Thirsty Boston?

[IBCoupe]

I looked up PKU and I still don't know what it means

[IBCoupe]

Adam,

Re: Blacks & Women
That'd be an injustice. And I'd be right next to you. But that's because there's a fundamental right to vote, in a democracy. Or a democratic republic. Or whatever it is we pretend to have.

But I really don't give a s*** if the City of Boston decides they're going to change the menus in their government-owned cafeterias. That's not an injustice. You don't have to eat there.

[AppleBonker]

Isaac, I agree that this is a very VERY minor deal. But I will always oppose the government when they try to enact measures to control things that they shouldn't be controlling (in this case, the health of citizens). Really, it's not the act that bothers me. It's the reasoning behind it. If this were a cost save opportunity, I wouldn't care. But because it is their way of trying to force people to be more healthy I have to oppose it.

He's genetically defective dude, be sensitive ...

/sarcasm

Even though it was sarcasm, it still saddens me that people make this argument. Everyone needs to own up to their own choices. Asking for help is fine, but expecting it because of a pre-existing "condition" is another thing altogether.

[IBCoupe]

I have to point out that the superfluous services provided in government building are a matter that the government should control. Here's the thing: they're not regulating the health of people. They're removing government contributions to a bad diet. You're looking to force them to continue offering a service they have no reason for, simply because you don't want the government implying the suggesting that soda could be bad for you? Ahem, Adam, Michelle Obama and the FDA would like a word with you.

That's why I've been so incredulous of your opposition - it misses the mark entirely.

[AppleBonker]

Kind of. I don't want the government determining measures based on what they think is or isn't good for me (regardless of what or where).

They're removing government contributions to a bad diet

And that is my issue. How are we determining what makes up a bad diet?

Also, Michelle can suck it if she thinks I'm going to take health advice from her. If she wants to try to teach people how to be healthier, that's fine. I, however, am working on figuring that out myself so I don't need her help. The FDA, on the other hand, does regulate and monitor things that I don't have the ability to oversee.

[IBCoupe]

So are you opposed to where they drew the line or that they drew the line? I haven't read through the whole of the press release, but how much do you want to bet that this rule finds some basis in a scientific study? An FDA ruling?

[stebo0728]

They're removing government contributions to a bad diet.

No they are removing the vending machine company's contributions to a bad diet. They allow the vending machine company to conduct business on their premises. If your argument is that they should have the ability to place limits on the business conducted on their premises, then perhaps we are getting closer to the heart of the argument.

[AppleBonker]

So are you opposed to where they drew the line or that they drew the line?

That they drew a line. My health is my concern (again with the exception of monitoring so that companies aren't putting garbage in my food/drink).

how much do you want to bet that this rule finds some basis in a scientific study? An FDA ruling?

I'm sure it does. But read that study and I'm sure it'll highlight excessive consumption. Which would be true for anything. I could die from drinking too much water, but they aren't considering that a health risk? Why don't they have an opinion on what is too much water when they clearly have an opinion on what is too much soft drink?

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, the vending machine company is free to sell it's wares elsewhere. That's a weak argument, dude. And I've been at the heart of the argument the whole time; glad you could join me.

Adam,
Re: Your Health
And you're still free to screw up your body in whichever way you please. The City of Boston isn't getting in your way on that one.

Re: Water
If they removed all water faucets, I'd be first in line to call for an OSHA inspection. But my point is that you're okay with the FDA issuing guidelines, but not okay with municipalities taking small steps pursuant to them.

[AppleBonker]

If they removed all water faucets, I'd be first in line to call for an OSHA inspection. But my point is that you're okay with the FDA issuing guidelines, but not okay with municipalities taking small steps pursuant to them.

Yup. I can choose to disregard guidelines. I don't need the government trying to help me or influence me in some way in addition to those guidelines.

[IBCoupe]

That's fine, but it's unreasonable to think that government should be prohibited from following those guidelines for its own purposes - not even as policy implementations that ACTUALLY regulate your life.

[srellim234]

In this case, AB, the government isn't removing a choice for you. The government is acting exactly as a business does, which is something conservatives have been screaming for them to do.

A company signs a contract with a vending machine company to provide products in the cafeteria. The CEO dictates what goes in them. If the CEO wants sandwiches and the vending machines contain donuts, the vending machine company better change the product selection or find another place to do business, opening an opportunity for another company to take over the vending business.

The actual reason why the CEO wants to change the product mix is meaningless. It's his call as the boss to do it for any reason he wants. No substantial difference whether it's sugar, carbonation, or the CEO of Pepsi he doesn't like. The "exiled" products are still readily available elsewhere.

In this case, it's not the government dictating to everyone. It's the mayor, the CEO of the business, changing the product selection his locations will sell. If enough people don't like it the shareholders in the business can replace him the next time they vote. The new CEO can put the sodas back in then if that's what he wants to do.

[AppleBonker]

That's fine, but it's unreasonable to think that government should be prohibited from following those guidelines for its own purposes - not even as policy implementations that ACTUALLY regulate your life.

I'm not asking to prohibit anything. Just claiming there is no reason to get involved here. The reasoning behind the decision is, IMO, flawed. Beyond that, what purpose does this serve? Couldn't this time be better spent elsewhere?

The government is acting exactly as a business does. [..] The actual reason why the CEO wants to change the product mix is meaningless. It's his call as the boss to do it for any reason he wants

Isn't this the problem with government?

[IBCoupe]

That's fine, but it's unreasonable to think that government should be prohibited from following those guidelines for its own purposes - not even as policy implementations that ACTUALLY regulate your life.

I'm not asking to prohibit anything. Just claiming there is no reason to get involved here. The reasoning behind the decision is, IMO, flawed. Beyond that, what purpose does this serve? Couldn't this time be better spent elsewhere?

The government is acting exactly as a business does. [..] The actual reason why the CEO wants to change the product mix is meaningless. It's his call as the boss to do it for any reason he wants

Isn't this the problem with government?

I think we've spent more time arguing about it than the City of Boston will spend implementing it.

[AppleBonker]

lmao. I was wondering how this almost got to two full pages...

[stebo0728]

lmao. I was wondering how this almost got to two full pages...

Because we've beat the budget and tax issues all to hell, so we're tired of talking about that, anything else seems welcoming i imagine

[IBCoupe]

Next topic...

Donald Trump: Toupee-Wearing Birther, or Toupee-Wearing Troll?

[szh]

Donald Trump: Toupee-Wearing Birther, or Toupee-Wearing Troll?

Both!

Z

[stebo0728]

How bout this from Chicargo, GOVERNMENT LUNCH ONLY, BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME CSAR

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/educ ... 7867.story

Again, nice touchie feelie ideas of "nutrition" but still, no necessary IMO

If an individual child is not given lunch money, or sent with a decent lunch, on a repetitive basis, then individual steps should be taken to address THAT issue with THAT child, not setting more goofy policy. I see a market for "doctors excuses" rising in this community.

[IBCoupe]

FTA:

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.

"While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom."

Don't like it? Get involved in your kid's education and go talk to the principal.

[stebo0728]

I agree, and I imagine this will be fought a great deal, but as alot of public school parents are oblivious, opposition might not matter much. Perhaps if parents didnt give the government quiet sanctions to act this way, then perhaps this wouldnt be an issue.

[AppleBonker]

I saw that article the other day and laughed at it. My first thought was we need to give this guy a parent of the year award:

But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

Isaac, what about the parents that already WERE involved and now have to live with this "ban"? As I've stated before, I hate Chicago politics.

[IBCoupe]

Maybe Chicago politics are that different from the rest of the country, but this is a school by school determination, made at the local level. Let it be dukes out at the local level. If it becomes known that this was top-down (odd to be such an isolated incident in that case) then I'll care.

But I'm not gonna get into another neighborhood's business about it.

[AZhitman]

I looked up PKU and I still don't know what it means

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002150/

[bigbadberry3]

Chicago politics Barock!

[IBCoupe]

I looked up PKU and I still don't know what it means

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002150/

Yeah, that's pretty much what Wikipedia said. I'm no less confused.

Is there some need for people with PKU to have a constant supply of sugary, carbonated soft drinks?

[AZhitman]

<sigh>

Where's our rock-chucking, sandal-wearing doctor?

People with PKU are sensitive to an ingredient in diet drinks, IIRC.

[IBCoupe]

Ahhh. How about water. Are they sensitive to that? Orange juice? Soy drink? I stand by my initial response to that comment: they can choose from the wide variety of other drinks that will still be sold in government buildings, if they absolutely must buy a soft drink there. Or they could go ahead and bring their own soda, if they're desperate.

This is a silly conjured controversy.

[stebo0728]

Its only silly on conjured based on the medium of the argument. If the concept at play stays on the mundane level we're discussing here, we'll be ok. When we get used to it on this level and it moves to more sensitive areas of our lives, we'll talk about how silly and conjured it is then.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, the fact that this only applies to government buildings makes this a silly/conjured outrage. That's what I've been saying this whole time.

In the event that the government does something actually dastardly, then it might not be so silly. But that doesn't make you guys any less nuts for being pissed now. If the government does something dastardly, you will both be right then and still wrong now, because the terrible things you're afraid of could be done without this step. You can't have a slippery slope without an actual creation of precedence.