A reflection from me today on something I am noticing happening in many areas of the world. What's the next big world issue? I think one may be immigration, both the legal and illegal kind. It already is a major topic here, though our political leaders refuse to call for an end to illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America due to the political backlash that would result in some being defeated in their re election campaigns.
But now it has become a focus in Europe. The recent defeat in France and Holland of the EU constitution happened because of economic fears and because of the fears by citizens of both countries that they would be over run by with more immigrants from Muslim countries and Eastern Europe. They see the mess in the U.S from the policy of closing one's eyes as criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, unskilled, illiterate types rush into a country that has no limits on immigration.
If Europe passes the EU constitution, all immigration limits are off. They will be inundated by , not the desirable immigrant, but more with the type that drains a country and adds to social, economic and political problems. Apart from Europe and the U.S., every industrial country seems to be troubled by the ease at which less desirable immigrants move about. Even developing countries like China (with perhaps a million illegal North Korean immigrants) are getting more of the immigrants they don't want, and fewer of the kind that will benefit the society.
I think there will have to be some international cooperation on immigration, some rule of law to regulate it. If not, there will be problems created in the societies that received the excess, problems unfathomable today, but nightmares tomorrow
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Death of News
I want to write something today about the death of fair reporting in American news mediums. I know you aren't American, but U.S. cable news programs like CNN and NBC are shown everywhere today.
This dumbing down of the media in the U.S. effects everyone (the election of Bush is a prime example of how a dumbed down media makes incompetence president), even you. My premise is that the news media has become "infotainment" and is no longer news.
What is featured and dominates in electronic news broadcasts and is the written mediums is pabulum, as in the recent media obsession of the runaway bride, or of the Michael Jackson trial etc. Real news that is important to hear is being muzzled, largely through the efforts of the Republican Party and George Bush.
In their view, to open themselves to impartial reporting would be disaster, for it would expose the lies on which their plurality rests. So the Bush administration tries to silence the media by controlling it.
Reporters have become White House stenographers rather than journalists, and the public has become content enough to accept the Bush/Republican lies as reality. Reporters no longer dig for the truth. They accept the propaganda handouts from the White House. This can be seen in the TV ratings for news programs in the U.S. In the past 5 years viewer ship of news programs has decreased more than 40%.
It's because the public has given up on news and is tired of the pabulum the media gives us in place of what is really important. In a sense, we see there is little relevant news to watch, only propaganda and fluff. Bush officials and their allies (conservative corporate sponsors of TV and written media) punish journalists who dare say what is unpleasant to the Republican agenda. They are labeled as "liberals" or are denied access to information they need to find the truth. The quickest way for a good reporter to be damned by the Republicans is to tell the truth. They often claim the fair journalist is unpatriotic or un American. And too many Americans nod in agreement.
The American people are much to blame for sitting passively and giving up on demands for truth in the media. We have become unconscious and indoctrinated (by the Bush crowd). We have begun to give up the demand for truth and fairness in the media (why else would half of America have supported the attack on Iraq?) This worries me because Bush and the right wing Republicans are trying to take control of the American democracy and instead make it a Republican fiefdom of propaganda and lies.
This dumbing down of the media in the U.S. effects everyone (the election of Bush is a prime example of how a dumbed down media makes incompetence president), even you. My premise is that the news media has become "infotainment" and is no longer news.
What is featured and dominates in electronic news broadcasts and is the written mediums is pabulum, as in the recent media obsession of the runaway bride, or of the Michael Jackson trial etc. Real news that is important to hear is being muzzled, largely through the efforts of the Republican Party and George Bush.
In their view, to open themselves to impartial reporting would be disaster, for it would expose the lies on which their plurality rests. So the Bush administration tries to silence the media by controlling it.
Reporters have become White House stenographers rather than journalists, and the public has become content enough to accept the Bush/Republican lies as reality. Reporters no longer dig for the truth. They accept the propaganda handouts from the White House. This can be seen in the TV ratings for news programs in the U.S. In the past 5 years viewer ship of news programs has decreased more than 40%.
It's because the public has given up on news and is tired of the pabulum the media gives us in place of what is really important. In a sense, we see there is little relevant news to watch, only propaganda and fluff. Bush officials and their allies (conservative corporate sponsors of TV and written media) punish journalists who dare say what is unpleasant to the Republican agenda. They are labeled as "liberals" or are denied access to information they need to find the truth. The quickest way for a good reporter to be damned by the Republicans is to tell the truth. They often claim the fair journalist is unpatriotic or un American. And too many Americans nod in agreement.
The American people are much to blame for sitting passively and giving up on demands for truth in the media. We have become unconscious and indoctrinated (by the Bush crowd). We have begun to give up the demand for truth and fairness in the media (why else would half of America have supported the attack on Iraq?) This worries me because Bush and the right wing Republicans are trying to take control of the American democracy and instead make it a Republican fiefdom of propaganda and lies.
TV is Changing
You know what is changing rapidly here (and I suppose in most other countries as well)? It's TV. I don't watch TV much, but what I do see is different than before, both in the technical and programming areas. Now big wall mounted plasma screens are appearing in homes, as TV becomes a"media center", not just a television monitor.
Soon just about any means of communication (including our computers) will come and go through the monitors on our walls. T.S. Elliot wrote in a poem once, 'Women come and go..speaking of Michaelangelo' to mark that era of change, when high society women sat and talked about inconsequential activities and events instead of the real events and problems in their lives.
So it may become with TV. We may become submerged in the triviality shown before us and miss what is more important for our own personal lives. Is that not what I already rant about when I vent about cell rudeness? Isn't the cell abuser, when he chatters rudely in public, ignoring all civility, a reflection of the loss of contact with the simple but important elements of humanity?
So it may become with TV. In thinking about how TV may make us more rather than less isolated, one need only look at the flood of channels we have offered today. I have more than 100 choices, but watch only a few, and only rarely. This multi/specialized channel offering is not atypical. In fact, even with the abundance of channels today that appeal to even the most extreme interests, most people stick to only a few channels, perhaps 10 of the 200.
What's more, when people are offered more programming choices, they stick to fewer selections and, sad to say, fewer of the shows more important to a society's healthy- news and informational offerings. They become locked in stupidity (as in "Survivor" and "American Idol"). It's because we now want to stick to shows that do not challenge our assumptions and beliefs. It's a question of 4 billion separate islands, and this is not good. Society can not share commonality if it divides into separate worlds.
I think today's Tv, cell phones and even computers are doing that. They don't make us share our world, they allow us to separate from it. It is not a good omen for humans, if they wish to be as one. What do you think?
Soon just about any means of communication (including our computers) will come and go through the monitors on our walls. T.S. Elliot wrote in a poem once, 'Women come and go..speaking of Michaelangelo' to mark that era of change, when high society women sat and talked about inconsequential activities and events instead of the real events and problems in their lives.
So it may become with TV. We may become submerged in the triviality shown before us and miss what is more important for our own personal lives. Is that not what I already rant about when I vent about cell rudeness? Isn't the cell abuser, when he chatters rudely in public, ignoring all civility, a reflection of the loss of contact with the simple but important elements of humanity?
So it may become with TV. In thinking about how TV may make us more rather than less isolated, one need only look at the flood of channels we have offered today. I have more than 100 choices, but watch only a few, and only rarely. This multi/specialized channel offering is not atypical. In fact, even with the abundance of channels today that appeal to even the most extreme interests, most people stick to only a few channels, perhaps 10 of the 200.
What's more, when people are offered more programming choices, they stick to fewer selections and, sad to say, fewer of the shows more important to a society's healthy- news and informational offerings. They become locked in stupidity (as in "Survivor" and "American Idol"). It's because we now want to stick to shows that do not challenge our assumptions and beliefs. It's a question of 4 billion separate islands, and this is not good. Society can not share commonality if it divides into separate worlds.
I think today's Tv, cell phones and even computers are doing that. They don't make us share our world, they allow us to separate from it. It is not a good omen for humans, if they wish to be as one. What do you think?
Back From Bangkok
I am back from Bangkok. It's the day after my return and things are slowing down again. It was a nice but tiring trip. I was with soemone almost the entire time, but was disappointed to miss connections with a Thai friend who I was to meet there. The flight is an arduous one for people who can not sleep on planes (I can sleep on them only when exhausted). My flight was 23 hours total- 19 air time and 4 more in connections. Bangkok has not changed since I was last there in 2000.
I like everything about the city except the climate, which I think is unhealthy due to the extreme heat and humidity. We did quite a bit there and got outside of the city to the Kai National Park in the Northeastern part of Thailand and to the floating market, which is about 2 hours drive from Bangkok. The good news is that no one mistook me for the elephant when I rode that animal in the park.
Here is a brief review of some moments from the trip. Since I like Bangkok, below I give twice as many comments on "goods" as "bads" or "uglys" I took some pictures and will eventually scan a few for you to see here. The Good:
1) The food is excellent, a great mix of a western and Asian cultures as well as Thai cooking. I think Indonesian food is the best in Asia, but Thailand is not far behind. I do think I gained quite a bit of weight as I ate too much of both street food and restaurant offerings. I sampled food in Thailand, Arab/Indian, Korean, Japanese, Laotian, and Chinese restaurants. Most of it was good. Strangely, the best meal was a buffet served at the hotel where the Calypso Cabaret (the drag show we saw there) is performed. We bought the meal before the show as well as the performance. Both were delicious.
2) The hotel, Tai Pan, was nice and a bargain, located on Sukhumvit Road, next to the main overhead tram in Bangkok. It was quite a bargain in cost as well. If you ever go to Bangkok it is a nice moderate hotel to use.
3) It was so inexpensive (One more reason I ate to much), I should have taken back more things from Bangkok. I am in culture shock in New Orleans, a realization of how expensive everything is here relative to Bangkok.
4) The people of Bangkok and Thailand are great. But I already knew what..And the Thai women are not only beautiful but quite stylish in their dress. Hmmmmmmm I think China may have the world's most beautiful women, but Thailand is close second and their ladies are far more stylish than those in China
5) I enjoyed the day trips we took, particularly the to that park and to the floating market. The floating market may be for tourists, but it is fascinating nonetheless. I bought saffron, very expensive in the west, there for practically nothing. Too, the boat ride amongst the market was memorable and scenic.
6) Friendly, helpful people are the rule in Bangkok. I think it a "safe" city most of the time. The Bad:
1) How's this sound- $70 for one small fish, some prawns, a cabbage and a piece of broccoli. That's what one restaurant, Seafood (something) wanted to charge us for "the ingredients" for a meal. We walked into that place and retreated as son as we heard what the restaurant wanted from us. They expected us to buy the ingredients at astronomical prices, and then pay for "the food preparation and service" as well. The bill would have been far more than $100 for what costs about 7 or 8 dollars elsewhere. I think the place was tourist trap, for it was virtually empty when we walked in. We said "no thanks" when told of the food prices. And to think that this one is even recommended at a Bangkok web site for tourists...strange, indeed.
2) The old Bangkok naughty areas (there are two or three) where prostitute sell themselves for a pittance) seem to be dying off. I think the government is concerned about the sex trade being so pronounced in Bangkok, and as a result, there is an attempt to let it flounder. For instance, those areas must close at 1 am now. When I was in Bangkok 5 years ago there was no closing time. No...in case you are wondering..I just looked at the girls, nothing more (Haha I have raised my hand and swear to it). I saw many older western men with Bangkok prostitutes, some who looked less than 18 years of age. Oh well., I hope no one contacts aids from that.
3) The heat, traffic and poverty of Bangkok can be disheartening. I think Bangkok must be an exciting and interesting place to live for those with resources. But the poor do have a difficult time and a struggle to survive.
The Ugly:
1) She wasn't ugly. In fact, she was beautiful. But I think she was a he. I saw her in our hotel and she said "hello" in a masculine voice. My God! I think he/she was the sexist woman (or man) I saw the whole time. My gender is confused today as a result. Hehe
2) What is ugly are the streets of Bangkok. They are in disrepair and dirty. My feet still hurt from walking on them because they are more often an obstacle course than a passage way.
3) The traffic is (typically Asian) too heavy for the too few streets. Thank goodness for the Tuk Tuk and taxi service. But maybe if there weren't so many Tuk-Tuk's and Taxi's there would be manageable traffic. It's a catch-twenty two, I suppose. Off the top of my head (You know that I have a small brain) that's it for my Bangkok impressions.
I like everything about the city except the climate, which I think is unhealthy due to the extreme heat and humidity. We did quite a bit there and got outside of the city to the Kai National Park in the Northeastern part of Thailand and to the floating market, which is about 2 hours drive from Bangkok. The good news is that no one mistook me for the elephant when I rode that animal in the park.
Here is a brief review of some moments from the trip. Since I like Bangkok, below I give twice as many comments on "goods" as "bads" or "uglys" I took some pictures and will eventually scan a few for you to see here. The Good:
1) The food is excellent, a great mix of a western and Asian cultures as well as Thai cooking. I think Indonesian food is the best in Asia, but Thailand is not far behind. I do think I gained quite a bit of weight as I ate too much of both street food and restaurant offerings. I sampled food in Thailand, Arab/Indian, Korean, Japanese, Laotian, and Chinese restaurants. Most of it was good. Strangely, the best meal was a buffet served at the hotel where the Calypso Cabaret (the drag show we saw there) is performed. We bought the meal before the show as well as the performance. Both were delicious.
2) The hotel, Tai Pan, was nice and a bargain, located on Sukhumvit Road, next to the main overhead tram in Bangkok. It was quite a bargain in cost as well. If you ever go to Bangkok it is a nice moderate hotel to use.
3) It was so inexpensive (One more reason I ate to much), I should have taken back more things from Bangkok. I am in culture shock in New Orleans, a realization of how expensive everything is here relative to Bangkok.
4) The people of Bangkok and Thailand are great. But I already knew what..And the Thai women are not only beautiful but quite stylish in their dress. Hmmmmmmm I think China may have the world's most beautiful women, but Thailand is close second and their ladies are far more stylish than those in China
5) I enjoyed the day trips we took, particularly the to that park and to the floating market. The floating market may be for tourists, but it is fascinating nonetheless. I bought saffron, very expensive in the west, there for practically nothing. Too, the boat ride amongst the market was memorable and scenic.
6) Friendly, helpful people are the rule in Bangkok. I think it a "safe" city most of the time. The Bad:
1) How's this sound- $70 for one small fish, some prawns, a cabbage and a piece of broccoli. That's what one restaurant, Seafood (something) wanted to charge us for "the ingredients" for a meal. We walked into that place and retreated as son as we heard what the restaurant wanted from us. They expected us to buy the ingredients at astronomical prices, and then pay for "the food preparation and service" as well. The bill would have been far more than $100 for what costs about 7 or 8 dollars elsewhere. I think the place was tourist trap, for it was virtually empty when we walked in. We said "no thanks" when told of the food prices. And to think that this one is even recommended at a Bangkok web site for tourists...strange, indeed.
2) The old Bangkok naughty areas (there are two or three) where prostitute sell themselves for a pittance) seem to be dying off. I think the government is concerned about the sex trade being so pronounced in Bangkok, and as a result, there is an attempt to let it flounder. For instance, those areas must close at 1 am now. When I was in Bangkok 5 years ago there was no closing time. No...in case you are wondering..I just looked at the girls, nothing more (Haha I have raised my hand and swear to it). I saw many older western men with Bangkok prostitutes, some who looked less than 18 years of age. Oh well., I hope no one contacts aids from that.
3) The heat, traffic and poverty of Bangkok can be disheartening. I think Bangkok must be an exciting and interesting place to live for those with resources. But the poor do have a difficult time and a struggle to survive.
The Ugly:
1) She wasn't ugly. In fact, she was beautiful. But I think she was a he. I saw her in our hotel and she said "hello" in a masculine voice. My God! I think he/she was the sexist woman (or man) I saw the whole time. My gender is confused today as a result. Hehe
2) What is ugly are the streets of Bangkok. They are in disrepair and dirty. My feet still hurt from walking on them because they are more often an obstacle course than a passage way.
3) The traffic is (typically Asian) too heavy for the too few streets. Thank goodness for the Tuk Tuk and taxi service. But maybe if there weren't so many Tuk-Tuk's and Taxi's there would be manageable traffic. It's a catch-twenty two, I suppose. Off the top of my head (You know that I have a small brain) that's it for my Bangkok impressions.
Tattoos
Some comments today about my least favorite body adornment- tattoos. The past 10 years or so in America has been the age of the tattoo, starting with gang members, then athletes, and finally celebrities embracing them. Americans, especially women, are getting tattooed at a record rate, making what used to be considered seedy or only for the uneducated class seem respectable.
Psychology long considered getting a tattoo to be a deviant behavior. No more! I saw a statistic the other day that tattoos are so popular among the 18-25 age group that about 20% of people that age here have at least one tattoo. Women make up more than half of that total. What used to be secret and underground is now hardly noticed.
There are tattoo shops all about where just a few years ago they were hard to find. Some kids now even buy tattoo kits and do it to themselves. For some younger kids a tattoo is as normal as buying a new pair of shoes. But the mass appeal of the tattoo may be what will kill the surge in popularity.
It has become so popular among the young group (though still considered unacceptable among older demographics) that it may be losing it's appeal. A few of the tattooed Hollywood celebs and professional athletes have started to cover or erase their tattoos. What used to be a secret bond has become so commercialized and watered down, the tattoo may be in for a sharp decline. That's fine with me. I am no fan of tattoo, though I respect anyone's right to wear one if he or she wishes. So what is your opinion of tattoos. Is the tattoo gaining or losing appeal there?
Psychology long considered getting a tattoo to be a deviant behavior. No more! I saw a statistic the other day that tattoos are so popular among the 18-25 age group that about 20% of people that age here have at least one tattoo. Women make up more than half of that total. What used to be secret and underground is now hardly noticed.
There are tattoo shops all about where just a few years ago they were hard to find. Some kids now even buy tattoo kits and do it to themselves. For some younger kids a tattoo is as normal as buying a new pair of shoes. But the mass appeal of the tattoo may be what will kill the surge in popularity.
It has become so popular among the young group (though still considered unacceptable among older demographics) that it may be losing it's appeal. A few of the tattooed Hollywood celebs and professional athletes have started to cover or erase their tattoos. What used to be a secret bond has become so commercialized and watered down, the tattoo may be in for a sharp decline. That's fine with me. I am no fan of tattoo, though I respect anyone's right to wear one if he or she wishes. So what is your opinion of tattoos. Is the tattoo gaining or losing appeal there?
The Sun is Good For the Skin?
I have always been told , and believed that exposure to the sun is deadly. Given that my skin is extremely light and I have had skin cancers before, it would seem wise that I avoid the sun and that I wear sun screen when I am in it. Every dermatologist today preaches covering oneself with sunscreen is essential to avoiding skin cancers.
But new studies are now challenging that practice. Now the feeling is that maybe putting on the sunscreen is increasing the probability of cancer (though not skin cancer), because vitamin D (nicknamed "the sun vitamin" because that is the main source of the body acquiring it) seems more important for preventing and even treating many other types of cancers.
Since sunscreen blocks the production of vitamin C, some doctors are now recommending not using it unless an individual is in danger of "burning" in the sun. In the past three months four separate studies found that sun exposure helped protect against lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, and ironically, skin cancer. But most people do not get enough vitamin D, because it is hard to do from food and fortified milk alone.
Supplements are also questionable as to effective acquisition of Vitamin D. So the thinking now among some doctors is that even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is much less deadly than the other types I mentioned, too little sun may be an even worse choice for people. Scientists and doctors associated with the testing on sun exposure say that we should all get "safe sun"- 15 minutes or so a few times per week without sunscreen- to help protect against many types of cancer. Doctor Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor of medicine says vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one that is caused by skin cancer. "I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any factor that has such consistent anti-cancer benefits as vitamin D," he told other scientists at a recent meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
If this new outlook becomes the accepted norm I wonder whether people (as they always seem to do) will go overboard and instead of brief un sun screened forays, would bake themselves into cases of skin cancer.
But vitamin D has been proven to slow down or stop abnormal cell growth, help cells die when they "are supposed to", and limits the formation of the blood vessels that feed tumors. It has long been known that cancer is more common in the elderly, and that the skin makes less vitamin D as people age.
So what do we do? Should we expose our skin to the sun and retard the growth of many types of cancers or expose our skin to the sun and raise the probability of skin cancer? I'll stick with the sun screen for now.
But new studies are now challenging that practice. Now the feeling is that maybe putting on the sunscreen is increasing the probability of cancer (though not skin cancer), because vitamin D (nicknamed "the sun vitamin" because that is the main source of the body acquiring it) seems more important for preventing and even treating many other types of cancers.
Since sunscreen blocks the production of vitamin C, some doctors are now recommending not using it unless an individual is in danger of "burning" in the sun. In the past three months four separate studies found that sun exposure helped protect against lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, and ironically, skin cancer. But most people do not get enough vitamin D, because it is hard to do from food and fortified milk alone.
Supplements are also questionable as to effective acquisition of Vitamin D. So the thinking now among some doctors is that even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is much less deadly than the other types I mentioned, too little sun may be an even worse choice for people. Scientists and doctors associated with the testing on sun exposure say that we should all get "safe sun"- 15 minutes or so a few times per week without sunscreen- to help protect against many types of cancer. Doctor Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor of medicine says vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one that is caused by skin cancer. "I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any factor that has such consistent anti-cancer benefits as vitamin D," he told other scientists at a recent meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
If this new outlook becomes the accepted norm I wonder whether people (as they always seem to do) will go overboard and instead of brief un sun screened forays, would bake themselves into cases of skin cancer.
But vitamin D has been proven to slow down or stop abnormal cell growth, help cells die when they "are supposed to", and limits the formation of the blood vessels that feed tumors. It has long been known that cancer is more common in the elderly, and that the skin makes less vitamin D as people age.
So what do we do? Should we expose our skin to the sun and retard the growth of many types of cancers or expose our skin to the sun and raise the probability of skin cancer? I'll stick with the sun screen for now.
Regulating School Snacks
We have a proposal in my state legislature to ban all "unhealthy" snacks and drinks (junk foods and soft drinks) from school vending machines. This is not an innovative idea, as many states already ban snack machines from their campuses, or regulate the kinds of things that can be sold from them.
It's all allegedly an attempt to emphasize to kids the importance of healthy foods and to cut back on the obesity problem, we have here. The schools in my state allow vending machines, and regulate use to before and after school, and during lunch. Since the time frame for snacking from the machines is small, little is consumed from the machines.
But opposition to taking the machines away or putting "healthy" snacks (fruit juices, unflavored a water, milk and non sugary or fatty snacks) and drinks in them is high. School officials (who use the machine revenue to finance school projects), soft drink companies (who make a profit, but more importantly advertise and addict the kids to their soft drinks, and vending machine companies (who say they will lose too much money if healthy foods replace the more popular junk foods) oppose the change, pointing to the fact that the calorie laden , huge lunches kids eat in the cafeteria are far more fattening an unhealthy than vending machine snacks.
So the dilemma is whether the machines are bad or at least bad examples to kids of what kinds of food to eat, or whether the idea to ban the machines or put other foods in them is political grandstanding. Regardless, those machines have become gold to many schools.
One of the school principals testifying before the state legislature said his school receives $100,000 under a ten year contract with coca cola that might be endangered by the proposal, and that his school budget and other schools like his are also somewhat dependent on those kinds of deals.
It seems silly to me to do this. It's not a school candy bar or soft drink that makes kids fat. it's over consumption (including in the school cafeteria) that does it. Too, the reality is that student consumption from school vending machines is very low. But the the politicians are consuming this issue for as much as they can, getting fat on be sanctimonious about "saving the kids".
It's all allegedly an attempt to emphasize to kids the importance of healthy foods and to cut back on the obesity problem, we have here. The schools in my state allow vending machines, and regulate use to before and after school, and during lunch. Since the time frame for snacking from the machines is small, little is consumed from the machines.
But opposition to taking the machines away or putting "healthy" snacks (fruit juices, unflavored a water, milk and non sugary or fatty snacks) and drinks in them is high. School officials (who use the machine revenue to finance school projects), soft drink companies (who make a profit, but more importantly advertise and addict the kids to their soft drinks, and vending machine companies (who say they will lose too much money if healthy foods replace the more popular junk foods) oppose the change, pointing to the fact that the calorie laden , huge lunches kids eat in the cafeteria are far more fattening an unhealthy than vending machine snacks.
So the dilemma is whether the machines are bad or at least bad examples to kids of what kinds of food to eat, or whether the idea to ban the machines or put other foods in them is political grandstanding. Regardless, those machines have become gold to many schools.
One of the school principals testifying before the state legislature said his school receives $100,000 under a ten year contract with coca cola that might be endangered by the proposal, and that his school budget and other schools like his are also somewhat dependent on those kinds of deals.
It seems silly to me to do this. It's not a school candy bar or soft drink that makes kids fat. it's over consumption (including in the school cafeteria) that does it. Too, the reality is that student consumption from school vending machines is very low. But the the politicians are consuming this issue for as much as they can, getting fat on be sanctimonious about "saving the kids".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)