Re: Re: oreos

[Guest guest]

Mike-

I certainly agree that parents need to take a lot more responsibility than

they are, but I don't think that's enough. How can a parent stop a kid

from getting a package of oreos from a vending machine at school, for

example? That's why I think a ban on selling them to minors makes

sense. It doesn't infringe on the right of adults to pick their poison,

but it protects kids. It's not the perfect strategy, but what is? I don't

know, but this seems like a workable compromise between various

ideals. It's better than having sick kids sue their parents once they

become sick adults, or telling ignorant children to take responsibility for

their health.

-

[Guest guest]

>This is not a question of marketing ethics its about consumers

>(parents) dictating marketing policy. If 99% of americas parents

>weren't buying oreos they wouldn't be marketed at all.

Maybe, but overcoming the marketing and peer

pressure for a young one is difficult. We avoid

wheat, and fortunately my kids are " bonded "

enough to me (thanks to " the Continuum

Concept, mostly) that the believe what I

say. But every single school function revolves

around foods we just can't eat, or ones we limit.

Like the Krispy Kremes fundraiser, or now

the Braided Bread fundraiser. Cookies in class.

Cereal for snacks. Moms & Donuts day.

And to top it off, they have

a BAN on home-cooked food! (too dangerous,

might have food poisoning -- I've been considering

bringing in a quart of bacteria -- kefir).

Add the commercialization (commercials,

free Oreo cookie giveaways!) and the pressure

is really hard, socially.

So yeah, it IS the responsibility of the

parent, but in the current climate it takes

heroic actions on the part of the kid

and parent just to stick to a

known-allergen type of diet, much

less to stick to a healthy one.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Yes, it is difficult to keep kids from doing things they shouldn't, ie.

eating oreos from a vending machine. But just like every other life lesson a

parent teaches (sex, smoking, lying, drugs), children will occasionally

disobey and experiment on their own. So, maybe raising them with a clear

explanation of why they are not allowed to eat junk food and the dangers of

eating chemicals, and hydrogenated oils, etc. would be sufficient enough to

instill the fear of these things. Remember, also, that eating an orea now and

again is not going to kill you, figuratively or literally speaking. I tried

smoking cigarettes and marajuana when I was a teenager, and found I didn't

care for the results. Maybe a teenager who is raised on healthy foods will

eat an Oreo and decide they don't like how they feel afterward. Bottom line,

let us raise children with love, knowledge, guidance, and respect and then

let them show us what a good job we've done.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

> Your " heroic " efforts don't excuse

>everyone else. They just demonstrate the quality of you as a parent

>and human being. I suggest we expect the same " heroic " effort from

>every parent.

Well, thanks, but part of being a parent is ALSO influencing your kid's

environment. I'm doing my bit to " educate " the school system too.

It is a good school, with a great principle, and I suggested to my

daughter's teacher that we serve some at least slightly authentic

Indian food when they are learning about Indians, etc. But

my influence is limited: the teachers have to do what

they are told (such as, no homemade food, and

they have to teach the food pyramid regardless of

their personal beliefs).

I don't like the situation, but most parents are

doing their best just to get their kids off to school --

a lot of parents are working two jobs just to make

ends meet. They are walking zombies, and are being

heroic just to dress and feed their kids -- and they

are nice, trusting folk, who believe the government

that the food pyramid is good. They also believe

what the school teaches, and that what the school

distributes are good things. They are very patriotic,

and part of patriotic means supporting your

local school. If the school is having an oreo-stacking

contest, well, that means oreos must be good.

Meanwhile the big corporations have tons of

money to push their stuff, and the schools

will take it to make money, because they are

severely underfunded. Our school is doing constant

fundraisers and getting what corporate sponsors

it can, because the folks in government have decided

that government shouldn't be in " the school business "

and our local community is poor and can't afford a

lot of levies.

So ... it DOES leave it up to a few rabble-rousers

and people willing to do a lawsuit to wake

people up. There are *huge* forces pushing

cardboard food -- someone has to push back,

at a higher level where the decisions get made.

Otherwise we are likely to have the food corporations

running our schools, writing the textbooks -- well,

they already to, to an extent, but it's likely to become

a lot more direct.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

And can you blame parents for listening to doctor's and dentists? My mom

raised me a single mother and didn't have time to read every book and article

on, say, fluoride, and so she listened to the dentist about what she thought

was best for me, and that ended up being daily fluoride supplements. Thanks

to that I got horrible fluorosis and grew up being called " shit-teeth "

through elementary school. Then my aunt payed *hundreds* of dollars to *kind

of* fix it. Boy I would have loved it if fluoride were banned!

Chris

In a message dated 5/16/03 12:16:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> .

>

> With all due respect, so what? So there are some (a few) kids who are

> smart or disciplined enough to avoid oreos. You seem to be suggesting that

>

> we abandon all the rest of them to their fates, and that it's somehow the

> kids' responsibility to educate themselves on nutrition even before they

> start solid food, since we obviously can't rely on all parents to do the

> right thing -- and to know to do the right thing.

>

> Yes, we should absolutely expect more from parents, but we live in the real

>

> world in which we just can't expect to get more from all parents and in

> which even parents who try in good faith to do the right thing get misled,

> and given that, shouldn't we try to protect those hapless kids? I

> understand this could form a slippery slope if the principle is generalized

>

> too broadly, but that doesn't mean we should let all these kids be brought

> up on a diet of oreos and white flour and soda and soy. For one thing,

> most kids brought up that way will grow up completely incapable of

> educating themselves on nutrition because they'll be too brain-damaged and

> hormonally imbalanced to do anything.

>

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>>>>> But my influence is limited: the teachers have to do what they are

told (such as, no homemade food, and they have to teach the food pyramid

regardless of their personal beliefs).

--->no homemade food????? Huh? Is this a public school? i've never heard of

such a bizarre rule. by default then, the kids are only allowed to eat

processed or institutional " food. " (to become future fodder for the

pharmaceutical conglomerates)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

,

Just to play devil's advocate, what if a lawsuit had the opposite effect.

Many people blow off an important debate or problem when it involves

litigation simply because they are tired of hearing about lawsuits and

lawyers profiting from the ills of society. Maybe the serious concern about

hydrogenated oils will be tossed in the who cares bin with other litigation

skeletons because it will be seen by many as frivolous? Maybe trying to

protect people from themselves is one of the very reasons society is in the

state it's in? You got the information, I got the information, thousands of

others got the information. What is to stop your neighbor from finding the

information on their own? Healing the body by dealing with the symptoms is

ineffective, one must deal with the health problem at it's core. The symptom

is a world full of things that are not good for us, the problem is that

people won't take responsibilty for learning.

When enough people decide that having one parent stay home with the children

is a viable option for working to pay for daycare, when enough people opt to

homeschool, when enough people opt out of the establishment, change will

come.... we don't have to sit and wait for bureaucrats to tell us what we

should do, think, and eat.

Give me some of your opposing views, as I am always ready to see things from

a different perspective.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>I see children all the time smart enough or

>possibly respectful or scared enough of their parents to know

>better.

With all due respect, so what? So there are some (a few) kids who are

smart or disciplined enough to avoid oreos. You seem to be suggesting that

we abandon all the rest of them to their fates, and that it's somehow the

kids' responsibility to educate themselves on nutrition even before they

start solid food, since we obviously can't rely on all parents to do the

right thing -- and to know to do the right thing.

Yes, we should absolutely expect more from parents, but we live in the real

world in which we just can't expect to get more from all parents and in

which even parents who try in good faith to do the right thing get misled,

and given that, shouldn't we try to protect those hapless kids? I

understand this could form a slippery slope if the principle is generalized

too broadly, but that doesn't mean we should let all these kids be brought

up on a diet of oreos and white flour and soda and soy. For one thing,

most kids brought up that way will grow up completely incapable of

educating themselves on nutrition because they'll be too brain-damaged and

hormonally imbalanced to do anything.

-

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

.. For one thing,

> most kids brought up that way will grow up completely incapable of

> educating themselves on nutrition because they'll be too brain-damaged and

> hormonally imbalanced to do anything.

-

My guess is it is the intentions of the FDA?? After all that would most

benefit the govt. eh?

Take Care,

Adrienne

Georgia Naturals Farm

[Guest guest]

Adrienne-

I'm not sure I follow you. You think the FDA wants children to grow up

addled, brain-damaged and hormonally imbalanced?

>My guess is it is the intentions of the FDA?? After all that would most

>benefit the govt. eh?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

This is a perfect example. Parents should do more, sure, but it's just

unreasonable and unfair to expect all of them to pick their way through all

the conflicting information and Official Pronouncements out there, and kids

are the innocent victims of the whole mess.

>Thanks

>to that I got horrible fluorosis and grew up being called " shit-teeth "

>through elementary school. Then my aunt payed *hundreds* of dollars to *kind

>of* fix it. Boy I would have loved it if fluoride were banned!

-

[Guest guest]

Theresa-

I'm not sure we have enough common ground to have a meaningful conversation

about this, but I'll try.

Would you say people should be allowed to sell kids guns? Hard

drugs? Vodka? Should children of any age and maturity be allowed to

drive? If not, why are hydrogenated vegetable oils, which unlike guns,

alcohol and maybe even (some) drugs are purely harmful with zero redeeming

features and absolutely no possible positive uses, any different?

>Give me some of your opposing views, as I am always ready to see things from

>a different perspective.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>>>>Yes, we should absolutely expect more from parents, but we live in

the real

world in which we just can't expect to get more from all parents and in

which even parents who try in good faith to do the right thing get misled,

and given that, shouldn't we try to protect those hapless kids?

---->YES! i have quite a bit of experience dealing with poor families, in

which the parents are spending every iota of energy just trying to feed and

clothe their family, much less trying to muck through the reams of

nutritional mis-information that their doctor/advertisers/schools/community

groups are saturating them with. and many of these parents were not raised

to " question authority " so they trust the experts, at least on health

issues. are we to abandon their children's well-being, because the parents

a) aren't even aware that most of the health/nutrition info they are getting

is misleading or outright wrong and/or having difficulty surmounting the

inordinate number of obstacles placed before them?

imo, WE, as people who have *access to* accurate info on nutrition, have the

privilege of Internet networking with others, etc, etc...have the

responsibility to educate our communities. that is exactly the point of

local WAPF chapters. after all, what is the point of having knowledge

without putting it to use to serve our communities?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

We have similar rules at our local schools, too. In our case, the rule stems

from potential problems associated with the many children with food allergies.

Kids can bring in bagged lunch for themselves, but cannot bring in food to share

for special events, such as a birthday, Valentine's Day, etc. Sharing at

lunchtime is strictly forbidden. Parents are asked not to send their kids to

school with any peanut-containing foods. The school was considering a

peanut-ban, but ultimately decided against it. Unfortunately, last year there

was a child in the middle school with developmental disabilities and severe food

allergies who got a hold of food he should not have had (I think in home econ.

class...), and died as a result. Absolutely horrific.

Vivian

--->no homemade food????? Huh? Is this a public school? i've never heard of

such a bizarre rule. by default then, the kids are only allowed to eat

processed or institutional " food. " (to become future fodder for the

pharmaceutical conglomerates)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>--->no homemade food????? Huh? Is this a public school? i've never heard of

>such a bizarre rule. by default then, the kids are only allowed to eat

>processed or institutional " food. " (to become future fodder for the

>pharmaceutical conglomerates)

Yeah Suze -- it really floored me. Worse, they say it is a STATE LAW.

So who passed that one? The cookie factories? They say it is to protect

against food poisoning, to which I answered, who EVER got food poisoning

from a cookie?

The context was, I wanted my kids to be able to bring snacks for their

birthday, homemade cupcakes, that THEY could eat. Allergies are

even more problematic than trying to be " healthy " -- wheat really

does cause them problems (one reason they don't mind not eating

the snacks -- my daughter gets canker sores reliably, and she does

not like those!). So, they can bring a homemade cupcake for themselves,

but not for anyone else.

And yeah, every ^ & (* & ^ event is geared around food, wheat food at

that. Even crafts -- the favorite is decorating cookies. Which means

I have to have a constant supply of baked goods for a replacement,

on short notice, so they can " fit in. " Which I can do, because I

don't have a " real job, " their father is very involved, and I have

outside help. But I'm very fortunate in my situation, most people

don't have that much time.

For what it's worth though, I don't want to see foods " banned " at

all. I think food in school should be a little like religion in school.

Our founding fathers claimed separation of church and state (and

I know this is a sensitive subject!) -- they did this NOT because

they were anti-religion, but because Europe had just undergone

centuries of bloodshed because no one can AGREE on religion.

Puritans and Quakers and Shakers and Anglicans and Catholics

really, really disagreed with each other. And worse, religion was

being used as a tool to keep people in line.

I think the current situation with food has strong similarities.

1. Everyone thinks " their " way of eating is best.

2. The government uses food as a tool (to make money for companies, mostly).

3. Food is very, very personal.

4. Food is considered of life/death importance.

What I would like to see is the schools push NO food. Offer a

variety in the cafeteria, but don't push any " brands " . If there

is a get-together, make it potluck (let the parents decide --

sure, a lot of it will be junk, but it will be their junk). Tolerate

all food choices (even vegans! ;-) Teach the spectrum of what

is known about food, and teach the kids (older ones anyway)

how to research it and why there is controversy.

The contention in the Oreo debate is that the school is PUSHING

a branded food that is known to be bad, and it sounds like

they are banning " school sponsorship " of brands known to

be bad. Which isn't a bad start -- get the " brands " out! Let

the kids at least make choice based on what the food looks

and tastes like, not the jingle " Coke is it " or " Oreos are fun " .

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I was in Whole Foods Petaluma last night and there was a woman waiting

for her order at the deli when her child ran up to her and asked loudly

to buy a cookie. Her mom said no, you can't have a cookie. The 5 year

old girl then ran 10 feet, ran back and asked again. Mom said no. This

banter went on like this for about 3 minutes! Mom was adamant and so

was the girl. But Mom didn't give in. You can imagine what's going to

happen when the girl is out of sight at school with the other kids -

that's prob. the source of her love affair/addiction....

I think the point here is that sugar is addictive and devastating; trans

fats are deadly; colorings, flavorings, and excitotoxins are toxic -- so

candies and junk foods should not be allowed for sale period. However

the trojan horse of sugar slipped into our society long ago - so long

ago that we don't have any cultural memory of what our health was like

before sugar. ( " Sugar Blues " is a great chronicle.) The regulatory

agencies are bought off to the point that stevia still can't be sold as

a sweetener....

In the ideal world these things would not be allowed in our stores in

the first place. Since that's not going to happen given the corruption

of the agencies set up to protect us it is obviously up to everyone

involved to stand up to consensual reality (everyone's doing it, have a

Coke and a smile) and make good choices. It is be unfair to put all the

responsibility on the average citizen who may look to government or mass

media for information and guidance (naive as that may be!). Most people

have a vague sense that these foods are " junk " foods and therefore not

health foods, but they wouldn't believe that Nabisco would or could

-poison- them. I mean come on, there are government agencies that

wouldn't let that happen, right? The shocking reality of our individual

and collective peril hasn't dawned on most people yet.

It's going to take serious actions by lots of people locally and

nationally to shatter the legitimacy of these " foods " by pointing out

that they are killing us and driving our kids into severe druggings at

school. Again and again the source of power for the status quo -

politics, economy, and our food system: is the " matrix " of government,

media, corporate advertising (repetition/hypnosis), and even academia

which combine to give legitimacy to things that are so ridiculous and

otherwise transparently false, that anyone with even half a brain would

see it for themselves if it were questioned or challenged in the

mass-consciousness matrix. Detournment is a term for shattering the

spectacle of the matrix and even briefly interrupting consensual

reality, allowing for new possibilities in thought and belief. The Oreo

lawsuit may have been one of these moments, but then again, it may be

quickly forgotten. That's probably up to us. The furor around GMOs

that effectively turned back the biotech march here and in Europe

occurred only with lots of organized activism and education. We at the

WAPF need to start a movement with the same kind of intensity. Heck,

GMOs haven't even been shown to cause health problems, or at least not

on the order of what trans fats and sugar do to us! Maybe we need a

moniker like " enfood. "

Anyway that's enough for now - moral: we are all responsible, and we are

all in this together!

Cheers,

Re: oreos

I think the point here paul is not so much the legal/illegal issue.

But more importantly the " why " issue. Why are things this way? Why

is there even need for a lawsuit? Not so much should there be one?

My point is that without the whole hearted support and passion of

the sheeple parents this is a non issue, nabisco is either out of

business or they sell real pemmican, jerky and macaroons.

Their marketing may " demonstrate " their product but its not tv,

radio, magazine hypnosis. Its unaccountable sheeple pledging their

allegance. Sorry but that is the responsibility of the sheeple

him/herself.

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Theresa-

>

> I'm not sure we have enough common ground to have a meaningful

conversation

> about this, but I'll try.

>

> Would you say people should be allowed to sell kids guns? Hard

> drugs? Vodka? Should children of any age and maturity be allowed

to

> drive? If not, why are hydrogenated vegetable oils, which unlike

guns,

> alcohol and maybe even (some) drugs are purely harmful with zero

redeeming

> features and absolutely no possible positive uses, any different?

>

> >Give me some of your opposing views, as I am always ready to see

things from

> >a different perspective.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

,

If common ground means we see things alike, I suppose not. But if common

ground means we are both intelligent people with opinions on important

matters that also have open minds, then I'm in.

I am coming from the perspective of seeing nothing as inherently bad, but

there are certainly bad decisions. Fire is not inherently bad, but is

certainly dangerous. When you tell your child not to play with fire, there is

no logic to banning fire in order to insure a desired result. But careful

instruction, warnings, and guidance will go as far as one can go to prevent

an injury. And who knows, maybe that child will still try to experiment and

hurt themselves. The most powerful lessons in life come from attempts gone

awry. Would you not at least agree that part of learning is trying something

and seeing the results?

I think the reason people cannot learn from their own actions is precisely

because as a society we have decided that people cannot figure things out

for themselves and thus we have bred an entire population of people who

expect others to think for them. I mean really, a person who is 200 pounds

overweight, has diabetes, has no energy, and is having a hard time with many

facets of life cannot see that a problem exists..........even if there isn't

someone there to tell them? It does not take much imagination to see that

health is related to nutrition. One can pick up almost any book on nutrition

and find information about the dangers of hydrogenated oils. One will have to

continue the search to find information about fermenting foods and

eliminating grains, but anyone has access to information about whole,

organic, unprocessed foods that should be prepared at home. This makes for a

great foundation.

I do not wish to force your participation in a philosophical debate, so

respond or not as you desire.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

,

It is never possible to make someone have a conscience. Corporations are

simply made up of individuals who may have a collective conscience or not,

but to expect a corporation to act responsibly if the human beings who make

up that corporation are not responsible is impossible. We can hit them with a

lawsuit or stop buying their products, but it is only affecting their

wallets, not their consciences. You can sue and it will potentially put them

out of business, or you can refuse to buy their goods and potentially put

them out of business, but neither will produce a world with a higher level of

responsibilty or concern for health. That can only be achieved by each

individual.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

,

I loved your explanation of how to teach a small child about food. It put a

huge smile on my face to envision a little girl in the grocery store looking

at the ingredients label. What a testiment to the learning process!!!!!!

Theresa

[Guest guest]

So how does the market prevent companies from lying about their products?

The tobacco companies in the 60's swore that their products were perfectly

safe and trotted out numerous studies to prove it.

At 08:21 AM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>,

>

>I am not suggesting that a company not be held to a certain standard

>and be held accountable for their deplorable actions. I'm not

>suggesting that at all.

>

>However their responsibility is exclusive of ours. The truth is

>they ARE in fact " helpless " when subject to a marketplace that

>doesn't want their product. Look at tobacco right now. You have

>warning labels that say YOU WILL DIE if you smoke these and legal

>restrictions on their acquisition and the marketplace STILL demands

>them. As long as the market wants them the company lives. If the

>market doesn't want them the company dies. It is that simple. All

>marketing can do is say buy this stuff you'll like it, need it, want

>it, etc...

>

>At the end of the day the final responsibility lies with the

>individual, you either feed the monster or you kill it. And the

>bottom line is that sheeple parents today unwittingly or not feed

>the monster daily. What would nabisco do if sheeple parents

>actually had a single critical thought (not likely) and stopped

>buying all Nabisco oreos and the like. Nabisco is

>absolutely " helpless " , no marketing, apology, lies, hype, etc...

>would save them. They die on the vine. The market demand does in

>fact drive these companies. Sure they say and do irresponsible

>things and help manufacture demand that they should absolutely be

>held accountable for but to blame them for every individuals CHOICE

>to blindly poison themselves and their children is nothing short of

>irrational and cowardly.

>

>DMM

>

>

> > Mike,

> >

> > > To suggest that this is nabisco's fault is absurd and

>ridiculous.

> > > Again the market drives these things. No is a fun word to use.

>And

> > > is easy to use against marketers. If nobody wanted oreos, no

>oreos

> > > would be sold.

> > >

> > > Do I think Nabisco sucks and that they are a morally depraved

> > > company knowingly selling harmful " food " ? Yes. Do I think they

> > are

> > > responsible for people buying their horrific products?

>Absolutely

> > > NOT!

> >

> > I take a different approach that I seem never to hear anywhere.

> > Without taking away from the parents'/individual's responsibility,

>I

> > think it's wrong to say it is only their responsibility. " What

>the

> > market demands " is an easy excuse for corporations, implying that

> > *they* are poor, hapless victimes to the market.

> >

> > I believe that, just like in marriage, both sides bear 100% of the

> > responsibility and both sides should take their responsibility as

> > such. Corporations *can* refuse to sell dangerous products --

> > particularly food products. If people aren't buying their

>products,

> > they can put the money into educating, or marketing, why their

> > product is preferred. They certainly seem to have enough money to

> > convince us we should want/need their crappy products.

> >

> > Corporations aren't responsible for people buying their horrific

> > products, but they *are* responsible for producing them.

> >

> > We won't get a mass movement of individual responsibility until it

>is

> > taken to the higher level of responsibility *across the board.*

>What

> > good is it to teach the individual must be responsible, but the

> > corporation is a victim to the market? Our society needs an

> > atmosphere/expectation of responsibility and that isn't created by

> > saying responsibility is only for some, ie, the individuals.

> >

> > (This same issue applied to television drives me insane! One side

> > says it's the parents' responsibility. The other side says it's

>the

> > television producers' responsibility. When will the day come when

> > *both* sides say " It's my responsibility " and mean it? I know

>that's

> > way off-topic, but I get infuriated by the finger pointing on both

> > sides.)

> >

> > As an aside, my health is poor (CFS) and I just got back from a

> > vacation, so if you respond to this and then I don't respond for a

> > while, it's nothing personal! I've got a few more posts I want to

> > respond to later in the day (have to get off the computer now) and

> > then I don't know if I'll be on the computer this weekend.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>Sponsor<http://rd./M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705\

060950:HM/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556 & linei\

d=3179269 & prop=egroupweb & pos=HM>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Wouldn't have been more effective for the mom in your story to have explained

why the little girl shouldn't have the cookie, or to offer a healthy

substitute like a macaroon, etc. That is what I am trying to communicate

here. If we raise a bunch of people who don't ask WHY? or question authority

then you end up with what Dr. Marasco calls sheeple.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

>As I said in my previous post the fact that you do not fall into the

>above description does not make you the exception. You should be

>the rule.

Well, I agree on that one. But in this neck of the woods, I'm not sure

it is possible. I have seen some couples try it, and wind up broke.

The issues come up with 1. The cost of housing and 2. The cost

of health care. Yeah, you can say " we won't need health care " and

maybe your kids won't -- but one broken bone can wipe out

your bank account, and don't even talk about traffic accidents.

Most people can't afford health insurance as it is, and it's

hard to get unless you work for a corporation. In a previous

relationship, my SO got into a little scrape on his bicycle that

cost $70,000. You have to flip a lot of burgers to come up with

that kind money -- but he had a brain hemmorage. Should I have

let him die?

I have serious problems with the way the economy is set up

in this country. I used to believe it was

just a matter of discipline, but real life intervened.

> The like to be herded, they

>ask to be herded and herded they shall be. Making excuses for them

>just encourages them to continue their lack of responsiblity and

>accountability.

I dislike sheeple-ness as much as you do. Actually the hassock I use when

I work is a sheep -- I brought it to Boeing to protest the sheep that

worked there!

But the lawsuit is mainly about advertising, as I see it -- the Oreo company

is using the schools to advertise it's product, by doing contests

etc. on campus. A similar issue came up in the college I went to: Coke

had machines all over, and the contract stated that no other brands

could be sold on campus. The school made lots of money off the

contract.

So -- how about you argue from the other side:

what gives the companies

the right to advertise their products on school campuses?

Do we as parents want our children to be bombarded with

advertising at school? WHY should it be MY responsibility

to protect my child from school advertising? Is the only

answer home-schooling?

(BTW the reason we don't home-school is because

my very social kids love being around large groups

of kids! They really are thriving there. I kept them

out for a long time for lots of reasons, but in the

end, they love school, and public school at that).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

We cannot prevent corporations from lying or anyone else for that matter. But

when the first hundred people died from lung disease after smoking all their

lives, we could have, as individuals, taken that as our first hint to quit

smoking.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

Christie,

How I came up with the idea to include the statement that " maybe a child will

eat a package of Oreos and decide they don't like how it makes them feel " is

from personal experience. When my son persistently asks for a sugary snack,

sometimes I go ahead and let him have it. On more than one occasion he says

that his stomach hurts afterward. So I then explain that he ate too much

sugar and his body is trying to tell him that it's not good for him. I then

say, " next time don't eat the whole thing and see how you feel " . He is

always making a point of telling me that when he has a treat, that he didn't

eat too much and that he only had a little bit. Sounds like he is learning to

me.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

I love the story. My son is 12 months old and has never had cheerios or

cookies. I did let him have a small piece of cake on his birthday but he

just smeared it everywhere. It always surprises my when I am out with him

how many people want to give him cookies! They are usually surprised when I

decline and say that I don't give him cookies. Of course I don't follow up

with " and he has never had a cold " as much as I would like to.

I love the description of soda pop " biting " the mouth. I will use that when

he is older.

Irene

At 08:53 AM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>My two cents' worth:

>

>I have a daughter who will be 7 next month.

>

>When we switched to whole milk about 16 months ago, I told her the

>reason. Of course, I presented the idea in small bites and I had to

>put it in terms a 5 year old could understand.

>

>She apparently talks with her classmates about whether or not they

>use whole milk, because she is able to tell me which children do.

>LOL!

>

>She does *not* drink soda pop, because I don't drink it anymore and I

>have never let her have it. When she was smaller, I simply told her

>it would " bite " her mouth. Since then, I have talked about how

>children who drink soda pop a lot tend to have cavities. She has

>reported to me at various times which children she knew had

>cavities. We're talking about 4 year olds and 5 year olds, in this

>case. It surprised me to learn that her K-4 and K-5 classmates had

>fillings!

>

>Besides that, many times when we're grocery shopping, she will read

>the fine print on the labels closely and look for " soy " , loudly

>pronouncing afterwards whether or not she found it. :-)

>

>My point is this: Apparently, even a small child can be taught that

>certain foods are OK to eat freely, while others might be eaten only

>once in a while, while still others are better left alone entirely.

>

>On the other hand, I don't want her to display the attitude that

>says, " You guys are all dumb because you drink skim milk, and I'm

>better than you! " I'd rather see her display an understanding that

>lots of people haven't learned the things we've learned, and they do

>think they are right. Over time, she has been able to see that our

>not having cavities or colds or coughs and our higher level of energy

>and strength must mean we're doing *something* right.

>

>Besides all that, whenever we're out and we're faced with choices

>that are all second- or third-rate choices, I opt for the choice that

>offers animal fat and minimal refined grain/sugar. LOL!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Sponsor<http://rd./M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705\

060950:HM/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556 & linei\

d=3179269 & prop=egroupweb & pos=HM>

>

>

>