowledge you refuse to live a modest life. There’s a gospel hymn some people in Tennessee still sing that makes the point: “You can’t be a beacon if your light don’t shine.”...


You can sit on ivory chairs with kings in their halls of gold, participating in the world of politics as usual, or you can live with the prophets and visionaries in the wilderness, voices of a greater truth and higher meaning that challenge the smug certainties and false assumptions of the comfortable, business as usual elites. You cannot do both...

A fawning establishment press spares the former vice president the vitriol and schadenfreude it pours over the preachers and priests whose personal conduct compromised the core tenets of their mission; Gore is not mocked as others have been. This gentle treatment hurts both Gore and the greens; he does not know just how disabling, how crippling the gap between conduct and message truly is. The greens do not know that his presence as the visible head of the movement helps ensure its political failure.

Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics. The peril is imminent, he says. It is desperate. The hands of the clock point to twelve. The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun. The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.


But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry. A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.
The Failure of Al Gore: Part One | Via Meadia (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/)

You are asking billions of people, the overwhelming majority of whom lack many of the basic life amenities you take for granted, people who can't afford Whole Foods environmentalism, to slash their meager living standards. Hello again, tom:

I've been asking for a long time WHAT your reason is to deny climate change... I've thought it was because you owned stock... Now, I see that you believe that an admission of climate change would mean you would have to adopt the "end of American prosperity as we know it" scenario...

Well, of course, if that's true, I'd deny it too... But, you'll have to show me where Al Gore said that in order to FIX it, we have to SLASH our meager living standards.

Could you show me where they say that?? Oh, I don't mean your right wing scare merchants... I'm interested in a plan, or a proposal, or a solution, or a paper, or a notion, that says we must SLASH our living standards to FIX the problem...

I'm not saying that it's not out there.. I'm just saying I haven't read anything that says that... And, I read a LOT!

Excon

What's wrong with broccoli? I would rather eat broccoli than that garbage that comproses the average hamburger

Don't eat average hamburgers, eat good hamburgers.

I've been asking for a long time WHAT your reason is to deny climate change
I don't "deny " climate change. Climate change occures all the time . It occurred before the industrial revolution .It occurred before humans walked upright.

If you ask me if I think the hypothesis of AGW is due to human activity then I say that there is not enough evidence to support that ;and the evidence I've seen has been tainted and distorted by unscientific practices of the lead researchers of the hypothesis.


Now, I see that you believe that an admission of climate change would mean you would have to adopt the "end of American prosperity as we know it" scenario...

Nope. What I have said is that unless you can provide the technology to replace the use of carbon based energy then you will cause massive world wide economic disruption. Beyond that I am not opposed to research in alternative energy sources .


But, you'll have to show me where Al Gore said that in order to FIX it, we have to SLASH our meager living standards.

I'll go further than that . Just this month the Goracle who has a brood of 4 told us his "final [Malthusian] solution" .The rest of us should have less kids. (another example of the libs wanting to get in your bedroom).Since most Western nations have negative populations or stable population growth he must be targeting 3rd world and minority populations . Kill the poor and the non-white is the Gore final solution... he is in league with the eugenist Margaret Sanger .


I'm interested in a plan, or a proposal, or a solution, or a paper, or a notion, that says we must SLASH our living standards to FIX the problem...

I'm not saying that it's not out there.. I'm just saying I haven't read anything that says that... And, I read a LOT!

Then you haven't read : Our Common Future - Brundtland Report ~ From One Earth to One World: An overview by the World Commission on Environment and Development written by United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
This from the summary :

29. Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt life-styles within the planet's ecological means - in their use of energy, for example. Further, rapidly growing populations can increase the pressure on resources and slow any rise in living standards; thus sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.
http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/Our_Common_Future_-_Brundtland_Report/From_One_Earth_to_One_World
They hit on their 2 main themes in a single point... The affluent nations need to learn to live on less... and the overpopulated minorities need to be pruned .

Hello again, tom:

I asked the wrong question... Just as you can't be linked to others in your political spectrum, I can't be linked to mine. Of course, there ARE people on the left who call for a return to yurts... But, not me.

You will recall, that, as a businessman, MY solution will, not only allow us to KEEP our standards of living but it will allow us to expand upon them, just like progress has ALWAYS done.

Although I read a LOT, I DON'T read silly stuff, and announcing the end of the world is silly stuff.

excon

Agreed . However ,as the UN wastes resources publishing toilet paper ;the world governments adopt policies based on their recommendations (see Kyoto).

agreed . However ,as the UN wastes resources publishing toilet paper ;the world governments adopt policies based on their recomendations (see Kyoto).Hello again, tom:

Somebody has to fill the vacuum. If we don't LEAD, then we'll be stuck with what OTHERS think our fate should be...

In my view, LEADING is investing HEAVILY in new energy technology (yes, investing involves spending). You'd rather sit back and wait..

Speaking as a businessman, new technology doesn't happen if we SIT BACK.

excon

I am not opposed to spending on research .I thought I made that point already. What I am opposed to is policies like taxing the poor because they need to drive to work . I am opposed to government demand and control . If alternatives are viable then private industry will invest heavily in them .

Note all those evil major energy companies do indeed invest in R & D on alt energy because of the potential.

The U.S. oil and natural gas industry invested over $121 billion between 2000 and 2007 in emerging energy technologies, including $12 billion in non-hydrocarbons and $42 billion in greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies. This investment represents 65% of the estimated total of $188 billion spent by U.S. based companies and the Federal government on emerging energy technologies http://illinoisenergyforum.com/myth/myth--u-s--oil-companies-have-refused-to-invest-in-alternative-energy-and-other-clean-technologies-.
Chevron (CVX): $2.5 billion (2007-2009) on various projects, including algae biofuel.

ConocoPhillips (COP): Claims to be searching for wind and solar power investments.
Royal Dutch Shell (RDS-B): Focusing on thin-film solar. Joint ventures opening solar plants in Japan and Germany.
BP (BP): Plans to invest $8 billion over a decade on various initiatives from solar to wind to biofuel.
ExxonMobile (XOM): Is investing in the hybrid car market.
What Would Big Oil Invest In? (http://www.thepanelist.net/ethanol-biofuels-finance-10036/1209-what-would-big-oil-invest-in)

Oil Companies Invest In Biofuels - Business News - Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/2009/09/23/oil-companies-invest-in-biofuels/)

Exxon to Invest Millions to Make Fuel From Algae - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html)

Oil Companies Promote Alternative Energy (http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/oil-companies-promote-alternative-energy/)

Some need to lead, some need to get the out of the way so we can take advantage of what we have instead of say, telling Brazil to drill, baby drill so we can remain dependent on foreign oil.

"What the frack is going on?"

NW_xJqPjE_I

agreed . However ,as the UN wastes resources publishing toilet paper ;the world governments adopt policies based on their recomendations (see Kyoto).

Would that be the same UN that appointed the Norks to head a conference on disarmament (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/north-korea-head-un-conference-disarmament_575920.html)?

Reason TV's Nanny of the Month isn't the FDA for their horror pictures or San Francisco for wanting to ban the sale of pets, it's Montgomery County, Maryland’s Department of Permitting Services for fining some kids $500 for not having a permit for their lemonade stand. They were trying to raise money for pediatric cancer research.

26hlpBnc20o

Hello again, Steve:

When I was a kid, having received my third ticket in a year, I was forced to take a defensive driving course... The FIRST thing the instructor did, was pass around a few photos...

These were REAL photos of the mayhem steel and concrete does to a human body.. I was grossed out... But, I remember those pictures. They WORKED...

You'd only be AGAINST ugly pictures on cigarette packs if you didn't care about the health of the smoker or you owned stock in Phillip Morris...

Let me ask you this... If you saw a pedestrian about to J-walk into a 10 ton truck, would you stop him?

excon

Third choice, I'm against the ugly pictures because I find it offensive that the government thinks we're stupid. But in answer to your question, of course I would. I also want ugly pictures on packs of weed once it's legalized. And why not those pics of bodies and mangled steel on beer, wine and alocohol bottles... or on wine glasses in restaurants?

I also want ugly pictures on packs of weed once it's legalized. And why not those pics of bodies and mangled steel on beer, wine and alocohol bottles...or on wine glasses in restaurants?Hello again, Steve:

Why not? We'd have MORE success curbing drug abuse by doing THAT, than we have by locking people up.

excon

Meanwhile Michelle sets another fine example .

Michelle Obama orders 1,700-calorie meal at Shake Shack - 44 - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/michelle-obama-has-1556-calories-meal-at-shake-shack-outing/2011/07/11/gIQAgwPE9H_blog.html)

Guess the example was the diet coke .

What did Michelle eat for her other 1008 meals this year? Can you please give us the breakdown? Everything in moderation is my mantra.

She should be the example ,the exception.

She should be the example ,the the exception.That's kind of the point I'm making, you're pointing out the exception.

Nope... she has admitted her 'addiction' to French fries .
The point is that she has made healthy eating and anti-obesity her signature moral crusade. Add onto this the attempt by various nanny states to outright ban the burgers and fries she regularly and publicly consumes ;it undermines her otherwise good message.
Yesterday's presser was perfect for the Obama's
"let them eat peas .....we'll eat grezzy burgers and fries "

Ah I see. That's really important stuff there. Of course no one wants to outright ban burgers. Do you have a link for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16fastfood.html?_r=1

Forest Green ban burgers and sausages (From Stroud News and Journal) (http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/8847668.Forest_Green_ban_burgers_and_sausages/)

Christine Quinn Weighs the Possibility of a Fast-Food Ban - New York Restaurants and Dining - Fork in the Road (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/2010/03/fast_food_ban_t.php)


Also in North Carolina you can no longer order rare or medium rare burgers.

The first link refers to the city council in East L.A.
The second is a private stadium in England.
The third is the same as the first: putting a max limit on the number of fast food outlets.

a) No one is trying to ban hamburgers.
b) None of it has anything to do with the Obamas.

Do you read the stuff you link to?

Do you have a reading problem ?

Add onto this the attempt by various nanny states to outright ban the burgers and fries she regularily and publically consumes ;it undermines her otherwise good message.

No one is trying to ban burgers. Do you have a reading problem?
A stadium in England is not a state. LOL!

Just stating it over and over does not make it true. It just makes you another conservative talking point repeater.

The point is that whenever they go anywhere in public, they always seem to eat ice cream and junk food. So while she may be eating like a rabbit in the White House ,she sets a bad example in public ,especially with the public position she takes .

They will never admit to her poor example, tom. There's some inexplicable blind spot when it comes to the Obamas with these people, even when it comes to the horrible mixed messages they're sending children.

No blind spot, they talk about it here:
Michelle Obama Shake Shack Burger Indulgence Defended by Nutritionists - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/michelle-obama-shake-shack-burger-indulgence-defended-nutritionists/story?id=14049393)


But Katz of the Yale Prevention Center had advice for those who sought to make an example of the first lady's lunch.

"I invite only those whose diets are housed with no walls of glass to hurl a burger in the first lady's direction on the basis of this one lunch," Katz said.

Katz clearly missed her admitting she "can't stop" eating french fries. That's pretty clear unless in your Orwellian existence "can't stop" means "one lunch."

Is she obese in your eyes?

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know why you're on her case soooo much... She's TYPICAL of most mothers in this country... She struggles between what she KNOWS is the best way to feed her family, and what the food industry is TELLING us is the best way to feed her family...

I know you expect her to be supermom, but she's just a regular person... In fact, being a regular person is BETTER for the nation, rather than her playing a role that nobody believes...

excon

Is she obese in your eyes?

That's irrelevant, one doesn't need to be obese to have dangerous cholesterol levels.

I know you expect her to be supermom, but she's just a regular person... In fact, being a regular person is BETTER for the nation, rather than her playing a role that nobody believes..

I'm 100 percent certain if this were a Bush you'd let them off the hook just as quickly, yes?

Is she obese in your eyes?

She doesn't look like she misses any meals .

I'm 100 percent certain if this were a Bush you'd let them off the hook just as quickly, yes?Hello again, Steve:

My disdain for George DOESN'T extend to his family... I LOVE Laura Bush.

excon

But beyond some minor issues Laura Bush didn't inject her influence into public policy. It is legit to question FLOTUS because she is the lead spokesperson in the public policy.

It is legit to question FLOTUS because she is the lead spokesperson in the public policy.Hello again, tom:

That's fine. Question her policy, but don't jump down her throat because she likes a fry now and then... You guys have penchant to diss people who have lofty positions, but (like ALL of us) struggle to achieve them... I suppose, in your Republican right wing world, you have either PERFECT people or DISGRACED people... Democrats, on the other hand, have just regular people.

excon

I agree with those who mock the family value people who don't live up to their rhetoric for being hypocrites . Why shouldn't I equally do that with environmental advocates who's carbon footprints are massive compared to the people they would presume to limit . Why should I not hold FLOTUS to a standard she wants the rest of the country to live by.
Let them eat peas.....I'll eat chessy fries.

You guys have penchant to diss people who have lofty positions, but (like ALL of us) struggle to achieve them...

Ex, if you only knew how comical that sounds to me. My entire life is based on the premise that I'm imperfect. But, even imperfect beings have the right - the duty - to hold those accountable who fail to live up to the standards they're espousing for others.


Democrats, on the other hand, have just regular people.

Nah, Democrats just have much lower standards, if any.

Nah, Democrats just have much lower standards, if any.How do you figure that?

Hello again,

Can you believe that nanny state?? They want to force you to ONLY buy cribs that are safe (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/with-new-safety-rules-for-cribs-makers-scramble-and-retailers-fume.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25).

Who the hell do they think they are??

excon

Hello again,

Can you believe that nanny state??? They wanna force you to ONLY buy cribs that are safe (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/with-new-safety-rules-for-cribs-makers-scramble-and-retailers-fume.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25).

Who the hell do they think they are???

exconDamn it, the free market can decide! Once a few thousand babies die then the manufacturer may change their product - THIS IS HOW AMERICA WORKS!

This from the guy that wants all drugs ,regardless of safety ,unregulated .

And of course it doesn't matter that consumers for years preferred the drop side cribs . Stupid consumers can't choose for themselves.

Generally new safety standards apply to new manufactured products .But not in this case .
The retailers that stocked the cribs that are now outlawed are screwed . They get to eat their bad investment . An estimated 100,000 cribs are about to be tossed .The CPSC could've given retailers time to move them ;but no ,instead, by the Commission's own estimates ,the retailers are likely to lose $32 million.
And here I thought ex post facto laws were unconstitutional (Article 1, Sec.9).

Families with the old cribs will not be allowed to resell them used ;and ,the new ones will probably cost prohibitive to some poor families . No doubt some enterprising Dem will introduce a bill so the taxpayers can pay for the families that can't pay for them .

Day care providers ? Well they are the exception. They get to keep their cribs for another 2 years before they are compelled to replace them. It will only cost the day care industry $500 million .
But the interesting thing about the extension is ;if the cribs were so unsafe ,then why will they be permitted to use them for another 2 years ? HMMMMMM
And those old unsafe cribs ? Well ,they aren't the subject of a recall . So tell me again how unsafe they are .

Hello again,

Can you believe that nanny state??? They wanna force you to ONLY buy cribs that are safe (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/with-new-safety-rules-for-cribs-makers-scramble-and-retailers-fume.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25).

Who the hell do they think they are???

excon

What bothers me most about the article sited is the language that is used in it.
(quote from page 2)


“Cribs are the one place that are designed so you can leave your baby unattended,” (end quote)

You should never leave a baby unattended at any time. If the baby is asleep and your busy then you are within earshot. If its night time then your still within ear shot. Babies should never be without supervision. If the baby is fussing then its good parenting practice to check on them. Some may read that article and assume they can leave the house and the baby will be fine. They really need to watch what they say.

When raising my children the controversy was about the distance between the slats. I couldn't afford new at the time so I had to buy used. Yes I did check for recommended distance. Parent education and general safety is always a good idea but you can't cover ever possible thing that is going to happen at any given time.

.
But the interesting thing about the extention is ;if the cribs were so unsafe ,then why will they be permitted to use them for another 2 years ? HMMMMMM
And those old unsafe cribs ? Well ,they aren't the subject of a recall . So tell me again how unsafe they are .



Here you go.

Ref:

Drop-side crib problems kill at least 32 children - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37025387/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/t/drop-side-cribs-tied-child-deaths/)

WASHINGTON — At least 32 young children have strangled or suffocated in the past nine years due to defects and other problems of drop-side cribs, the government says in another warning about these types of cribs.

I don't want to dismiss those accidents. But at least double that amt of babies die every year in adult beds. It's amazing any children's products are made . I guess short or handicapped parents are SOL .

What bothers me most about the article sited is the language that is used in it.
(quote from page 2)

“Cribs are the one place that are designed so you can leave your baby unattended,” (end quote)

...Some may read that article and assume they can leave the house and the baby will be fine. They really need to watch what they say.
If anyone reads that to mean they could leave the house with the baby in the crib then I would be very surprised. The sentence is obviously about the crib being a place to put a child for a nap or bedtime while the parent can safely attend to other duties in the house.

If anyone reads that to mean they could leave the house with the baby in the crib then I would be very surprised. The sentence is obviously about the crib being a place to put a child for a nap or bedtime while the parent can safely attend to other duties in the house.

I invte you to read some posts in family law when you get a chance. The ones that speak of neglect. You would be surprised at what some people think could be "normal".

That's sad.

The EU seems to be trying to ban childhood fun.

Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8816601/Children-to-be-banned-from-blowing-up-balloons-under-EU-safety-rules.html)

Children are to be banned from taking part in traditional Christmas games, from blowing up balloons to blowing on party whistles, because of new EU safety rules that have just entered into force.

By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels

11:47PM BST 09 Oct 2011

The EU toy safety directive, agreed and implemented by Government, states that balloons must not be blown up by unsupervised children under the age of eight, in case they accidentally swallow them and choke.

Despite having been popular favourites for generations of children, party games including whistles and magnetic fishing games are to be banned because their small parts or chemicals used in making them are decreed to be too risky.

Apparently harmless toys that children have enjoyed for decades are now regarded by EU regulators as posing an unacceptable safety risk.

Whistle blowers, that scroll out into a long coloured paper tongue when sounded – a party favourite at family Christmas meals – are now classed as unsafe for all children under 14.

The new rules are designed to protect children from the chance that a piece of the whistle could be swallowed and cause choking.

The EU directive will also force manufacturers and retailers to attach safety warnings to toys hitherto regarded as harmless.

Official guidance notes: "For latex balloons there must be a warning that children under eight years must be supervised and broken balloons should be discarded." Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at the University of Kent, warned that toy safety bans were part of a trend to micro-manage children's lives at the expense of allowing them to explore, learn and have fun through play.

"Toys and activities, such as blowing up balloons, are part and parcel of the type of children's play that helps them become independent and self-reliant," he said.

"These bans diminish the experience, both of having fun and learning, by turning play into a danger zone with rules that stifle life and adventure for children." Under the EU legislation, Britain will have to ensure that toys are not sold in shops unless they fully comply with the new safety requirements.

As well as new rules for balloons and party whistles, the EU legislation will impose restrictions on how noisy toys, including rattles or musical instruments, are allowed to be.

All teddie bears meant for children under the age of three will now have to be fully washable because EU regulators are concerned that dirty cuddly toys could spread disease and infection.

Paul Nuttall, a member of the European Parliament's consumer safety committee, said the "kill joy" world of EU officialdom was being ill-equipped to understand the concept of children having fun.

"I would say that this is crackers but I sure children are banned from using them too. EU party poopers should not be telling families how to blow up balloons," said the Ukip MEP.

British toy manufacturers are concerned that the new rules, which include defining colouring books and anything played with by under-14s, could drive up the price of Christmas presents because of the cost of safety tests.

But the European Commission has insisted that the new safety legislation was needed to prevent "horror stories".

"These safety standards have been agreed by the UK together with the other EU member states in order to prevent every parent's worst nightmare," said a spokesman.

Another EU official admitted that the new regulations could be difficult to understand but insisted that safety experts knew best.

"You might say that small children have been blowing up balloons for generations, but not anymore and they will be safer for it," said an official.

I wonder how they feel about piñatas?

The EU seems to be trying to ban childhood fun.

Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8816601/Children-to-be-banned-from-blowing-up-balloons-under-EU-safety-rules.html)


I wonder how they feel about pinatas?


Or amusing (or abusing) themselves...

The EU seems to be trying to ban childhood fun.

Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8816601/Children-to-be-banned-from-blowing-up-balloons-under-EU-safety-rules.html)


I wonder how they feel about pinatas?



Hi Speech,

The reason governments implement these so called, "nanny state bans" is because most people are very good at knowing their rights, but no so good when it comes to knowing their responsibilities.

Some people might believe it is their right to grow vegetables in the front yard of their home and no local authority is going to tell them what to do on their property.

In this particular case they would be lacking a community responsibility. In other words, it is their responsibility to keep the tone of the neighbourhood consistent.

These type of regulations are not in place because governments think people are too stupid and they want to intrude into our affairs. Even intelligent people can be irresponsible.

The same type of argument can apply to toys, lemonade and cake stands. We have many of the nanny state bans you have cited over time running for years in this country. More responsibility, less bans?

Tut

Some people might believe it is their right to grow vegetables in the front yard of their home and no local authority is going to tell them what to do on their property.


They'd be right . Only a moron thinks a well maintained raised bed garden is an eye sore.

They'd be right . Only a moron thinks a well maintained raised bed garden is an eye sore.


Hi Tom


Doesn't really address the issues I have raised.

When it comes to these types of regulations then unfortunately the principle of bivalence applies. Yes, the law is a donkey and so are local regulations.

Tut

Tut, I can appreciate what you say and you're always an interesting read, but I suggest that the nanny state is largely the reason for so much irresponsibilty.

They'd be right . Only a moron thinks a well maintained raised bed garden is an eye sore.

Or a Homeowners association Nazi with a bug up their butt and no real life because unapproved plants or unapproved color flowers were planted on, gasp, the property someone is paying through the nose for the privilege to live on.

Tut, I can appreciate what you say and you're always an interesting read, but I suggest that the nanny state is largely the reason for so much irresponsibilty.


Hi Speech,

Could be. Might be some type of covariation at work. One thing causing another thing to react which in turn creates the need for another cause and so on.

Tut