1 So don't give fat or dangerous toys to kids, don't give fat and dangerous toys to kids, don't give fat or dangerous toys to kids. But Nukes to Iran, ah no big deal?

2 only thing that the government can and should do is possibly just make school food healthier. Other than that, it's up to the parents

3 Fuck this fucking bullshit.

I'll decide how to handle what my kids do and do not eat, purchase, play with, etc.

How did the soldier put it at the town hall meeting? Ah yes...

STAY AWAY FROM MY KIDS.

4 First they came for Joe Camel, but I did not care for I was not a Camel Next, they came for Captain Crunch, but I did not care for I don't roll with seamen Then they came for Ronald McDonald, but I did not care for I dislike clowns Then they came for Mickey, but I did not care because I am not a rodent. But then they came for hooters girls and I cared because I like boobs

5 other than that, government can go fuck themselves

6 Kids shows these days are utterly retarded.  Any parent who allows their children to watch them is lazy negligent.

7

ehhhh...

My kid is almost 4 yrs old and has never seen the inside of a Mcdonald's.

Has never eaten cereal with added sugar.

Has had dark soda once. My old man gave it to him without my permission.

I'm sure it will get tougher to control his consumption, but I truly believe that it's my duty to dictate my kid's lifestyle by being a good influence.

Whining about some bullshit toy he saw on TV isn't going to get him anywhere. No means no. If you want to throw a tantrum, then there's the "naughty mat." If you try to embarrass me in public, I'll pull down your pants and spank your ass right in front of everyone in the grocery store. The choice is yours.

It's tough cutting against the grain. Social pressure is enormous, and not just on the kids. But I think it's a worthwhile struggle. I'm really not interested in legislating away these temptations. I want to be better than that.

I do see your point, though, ace.

 

 

 

 

 

8

It's because their kids made a big issue of high-sugar cereals, and they relented, to keep a little peace in the house.

Oh for Christ sake. If this is the case then these parents are absolute pussies. If they cave on something as lame as high-content sugar cereals than perhaps they need to reevaluate their parenting techniques.

There is NO slippery slope here. Be a parent. Your word is the  last word. Not the child's. And certainly not the government's. 

9 Any parent who allows their children to watch them is lazy negligent. Posted by: the peanut gallery at May 11, 2010 05:42 PM (NurK6) yeah and?

10

I'm not conflicted at all.

The government has no right to control what my children eat. PERIOD.

I'm pretty sure that toy guns will be one of the things the government wants to regulate, too.

Government business? Hell, no.

Not far down the line, I see the government banning meats and animal proteins..because they cause "aggressiveness" in children.

The government is not the parent of my child or anyone else's. That's it. No conflict. Get the hell out of my life and work on preventing nuclear attacks and bombings of our citizens.

How about using government's time and energy and limited resources on something that IS mandated by the Constitution for a change...like DEFENSE of this nation from security breaches?

 

11 Are you farking kidding, Ace? Kids already have nannies - parents. And the state has no business regulating toys or food, because that's the parent's job; a job that any reasonable parent is capable of fulfilling. I'm speechless, really. Absolutely shocked that you would take a position that the government should control the attractiveness of a product which in moderation will do no one any harm.

12 >>>I'll decide how to handle what my kids do and do not eat, purchase, play with, etc. Are you deciding, though? Do you really have kids or are you giving me the Purely Theoretical Answer? Because I don't think it's just YOU deciding. All parents will relent and give in to a child eventually. You're casting this as the government interfering with you rigt to raise your child as you see fit. You completely, utterly ignore the Frosted Flakes people interfering with that right. Because young kids ARE going to want Frosted Flakes over Special K., particularly if they ads for Frosted Flakes a lot.

13 So it seems like these laws aren't to protect the children so much as they are to convenience the parents.  Isn't that it? 

Parents control the purse strings and set the rules of the house, but they can't be bothered to say no to an eight year old? 

Sorry.  My sympathy factor is zero. 

My sister told her son that every store in the mall that was targeted towards little kids - the Disney Store in particular - was a museum.  Look but don't touch and certainly don't buy.  Worked great.

_{^*until the State fully succeeds on its march to legislate things like whether or not it is 'wrong' to teach your kids that homosexual marriage is a bad thing anyway - I'm not much of a so-con, but even I see that one coming}

14 "only thing that the government can and should do is possibly just make school food healthier. Other than that, it's up to the parents"

Indeed, government school lunches are a travesty.

15

Happy meals and toys are an American institution.  Only McD's has the "happy meal"

Kids advertising?  Regulate it?  Sure, it's over teh public airwaves and is pumped directly into living rooms across the country.  But a Happy Meal?  You gotta buy that shit to get the "ad" that is contained in the toy.


COOKIE MONSTER DOES NOT EAT VEGETABLES!!!!

Fucking liberal killjoy douches.

16

I'm pretty sure that toy guns will be one of the things the government wants to regulate, too.

I got one up in my room. My mom doesn't know it's there though. I got some cool magazines up there too.

17 I don't. It's kinda ironic you posted this above the last one, for they are interconnected. Its about eroding the traditional roles of society, especially the parent/state relationship to a child. Remember Animal Farm? Napoleon took the pups away while young for a reason. If the state decides and not the parent, who does the child (and later adult) look to for guidance?

18

>>for those who do actually need a pater.

 

whaaa??

 

had to look it up.

 

really?

19

You completely, utterly ignore the Frosted Flakes people interfering with that right.

And you completely utterly ignore the fact the child has (or should have)  no say. Crocodile tears until the they choke on them--stfu kid--Mommy/Daddy know best.

20 Because young kids ARE going to want Frosted Flakes over Special K., particularly if they ads for Frosted Flakes a lot.

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 05:44 PM (i6ROy)

plus Special K sucks ass for anyone of any age

21 Ace,  the toys don't make a bit of difference,   Parents buy Happy meals because they are traveling,  because they don't want to cook,   and because the kids need to eat something and deep fried nuggets and French fries are the under 12 sets favorite food groups.

When my grandkids want to eat out,  very often they will choose KFC or Arbies.  The toys don't matter to them...the food does.   So if you take away the toys, it simply means that the parent is still going to buy a Happy Meal (because they want their kids to eat and they don't want to cook) and the kids will simply get it without the toy.

And if you ban those nuggets and french fries from your town,  parents will feed their kids frozen pizza or go to the next town over.  It's not like if you remove the toys the kids are going to suddenly be eating argula salads.

22 Ace, I don't think you get it.

In Libertarian speak, freedom is always the trump card. If you want to sit down and eat a dripping fat meal and stick the happy toys up your ass, that's fine with me.

At no time do I ever legislate or tell people how to live regardless of how intelligent I think my opinion may be. To say that it is ok to legislate what you eat, or what you read, is not freedom. It is nanny government. It simply goes against the tenets of freedom and liberty- and at one time- that shit still mattered. I want government to that extent, the fuck out of my life.

23 3 only thing that the government can and should do is possibly just make school food healthier

I'm basically in agreement... as long as its local school districts...

although I confess that I believe that people have a right to choose to live in communities that have things like rules about how you take care of your property (I grew up in a planned community so I'm used to those things).  So in those cases, I guess they (the local government) have a right to decide if there are fast-food restaurants in their town.  Personally, I hate that sort of provincial attitude, but I see it as part of the continuum of zoning that tries to prevent (sub)urban sprawl. 

24

they're invariably bombarded with commercials for cereals with very high sugar content. Which these friends pretty much forbid their kids from having.

 

meh.  worked out well for the Marinovich family.....

25 No. Kids are kids and they have parents. If we delegate even more than 52% of parenting to the government, we'll never grow up.

26 Hey here's an idea:

If we're going to regulate what kids can see about sugary cereals and plastic army men because it might be bad for them, how about we regulate what they see in schools about sex and their bodies?

No more teaching them that gay sex is perfectly normal, and safe as can be as long as you use a condom.

No more enabling them to have abortions without their parents' consent.

This is a corollary to Glenn Reynolds' saying about global warming - that he'll start acting like it's a problem when the people who tell him it's a problem start acting like it's a problem.

Fucking liberals. We should put them all in a giant pit and burn them.

27 These laws have nothing to do with the protection of children.  By Ace's own admission, they are aimed at making parents' lives more convenient and hassle-free.

Can we please f'ing agree that the role of government is NOT to relieve the inevitable whining, pleading and begging to which all parents are occasionally subjected (the parents extremely less so)?

28

ace, they could just pay for cartoon dvds instead of taking the free entertainment that comes with advertising and then bitching about the price.

what's the plan? to allow only advertisers who have products the audience wouldn't be interested in? what advertiser would that be?

29 Eh, i'm pretty sure i would have eaten at McDonalds  and preferred Lucky Charms over Grape Nuts when i was a kid regardless of whether or not they were advertised. Hell, i still hate Grape Nuts, nasty little pebbles with no taste.

30
For a couple of weeks I've been wondering what little Big Govt surprise the Democrats will slip into their Wall St reform bill.

Maybe this is it?

31

Frosted Flakes always made me choke. Y'know, you just accidently inhale one of the flakes, and you start gagging and milk comes out everywhere.

Then Grandma tries to make an example outta you, saying you shoulda had oatmeal instead. But oatmeal never had any toys in the box.

32 When Philippe was allowed sugar cereals, he jumped up on the couch and used the "S" word!

33 My kids grew up on Captain Crunch, ice cream, burgers, and other great stuff.  They've grown to be healthy, happy, and smart.  Of course, it might not have been the food but the daily dose of Three Stooges.

34 Hypothetically: A school forbids girls from wearing the highly-sexualizing crap they sell a lot of -- Like, god, "Juicy" on the butt of a skirt with cherries, too, in case you don't get it -- in order to halt the "arm's race" of young girls tarting themselves to stand out, and in turn having to tart themselves up still further once the average-tartiness quotient rises. Same answer? The state has "no right" to tell you how your 10-year-old daughter can dress? She can wear halter-tops and micro-mini-skirts and so on?

35 I understand where you are coming from Ace, but once the door opens to "protecting" where does it stop? Kids don't buy their own cereal. I have never seen a kid pay for his own cereal. Tony the Tiger never has forced anyone to by a single flake. And second, its only bad in excess. A whopper every day is bad, once in a while is ok. If I had to give up everything I enjoy in moderation in life because some asshole might take it to excess and cause themselves harm, what kind of life is that?

36 Lucky Charms? Pfeh. Lucky Strikes.

37 "You completely, utterly ignore the Frosted Flakes people interfering with that right."

Ace, your argument would be better if you focused on how awful parents are today - number of unwed mothers, both parents working, "friend parents", etc...

38

I eat McDonald's occasionally, and so do my kids.

I occasionally eat sugary cereals, and sometime so do my kids.

I drink soda from time to time, and so do my kids.

So what?

Moderation is the key here, along with correct parental supervision.

Sugar is not by itself poison, it's the level of consumption. 

39 Libertarianism can address the "loud neighbor" problem. It's a form of trespass.

40 Sorry Ace, it's up to the parents.  If it isn't the best for the children, well, natural selection and all.

41

Frosted Flakes always made me choke. Y'know, you just accidently inhale one of the flakes, and you start gagging and milk comes out everywhere.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 11, 2010 05:49 PM (QMtmy)

How the fuck do you inhale a frosted flake? And secondly, if you do, it should remind you to chew your fucking food

42 Because I don't think it's just YOU deciding. All parents will relent and give in to a child eventually.

Yes, they will give in on occasion.  It's called a treat.  Hell, if nothing else, grandma and grandpa will give it to them. 

Coco Puffs never killed anybody.  None of these things, in moderation, kill anybody.  It's the lifestyle of shoveling sugar and fat and crap into your body while zoning out in front of the play station that gets kids into trouble.  Not an occasional bowl of Lucky Charms. 

The kids learn about these things from their playmates as much as - or more than - they do from advertising.  So parents who themselves like Cocoa Puffs are going to give it to their kids who are going to share them with their friends. 

I think a lot of us experienced something similar in college with ingestibles that were never marketed to us. 

43 This post is totally Kagan.

44
After the last few decades of govt intervention, social engineering, and interference with matters that should be resolved in the privacy of one's home, name one thing that has improved.

Our kids are fatter and stupider and lazier and more reckless than ever. Govt intervention is making things worse.

45

My kids were actively encouraged to be skeptics and to understand the purpose of advertising as soon as they were old enough to, which was pretty young.  It is difficult to enough to allow our kids to get the minimum required daily dosage of stuff they have to watch out for as it is - you can't really let them go bear-hunting alone until they're at least 18, you know?

But Obama and his ilk protecting them from advertising!?  Nope. Negatory. Noway.

Note, I have no objection to the regulation of toy manufacturers to ensure toys are not actually dangerous to health.  But I wonder how long it would take the Ministry of Nannies to define BB-guns and slingshots as unhealthy?  Hmmmm?

46

If a parent allows a child to eat garbage until the point they become morbidly obese, then yes, the government (CPS) should step in.

Otherwise, the government needs to keep it's damn nose out of parents decisions about their child's diet, and they certainly don't need to dictate whether kids can get a toy in a meal. 

 

47

If I am the sugar cereal maker and the government bans my commercials, I'll just buy air time and put some plot around my chocolate marshmallow adventure cartoon guy and then I will have your child for 30 minutes.  Try to ban that and I will get protected speech status like prono movies get.

48 @35 In schools its different. You have a captive student (minor) population without parental supervision. By all means, have healthy lunches there, and keep girls from whale tailing.

49 So,  apparently Ace,  you don't know anyone who says "no" to their kids.

I did it all the time.  My son is 41 and my daughter 31.   Sometimes,  like on the 10 hour drive to Kansas City,  we would (gasp) eat at McDonald's.  It was fast, cheap,  the kids liked it, and we weren't going to get surprised by the quality.

And sometimes we took our kids to fancy restaurants.  And sometimes we ate at home because we were broke.

And Frosted Flakes are fine.   And did you know that Sugar Pops are now simply Corn Pops and have FIBER?

No one needs to be meddling in how I raise my kids.  And if the meddling gene can't be overcome,  then go bother those parents who let their kids watch R-rated movies and then give play by play to all of the kids on the bus.  Or get on the parents who let their kids scream in restaurants and throw tantrums in church.

McDonald's?  Please.  It is a successful corporation so of course the left chooses to blame them for whatever parental failings they have.

50 >>>Can we please f'ing agree that the role of government is NOT to relieve the inevitable whining, pleading and begging to which all parents are occasionally subjected (the parents extremely less so)? No, actually, we can't, or at least I can't. You seem determined to treat kids as "Little Adults" where all the libertarian rules of adulthood apply. I don't get this-- is there anyone arguing that a high-sugar diet is actually a good thing for a kid (or anyone), or at least not a bad thing? You seem to be arguing that children should have the entire universe of Bad Choices advertised to them, same as an adult.

51 Also, I had plain cereal, no cereal, and sugar cereals in my household like any other child of the 60's. I and all my peers were rail thin, and we layed around and watched star trek and electric company as much as any modern child. Your friends should always have let their children have some sugar cereal once in a while, because it's fun. That doesn't translate to a health problem, but a lifetime of moderation. If there's any explanation for fat kids () its not the excercise thing, or net calories. its high fructose corn sweetener - Princeton just provided some animal evidence that points that way.

52

How the fuck do you inhale a frosted flake? And secondly, if you do, it should remind you to chew your fucking food

That's what my Grandma said to me. That, and I shoulda fucking had oatmeal.

53 Ace must be getting some these days; you are what you eat.

54 Wouldn't the libertarian answer be for parents to demand that Nick or whatever stop carrying such commercials or that they will stop watching? If enough parents make a legitimate threat, Nick will stop.

Conversely, if you can't be bothered to put together a group to influence Nick, rent/buy Spongebob or whatever instead of watching it live.

There really is no need for government interference. And make no mistake this opens the door for a lot of nannystatism.

Should ads for cars have attractive models to confuse men?

55 We're talking about influencing immature children to in turn use all their childish wiles to influence their parents to make a purchasing decision.

Yes...the government needs even more control over businesses because parents are too <whatever> to tell their kids "No, tonight we're going to eat at home." (where they make a frozen pizza, lol).  WTF.

The Happy Meal Toy ban is pointless, anyway.  Parents who voluntarily go to McDonalds are going to order McNuggets for a kid who refuses to eat their shitty salads (I'd rather go hungry, myself) whether there's a toy included or not.  Almost as stupid as outlawing store displays of Zingers, because they think people are too stupid to find them on the shelf without a sign.

56

Ace you are precisely right about kids not having the capacity to understand sophisticated advertising.  Marketing campaigns directed at impressionable minds are relentless and powerful, employing every popular cartoon characterand device that will appeal to young minds. I once worked on a project that examined this very issue and came to the same conclusion - the advertiser/supplier is stepping between the child and the parent and often undermines parental authority.  It's virtually impossible to stop  messages to eat unhealthy foods from reaching a child, short of never allowing them to watch TV or associate with other kids who do.

57 Ace, your slutty schoolgirl scenario is an apples to oranges comparison.  Having an occasional cheeseburger and fries is not the equivalent of promiscuity, underage pregnancy and STDs. 

58 Hypothetically: A school forbids girls from wearing the highly-sexualizing crap they sell a lot of -- Like, god, "Juicy" on the butt of a skirt with cherries, too, in case you don't get it -- in order to halt the "arm's race" of young girls tarting themselves to stand out, and in turn having to tart themselves up still further once the average-tartiness quotient rises.

Same answer? The state has "no right" to tell you how your 10-year-old daughter can dress? She can wear halter-tops and micro-mini-skirts and so on?

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 05:50 PM (i6ROy)

don't see the connection between something that everyone has to partake in (little girls wearing whoreish clothing and something a single person partakes in (eating).

Plus food has a bigger line, drinking Jolt compared to walking around buck naked

59


Cartoon DVDs.  God's gift to parents of young children.

That and airsoft guns.

60 The government regulates my retirement and look how awesome they are at fucking me over.

ace is going soft.

Our kids are fucking stupid because their parents are fucking stupid.  We begged my parents for McDonalds every night like it was our last meal.  They put up with four of us little fuckers in the back seat whining like a back seat full of children.  Our success rate was 1 in every 30 whines.  Eventually we learned it was a waste of time.

On the flip side, would this regulation reduce the rate of Miley Cyrus musics sales?

61

Fuck'em. 

 Parents and Children.  

Here's an idea for Nanny O' and his merry band of Progressives -

Stop, fucking, coddling people.

62 Special K is disgusting. Look at the ingredients. I'm closing in on 36, and won't eat that dreck because marketers told me it was "special" and healthy. It's not. Products that market themselves as healthy usually aren't. I learn that for myself everytime I read the side panels.

63

last thing these asshats need to do is meddle with ANYONE's children - keep that fu*king camel and his nose outside the tent

64 >>>So, apparently Ace, you don't know anyone who says "no" to their kids. I do. I just don't understand why you believe General Mills has an unfettered right to interfere with the sorts of parental decisions you're entitled to make, by constantly using highly-effective marketing tools to directly undermine the rules you are certainly setting for your kids. You are basically saying you have the right to say no to your kids, and General Mills has the right to use every gimmick and catchy jingle and secret decoder ring to get your kids to challenge you on your "no," and you don't see yourself as having a privileged position in this struggle -- both you and General Mills are free to use any technique at your disposal to win in this particular battle.

65

Possibly the dumbest post I have read on this blog.  The part about the upstairs nieghbor's stereo was especially dumb. 

66 Ace, you are overthinking this.  There is no need for any level of government, much less the FEDERAL fucking level, to be involved in this at all.

Remember when we used to taunt the other kids saying, "What're you gonna do, make a federal case out of it?"

67 Cap'n Crunch was okay, but what was that cinnamon variety that had that dumbass pirate on the box? That was pretty good.

68

Plus food has a bigger line, drinking Jolt compared to walking around buck naked

Posted by: fartbubble at May 11, 2010 05:54 PM (gAmQ1)

Why can't we do both? If we did, the world would be a better place.

69

If I am the sugar cereal maker and the government bans my commercials, I'll just buy air time and put some plot around my chocolate marshmallow adventure cartoon guy and then I will have your child for 30 minutes.  Try to ban that and I will get protected speech status like prono movies get.

Posted by: myrenovations at May 11, 2010 05:52 PM (dfs72)

that's been banned since the early 80's

70 You seem to be arguing that children should have the entire universe of Bad Choices advertised to them, same as an adult.

We seem to be arguing that the adults in children's lives should be deciding whether or not they see Bad Choices Advertising instead of letting Michelle Obama dictate who gets to advertise and who doesn't.

71 Sorry, Ace. This one, as is the kids meal garbage, is a no brainer. The responsibility is not up to the Government. It is up to the parents. We need to stop treating ADULTS (26 yrs old on moms insurance? really?), much less parents, as children themselves where the "goobermint" sees itself as the parent.

72 #43  It's the lifestyle of shoveling sugar and fat and crap into your body while zoning out in front of the play station that gets kids into trouble.

Now you tell me, .

73

_{ace is going soft.}

Since this is a post about teh children, I'm OK with that.

74 Psst! Ace! -- E-num-er-at-ed Pow-ers.....ixnay on the onflicted-cay....

75 Wow, seriously?  Conflicted?  How about not feeding your kids McDonalds 5 days a week and just buy them a friggin toy?  No conflict here.....she gets McDonald's occasionally.  Oh, and it's NONE of ANYONE'S BUSINESS what I feed my kid, unless it's cyanide.

76

What Warden said, though my kids have seen the inside of McDonald's but they don't go whining about getting some new Happy Meal toy. They will whine about getting some new Legos but they usually end up buying those with their own money.

The analogy with the noisy neighbor breaks down because his music is intruding upon the liberty of everyone within earshot. Meanwhile, there is nothing about a television commercial that is intrusive because you control whether it's on your TV or not.

To follow your story about the friends with the high sugar cereal, why don't we just ban all advertising directed at kids: cereal, fruit snacks, toys, games, Disney World, etc., because it's all dirty pool.

This is part of the new temperance movement with the goal being to eliminate anything that they deem to be deleterious to their idealized society. If you think it will stop at Happy Meals you are mistaken.

77

How about we pass a law requiring we wrap kids in bubble wrap before they go outside to play.  Would hate for any of them to get hurt.

 

78 In a nut shell, the issue for me is this: Give them an inch they will take a mile. Don't open the door for this kind of stuff.

79 That's what she said.

80

Stricter policies at the schools concerning healthy meals (most of the school food is absolute trash) and more physical excercise.  After that, let the parents do the parenting. 

It's a tough call, because some parents aren't very good parents, but that's the wages of living in a free society.

I realize that parenting is a tough row to hoe.  Maybe society could encourage parents to step up to the plate more, and more importantly, back them up?  A lot of the problems we see are, imho, a result of a direct assault on parental authority by certain segments of society -- it's taken them 50 odd years to do it, but looks like they got the job done...now the push to have government take over from these "ineffectual" parents.

81 We're not talking about limiting companies' ability to market to fully-formed, legally competent adults.

Whoo, thank God. For a moment I thought liquor and tobacco commercials on TV were being threatened. But no one has ever gone after or stopped those, so we're okay...

82 Same answer? The state has "no right" to tell you how your 10-year-old daughter can dress? She can wear halter-tops and micro-mini-skirts and so on?

I call strawman on that one.

The state - which should be the local school board, btw - can't say anything about what kids wear outside of the government-run school. 

And I think we agree that - even if it's stupid - the public school can/does decide what foods it provides in the cafeteria. 

That's not the same thing as the federal government targeting a form of speech (advertising) across the entire public spectrum (not just in a public school) for a substance (french fries) that is not inherently bad for humans to eat.  They simply aren't.

83 I'm a retired teacher with 34 years of teaching 4th graders. This is simple, ace, kids aren't fat because of McDonald's or French fries. They're fat because parents are no longer in charge. Mommies and daddies don't want their preclous little treasures to say, when they don't get their way, "I hate you." Laws restricting fat, salt, and toys in happy meals will not make one bit of difference. Because the idiot parents who let their kids watch 9 hours of tv a day and eat chips and soda pop for breakfast are still going to be half-assed parents no matter what is on McDonald's menu. I've watched changes in parenting since the early seventies. Kids are tubby because mommy and daddy don't have the nads to say no.

84 No, actually, we can't, or at least I can't. You seem determined to treat kids as "Little Adults" where all the libertarian rules of adulthood apply.

No, in fact I'm arguing quite the opposite.  Kids are kids.  They will bitch and moan on occasion and ask for things they shouldn't have, or in this case shouldn't have all the time.  I am arguing that is up to the parent to regulate those wishes and desires, and the government has no place in trying to do that job for the parent.

85 @51 I see your point, if govt can step in and protect kids from things like porno in prime time, why not cereal? I think the answer is the ability of parents to fulfill their role as gatekeeper. If titties pop up unexpectedly on CBS during the super bowl, theres nothing I can do to stop that. I can however, limit Capt Crunch to 1 time a week, or McDonalds on special occasions, and I can teach my daughter why.

86

Why can't we do both? If we did, the world would be a better place.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at May 11, 2010 05:56 PM (oIp16)

I've got no problem with kids drinking a Jolt (don't even know if they still make it) as it's just one kid spazzing out for a day while a 10 year old girl walking around buck naked let's everyone in the vicinity to perv out of a toddler

87 These proposals are one reason Obama's poll numbers are up to 50%, and the Democrats will win 20 seats in November.

88 Fat ass welfare leeches will still be fat ass welfare leeches.

89 What they fuck is this shit?

target my kids in order to amp them up and began a quasi-terroristic campaign of whining and crying and general hissiness should I not buy this or that product for them.

I have 2 kids, 18 and 16 year old girls. I gave them a pretty free run growing up. They had limits. They knew it.

90 Cereal in prime time? Is that like, Seinfeld, or something?

91
The last time Ace was this wrong it was 2 years ago when he opposed the proposal of the gas tax holiday.

^{There shouldn't even be a gas tax in the first place. What do we pay federal income taxes for?!?!?}

92 BTW, both of my kids have been cooking their own bacon since they could reach the microwave. They did back off for a while after I let them eat an entire pound of the stuff and they got sick.

93 Ace,
I have an similar position on the driving age.  I believe we'd be a lot better off if the driving age were 18 rather than 16.  Save fuel, eliminate some traffic, save lots of teen lives, etc.  My wife and I discuss this all the time, since we have a young child and will some day face the driving dilemma ourselves. 

However, I will make that decision myself and don't want the federal government making it for me.  We're in "red-line" mode with the expansion of this federal government and any decision they take control of, even seemingly good ones, should be resisted on a federal level. 

94 So we'll put up special entrances to the 'cereal' aisle at all grocery stores, allowing only adults to enter AND place special packaging over cereal boxes so kids aren't exposed to the damnable corporate marketing? It's not a 'slippery slope argument' if you can point to real world examples of just this kind of government intrusion. Let's ban Joe Camel since he appeals to children (somehow). Once that was done, then let's just restrict smoking in gov buildings. Once that's done, let enact ordinances making smoke free areas in restaurants. Once that's done, lets just make the whole retaurants smoke free. Then ban smoking in public, even outdoors. Now we have places who have tried to ban smoking in your own home. It's not a slippery slope argument when it comes to government control. If you give an inch they will indeed take a mile.

95 Spanking. I got my ass beat when I was a kid for throwing fits for crap and jumping out of moving vehicles. I haven't jumped out of a suburban since. See it works!

96 "35 Hypothetically: A school forbids girls from wearing the highly-sexualizing crap they sell a lot of..." This is much better ground for your argument, Ace. It's truly appalling. Makes me want to kick some "parental" ass. How did being a little girl ever get to be a bad thing?

97 To put it another way: government regulation can't undo the damage of 365 days a year of bad parenting.

98 I share your view on this issue being more complex than say the one about salt.   If children were forced to watch TV and it was uncontrollable by the parents I would completely agree with you- it would feel like corporations over parents.  However, in this case, I disagree because TV is a choice just like choosing what to feed you kids.  You could pop on a video or Tivo the kids shows and skip commercials.
It's a tricky problem because the middle ground is hard to find and because the two extremes are both bad news.  I neither want my kids being controlled by the gov nor do I want big tobacco to market to them.  To me, however, the commercials are not as big of a problem in this instance.  We have a magic word at our house when the kid asks for gummy-tooth-busters or lucky sugar pills... that word is "no." 

99

Posted by: fartbubble at May 11, 2010 05:58 PM (gAmQ1)

I was joking about walking around naked while drinking Jolt cola.

100 Just get a DVR that removes the commercials automatically. (Just throwing in a "just" you didn't mention.) The earmuff thing sucks as an analogy. That's an invasion of your space. And our weak-minded generation grew up with at least as many commercials for at least as bad stuff. Our parents didn't have much problem saying no, laughing in our faces and putting out their cigarettes on our arms. And it's way easier for us: You can provide your kid with more brain-rotting commercial free kiddie-content than ever before at minimal cost. (See DVDs, torrents, etc.) If limited government is to mean anything, it has to mean that the government can't do (ostensibly) GOOD things, because, you know, it just can't. I try very hard to get people to understand this: I don't care if the government can provide the best (it can't) health care possible, promoting the best (it can't) advancements imaginable, for cheaper or free (it can't). It's not the government's fucking job.

101 I would point out that the rules are different for children, as a general matter, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have nanny-state rules for people who really do need nannies

It's Pandora's Box, Ace. Where does the 'nannying' end? Leftists start imposing their rules at the lowest levels of society, under the mildest of pretenses. Leftist ideology is "trickle up" in theory. 

102

"There is a libertarian answer to this: Just be a stronger, tough-lovier parent and ignore the kid. Or Just never allow him to watch kids' TV shows. Or a raft of other Just don'ts, as if those are easy to enforce, or as if it's fair to demand that everyone undertake affirmative actions to negate the sorta-dirty-pool actions of other people."

How about just teach your kids some good eating habits, and moderation?

You are conflicted because you don't know how to say "no" to your kid and/or you see this particular governmental regulation as "not too intrusive to you personally".   Some power/control freaks count on that approach.

As for me, the federal government has ZERO business getting involved in this. 

103 @97 I blame Britney Spears. God she was hawt

104 A school forbids girls from wearing the highly-sexualizing crap they sell a lot of -- ....
The state has "no right" to tell you how your 10-year-old daughter can dress? She can wear halter-tops and micro-mini-skirts and so on?


Bad analogy.  Your whore-in-training daughter is free to wear her micro-micro outside of school hours, and probably will.

Sort of like kids head to the Kwiki-Mart for Evil Foods Banned From the Lunchroom after school (and consume three or four times as much sugar as usedta be in a 1/2 oz. school-lunch cookie...)

105 >>>So we'll put up special entrances to the 'cereal' aisle at all grocery stores, allowing only adults to enter AND place special packaging over cereal boxes so kids aren't exposed to the damnable corporate marketing? No, more likely, the government limits the number of ads that can appear in any hour block of television for cereals deemed high-sugar or whatnot, and won't permit toys to be sold with them, and other stuff well short of outlawing it or putting it in a special aisle.

106 "All parents will relent and give in to a child eventually."

This is not how it was in my house.  We had Cheerios, Grape Nuts, and Shredded Wheat.  And of course, we were not permitted to add sugar to the cereal.  And I didn't want sweet breakfast cereal because it was advertised to me on TV.  I wanted it because it was awesome.  The few times I actually got to eat sugar cereal (at a friend's, for example), I loved it because it tasted so much better.  The ads had nothing to do with it.  You try eating surplus building material for breakfast for 18 years.

107 And it really is as easy as being a bit tougher on your kids -- my kids don't get a lot of sweets, have to do chores, eat broccoli...and I spank them if they get out of line.  I'm sure the nannies at the public school would love to "get" something on me, but that would be a hard thing to accomplish, plus they don't have the money to take my kids away from me, plus it would be depriving them of a whole slew of students who have done a yeoman's job of keeping their school performance standards up to par...so they leave me alone, which is just the way I like it.

108 Stricter policies at the schools concerning healthy meals (most of the school food is absolute trash) and more physical excercise.  After that, let the parents do the parenting.

True.  But why?  The real reason the food is trash at schools is because of the intelligence of the workforce preparing it, the time they have to prepare it, union work rules they must follow, and how that system is the easiest fucking game for Sysco or GFS to rig.  The big food processors like this system.  All they have to do is play ball with the unions and the school boards and they're in.  The parents are land locked.

109 Wow Ace, gonna stop short of calling you a squish conservative. Everyone entitled to a mistake now and then.

110 Instead of demanding new laws and regulations, we should just bring back the concept of shaming dumbass parents into doing the right thing, if not trying.

111 Leftists start imposing their rules at the lowest levels of society, under the mildest of pretenses. Leftist ideology is "trickle up" in theory.


In theory.  The leftist elite never follow their own rules.

112 Well, that'll teach you, Ace!  If your old lady over pops one out, check back with us for loads of free advice, old buddy.  We're just givers here, as you can see.

113 Um, seriously, it's called being a parent. Raised three with my wife. Couldn't afford happy meals most of the time the kids were little. Didn't indulge their desire for sugary cereals (sometimes we mixed regular Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios half and half and they laugh about it now that they have their own kids). Like that old SNL riff on the Morgan Stanley commercials, "Dammit, Frank, grow a pair!
( http://www.hulu.com/watch/2356/saturday-night-live-dad )
Parent's have to make decisions. That's our job. Not the government's.

114 @100 But have you tried Ultra Jolt? That shit will make you one with the universe. The local supermarket used to only keep out one six pack at a time....

115 ace, this is the most offensive thing you've ever posted, and I include the Skank-a-thon.

Because sugary, fatty foods are bad for my kids, and my kids see advertising and want them,  the state must HELP me to parent my children?  Because the little ones will whine, and I might actually choose to let my kids have a Happy Meal sometimes, perhaps as a treat for not whining, the state must HELP me with my difficult job?

You are basically saying you have the right to say no to your kids, and General Mills has the right to use every gimmick and catchy jingle and secret decoder ring to get your kids to challenge you on your "no," and you don't see yourself as having a privileged position in this struggle -- both you and General Mills are free to use any technique at your disposal to win in this particular battle.

Yes, I am.  Because I'm the grown-up, damn it, and I don't need or want MamaObama, or the government entity of your choice doing my job for me.

116 New constitution, section one, paragraph one:

It shall be the role of government to make it easier for parents to say "no" to their children.

117

Ace, I recommend you keep outta this one- as you said, you have no dog in this particular hunt.

As far as it goes, however, yes, this is a terrible thing.  I'm sorry that some kids are overweight because their parents suck.  I'm sorry that some kids get sick because their parents suck.  You know what?  We already have laws to deal with it when parents suck.  If you suck enough, you'll get charged with negligence, harm to a child, etc.  We don't need government deciding what kids can and cannot eat, and what they can and cannot have.  That's for parents to decide.

My kid gets to drink soda.  That was my (and my wife's) decision.  My kid gets to eat sugary cereal (Chocolate Cherios rock, btw).  Again, a decision made by me and my wife.  Do we sometimes relent to him to "keep the peace?"  Yes.  That is because, sometimes, you have to pick your battles.  Him drinking the occassional soda, or eating the occassional bowl of sugary cereal, or watching the occassinoal cartoon is not going to hurt him significantly.  I got to do all those things- actually, far more than he does, and I turned out just fine (so people tell me).  Same for my wife, my brothers, my cousins, and most of the people I grew up with.

The problem here is that it's typical Liberal ideology.  That is, blame everything but the actual cause.  It's high time we start turning to parents of overweight kids and say "Your kid is fat 'cause you suck."  Sometimes we'll be wrong (medical conditions, etc) and then won't our faces be red.  But most of the time we'll be right, and maybe we'll start making people realize that as grown ups, it's their place to rear their children, and not to give that authority to the State.

118 And I didn't want sweet breakfast cereal because it was advertised to me on TV.  I wanted it because it was awesome.

True.  True.

I did want to make out with Toucan Sam though.

119 111 Instead of demanding new laws and regulations, we should just bring back the concept of shaming dumbass parents into doing the right thing, if not trying.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 11, 2010 06:02 PM (QMtmy)

You would think having fat and unkempt kids would be enough shame, but I guess not.

120 It's in the constitution. Thou shalt not allow high sugar Choco Bombs to be manufactured. I just read it.

121 Geezus Criminy...next thing ya know they'll be wanting to take pron off the internet or make us pay for it or some shit like that.

122 That and airsoft guns.

Posted by: s'moron

 

*heh*  I'm buying a couple of those at the end of the school year for my 9 y/o son.  We've been ogling them at Sportsmart for months!!

123 Okay, who kidnapped Ace and hijacked his account?

124

I was joking about walking around naked while drinking Jolt cola.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at May 11, 2010 06:01 PM (oIp16)

I blame the HA thread on this. That went off the rails so fucking fast that my sarcasm meter is all sorts of fucked up

125 Ace come over to the dark side....

126 >>>sst! Ace! -- E-num-er-at-ed Pow-ers.....ixnay on the onflicted-cay.... Few disagree that the goverment has regulatory power over the electromagnetic spectrum of communications.

127 My first thought was above. My second thought:

Good cases make bad law.

128 @106 What? No fucking toys in cereal? Jesus man! You're gonna force me to go to LGF with talk like that.

129 As an omega male, I have to ask after reading this post...is "ace" the previously unknown letter in the Greek alphabet after omega?

130 My parents were strict and never bought a sugar cereal EXCEPT for the annual family road trip vacation variety pack.  We made a lot of pancake breakfasts while growing up, and then made them for our kids while they grew up. We never bought sugar cereal for our kids excepting frosted shredded wheat and Kellogg's Raisin Bran. 

 

131 My kids know that "no" means "no".  They get all of what they need, and only some of what they want.  As they become older and more responsible, they gradually gain control over their own decisions.  I believe that's called "parenting". 

Your argument about the noisy neighbor doesn't work, because the neighbor is an adult, with rights.  If a parent has truly established themselves as the authority in the home, then the parent is saying "no" to bad choices, and the child knows that obedience to this authority is not optional.  The only right a child has is the right to find out early in their lives that their parents don't exist to make them happy.  Their parents are there to teach, guide, and protect.

132 The government has no problem pandering, or advertising if you will, to the have-nots to make the "haves" to buy them stuff (welfare, section 8, food stamps, etc.) so they can get into/stay in office.  They also have no problem telling advertisers they can't advertise to children to convince their parents to buy something the government thinks is bad for them.  Does anyone else see this? 

133

When the White House can tell me that Obama isn't smoking anymore and that Michelle has lost her badonkadonk, maybe I'll listen to their attempts to tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing, or especially try to tell me what my children should be doing.

 

Nah, not even then.

134 Totally NOT conflicted about this. Let parents raise their children. I'm sure the government could raise some children better than their lousy parents, but that's not the point. It's by no means most, let alone all, and I don't recall anything in the constitution about parenting. Principles matter. And government has no business telling mandating how parents raise their children. End of discussion. Ace, I suggest you think about this a little more. I know its tempting to embrace this kind of arrogance when we see terrible parents at Wal-Mart, but the consequences go much further than that.

135 Unresolved Oidepal issues, at a your age, Ace?  Grow up.  Nobody will love you as much as your parents.  Not ever.

136 But have you tried Ultra Jolt?
That shit will make you one with the universe. The local supermarket used to only keep out one six pack at a time....

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 11, 2010 06:03 PM (8kgSa)

yes and as someone who as a kid loved shotgunning the whole giant pixie stick, Ultra Jolt was fucking AWESOME and on a whole nother level

137

I'd rather the government took steps to license reproduction than take away my Cocoa Krispies!

Problem with the fat kids? shitty parents. 

138 Let me admit that my situation is hypothetical. Yeah, I have kids. No, they've never asked for sugar cereal. Yes, I let them watch TV. (Yes, too much. And till recently, with most of the commercials in.) I don't know why they've never asked. Maybe because we don't shop where they have those cereals? (Trader Joe's.) Maybe because they don't go to school? Dunno. It's just never come up! OK, now I'm freaked out. My folks would buy me the occasional box when I was a kid. I'd eat it in one day, then end up with whatever breakfast food was left. I actually was okay with that. I still occasionally go for the Peanut Butter Crunch. (Cap'n Crunch doesn't cut the roof of your mouth any more, though, which sucks.)

139

Your off the rails on this one, ACE.

Are you taking some nutritional supplement which raised your dum-ass level?

140

#35  Same answer? The state has "no right" to tell you how your 10-year-old daughter can dress? She can wear halter-tops and micro-mini-skirts and so on?

Don't look at these scenarios as the same at all.  Schools do have a right to enforce a dress code as it relates directly to safety, security, and good order in the school.

While living in southern California, our entire school district enforced  school uniforms from kindergarten through HS.  They were able to measure over a 20 year period that school violence, accidents, etc. dramatically decreased when you put the little crapweasels in the same outfits.

141 Yeah, this just sounds like an excuse for lazy parenting.

142

and won't permit toys to be sold with them

No toys for you!!

NEXT!

143 "Just be a stronger, tough-lovier parent and ignore the kid. Or Just never allow him to watch kids' TV shows. Or a raft of other Just don'ts, as if those are easy to enforce, or as if it's fair to demand that everyone undertake affirmative actions to negate the sorta-dirty-pool actions of other people."

I'm a parent to two boys.  It really is that easy.  We don't even have cable, and this is one of the reasons why.  But even if we did, I'm the parent and I get to say what I buy for my children and I also get to teach them how to act, which includes not demanding, whining, or crying for me to buy them something.

I don't even think it's dirty pool for a company to try and advertise to my children in order to get my kids to ask me to buy them something.

  "What about the children?" is a game the government loves to play in order to exert control in all of our lives.  The bottom line is that parents get to make the decision.  If they choose to give in to whining, demanding and tantruming, that is going to happen regardless of what's marketed to their children or how it is done.

144

It's not government's job.

145 Few disagree that the goverment has regulatory power over the electromagnetic spectrum of communications.

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 06:05 PM (i6ROy)

 

Of course, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, etc. are not broadcast over the airwaves....

146

s'moron, or any other morons.....can you put me some effin' knowledge with regards to the airsoft guns?  Anything I should know about?

147

You would think having fat and unkempt kids would be enough shame, but I guess not.

Right, so let's make fun of them. It'll be fun.

148 Being a parent, I go straight to my protective mode on these issues and where the govt should be.  marketing candy or food to children, meh, don't care, I decide what they eat and how often they get it, same for the purchase of toys. My responsibility to my children.

However, on the actual product, I want to know its safe. If I buy a toy, I want to know that it doesnt contain mercury or some such since they invariably put it in their mouths.  and if I decide fast food for them is ok, I want to know the restaurant has been checked for cleanliness and proper food handling.  Govt. responsibility to the public.

Where I get my libertarian up is when the govt responsibility invades my parental responsibility.

149 I don't like advertising to kids either, but I'm going to fight that "I'd rather just have a law" impulse.  Here's another libertarian solution to the problem: Don't Have Kids if you are not willing to put up with a lot of crying and whining (and lots worse!)  Your _job_ as a parent is to teach those kids to live wisely in a world where, yes, they will forever be inundated with pernicious advertising, not to mention all the other evil influences.

150 @116

Yeah, this post is a weak argument in support of an insane position. 

I love you, ace, but if the motivation for your position on this is that you've hooked up with some gal who has kids from a previous marriage and she's having a hard time controlling them I say you run in the opposite direction as fast as your furry ewok feet will carry you!

151 Ace,

I think you loud neighbor analogy is off here.

You have a right to not be blasted by noise in your own home. There are regulations and laws for that. Any law is going to be a balance between competing freedoms.

What you don't have a right to is to demand that the government regulate stereo manufactures and tell them how loud they can be (this only goes to 4!).

Parents have every right to regulate what their kids eat and control what there kids see in their own homes. They can do that without the government getting involved. There's no right parents are being denied or for the government to weigh.

You're saying the government can curtail a companies freedom not to protect the liberty of parents but to make their life easier. That's not the same as striking a balance between competing liberties.


(This was me accidentally leaving a sock on-DrewM.)

152 General Mills presents Arugaloes!  Little, green, organic, arugaloes go great with milk and Al Gore short stories.

153
What did I learn at AoS, today?

Well, Elena Kagan isn't so bad after all, so no sense in fighting it. And the govt should decide my kid's diet and remove bad influences from the marketing of food products such as toys.

154 Ace, 65, isn't that dangerously close to B to the O's whining speech about too much information, misinformation claims claims of claims, or something.

I do find it morbidly funneh that the same political hacks who want a 12 year old female to have unfettered access to abortion with no "information" that may sway her decision, recoil at the thought of said child watching a commercial for Lucky Charms.  

155 Spoken like a man without kids, Ace.

I allow my Master Race the occasional junk meal as a treat or reward about once a month or so. They know that they don't get everything they beg for. Quit acting like enforcing parental standards is some type of hardship. It's part of the job - you just do it.

And what about commercials for toys? Or commercials for theme parks or movies or shoes with blinky lights? Oh, noes! What if they all start begging me for these things? What do I do?

To paraphrase Baron von Munchausen, "I have found in my travels that four-across-the-lips or a modicum of snap kicks to the abdomen can be most efficacious."

156 Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market. So.... You're in favor, I guess, of allowing General Mills to interfere with the parental rights of LESS competent parents -- not incompetent parents, but parents who just aren't as diligent about boundaries as you are? You are above this, and don't need the government to limit how many sugar-fortified cereals are advertised in a hour of programming; so the lesser parents (again --not BAD parents; just lesser; they try to the do the right stuff, but succumb/give up to childish pleading) are just fucked? Is that some kind of Darwin evolutionary advantage thing? Like you're hoping you're giving your kids a small advantage over the kids born to lesser (but not bad) parents?

157 Childhood obesity is mediated by race--will the nannies have the guts to admit it?

158 Same answer? The state has "no right" to tell you how your 10-year-old daughter can dress? She can wear halter-tops and micro-mini-skirts and so on?

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 05:50 PM (i6ROy) 

Thats just f'd up parenting.

159

Ace, parents do have control over tele. also would you want GVT to supercede rights of parents to encourage children to do a designated task by using something they like (yes i'm talking bribes! a right of every parent to have a desired result, in this family it is mickey d.s or whatever a matchbox car, or a little doll clothing item! an xbox, don't take my subterfuge for hopeful for a change of bratty behavior away! let me use what i can, ( i don't like spanking) for the desired result.      half kidding

 

160 Frack, 152 was me.

Though it actually works when you think about it.

161 Psst! Hey kid! You want some Trix?

162 I didn't know kids used their own stash to buy food and toys. Do they have a job?

163

Toys in my cereal when I was a kid didn't affect me.

164 If people want these regulations in their own states, fine. But where is the Constitutional authority for the federal government to do this?

165 "Few disagree that the goverment has regulatory power over the electromagnetic spectrum of communications. " Sleight-of-hand, Ace. The gov't has the power to act as a referee for who gets to use the space. They don't (well, shouldn't) have the right to determine what gets put in the space. You'll find a lot of objection there. Besides, as TV becomes increasingly less relevant, you've now given them license to regular Internet content--for the children!!

166 the thing is, children want structure. they want rules. so the best approach is firm but gentle. works with women and pets, too, and for the same reasons.

167 Wasn't there a South Park that mocked this very thing, with KFC being banned from an entire state?

168

I got a cool decoder/watch thingie with a sundial out of a box of Choco-Bombs. I convinced my mom to buy it by telling her having the sundial would keep me from being late for dinner.

It's up in my room.

169 @157 Yeah, but thats the same argument for welfare recipients isn't it? They are disadvantaged, you aren't, they're less competent, therefore the government steps in and bails them out with food stamps used to buy sugary cereal and malt liquor.

170 Yeah, I'm sure everyone else has told you the innumerable ways in which your analysis is flawed.  Let me toss this out there, the assumption that the government wants to control what I eat is not far fetched.  See re salt, transfats, the FDA deciding it needs to help change the American palate, etc. etc.

It is horrifyingly insulting to assume that all parents are incapable of making informed decisions for their children.

171 Posted by: nerdygirl at May 11, 2010 05:58 PM (iyyNK)


They also took recess out of school

172 The government has no problem pandering, or advertising if you will, to the have-nots to make the "haves" to buy them stuff (welfare, section 8, food stamps, etc.) so they can get into/stay in office.

In most states, you can use those food stamps to buy that evil breakfast cereal with sugar.  Cutting that off would accomplish the goal here much better than banning advertising.



(You know why cereal companies started sweetening their breakfast cereals in the first place?  Employees noticed their kids were dumping half the sugar bowl on it in the morning and thought they could control the amount of sugar being consumed if the cereals were already sweet enough to eat.)

173 ...they'll thank you late. i mean, the women.

174 >>>Don't look at these scenarios as the same at all. I know you don't, and that's the point. I knew that everyone would start clawing for the Distinctions Without a Difference button in order to claim that nanny-stating about sex was okay but nanny-stating about sugar was awful and communistic. Sorry to be snarky, but I did know that would happen. I knew that everyone taking the other side would start kicking up spurious reasons as to why te situations were *nothing at all alike* and why a little bit of patriarchal forbiddance by state action was a-ok with regard to sexualized fashion at school but, on the other hand, absolutely, violently objectionable when it came to Happy Meals

175
KFC episode was the best SP ever.

Randy and the other guys bouncing down the street on their balls was the funniest television I've seen in forver.

176 Prefuckingcisely Ace.

177 Also, eating fast food once a month or when you are traveling, doesn't make you fat. Eating it frequently does. I learned some things at weight watchers. It isn't the food, it is the frequency of eating it and the portion sizes. I had to learn that candy bars aren't "bad". If you really want a candy bar, eat it, remove some things from your daily diet, and move on. But don't eat like that too often. If you eat like a porker at a trough, you'll end up looking like a porker at a trough.

178 Ace, clouded your judgment has become. Care for the kids you do. Let go you must. Responsible the parents must be, limits they must set. A child without limits an adult without limits becomes. Responsibility they must learn.

179 I don't want the government anywhere near this! 

Ace, please stop texting Allahpundit all day!!

180 139 Let me admit that my situation is hypothetical.

Yeah, I have kids.

You should not concede to ace that whether or not you have kids is at all relevant. 

I am a consumer, not the kids.  I am 47 years old and pay taxes.  The kid is 7 and pays no taxes.  I watch Bugs Bunny now and again.  So does the 7 year old. 

I may want to have a treat now and again.  Perhaps Captain Crunch.  Why should I be denied the right to learn about the latest and greatest version of Captain Crunch because some idiot can't say no to their kid? 

Or are the Capt Crunch folks going to be allowed to advertise on Neil Cavuto's show?  Yeah, that'll work. 

Remember who's controlling the advertising for General Motors right now... you know, those really honest ones about paying back the bailout? 

181 Sorry, Ace. This seems pretty clear cut. Government - stay away from people's rearing of kids. Period. End of story. The parents control the pocketbook and the family ideology -- until the kid becomes responsible enough to do those things themselves, at which point they become "adults" and responsible for their own decisions. This is NOT in the Government's domain. A child nagging his parents due to subliminal, evil marketeers using their powers of persuasion does not invite government oversight because parents might succumb to either child or commercialism.

This should be so simple a decision that a child could understand it.

182

_{You are above this, and don't need the government to limit how many sugar-fortified cereals are advertised in a hour of programming; so the lesser parents (again --not BAD parents; just lesser; they try to the do the right stuff, but succumb/give up to childish pleading) are just fucked}?

That's right, Ace. 

Keep harping on the folks at General Mills and stay the fuck out of Quaker Oats Buisness. 

You got that?

I don't want to have to come down there and teach you a lesson. 

183 The government does such a great job at everything it attempts, why not let it make important decisions regarding the raising of your children. What could possibly go wrong?

184 (You know why cereal companies started sweetening their breakfast cereals in the first place?  Employees noticed their kids were dumping half the sugar bowl on it in the morning and thought they could control the amount of sugar being consumed if the cereals were already sweet enough to eat.)

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 06:13 PM (mR7mk)

I grew up doing that (and still do) when it comes to regular Kellogs

185 You are above this, and don't need the government to limit how "hate speech" is included in a hour of programming; so the lesser parents (again --not BAD parents; just lesser; they try to the do the right stuff, but succumb/give up to childish pleading) are just fucked?

The version of this argument we'll be dealing with in 6 months.

186 General Mills isn't interfering with parental rights. If parents cede control, their kids may lose out. (The government can't stop this, though it could stop undermining parents. It's not a coincidence that the gov't's constant undermining of society and family has resulted in these issues, which the gov't now proposes to solve by stepping into the vacuum.) Sort of like, if a people cede their freedom to a government, the gov't will gladly step in to fill the void. When does that ever work out, Ace? Are you really so confident that the purported good intentions behind this aren't going to result in a major freaking disaster. (See the CPISA.)

187 And as for the politics of it: I think it's dangerous, politically, to champion corporate rights to market over parents' rights to raise their kids without a corporation causing them a lot of grief over their decisions.

I don't find this argument convincing.  Parents need to be able to say "no" to their children.  If you're so emotionally invested in being junior's buddy that you can't tolerate a tantrum over not providing a Happy Meal toy you're in store for much bigger problems than a few extra pounds on junior's waistline.

188 Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market.

This will come across as arrogant, but yes, I'm nearly perfect at that.  One reason is because it's not really that hard.  Another reason is because it's the right thing to do.  A third is that my kids don't kick and scream.  I know a lot do, but it's because their parents permit and encourage it.

I don't, in a Darwinian sense, hope these parents fail their children.  I just don't think the resources and time of my government ought to be devoted to regulating the content or number of commercials a business can buy simply because some parents have whinny kids, and don't do a good job of parenting.

189 What did I learn at AoS, today?

Well, Elena Kagan isn't so bad after all, so no sense in fighting it.

That's when I knew we were in for an arduous day...

190 your kids are your responsibility, and other than the most basic services, immunization, child abuse, and basic education, i am supremely uninterested in spending MY hard earned money on your lifestyle choice.

you decide what they eat, and you choose to teach them and discipline them so that the advertising isn't effective. try telling them "No" once in awhile and don;t take them to fast food places, if that's what it takes. turn off the TV, and the X-box and the computer and the DVD player and reduce their exposure to the ads if you are that concerned about it.

i sure as hell don't want nor do i need to be paying for yet another governmental body regulating people's lives, because, once they are done saving the children they'll be looking to save the adults.

191 @175 Right you are Ace, and thats the reason I don't self identify as a conservative anymore. I think again the difference is in the ability of the parents to be able to set limits, in the case of a school setting, or porn in public that ability is lessened. Buying a product itself is within the control of parents

192

Ace,

 

You sir are an idiot.  This entire post is  why republicians lose elections. 

 

193 "Childhood obesity is mediated by race--will the nannies have the guts to admit it?"

I think there is a strong whiff of that here.  We all know who McDonalds markets to - specifically - and they happen to be a group that liberals view as hapless children needing to be protected from the big scary world around them.

But disagreement aside, I appreciate this post and I hope the reaction here won't deter Ace from posting heterodox opinions in the future.  I like honesty, and unpopular positions are an excellent indicator of that quality.

194 And what about commercials for toys? Or commercials for theme parks or movies or shoes with blinky lights? Oh, noes!

Uh-oh. 

195 Through a line of reasoning I will skip, this sort of regulation is only deemed necessary because it's unfashionable to smack your kids.

I'm glad my parents taught me patience. I'd be miserable and ever-unfulfilled if I wasn't.

196

Or are the Capt Crunch folks going to be allowed to advertise on Neil Cavuto's show?  Yeah, that'll work.

Just market it as "Adult Crunch."

Or better yeat, just have Neil Cavuto wolfing down a big bowl of it.

In advertising, this is known as "transfer." Also known as "association."

197 great Ace has converted to happy meal facism. I hope you like fries with your "third way"

198  You're in favor, I guess, of allowing General Mills to interfere with the parental rights of LESS competent parents

This makes no sense to me.

If they're not subpar parents in the first place, there's no *interference*. There's the General Mills point of view--hey consume our sugary goodness and get a free craptastic toy. And then there's the parental POV, ie, the law of the household.

I really think you're overcomplicating the issue.

On another note, if I clear my cache, will I get the old AoS back??

199 My kids can watch all the commercials they want. Ultimately it is my decision to buy them something. If they throw a fit, they DEFINITELY won't get it.

If your friends kids are screaming bloody murder because they don't get their way, well, frankly, your friends suck as parents.

My kids have never acted like that because we will not put up with and we started VERY EARLY training what DOES and does NOT go. They learned the limits really quicky. That's why we never had them trailing behind us screaming and bawling their eyes out because I wouldn't buy a toy or candy bar.

The problem isn't advertisers or kids. It's the parents.

200

Dang Ace, think about it. What would you rather eat? Frosted Flakes or Special K. I like Fruit Loops best and I am old.........

201 No, more likely, the government limits the number of ads that can appear in any hour block of television for cereals deemed high-sugar or whatnot, and won't permit toys to be sold with them, and other stuff well short of outlawing it or putting it in a special aisle. Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 06:02 PM (i6ROy) But that's just it, ace. The government won't stop at your suggestion - they never stop. The government ads warning labels to packages of cigarettes. The warning get ever more dire as time passes. Then "advertising geared towards children" is banned. Anti-smoking education is added to public school health curriculums. Now you have to get carded to buy a pack of smokes and you can get ticketed for possessing tobacco if under 18. The government doesn't stop at any logical stopping point, once they get their foot in the door, that's it. If they start by doing what you suggest, what's to keep them from indeed outlawing sugary cereal at some point or placing it in special places at the store. We're not talking logic here, we're talking about government intrusion.

202

The argument for this is weak. 

 I really can't believe Ace is cereal.

203 198 great Ace has converted to happy meal facism. I hope you like fries with your "third way"

Posted by: Ben at May 11, 2010 06:18 PM (DKV43)

Must be something in the water in NYC.  Pretty soon he'll be wanting to ban guns and trans-fats.

204

Dang Ace, think about it. What would you rather eat? Frosted Flakes or Special K. I like Fruit Loops best and I am old.........

Posted by: Racefan at May 11, 2010 06:19 PM (URJCD)

Coco Pebbles or Honeycomb

205

What's next,Cereal ailes full of plain black and white boxes that say Acme no toy ,no taste cereal?

206

It's up to the "parents" period. If they are weak and cave in, that's on them. Growing up in my house was no easy task. We (me and my 2 brothers) knew who was in charge (our parents). We did test the line from time to time but a good ole fashioned ass whippin from the ole man put us back in line real quick. We had sugary cereals growing up and we are no less worse off for it. The biggest problem with kids these days are that they are lazy!!! Back when I was growing up, hell, we made fun, we made life, we knew how to play outside!!!! You could not get our ass in the house unless it was dark thirty, raining or supper time.

As far as this: The state has "no right" to tell you how your 10-year-old daughter can dress? She can wear halter-tops and micro-mini-skirts and so on?

If i had a daughter, she would not be allowed to wear this as per "me", the parent.

207 The Great Internet Cereal Wars of 2010 begun has.

208

_{frankly, your friends suck as parents.}

That is an argument I support. 

209

I would point out that the rules are different for children, as a general matter, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have nanny-state rules for people who really do need nannies and it's not automatically awful to have patronizingly protective rules for those who do actually need a pater.

Bullshit.  I've been perfectly capable over the last 18 years of deciding what my son can and cannot have.  I don't need some liberal pansy ass peices of shit who can't say 'no' to their own kids deciding to abdicate my responsibilities along with theirs to some fucking nannycrat.

Fuck. That. Shit.

I would posit that it's because of liberals and their inability to raise their offspring with anything close to discipline that these kind of proposals even get a second look.  They're the pussies who let their kids set the rules.

210 Same answer? The state has "no right" to tell you how your 10-year-old daughter can dress? She can wear halter-tops and micro-mini-skirts and so on?

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 05:50 PM (i6ROy)

First of all, as mentioned earlier, dress codes in a public school are something completely different.  They are mini-versions of decency laws.  Women can't go topless ont he street and little girls can't dress like whores in elementary school.  Nothing difficult, there.

Secondly, that's an awful example to use, because that same school that won't let the 10 year old girl wear slutty outfits is force-feeding sex ed on her, dispensing condoms to young kids (which tells them that they SHOULD be having sex - after all, why would they get condoms if they weren't expected to have sex) and taking the 12 year olds to field trips for secret abortions when the idiotic sex ed classes finally pay off.

211

Everything is a wedge issue with socialists.  They started out letting abortions occur because of rape and incest, by saying they should be rare, and POOF!!! here we are where Universal Heathcare has been shoved down the throat and abortion on demand is funded with public tax dollars domestically and abroad while 1 million babies are aborted every year.

Their mission itself is mission creep.  The answer to the problem is to ground them and don't let the get started on any mission in the first place.  Less government, period.

Give these bastids an acorn and they think they own your pine tree.

212 Y-Not-- I do have kids (four, to date); I was being a bit of a smartass. They learn pretty fast. But the TV commercials for food don't seem to get to them much. Impulse item buys at the store are way worse. You wanna help out the working parent? Make it illegal to put candy below five feet at a store. Joking...but I'd shop there. And. Damn. Now I'm hungry for cereal.

213 Ace, kids don't buy their own toys or food, the parents do. So the advertising may get kids excited about something, but they have to convince a parent to buy it. I remember trying to convince my parents to buy me junk I saw on TV and they would give me "the opposing view", and so it forced me to do critical analysis about which side was right. And that's probably why I ended up a conservative: I've been weighing two sides of an argument since I was three. (And if you do that, it's pretty hard not to end up a conservative.) So A) Obama wants to take away parental authority, and B) Obama wants to take away a kid's training to not trust the media. I have two kids and now that they're teenagers it's still happening: "everybody in school has a Blackberry/X-Box, etc. except me." But they eventually agree that most of those things aren't worth it. This situation is like the ads for prescription medicine for patients to "ask your doctor about..." We trust doctors to make the final decision, even though we're talking about medications that could kill you. Let's trust parents to buy toys and cereal for their kids.

214 I would point out that the rules are different for children, as a general matter, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have nanny-state rules for people who really do need nannies...

Maybe so, when parents aren't around.  How many kids stroll into Mickey D's sans parents?

215 Honeycomb

Posted by: fartbubble at May 11, 2010 06:20 PM (gAmQ1)

................

with bacon.

216 I never thought I'd see Ace write, in his own Moronastic way, "It's for the children".

217 Parents who don't want to have to fight off advertisers have been recording shows and editing out commercials for decades. Now they can just buy DVDs, I'll wager every library has DVD's and 95% of welfare parents own DVD players too. Think this through. If Disney cant sell advertising to General Mills and Nerf then who will fund free kids shows? Come on you know it will be uncle Sam. Now uncle Sam gets to dictate content of those free shows. Gee I wonder what the 'safe' schools czar might want to put in? And we know that Scrooge McDuck as a basically good guy is NOT going to be allowed by Obumble. And even when conservatives win elections all the bureaucrats that have been in place are socialists and it would take decades to root them all out. Come on man snap out of this foolish thinking.

218 Speaking of cereal, I was raised in a Catholic family with six kids. The ONLY time we got sugar cereal was when Mom was in the hospital having a baby, and Dad, poor dumb fool, did the grocery shopping. Instead of the usual corn flakes or cheerios, he would get, Sugar Pops, or Sugar Crisp. Yup, they were honest and had the word sugar in the name. We would hit that box of Sugar Pops like a swarm of locusts. A box of cereal lasted about 30 minutes, which of course is why Mom was smart enough not to buy it.

219 Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

Cold, (un)dead hands.

220

"So.... You're in favor, I guess, of allowing General Mills to interfere with the parental rights of LESS competent parents -- not incompetent parents, but parents who just aren't as diligent about boundaries as you are? "

Wait... what?  How is advertising "interference with parental rights"?

That almost echoes President Obama's warning to the Hampton University grads about the dangers of information.

221 Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market.

So.... You're in favor, I guess, of allowing General Mills to interfere with the parental rights of LESS competent parents -- not incompetent parents, but parents who just aren't as diligent about boundaries as you are?

Hey, I recognize this argument!  Homeschoolers hear it a lot.  "Sure, you're a good parent, I can tell by looking, but not everyone is as good as you.  So we need a lot of regulation and testing and home visits.  After all, if you're really a good parent, you won't mind, will you?  I'd hate to think you were one of those bad parents.  You aren't a bad parent, are you?"

Works the same for maverick conservatives.

Ace, either all parents have the right to parent, or none do, absent something considerably more serious than little Suzy might have a tantrum in the cereal aisle.  Every little Suzy will have at least one tantrum in the cereal aisle.  They just do that.

General Mills is not interfering with my parental right to say no.  The government is interfering with my parental right to say yes.

And, incidentally, two of my kids are world-level athletes.  My teenager loves him a Quad-Stacker from the Burger King, and my preteen is fond of a nice Dr. Pepper.  I get to decide it's okay for them to eat that, not the gov't.

222

I'll give you my box  of Golden Grahams ® when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Don't fuck with me when it comes to my cereal.

223

This oppression will not be tolerated-

High Fructose Corn Syrup will flow in the Streets!

 

224 I disagree with Ace here and think this is a freedom issue. If a kid had the scratch from his allowance, happened to be in a McDonalds, could the kid legally purchase the above product. Answer yes.

What you are saying is that, a company cannot advertise a legal product, to a group legally allowed to purchase that product, for various other goody goody reasons. Essentially you are deciding whom a corporation can market too, not based on the legality of making the transaction, but for other reasons entirely. This is an arbitrary restriction on free speech and ought to be opposed.

Let me take in a different direction. Let's say I'm a good parent, I dicipline my kid, who knows the limits of my rules, and I am teaching him/her about self determination. In support of which my kid get's an allowance, and he/she is allowed to spend it on most anything he/she wants as long as I deem it safe. I carefully meter said allowance to not allow the rampant purchase of junk food, which is necessarily limited  by his/her lack of finances. So my kid has money in hand and is looking to make a buy decision, and is deciding against a new toy, or tasty junk eats. Why can't he know about the happy meal which packages both items in an affordable bundle for his/her meager budget?

What you are saying, is responsible family A, teaching youngins to responsibly live upon limited resources in a world constantly bombarded with advertisement, should have that lesson dampened, and the exercise of market decisions by the kids essentially limited by state fiat because some parents can't or won't discipline their kids. I don't buy it. The reason we become hardened to laser targeted advertising at an older age when our decisions have real consequences is because we were bombarded in youth, blew two weeks allowance on a happy meal that scored us a lousy toy, and about 15 minutes of eating a burger and fries, and thought back and considered the transaction a waste; We didn't magically become immune to ads targeted at subconscious wants while sheltered in a cave till adulthood. Also all that lobbying and parents telling us NO! Yeah; lesson: you can't have everything you see on TV.  So yeah, if you don't want you kid to learn even the basics about living in our society, then yes, put on your ear muffs and turn off the TV, internet, et al, because that is where that road leads anyway.  But don't turn it off for me and mine. So not the same as the "blaring stereo" argument, when you demand I turn my stereo off instead of down, or not listen to a particular type of music entirely, just because you don't like it.

225 So a nanny-state is OK for those who need nannies?

I guess owls need environmental nanny laws.
Trees and glaciers need nanny Al Gore.
All the homeless, clearly that's not their fault, they had bad parents- they need a nanny.

What a fucking joke, Ace, that you would trust a government over yourself.

You cite school food menus, but you already have the state in charge of those decisions, and what did it get you?  You want a similar unelected czar or bureaucracy deciding which advertising to run?

Maybe instead of advertising cereal, we'd get more advertisements about the GIVE Act mandatory (hitler-youth) summer camps, because if you take away cereal advertisements a lot of advertising slots for who-knows-what are going to open up.

226 Make it illegal to put candy below five feet at a store.

--I do not see them often, but some supermarkets have "parent-friendly" lines with no candy or tabloids.

227 I would point out that the rules are different for children, as a general matter, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have nanny-state rules for people who really do need nannies...

Children have nannies.  They're called "parents".  You can't impose rules on everyone because of some number of bad parents.  That's what liberals do.  The lowest common denominator sets the standard.

228

Honeycomb

Big, big taste in a big, big bite.

229 Ah!

This is a troll-your-own-blog contest with Allah, "Reichspollster says Alaska hates Palin" vs. "General Mills is the Fuckin' Body Snatchers," most comments wins.

230 I'm trying to imagine someone reading Ace's post to any of the Founders.  The government should regulate speech about sugar?  They risked our lives and families and fortunes so the government could control which businesses are allowed to advertise their product--and their product is FOOD--and which aren't?

231 Noticed this in the linked article:
"The task force wants junk food makers and marketers to go on what amounts to an advertising diet. It says media characters that are often popular with kids should only be used to promote healthy products. If voluntary efforts fail to limit marketing of less healthy products to young viewers, the task force suggests the FCC should consider new rules on commercials in childrenÂ’s programming. It also challenges food retailers to stop using in-store displays to sell unhealthy food items to children."

Anyone know where this came from? It's the specter of Joe Camel and the Tobacco Settlement rearing its head.

Gosh, who could have seen this coming?

232 when I was growing up I got like one fucking soda a month. and if I had whined about it? my old man would have given me something real to cry about.

233 @213
Touche!

I like that a guy without kids (I believe) is telling others without kids whether or not they can have an opinion about his opinion. 

234 "Make it illegal to put candy below five feet at a store.

Joking...but I'd shop there."

Actually they did that, lots of supermarkets have candy-free checkout aisles.  Apparently the market works?

235

I like Sugar Frosted Flakes.

They're GRRR-RR-RR-RR-RR-REAT!!!!!

236 So.... You're in favor, I guess, of allowing General Mills to interfere with the parental rights of LESS competent parents -- not incompetent parents, but parents who just aren't as diligent about boundaries as you are?

Yes.  I don't want to raise other peoples kids, because I dont want them raising mine.

And marketing isn't interfering.

237 How many kids stroll into Mickey D's sans parents?

Every kid who has ever gone on a field trip, band trip, sports trip, church trip...

238 Silly Rabbit, Trix are for 40+ year old ideologically pure 'adults' who have been pre-screened by their government health care provider as to their physical suitability to properly metabolize such a high sugar cereal and have obtained the proper FDA eating and possession permits to legally purchase said high sugar cereal and have been vetted by the nearest local HHS Child Advocate to ensure that no one under the prescribed age and not meeting the aforementioned criteria are exposed to such illicit and inherently evil corporate products.

239 Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market.

That is just rude.

240 It says media characters that are often popular with kids should only be used to promote healthy products.


SpongeBob condoms!

241 If you read the California ban, it only applied to about a dozen restaurants. It is a joke that it is national news.

242 So.... You're in favor, I guess, of allowing General Mills to interfere with the parental rights of LESS competent parents -- not incompetent parents, but parents who just aren't as diligent about boundaries as you are?
Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 06:10 PM (i6ROy)

No, I'd say life is tough and there's no perfection to be found. If the government rushed in to every shortfall in individual ability, we'd have an even bigger government that we already do.

243

Give these bastids an acorn and they think they own your pine tree.

Acorn? 

The Oaks are just too lofty.  They grab up all the light.

244

"Because young kids ARE going to want Frosted Flakes over Special K., particularly if they ads for Frosted Flakes a lot."

Who cares what my kid wants?  He didn't eat Frosted Flakes because he didn't have the money to buy them of the car to get to the store.  He got what we bought him and if he didn't like it then he didn't eat.

What the fuck is so hard about that?

Jesus.

245 Every kid who has ever gone on a field trip, band trip, sports trip, church trip...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 06:28 PM (mR7mk)

do it all the time in the summer for lunch when we were out riding bikes growing up

246 233 when I was growing up I got like one fucking soda a month. and if I had whined about it? my old man would have given me something real to cry about.

Posted by: D Bowman at May 11, 2010 06:26 PM (k7SeR)

Dave, I don't think you should order that happy meal.

247 another point: why in the hell do people buy cereal anyways. it costs more than $5.00 a pound, more than hamburger and almost the price of a good steak. how is this possible? cereal is just some dried up wheat paste in a cardboard box. the cow is fed, raised , slaughtered, packaged, etc. so when you add the price of milk, you're talking $2.00 or so for breakfast. might as take the kids to a diner and get the breakfast special: 2 eggs, hashbrowns & toast. the math is bewildering, actually, that two eggs, hashed browns, toast (free jam) plus service can run the same as a bowl of wheaties, but there it is.

248

Oh, it's for the children. Well that changes everything.

California's rules banning happy meal toys are the most idiotic thing ever.

They are not just obtrusive. They are ridiculously ineffective. You can still buy the child the meal... he just can't have the toy.

And based on what? The presumption that parents cannot feed their children properly. Who the hell is the bankrupt State of California, elected on cash donated by pedophiliac Hollywierd, to tell anyone what their children can eat?

No, most children do NOT need a nannies. They have parents.

249

do not give in. no gvt,  parenting prgrams! we already have a miriad of crazy laws.

if they were up to good i'd even say NO.

listen these are the same jerks that think teaching kids ALL about sex will disinterest them in sex.

250

It's "Cap'n Crunch" not "Capt Crunch." Can't you spell?

Cinnamon Toast Crunch was cool. I think I started eating them after I gave up "Freakies."

251 This is a textbook example of everything that is wrong with liberalism, and I can't believe Ace is defending it.

1.  Start with an insulting assumption:  Parents are weak, feeble and unable to discharge their duties as parents without help from the government.

2.  Sell the law with the expression of good intentions:  Childhood obesity is bad.  It's for the children.  Are you against children?

3.  The law results in the unnecessary regulation of commerce and deprives a legal entity of its rights:  Truthful advertising is banned, and the government decides for the company when it may advertise, how often it may advertise, and to whom it may direct such advertisements. 

252 And, incidentally, two of my kids are world-level athletes.  My teenager loves him a Quad-Stacker from the Burger King, and my preteen is fond of a nice Dr. Pepper.

You remind me...I don't see any of these people so concerned that my niece might see Snap, Crackle, and Pop on TV unless they make a law now! take any sort of federal action to bar McDonalds from advertising all over the Olympics.

253 "SpongeBob condoms!"

ROFL

254 238 How many kids stroll into Mickey D's sans parents?

Every kid who has ever gone on a field trip, band trip, sports trip, church trip...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 06:28 PM (mR7mk)

Eh, okay, but aren't we talking about teenagers now?  Are they really the target market for Happy Meal toys?

255 Bad parents can't control their kids, so.....the Gubmint is right to step into ALL parent's lives? Having the "power" to control one's kids requires some sort of.....super-human state of perfection? Still slitting throats around here, I see...

256 Ace,

"Are you deciding, though?

Do you really have kids or are you giving me the Purely Theoretical Answer?

Because I don't think it's just YOU deciding. All parents will relent and give in to a child eventually."

I have *A* kid. 8 yrs old.

Not Purely Theoretical in the slightest.

Don't get me wrong - it ain't easy. We have to monitor what TV shows she watches, because 99% of it is insipid, vile crap (thank you, Disney).

We have to monitor what books she reads (thank you, vampire industry).

We have to monitor what kinds of parents her friends are.

IT AIN'T EASY. But the alternative is far worse.

Fortunately, it's worth it: Just two days ago I asked her if she wanted to go to the McDonald's that's build to look like the old-timey ones form the 50's. She said, "Daddy, you couldn't drag me into a McDonald's. Can we go to a real restaurant?"

Let the market decide: If a manufacturer markets crap, either through its products or through its advertising, parents can choose not to buy them, and not to watch the shows they advertise on.

Will it make my child's life worse - the tangible, immediate things in my child's life? Or mine?

If it kills the sugar-coated cereal market, no, because we don't eat that crap. But that's not the point. The point is that I don't want to live in a country where the government regulates this heavily what kids can eat and play with.

I'm sorry if there are parents out there who will succumb to their kids' whining and moaning about the latest sugar-coated crap or stupid toy, but that doesn't mean I should have to tolerate yet another intrusion by the government into the private sector.

It's different if you're talking about what kinds of chemicals they put into baby food - I agree that there's a point at which you need government regulation in order to be secure in the knowledge that if you buy something like that, you need to be reasonably assured that it doesn't contain granulated asbestos or whatever... but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about sugary cereals and (I assume) "inappropriate" toys, and that's where we start to have problems: How sugary is too sugary? How "inappropriate" is too inappropriate? I'll make that decision as long as my kid lives under my roof.

This is, in fact, a real slippery slope, because the case can easily be made that if it's OK for the government to regulate what children eat, then it's OK for them to regulate what the elderly eat, or what people with high blood pressure eat.

High blood pressure? Hey wait a minute! Isn't the government abut to get into the health care business?

It's a pincer move, ace, whether or not it's deliberate or planned. We talk about a government takeover of the health care industry leading to the government dictating what kind of food we can eat, and there's a nervous chuckle and a "can't-ever-happen" dismissal, but then we see New York talking about banning salt. We see Obama talking about regulating breakfast cereals and kids' toys. You have the pincer at the top end, the "high-concept" end, working on the Big Issues like health care... and on the bottom end, breakfast cereals and commercials it deems "harmful."

The bar should be set extremely high for those situations that wish to be exempted from the rule of thumb that the more government there is, the less liberty there is. It may sound silly to talk about that in the context of Frosted Flakes, but it's not. The problem is not necessarily in the way the government would actually go about the regulation - the problem is that the government would presume in the first place that regulating breakfast cereal in this manner is within its purview.

257

I just wasted lots of time scrolling through these posts looking for Ace's "Gotcha!" or "Late April Fools!"  Because this had to be a put-on just to elicit strong responses.

I choose to believe this was a joke, but geez, man, stop it. 

258 Every so often, ace, you say something centrist!  Good job!

You're still banned.  Oh, and buy a kindle.

259 Really, Ace, were you serious about this post or just getting our blood up?

260 Ace; children are a lot more sophisticated than you give them credit for. Sure they want the "toys" at the hamburger havens, they also want the toys from toys r us.  Children "want" and it has little to do with advertising.

I don't thing the government has the authority to regulate ANY of this crap. And yes, Obama want to nationalize and regulate everything.

Its only logical, he is a Communist.

261 "Because young kids ARE going to want Frosted Flakes over Special K., particularly if they ads for Frosted Flakes a lot."

Frosted Flakes are just Special K with sugar.  If your kid wants, he'll just pile sugar on The Special K, which is how sugared cereals started. 

Next up:  ban sugar in households with kids!  And the Bloomberg award goes to ...

262 My 2-depreciating yen:

I think the bullet point here is that this is not the most important hill in the valley upon which to make a stand. Put simply if there were a conservative candidate on a national news show and he had 30 seconds to make his case, popping a vein over FCC rules isn't the best use of the time.

Hey, tell you what. After we get rid of Obama care, cut & simplify taxes, kill the EPA and Dept of Education, secure the southern border, re-start the F22 program, leave Iraq, bounce the UN into the east bay, and audit the Fed then we can get outragey over the commercial regulations.

Sound good?

263 gomm, you need to try the sugar-coated, cinammon infused goodness that is Cinammon Toast crunch. Mmmmmmm....

Buying it in a restaurant, though, is just silly.

However, cereal is loaded with calories, so, it has a high calorie/$ and even nutrition/$ ratio. Note that 2 eggs, hashbrowns, and toast (assuming with jam) is loaded with sugar, starch, fat, and cholesterol.

264

In the mean time, in the midst of our reccession, I am sure that absolutely no one was employed making, selling or shipping those cheap plastic throw-away toys.

They were spotaneously generated inside the cardboard box as a function of the fry oil cooling.

265

Bad parents can't control their kids, so.....the Gubmint is right to step into ALL parent's lives?

Having the "power" to control one's kids requires some sort of.....super-human state of perfection?

That's why I keep pushing for people shaming other people and leaving the govt. out of it.

266 I thought the whole moron thing on this blog was a bit of a goof until reading this post. Let the government decide what my kids should/shouldn't eat? Really Ace? Did a libtard hack your account and write this as you? Stick to stuff you know about and leave the parenting to the grown ups. Neither you nor the government are qualified or entitled to dictate what I buy for my kids, when I buy it or why.

267 ". . . Just never allow him to watch kids' TV shows. Or a raft of other Just don'ts, as if those are easy to enforce, or as if it's fair to demand that everyone undertake affirmative actions to negate the sorta-dirty-pool actions of other people."

I find it a dead cinch not to let my kids watch TV.  We rent, or buy, or check out from the library movies that my wife & I have decided are OK.  I don't get why that's hard.

268 With all due respect, this is none of your business.

269 Well, Ace is here on his own it looks like.

I kind of agree with him... in that I don't have kids, I consider whiny kids a significant annoyance, and these ads are bound and determined to create kids that are either fat or whiny (or both).

Yes if parents were better there'd be less whiny fat kids... and if frogs had wings their asses wouldn't bump the ground when they hop.

I'm not sure my opinion rises to the level of "there oughta be a law"; but a law with the intended effect of having less obnoxious fat whiny kids doesn't seem like a disaster.

270 Eh, okay, but aren't we talking about teenagers now?  Are they really the target market for Happy Meal toys?


Not in my experience.  In third grade, we took a field trip to the state historical society and stopped at McDonald's for lunch.  I don't remember what I had, but I remember I only had two dollars so I couldn't get a shake...

271

You are basically saying you have the right to say no to your kids, and General Mills has the right to use every gimmick and catchy jingle and secret decoder ring to get your kids to challenge you on your "no," and you don't see yourself as having a privileged position in this struggle -- both you and General Mills are free to use any technique at your disposal to win in this particular battle.

Even if you stopped GM from doing it, all the toy companies, clothing, shoes, everything has lots of ads EVERYWHERE.

My kids need to learn about advertising, how it works, how full of shit it is, etc. They have already learned that a cool commercial does not neccessarily mean a cool toy or food. I don't consider it my job to shield them from this reality for 18 years, but to prepare them for it.

Some of the "sugary kids cereals" have less sugar than the "good tasting fiber cereals" that my husband buys. We read labels.

It's all about moderation. We don't have dessert usually, so the amount of sugar isn't necessarily increased by the presence of evil cereal.

We go to McDonald's more than some people. So what? It does not mean that they have more fat, salt and sugar in their weekly diet. Ya know why? Because I'm the Mommy and I care, I have a brain, and I pay attention.

272 but a law with the intended effect of having less obnoxious fat whiny kids doesn't seem like a disaster.

Great.  You'll have no problem with the banning of all donuts, pastries, and ice cream, then?

273 Regulation has electrolytes.  It's what progressives crave.

274
One of Ralphie's great moments of insight on the road to adulthood was when he realized the secret decoder ring he had lusted for so long was a cheap piece of advertising crap. Early lessons like that keep you from being an Obamacon later in life. And his BB gun was still teh awesomest.

275 but a law with the intended effect of having less obnoxious fat whiny kids doesn't seem like a disaster.

Please see underlined text.

276

Speaking of Honeycomb, has anyone ever been to the Honeycomb Hideout?

I did, and it wasn't "all that."

277

Entropy, the bankrupt state of California also had the local schools do a fat monitoring program, where they pulled kids out of class and did evaluations on them, afterwards sending letters out to notify parents about it.

Man hours and office costs that the bankrupt state doesn't even have, so they say.

Thanks fat ass Michelle, for your "campaign", it's working out great so far.

278 Great.  You'll have no problem with the banning of all donuts, pastries, and ice cream, then?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 06:36 PM (mR7mk)

Social engineering here we come baby

279 So when is the Obama administration going to require that you GET A LICENSE before becoming a parent?

280 Regulation has electrolytes.  It's what progressives crave.

Winnah.

281 Ace,

I do love you, man, so I don't say this to sound like a smart-ass:

Let's talk about this again after you have a kid. Preferably once they're old enough that you can see how they're becoming their own little person. I guarantee it'll change your perspective something fierce.

282

One of Ralphie's great moments of insight on the road to adulthood was when he realized the secret decoder ring he had lusted for so long was a cheap piece of advertising crap. Early lessons like that keep you from being an Obamacon later in life. And his BB gun was still teh awesomest.

Man, that is the greatest Christmas story on so many levels.

283 but a law with the intended effect

Paved road to hell and all.

284 This is not how it was in my house.  We had Cheerios, Grape Nuts, and Shredded Wheat.  And of course, we were not permitted to add sugar to the cereal.  And I didn't want sweet breakfast cereal because it was advertised to me on TV.  I wanted it because it was awesome.  The few times I actually got to eat sugar cereal (at a friend's, for example), I loved it because it tasted so much better.  The ads had nothing to do with it.  You try eating surplus building material for breakfast for 18 years.

Posted by: Olaf K. at May 11, 2010 06:02 PM (VGtTj)

Yes, a couple million years of evolutionary pressure to seek out sugar sources as concentrated energy for survival will do that to a species.

You've got tribes in Africa that send guys up into the trees to raid honeycomb -- from African bees, not "Africanized" bees.  They risk their lives to get that stuff because human beings crave sweetness: sweetness means sugar, which means energy.  Last time I checked, the tribal customs around honey-gathering developed in the pre-Tony the Tiger era.

You had entire societies built on the sugar trade.  The reason there are African-Americans is because Europe needed its sweet tooth satisfied, and European indentured servants and settlers weren't well-adapted to growing sugar cane in the Caribbean colonies.

But I am sure that modifying the advertising regimen on television will cause upcoming generations of American children to spontaneously evolve beyond a craving for sugar.  Hell, it's as plausible as any other government-related initiative I've heard about in the last year and a half.

285 Nanny, nanny, nanny. Ace is a nanny. 

286 How many kids stroll into Mickey D's sans parents?

Every kid who has ever gone on a field trip, band trip, sports trip, church trip...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 06:28 PM (mR7mk)

Except the adults leading the trip are supposed to be acting in loco parentis, yes?

287 146 Few disagree that the goverment has regulatory power over the electromagnetic spectrum of communications. Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 06:05 PM (i6ROy) That's kind of a logical outgrowth of the whole road and rail thing. Besides, who else would do it? Ace, you don't have kids, and I think you're being unduly influenced here by a pack of Northeastern liberal friends who like to blame evil corporations and magic advertising for their kids bad behavior. Nothing has as much influence on a young child as their parents. If you can't control your child then government will not be able to help with that. I work at a child care center, and the only difference between a good child and a bad child is how much control their parents have over them. The special needs kids? Most of them have indulgent parents. We have kids with autism, and we have kids whose parents say they have low grade autism, but really just let them do whatever they want. The unrealistic solution you sneer at is the one that's worked for decades, and the one you propose has never been tried before. How exactly is that conservative?

288 WTF. My Grandpa ate bacon and eggs with a bowl of cream of wheat every morning and lived to the ripe old age of 63........  He told us fruit loops and honeycombs and such was going to kill us.

289 So when is the Obama administration going to require that you GET A LICENSE before becoming a parent?


That would place undue restrictions on one of it's most ardent supporting demographics.  Like voter ID does.  *cough*    They'll just increase abortion funding and hope they get the hint.

290 TC, they didn't take recess out of the Catholic school where I taught. I had a student who had a mild form of autism. The autism specialist met with me to plan out how to help him in the classroom. She asked to see how I scheduled the days. She liked the fact that we had a 15 minute morning recess, 30 minutes outside at lunchtime, and a special class each afternoon, art, music, library, Spanish or pe, for which they had to get up, and walk to another room. Grade school aged kids, especially boys need to get up and be active. And I don't care about my un pc reference to boys. Facts are facts. They need to run and yell. A lot of schools' cutting out outdoor playtime is a mistake.

291 This is not how it was in my house.  We had Cheerios, Grape Nuts, and Shredded Wheat.  And of course, we were not permitted to add sugar to the cereal.  And I didn't want sweet breakfast cereal because it was advertised to me on TV.  I wanted it because it was awesome.  The few times I actually got to eat sugar cereal (at a friend's, for example), I loved it because it tasted so much better.  The ads had nothing to do with it.  You try eating surplus building material for breakfast for 18 years.

You were lucky to have Cheerios. My brother and I considered those a treat (and finally Mother's health kick relented enough to get them). But you got it right about Grape Nuts--we used to think they were mined by miniature gnomes in a little quarry somewhere.

292 Government, stay the fuck out of the relationship between me and my children. 

Anyone who has kids knows, it's easy to say no.  It sometimes sucks to listen to kids complain when you do but hey, that's parenting. 

Kids want limits!!!  When my daughter turned 7 a friend gave her this slutty looking doll toy that we never let her have.  We were going to return it but the box had gotten torn and my wife told my daughter, "go ahead you can have it."  I have never seen my daughter like that.  It was like we let her down by not protecting her from this shit.  She was so upset that we gave in and let her have it.  I noticed that and said, "nope, I changed my mind" and threw it in the trash.  She smiled immediately and hasn't touched that trash since.

All you have to do is explain things, especially when they get past 5-6 year or so and they get it.  They might not like it but they get it.

By the way, Jim in San Diego, you are absolutely right.  Anything in moderation.

293

And as for the politics of it: I think it's dangerous, politically, to champion corporate rights to market over parents' rights to raise their kids without a corporation causing them a lot of grief over their decisions.

What about the government?

Last time I checked, corporations don't have executive branches with guns.

Can I raise my children without the government giving me a lot of grief over my decisions?

Is the government going to threaten (and deliver) to kidnap my children and take them away from me if I do not put them in the rear seat of the car with a carseat? Yes. Yes they will.

Will Ronald McDonald kidnap my children if I do not buy the supersized soda drink and apple pie desert?

294 Except the adults leading the trip are supposed to be acting in loco parentis, yes?

Sure.  And the adults leading the trip pulled into McDonalds.  What's the point here?

295 Part of the problem is parents make stupid rules for their kids like "We'll never have sugary cereals in this house" and then they don't want to live with them.

Make the rules you want to live with as a parent. If you need to change them, explain why to your kids.  Don't make rules that don't work in the real world. Don't make dietary rules that are easy to break the minute they go to a friends house. Equip your kids with knowledge along with rules.   Don't make all of their choices for your kids, or they'll never learn how.   The government is not good at teaching decision making. Especially the nanny state.

Am I the only one who remembers Todd Marinovich?

296

Okay, coming in late, so I don't know if it was said, but I think you've missed the best way to riff off of this point:

This strikes me as dirty pool, or at least potentially dirty pool, given that the advertising here does not seek to persuade the buyer, but rather persuade an immature mind to make trouble and act up and whine and cry until the actual buyer gives in.

Guess how the Demcrat party and leftists around the world advertise themselves? Vote for us, and we'll take money from other people and spend it for your benefit.

And if you don't get your way? "No justice, no peace!"

They're trying to prevent toy/food companies from stealing thier bit, is all.

Oh, and as a conservative parent, how about we also have laws preventing kids shows form indocrinating kids into Gaia worship, etc.? Or better yet, I'll control the media in my household, but I'm just pointing out that the consumer messages are probably the least troubling messages aimed at children.

297 I'm with ya ace. 

I'm sure that helps.

298 I kind of agree with him... in that I don't have kids, I consider whiny kids a significant annoyance, and these ads are bound and determined to create kids that are either fat or whiny (or both).

So what you're saying is you support the government's intrusion into other families if it makes the kids a bit less annoying for you?

299 Let's talk about this again after you have a kid. Preferably once they're old enough that you can see how they're becoming their own little person. I guarantee it'll change your perspective something fierce.

I would have thought that Ace would be less likely to support this law precisely because he does not have kids.  He has never had to undergo the begging and pleading ritual.  I could at least temporarily understand a parent throwing up his hands and saying "there oughta be a law."  I don't understand any conservative without kids being remotely sympathetic to this law.

300

nutrition was, is and forever will be junk science much like global warming. what is good for us?  what is bad for us?  who knows. 

 

the fact is that the liberals took us off fat in the 1970's and since then we all became obese.  The fact is that our food is so processed, manufractured, bleached, that most of the nutrition in food is gone before it enters our mouths. 

I'm not going to allow liberals to set my energy use based on junk science  and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow the liberals to set my eating habits based on the same junk science.

Ace  you have no freaking idea what you are talking about so shut up.  You yourself said that you do better on a atkins type of diet becaus eit regulates your brain chemistry.  

 

why should you be allowed to eat a diet that you decide is good for you and others can not? 

 

screw you and all this freaking nazi crap.  Stay the hell away from my kids and what they eat.  It is my decision on what to feed them, how much and when not yours. 

Screw these facists attempts to gain control over our lifes because of children at stake. 

what type of world are we forming for those kids  if we go down this road.  One where they are slaves to the state,  where as they grow to adulthood they have no responsibility, no liberty and no freedom?

  

 

   

 

 

 

301 As to the whining of the kids, its amazing how the human ear can learn to tune out the things that aren't important.  Doesn't take long.

302 No more pudding cups???

303 If the government rushed in to every shortfall in individual ability, we'd have an even bigger government that we already do.--Posted by: DrewM.

That's it.

It isn't as if parents can't maintain order at home with their own kids without a federal edict, as if an edict would maintain order anyway. #132 @ 6:05 jewels

Any regulation would cost tax payers to enforce. And the only enforcement would be against those who don't pay bribes to be left alone.

Besides, no matter the regulation at this point, the market exists for over-processed food.

304 304 As to the whining of the kids, its amazing how the human ear can learn to tune out the things that aren't important.  Doesn't take long.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 11, 2010 06:45 PM (7VvJB)

To be fair, though, this is much harder for non-parents to do.  For us it isn't a matter of survival.

305 I could see this guy as a parent... "Honey, please get out of the way of that onrushing car or you're gonna get a timeout..." "Honey, please stop throwing a tantrum or you're gonna get a timeout..." "Honey, please finish you're dinner or you're gonna get a timeout..." Golly, I wish the gubmint would do something about these problems!

306 Now most First Ladies, at least in recent memory, come up with some cause to get behind.  Ever notice how if the First 'Lady' is a Leftspaz MoonBat Bitch, the cause ends up with attempted FEDERAL FUCKING LEGISLATION???

Hillary Care anyone???  Now this shit from Full Frontal Sasquatch???

Hey, don't do drugs..Just Say No!!

Hey, kids should read.

HEY!!!  I'M SO FUCKING FULL OF MYSELF THERE SHOULD BE A LAW!!!

Christ....

307 I haven't read the other comments, but let me say this:

I would point out that the rules are different for children, as a general matter

That is absolutely true.  Get between me and my kids, and I will fucking kill you.  No questions, no remorse no nothing.  I'm in charge, mother fuckers, and if you have a different opinion, I have a fucking backhoe.

Simple, really.

308 I don't know dude, no matter how legitimate the case for it is, there's just something about banning a Happy Meal that fucking pisses me off.

309 You what, pushed a f*cking hoop down the road with a stick and ate oat bran?

We'd have given our last good fingers -- the ones not chopped off by the machines in the mill where we worked 22 hours a day -- to have a hoop.  We got the stick and were grateful for it.  And it had none of those twig things protruding from it -- Mum said those were ha'penny more.

And yes, we ate oat bran.  That was all that was left to pick out of the horse manure after the horses ate the oats.  It's not as if Dad could afford to buy one set of food for the horses and another set for us kids.

310

heck let's blame Adam and Eve, for desiring stuff at all.

c/mon Ace, walking by a field and eating a bushel of cherries, blueberry's whatever, lets make sure that eating fun stuff should be gvt's job. you guys want that shiny new 2010 mustang NO! it bad for the rest of the family , just think, the payments, the insurance,  the possible wrecks! bad for kids! and wives btw! 

no salt in NY restaurants cause their are people out there that won't stop themselves! ok, so all of you are banned from salt. No donuts for Old folks!

no ice cream commercials, no tato chip commercials , no cigs, beer, whiskey, cause anything around might have a kidlet next door that might somehow be influenced, how about just quit drinking, smoking,  eating crappy food for a break from stews and chicken and dumplings, o hell dumplings have salt! woops,

well someone must take control of this out-of-control stuff, let's let our over-loads decide.

btw everyone should only keep their computer on no more than 1 hour a day for the greater good, electricity ya know, bad for gaia, also it recks you brain "knowing stuff anyway"

311

But I am sure that modifying the advertising regimen on television will cause upcoming generations of American children to spontaneously evolve beyond a craving for sugar.  Hell, it's as plausible as any other government-related initiative I've heard about in the last year and a half.

Exactly! Even if you wanted the gov't to help, they can't decrease the weekly, monthly, or yearly amounts of sugar anyone has with any of this crap.

Oh--and the punch line to all of this is the gov't money that helps get all that corn syrup into products.

312

I get tired of the argument that McDonalds is unhealthy. It may not be the "healthiest" according to some, but food is healthier than the alternative.

You can test this. Go all day without food tomorrow. Eat at McD's the next day.

313 progressoverpeace: "And the Bloomberg award goes to ..."

Heh. I like it. Let's make it an event. Ace can claim the inaugural Bloomie.

314

Anyway, I'm against this. Give the gov't an inch, they'll take a mile, and they don't need to be given this inch anyway. Children may need a parent and/or a nanny, but there's no reason for the state to assume I need them to take that role from me.

I can control what my chilrend see on TV, and I can withstand their begging. Learning to face disappointment is one of the best things that can happen to a child. Helps prevent them from becomming Democrats who thing they can have anything that they want.

315

You were lucky to have Cheerios. My brother and I considered those a treat (and finally Mother's health kick relented enough to get them). But you got it right about Grape Nuts--we used to think they were mined by miniature gnomes in a little quarry somewhere.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 11, 2010 06:42 PM (ujg0T)

Oh, I loved Grape-Nuts when I was a kid!  Of course, I put several heaping spoonfuls of sugar in the bowl when I ate them, but that was part of the fun: the gritty sugar and the preternaturally crunchy nuggets were fun to chew.

316 I have 4 kids under the age of 12. My kids have never had sweet cereal (unless they go to school where they serve Cocoa Puffs for fucking breakfast), nor do they add sugar to their cereal. They don't even ask to have a Happy Meal because they know they're not getting one.

When we go to the drive thu, they get a simple hamburger and I buy two sodas and they share it.

JUST SAY NO!!!!!!

to kids AND to government

317

You are basically saying you have the right to say no to your kids, and General Mills has the right to use every gimmick and catchy jingle and secret decoder ring to get your kids to challenge you on your "no," and you don't see yourself as having a privileged position in this struggle

No, no privledge.

I said he must go to bed, but General Mills told him he didn't have to so he ended up staying up.

I told him he couldn't go out to his friends house because he hadn't finished his homework, but General Mills veto'd me and I was laid low.

I told him he may not eat General Mill's cereal but General Mills went out and bought a bowl of it's own cereal and gave it to him for free.

At the end of the day all they can do is encourage him to challenge you. And he will challenge you anyway, without their encouragement. You'll either learn to make short easy work of his challenges to your authority, at least until he's old enough to challenge it proper, or you won't.

And if you won't, he'll wind up fat and whiney anyway, General Mills cereal or not.

318 Actually, I owe you more than that, ace, more than "it'll change your perspective something fierce."

The REASON it'll change your perspective is that, before you have kids, assuming you're a decent person, you have a desire to protect kids in general. This is what prompts you to entertain the notion that perhaps the government regulating sugary cereals and TV ads about them is perhaps not such a bad idea.

The difference is that, before you have kids, "kids" is an abstraction. they're a class of people.

Once you have them, they are anything but an abstraction. Whatever you can say about an abstraction, you cannot say about your own kid, and vice-versa.

Most rational people - which is to say, most conservatives/libertarians - look at the miserable job government does at virtually everything it touches, and in a millisecond they understand how all of that might be applied to their kids, and they tend to recoil (and rightly so).

The parental instinct to protect your children is far, far stronger than anything the government might be able to conjure up in any bureaucracy or 2,000-pg manual.

Likewise, parenting is also about letting go at the right times and in the right ways. Doing so creates children who tend to grow up to be people of good character, with sound judgement, and a healthy appreciation of the fact that not everything good in life is necessarily good for you, and that there are some things - most things, actually - that need to be enjoyed in moderation.

There is no better entity than the parent to make those decisions, and there is no worse entity to make them than the government.

319 all parents are dumb, just hand over your kids to the proper authorities at birth.

320

LMAO!!! I love it!

Get between me and my kids, and I will fucking kill you.  No questions, no remorse no nothing.  I'm in charge, mother fuckers, and if you have a different opinion, I have a fucking backhoe.

321 Grape Nuts were the all-time marketing scam.  Back when they thought fat was the worst thing you could eat, Grape Nuts was loaded with the stuff and yet they were selling it as health food.

322 I don't know dude, no matter how legitimate the case for it is, there's just something about banning a Happy Meal that fucking pisses me off.

Posted by: Wearer of Non-Creased Pants at May 11, 2010 06:49 PM (gLNLT)

I have a solution: allow Happy Meals, but make all the toys dead kittens.  Real, rotting, stinking dead kittens.

No kid will want to ever order a Happy Meal again.  Problem solved!

323 no matter how much regulation there is, shitty parents are going to be shitty parents.
The kids are effed with our w/o sugary cereals.  So at best this is treating the symptoms and not curing the disease.  At worse it's setting a precedent with a slippery slope.  If the TV is raising the kid, the kid is effed- even if the commercials are for raw vegetables.

324

Oh, and as a conservative parent, how about we also have laws preventing kids shows form indocrinating kids into Gaia worship, etc.? Or better yet, I'll control the media in my household, but I'm just pointing out that the consumer messages are probably the least troubling messages aimed at children.

Don't get me started on Miley Cyrus (among many others) having a private jet and ttelling my kids to turn off a light bulb.

Now I need to join my husband and kids who are having lamb cassoulet after one of them had a sugary cereal for breakfast. <gasp>

325 The government doesn't have anything better to do? Like it'll matter how much sugary cereal the kids eat, or how much salt we take in if, due to President Professor Princess Pansyass, we all get our asses blown to hell by terrorists who see a weak target? I can damn well say no to my kids. I can, and do, refuse to let them watch TV until their eyes glaze over and their "MOMMY! I WANT! I WANT!" screeching starts. It's nobody's business but my own.

326 Few disagree that the goverment has regulatory power over the electromagnetic spectrum of communications.

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 06:05 PM (i6ROy)

*****************

The headline reads "Marketing of Children's Food & Toys" -- doesn't say electromagnetic...and government regulation of content is (properly) weaker and weaker as one gets further away from broadcasting....cable has fewer limits, internet fewer still....

327 all parents are dumb, just hand over your kids to the proper authorities at birth.

That's the mindset of most parents, actually.  Our 3 are homeschooled.  They fucked up my digital camera making the most awesome "stop action" video of all time.  My ten-year-old decided to start reading Emanuel Kant and grow tits at the same time, which is a worry for any parent that can read.  My eight year old just completed a report on the symbolism in "The Martian Chronicles".

My son is 5 and says "I farted".

Life be good.

Anybody fucks with it is mother-fucking dead.

328

At the end of the day all they can do is encourage him to challenge you. And he will challenge you anyway, without their encouragement. You'll either learn to make short easy work of his challenges to your authority, at least until he's old enough to challenge it proper, or you won't.

I saw my oldest brother challenge the ole man. The ole man put him in his place real quick. The lesson i learned? Don't fuck with the ole man.

329 At the end of the day all they can do is encourage him to challenge you. And he will challenge you anyway, without their encouragement.

I'm thinking of that stupid...Visa?...commercial where the kid makes his pussy dad buy expensive "green" products instead of the stuff he was going to buy.  The people hard-on to ban advertising for evil cereal and soda from kids' shows don't seem to have much interest in banning advertising for other products. 

330 Ace, I see your point. On the other hand, my wife and I have raised five kids (including two Marines) and our rule was pretty stringent: No TV. Period.

At first, I wondered whether this was a good idea. Then, in the 1980s, the Cabbage Patch Doll mania hit. While kids were going insane over these dolls, and parents were fighting each other over them in toy stores, our home was left blissfully unaffected.

With our youngest, we've relaxed the rules a little. DVDs are OK, as long as we approve them. But no broadcast television, at all. Our youngest, like our other kids, makes up for it by reading.

I am hard pressed, frankly, to think of anything that my kids missed by not seeing Sponge Bob, or Transformers or Pokemon, or any of the other myriad animated toy commercials. They're all crap, and we're better off without it.

Now, I see your point in the abstract: that advertisers should have some limits set by how they can manipulate our kids' inborn sociopathic tendencies. But until the day dawns when we have truly wise legislators, or the cereal manufacturers grow a conscience, I prefer to take matters into my own hands and unplug the f'n set.

And besides, if we had one, I would have been exposed to The One: and I shudder to think what might happen then.

331 IMHO if we let the govt regulate the advertising because its "for the kids" where does it stop after that? Radio talk show hosts will become harmful to kids health and thus be omitted from radio because its "for the kids". And stories come out where kids shoot themselves with daddys gun so they will abolish our second ammendment because its "for the kids." Even though in all of the above cenarios its the parents who should be more involved in the actions their kids take. If you dont like them listening to talk radio, dont let them. If you dont want them to play with guns, lock you gun up or put it where they wont find it. You let them get their foot in the door, much like a rapist, next thing you know you wake up your ass hurts and your handcuffed to a bed with a headwound watching a marathon of antiques roadshow. We must in know way shape or form let the government dictate anything in our lives. Because once they know they can regulate, they will go much further. "Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little safety, deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

332 Here's the problem, Ace.  Now you have the government deciding what "advertising to children" is.  And a good example of how this results in the inevitable government power grab is flavored cigars and cigarettes.  The usual suspects have pretty much gotten them banned because a peach-flavored cigarette was deemed "advertising to children."  God knows no adult might find such a thing enjoyable.  And you may remember they tried to ban flavored wine coolers for the same reason.  Because only children like flavored things.  Right?  It's for the children.

333

Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market.

Parenting tip: be sure to drag your kid out of the store and back to the car before administering that well-deserved smack to his or her backside.  It takes the screaming brat out of earshot of the other shoppers who don't deserve to be subjected to the racket, and it gives him or her time to realize that the screaming is about to have undesirable and avoidable consequences.  A lot of times you will find you don't even have to give the smack, because your kid wises up and straightens up on the way to the car.

Speaking from personal experience with three willful daughters.

334 My son is 5 and says "I farted".

Life be good.

Heh.  My brother has somehow trained his five-year-old to look behind himself and say "was that a duck?"

335 I'm with ya ace. 
I'm sure that helps.
Posted by: seattle slough at May 11, 2010 06:44 PM (JRGA6)

Ya, having the leftard, statist vote should make you proud, Mr. Ace.
You are gradually devolving to David Brooks-Allahpundit territory.

336

Michelle Obama leading an anti-obesity campaign is like WC fields advocating a temperance movement.

337 and it gives him or her time to realize that the screaming is about to have undesirable and avoidable consequences.


Shit, I'm 35, and I still remember that long, horrible drag out to the car. *shudder*

338 >>>This is, in fact, a real slippery slope, because the case can easily be made that if it's OK for the government to regulate what children eat, then it's OK for them to regulate what the elderly eat, or what people with high blood pressure eat. My eyes glaze over at this argument. Wake me when we're talking about adults. I see a clear, bright-line demarcation here, easily patrolled and enforceable. We're talking specifically about kids. Kids. We know who they are and we know what products are marketed to them. This Parade of Horribles you trot out seems unlikely to me, and if the parade does start forming, again, I'll certainly join you at that point. But I have never been a fan of slippery slope arguments, even when deployed in my favor. "We must not do unobjectionable thing x because it will lead to us doing objectionable thing y" -- this argument only has any persuasiveness at all when it really is easy to slide from x to y. In a case with a bright-line boundary -- is the case here-- yes, I do think it is easily possible to restrict what is marketed to kids without taking away an ADULT's right to eat a cheeseburger. I think anyone claiming the opposite is just being silly and rhetorical. The argument -- "but how will we stop y when we've already allowed x!" -- doesn't have much force when x is only undertaken for a specific purpose for an easily-identified group (here, kids). No, I would never want to extend this principle to adults. But yes, I think it's pretty easy to separate out the two. And you betcha, I think almost all of those on the opposite side here would flip in a jiffy if we were talking about the kidporn clothes of Juicy Couture being advertised during Scooby-Doo. Suddenly a lot more people would in fact find the government to have a good-faith interest in preventing the marketing of sexualizing clothing to immature minds during cartoon shows.

339 Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market.

Not a super mom here. I've been embarrassed MANY a time in the grocery store, doesn't mean I give in. I'm sure I just look like a total rag to everyone around me. But I don't care.

340 Is that some kind of Darwin evolutionary advantage thing? Like you're hoping you're giving your kids a small advantage over the kids born to lesser (but not bad) parents? Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 06:10 PM (i6ROy) Incidentally, yes, I have considered that I am breeding the new Ruling Class. Their superior genetics combined with my guidance assures their dominance over the lumpen proletariat - those fat, doughy, undereducated fucks whose tears, oily skin and flop sweat will lubricate the machinery of Empire. Let the unchaperoned tarts in their slutty attire provide what meager pleasures they can afford when they slouch home at the end of their day, backs bowed from their soul-crushing labors which only serve to enrich The Man. I am responsible for five lives. No more.

341 You'll get nothing and like it!!!!

342 Commercials are a fact of life. Deal with it, and help your kids to deal with it. "They're just trying to sell you something." Man up, Ace. This is Allah-worthy.

343 >>>IMHO if we let the govt regulate the advertising because its "for the kids" where does it stop after that? It stops when it's not about kids. A lot of you just keep claiming that it's hard to tell advertising from adults from advertising for children.

344 .  The people hard-on to ban advertising for evil cereal and soda from kids' shows don't seem to have much interest in banning advertising for other products. 

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 06:57 PM (mR7mk)

wonderful comment. They want to enforce THEIR "righteousness" and idealogy, control.take away anything but that.

345

I appreciate Ace's take here - liberty exists within a polity and while our principles should always tilt in favor of self determination over thought control we have a corresponding interest in being able to intervene to prevent the abuse of freedoms, even freedom of speech.  It is possible to libel and slander in America, we are just more free to speak than any other country without having to face the accusation of libel or slander.  I also agree that - kinda like the libertarian fetish with promoting drug legalization - the cause of limited government can damage itself by pushing its causes beyond the tolerable..

That said, what we also have to realize is that WHO gets to decide the limits does matter, and where the line is drawn matters too.  SO while it's OK, from a conservative political perspective, to accept the need for limits on advertsing products to children, it's good also that there are some hard-asses out there pushing against those limits.  The transactional politics will therefore tend to come out  with something that conservatives would find work for both their limited government tendencies and their concern for responsible custody of children.

346 Parenting tip: be sure to drag your kid out of the store and back to the car before administering that well-deserved smack to his or her backside.

Smack his ass right there, make him scream, and turn to the parent behind you and apologize.  He/she should not be subjected to such misbehavior by your progeny, and you are deeply embarassed.

Then wink.  They'll then lay into the kid, too, if they're worth a shit, and the kid gets the lesson reinforced.

Pro Hint:  Don't try it in Wal Mart, or a fat woman in a lard lorry will drool on you while buying cat food.

347 In a case with a bright-line boundary -- is the case here-- yes, I do think it is easily possible to restrict what is marketed to kids without taking away an ADULT's right to eat a cheeseburger.

Is that really the bright line boundary, or is that half of the boundary, the other half of which is "the government doesn't decide what we eat"

348

Ya, having the leftard, statist vote should make you proud, Mr. Ace.
You are gradually devolving to David Brooks-Allahpundit territory.

You realize that might have been a sockuppet, yes? Parenting isn't easy, people, although I think the guy at #321 nails it: The State, no matter how well intended, is worse than the parent, not matter how negligent.

349

The headline reads "Marketing of Children's Food & Toys" -- doesn't say electromagnetic...and government regulation of content is (properly) weaker and weaker as one gets further away from broadcasting....cable has fewer limits, internet fewer still....

Posted by: cthulhu at May 11, 2010 06:55 PM (fYgoq)

The people I realllllly want Barack to punish are all those bastards who hand out CANDY to my children on October 31st!  That one night can undo an entire year of indoctrination into healthy eating habits!

And don't get me started on EASTER - candy AND religion... makes me SOOOO mad!!!

350

I look at it like this. I raised little Racefan as a single father.

Some mornings we had Fruitloops, some mornings bacon and eggs.

Some mornings, cold pizza, and others burgers on the grill @ 6:00 am.

Yes I drank and smoked a little BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

Now he is the head  of a plant and his wife is a Doctor.....

Most people went camping and stuff at lakes and mountains and places.

We camped at Race tracks. And he turned out ok........

351 My eyes glaze over at this argument. Wake me when we're talking about adults.

I see a clear, bright-line demarcation here, easily patrolled and enforceable. We're talking specifically about kids.

--ace

No.  We are talking specifically about parents and the way they choose to raise their children.  This is about adults.

352 ... on the other hand, the sugary adverts were even more common back when I was a wee lad.  Sugar Corn Pops were marketed as SUGAR Pops, for example.  Mom was quite capable of sticking to Corn flakes, cheerios and the dreaded puffed wheat..

353

"My eyes glaze over at this argument. Wake me when we're talking about adults. "

We never will, because the "nanny state" sees everyone as children to tend to.

354 My eyes glaze over at this argument. Wake me when we're talking about adults.

You just came here to fight, didn't you?

355 Ace, miniskirts and other provocative attire can be banned from government schools because it's distracting to other students. It's a disciplinary rule for school hours. The government has no business telling kids what to wear - or eat - outside of school.

356 IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!

Yeah, well, my "kids" are 26 & 24 years old now.  My wife and I didn't feed them that crap when they were young and fully in our control and fully under our supervision.  We didn't bring it into the house.  We said "no", repeatedly, and with conviction.  They figured it out, and stopped asking.  They would ask for different things, guessing, I suppose, that we wouldn't know the difference, but we did, and said "no" anyway.

We weren't perfect and did occasionally let them have foodstuffs that aren't exactly purely healthfoodie, but that was based on the notion that nothing is automatically bad, in moderation, even McDonald's.  An ice cream ain't health food, but it is pretty damn tasty once in awhile.  Likewise, an occasional Happy Meal won't kill anyone.

357

All parents will relent and give in to a child eventually.

You have truly and utterly lost it, Ace.  I have no idea where that completely false statement came from.

And even if it were true, guess what?  If a parent wants to let their kids set the rules and grow up on crap food, or wear slutty clothes, or fornicate till their parts fall off, understand one thing:

It's not the government's business.

If it occurs within a government instituion like a public school, then there are rules of decorum for the sake of discipline, not personal conduct.

But in parent's own house?  Get and keep your nose out.

Also...

Didn't you learn with TARP that, the second you open the door a crack, the invasion starts?

Control over your kids WILL NOT END with "good nutrition."

ANY step taken "for the children" is a freaking smoke screen.  It's naive to believe otherwise.

358 The Huffington Post called, they want their blog back.

359

Ace sez..Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market.

ok, so ACE, what would you do we these children (yes all parents have experienced something as this) Call the COPS? on your kids for being brats. or take you child to the car let them shriek their little hearts out until they are tired? after having explained you are there for a reason, and it can be a really long  boring trip, or short, kids get consequences, do you want the gvt showing up to stop your kids? or you from figuring out what works with your specific kids personality?

360 I'm still pissed they never made Sugar Beasties Cereal a reality.

361 The people hard-on to ban advertising for evil cereal and soda from kids' shows don't seem to have much interest in banning advertising for other products. 

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 06:57 PM (mR7mk)

wonderful comment. They want to enforce THEIR "righteousness" and idealogy, control.take away anything but that.

Posted by: willow at May 11, 2010 07:02 PM (7FgWm)

Yes, I seem to recall that when Tickle-Me Elmo was causing actual riots in toy stores, the Children's Television Workshop didn't rush out with public service announcements to tell the parents and children to stop acting so stupidly.  More like they clucked their tongues in dismay as they counted the money coming in.

I once had a conversation with a TV critic about why it was that Barney was reviled while Sesame Street was revered.  He mentioned that many television industry people were appalled that the makers of Barney introduced the character BJ as "an obvious ploy to increase licensing opportunities."  Strange, no one ever criticized CTW for creating Elmo for exactly the same purpose.

362 The Huffington Post called, they want their blog back.

Yeah, I feel like I'm in that one episode of Bizarro World Seinfeld.

363 It stops when it's not about kids.

A lot of you just keep claiming that it's hard to tell advertising from adults from advertising for children.

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 07:02 PM (i6ROy)

Libs NEVER stop.

364 All parents will relent and give in to a child eventually.

Any idea where we can find one of these fuckers, cuz I want a mother fucking WebKin.

365 And you betcha, I think almost all of those on the opposite side here would flip in a jiffy if we were talking about the kidporn clothes of Juicy Couture being advertised during Scooby-Doo. Suddenly a lot more people would in fact find the government to have a good-faith interest in preventing the marketing of sexualizing clothing to immature minds during cartoon shows.


They already advertise that crap on cable and in girls' magazines, no one's demanding that the government pick which clothes manufacturers are allowed to advertise which products.

366 What this proves is laws against cigarette commercials went over the line.

You get a lot to like with a Marlboro:
Filter! Flavor! Flip-top box!

367

ace, this is just the thin edge of the wedge designed to control the physical manufacturing of food entirely.

First it's ads, then its fast food menus, then it's ingredients in any food sold to children.:

Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, said the report sent "a polite, but clear warning shot across the bow of industry" to take action.

"Industry will change its practices only when it has no other choice and we're getting to that point now," he said,

The panel also said economic incentives could help eradicate "food deserts" -- urban and rural areas with few, if any, supermarkets and grocery stores. The incentives would improve access to healthy, affordable food.

368

Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market

Yes. Sometimes you give your children what they want when they ask and sometimes you don't. But I will give you 1 piece of absolute advice.

You never give them a goddamn thing when they scream for it.

Else you're friggin dumb.

If you negotiate with terrorists, it causes more terrorism. If the bankrobbers get a plane to Cuba in exchange for the hostages, everyone will know the first thing to do is take hostages.

If you ever give a child what he wants to shut him up because he won't stop screaming, you'll get nothing but more screaming for it.

369 Really.

The worst thing we can do is create an environment where kids don't have to learn to make choices, kids don't have to feel what it's like to want and not receive, to not learn consequences, and where parents' life is made "easier" by the government removing the responsibility of saying "no".

370 ace, this is just the thin edge of the wedge designed to control the physical manufacturing of food entirely.

First it's ads, then its fast food menus, then it's ingredients in any food sold to children.:


They're already controlling salt in food products marketed towards adults.  *srednop*

371 And you betcha, I think almost all of those on the opposite side here would flip in a jiffy if we were talking about the kidporn clothes of Juicy Couture being advertised during Scooby-Doo. Suddenly a lot more people would in fact find the government to have a good-faith interest in preventing the marketing of sexualizing clothing to immature minds during cartoon shows.


They already advertise that crap on cable and in girls' magazines, no one's demanding that the government pick which clothes manufacturers are allowed to advertise which products.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2010 07:09 PM (mR7mk)

And........

We have a winner.

In short, as parents, we deal with this horseshit almost literally minute by minute.  "Get me this, get me that"

"Fuck you, eat your peas, you ungrateful little shit".

It's constant.  It's also an acquired skill, and once you get it it's pretty easy.

Ever wonder why your parents' default answer was "No"?  I don't, anymore.

372

A lot of you just keep claiming that it's hard to tell advertising from adults from advertising for children.

Who cares about the difference?  The little darlings don't need to be brought up in a world of stasis and sterility.  If they can't learn to recognize Snake Oil Salesmen when they're 10, they're not going to learn it when they're 20.

And you know, it's just plain stupidity to believe that the kids aren't going to want sweets just because the advertising disappears.  I've seen in the lunch line at school a hundred times; the green beans and healthy sides aren't touched on the tray while the desserts and fries are scarfed down.

373

A different perspective, have you sat down and watched the commercials lately? Tony the TigerÂ’s advertisements are all about getting outside and playing on sports teams. The McDonalds commercials tend to show the kids eating the apple slices, not the fries. Sure, the kids are bombarded with commercials, but a lot of the messages in the commercials have already changed. Most of the cereals today are fortified and if you limit yourself to a serving it really isnÂ’t that different in caloric intake than other breakfast foods.

 

It seems to me the market is already deciding some of this. Why does the government need to step in and ban things?

 

Frankly, what I would like to see banned, if we are going so far as to ban advertising, is all the movie promotion tie ins for PG-13 movies that market toys to children under 6 years old. More parents are letting their little ones watch PG-13 and even R movies, so shouldnÂ’t the government step in and do something about this as well? (By the way, I donÂ’t think it should, even though it pisses me off, itÂ’s a free market and if the companies succeed in selling this stuff, well it is because some parents are allowing it.)

374

And you betcha, I think almost all of those on the opposite side here would flip in a jiffy if we were talking about the kidporn clothes of Juicy Couture being advertised during Scooby-Doo.

 They already do.

375 You never give them a goddamn thing when they scream for it.

Word. Worst time to give in. Confession. I did get rid of cable in our home because I got tired of listening to the kids around Christmas time ask for everything they saw on the TV. Did I give in and get them those things? No. I got rid of my TV.

Movies only for us.

376 You never give them a goddamn thing when they scream for it.

Tard parent lesson#1.  You learn that one in the binky stage.

377 Ace seems to have this idea that children are like wild animals that cannot be controlled. Mostly, they want to please you, and be like you - dress like you, eat what you eat, say the things you say, etc. Sometimes they will challenge you - that's just how humans are born. They're walking, talking bundles of pure selfish interest, and they must be taught where the lines are drawn. Crush their insignificant rebellion now, before they grow up to fulfill the prophecy! If they're not giving your coffin a two-yard halo, YOU HAVE FAILED AS A PARENT. Like I said, ace - spoken like a man who has no children. Let me lay it out for you. If you take the attitudes you have now into parenthood, don't come crying here when you come home to find your kid with a dick in his mouth and a heroin spike in his arm.

378 I want a mega-blaster withe laser sights!!

379 WTF, have people just now, after nearly 55 years, discovered this.  What the Hell is so special about this generation of cookie crunchers?  I grew up with TV and Saturday morning kids shows, and if I wanted some toy or cereal that I saw on TV, my Mom would say no.  The long answer was "Hell no!"

Likewise, my children, who by the way are all grown, and they are not one ounce overweight. 

380 And you betcha, I think almost all of those on the opposite side here would flip in a jiffy if we were talking about the kidporn clothes of Juicy Couture being advertised during Scooby-Doo. Suddenly a lot more people would in fact find the government to have a good-faith interest in preventing the marketing of sexualizing clothing to immature minds during cartoon shows.

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 07:00 PM (i6ROy)

You really don't watch much children's television, do you, Ace?

Ever hear of Bratz dolls?  That became so popular that they were about to take down Barbie?  Little 8" plastic sluts with collagen-puffed lips and hip-huggers down to the pubic bone?  More to the point, did you ever see the massive public outcry and demand for legislation to protect our daughters from the Bratz?

Also, please define the bright line between childhood and non-childhood.  Is it any more or less definite than the line between a clump of cells and an unborn child?

Here's one for you: In the Jewish tradition, we don't consider the fetus viable until the second semester... of graduate school.

381 I did get rid of cable in our home because I got tired of listening to the kids around Christmas time ask for everything they saw on the TV. Did I give in and get them those things? No. I got rid of my TV.

Movies only for us.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 11, 2010 07:14 PM (fo4Wl)

THIS is reality.  Non-parents really do not get this type of shit.  Not my choice, but it wasn't my family, either.  Still, I can understand it, easily.

382

You never give them a goddamn thing when they scream for it.

Else you're friggin dumb.

If you negotiate with terrorists, it causes more terrorism. If the bankrobbers get a plane to Cuba in exchange for the hostages, everyone will know the first thing to do is take hostages.

If you ever give a child what he wants to shut him up because he won't stop screaming, you'll get nothing but more screaming for it.

Posted by: Entropy

amen.

383 >>And you betcha, I think almost all of those on the opposite side here would flip in a jiffy if we were talking about the kidporn clothes of Juicy Couture being advertised during Scooby-Doo. Suddenly a lot more people would in fact find the government to have a good-faith interest in preventing the marketing of sexualizing clothing to immature minds during cartoon shows. << Nope. But that'd be the end of those shows, wouldn't it? Nice try. But the fact that this DOESN'T happen--and in the small cases where it sort of does, say Bratz dolls--and "the other side" doesn't scream about government regulation but boycotts proves you wrong. 'cause you KNOW they WOULD sell it to kids if they could.

384

You are above this, and don't need the government to limit how many sugar-fortified cereals are advertised in a hour of programming; so the lesser parents (again --not BAD parents; just lesser; they try to the do the right stuff, but succumb/give up to childish pleading) are just fucked?

Well, let me just state that the snark about super parents was pretty dickheadish of you.

But yeah, I'm not perfect, but I'm a good parent. I work hard at it. And honestly, it's something you know precisely dick about.

Other parents are not my problem. Resisting whining and bitching is part of the job. It's what kid's do. Maybe you've never noticed.

385

Yes. Sometimes you give your children what they want when they ask and sometimes you don't. But I will give you 1 piece of absolute advice.

You never give them a goddamn thing when they scream for it.

Else you're friggin dumb.

Exactly.

I take it a step farther...

ANY kid who would have EVER screamed for something would have been taken straight out of the store, driven home, and given a lesson they would never forget.

My children never did that because they knew it was bad behavior long before we got to the store in the first place.

386 You know what pisses me off more than the cereal commercials? All the commercials that portray the parents as total morons and the kids as eye rolling condescending super geniuses that only put up with their parents because they're forced to.

387 Like I said, ace - spoken like a man who has no children. Let me lay it out for you. If you take the attitudes you have now into parenthood, don't come crying here when you come home to find your kid with a dick in his mouth and a heroin spike in his arm.

I ... just ... can't add anything to that. Well-put, Jeff.

388 Like I said, ace - spoken like a man who has no children. Let me lay it out for you. If you take the attitudes you have now into parenthood, don't come crying here when you come home to find your kid duct taping a hobo with a dick in his mouth and a heroin spike in his arm.

Kindness is called for, here, Jeff.......

389 I want a Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle.

390 Wish I could have been the first to say GOOD ARTICLE!

391

cut our head moron some slack...... its not like he said to only feed your kid Hobo meat.

392 do. I just don't understand why you believe General Mills has an unfettered right to interfere with the sorts of parental decisions you're entitled to make, by constantly using highly-effective marketing tools to directly undermine the rules you are certainly setting for your kids. You are basically saying you have the right to say no to your kids, and General Mills has the right to use every gimmick and catchy jingle and secret decoder ring to get your kids to challenge you on your "no," and you don't see yourself as having a privileged position in this struggle -- both you and General Mills are free to use any technique at your disposal to win in this particular battle. Shocking, Ace. to hear that coming from you. It's such - I want to be kind- baloney, baloney with a second name. Yes, advertisers have a right to market their food as fun and wonderful. Parents teach their kids about the real world. What insane planet do you live on that Parents don't simply win by saying no, or saying yes but not now? If a parent feels their child is overly bombarded with kiddie luring ads, the answer is control your damn TV: limit it. How many five year olds do you know who can go out and get a flat screen and basic cable? Whining only resulted in my kid having less fun and less stuff. No meant no, Yes but not now meant yes but not now. On saturday meant on saturday.

393

Frankly, what I would like to see banned, if we are going so far as to ban advertising, is all the movie promotion tie ins for PG-13 movies that market toys to children under 6 years old. More parents are letting their little ones watch PG-13 and even R movies, so shouldnÂ’t the government step in and do something about this as well? (By the way, I donÂ’t think it should, even though it pisses me off, itÂ’s a free market and if the companies succeed in selling this stuff, well it is because some parents are allowing it.)

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 11, 2010 07:13 PM (RZ8pf)

How about the 11-year-old girl in Kick-Ass who swears like a Marine and kills people?  Have we seen a massive outpouring of rage against that portrayal from people on the Right?  Actually, I saw a pundit on a Right site praising that character and the movie as a whole for promoting self-reliance and a willingness to act rather than wait for the authorities to solve every problem.

394 Oh yes, we should certainly let the same people who terrify little children on a daily basis with tales of melting ice caps and drowning polar bears "protect" our children from the subversive message of General Mills.

California banned trans fats except in school-provided lunches.  Oh, yes, we should certainly trust government to look out for the best interests of our children and not use the same argument to expand that control to other areas of child-rearing.

Having a parent who is too lazy or doesn't know how to establish their authority or too afraid their kid isn't going to like them is no reason to let the fucking federal government interfere.  That there are parents who don't teach their kids how to accept "no" does not justify the state's intervention.

395

Okay, so plainly we have a lot of Super Parents here who are nearly perfect at exercising parental control and resisting screaming jags at the super market.

FIFME. Why? Because i'm an asshole and i'm the parent (use to be anyway).

396 You can have my mega-blaster when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, you Nazi pigs!

397 I want a Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle.


Fuck. No.

398

And someone upthread touched on it, but the flip side to the obesity epidemic isnÂ’t just that kids are eating more junk food today, itÂ’s that schools have eliminated gym class every day and theyÂ’ve cut way back on recess time as well because of the pressure to prepare kids to take the tests in order to get the government money needed to keep the school afloat. So, the government isnÂ’t handling the job they have been tasked with doing very well already and we want to give them more control? And make no mistake, this about control, who controls the messages your children see and hear and who makes the decisions for your children.

399 It's just silly and insulting and enraging to think parents are pathetic childlike victims of advertising.

400

If you ever give a child what he wants to shut him up because he won't stop screaming, you'll get nothing but more screaming for it.

Posted by: Entropy

amen.

Posted by: willow at May 11, 2010 07:16 PM (7FgWm)

Ding!

401

In the interest of the children, also, (as if they are supposed to be doing anything besides teaching) our school district is now putting out a travel advisory.

To Arizona.

 

402 "Oh yes, we should certainly let the same people who terrify little children on a daily basis with tales of melting ice caps and drowning polar bears "protect" our children from the subversive message of General Mills."


very good

403 It seems to me the market is already deciding some of this. Why does the government need to step in and ban things?

Companies are doing that kind of stuff because they're trying to forestall government regulation, not because the market demands it.

404
"...and that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have nanny-state rules for people who really do need nannies..."

Ah, well then.  I think *you* need a nanny. 

My gawd... you wanna control Happy Meals?  WTF?

405

346  At what point do you draw the line that x is ok for government to regulate "for the children" and y is an overstep?  I'm not completely disagreeing that in some things (like movie ratings or prime time tv, and the like there shouldn't be some limitations upon what is "sold" to children, although the effectiveness of the same is rather laughable imho) -- perhaps that is even too much for some, but I can compromise a bit.  However, we have seen repeated incursions into the living rooms, and at some point it has to be stopped.

What if access to information that runs contrary to what is taught in the schools (I'm thinking rebuttals to the pc claptrap that has become the norm) becomes something considered "unhealthy" for children?

And at what point to we deem children not children any more? 18 is considered the age of adulthood, but have we or have we not seen a push to get the age of majority pushed back?  So, will government regulate more and more for longer and longer periods of a person's life because they are considered "children" and not capable of making adult choices?

406 Uhm...

407 itÂ’s that schools have eliminated gym class every day

Not anymore; there's a new federal requirement.  We had a fight about that here one day, about the federal government insisting it knows more about a particular school district's needs than the people who live in that district. 

(All I ever got out of gym class was a life-long aversion to exercise.  Heh.)

408

Just to sort of sum this up.

Ace, you believe in polling, yes?

Care to figure out how wrong you are on this? Percentage wise?

And would  you run on this platform?

409 Few disagree that the government has regulatory power over the electromagnetic spectrum of communications.


Which currently is limited to essentially diving up frequencies for private use so no one steps on another person's transmission area. And enforcing common decency standards on open transmissions. They are NOT allowed to limit free speech without restraint over the airwaves. Nor do I think we should let them start by expanding the idea of common decency beyond that which "a reasonable person would find obscene" to "stuff we think is bad for your kids so we won't let them hear"

If you think whole sale redefining and broadening standards for censorship won't have HUGE unintended consequences, I question your conservative credentials.

410

401 I want a Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle.

Hell no, you will shoot your eye out.

411 Fucking liberals. We should put them all in a giant pit and burn them. Posted by: G$ at May 11, 2010 05:48 PM (ao9DD) Please forward your resume to Human Resources. You have Upper Management writ across your brow.

412 Exactly, Sarah.

413 Damn, I was going to give Ace the riot act on this one, but the lot of you beat me to it. Well done!

414

The Huffington Post called, they want their blog back.

Yeah, I feel like I'm in that one episode of Bizarro World Seinfeld.

*shakes head*  This is just weird.  It's so obvious that the government is overstepping its authority on this that...It's just weird.

415
Not anymore; there's a new federal requirement.  We had a fight about that here one day, about the federal government insisting it knows more about a particular school district's needs than the people who live in that district.

At least where I'm at in California, the requirement for daily P.E. is only for junior high and up. None of my elementary aged school students have P.E. every day. Not even once a week. Once every 6 days.

416 Smurfberry Crunch is fun to eat!

A crunchy, fruity breakfast treat!

417 And the snark about being perfect parents was pretty lame -- but yes, while nobody is perfect, some are better parents than others.  It isn't rocket science to raise a kid, but it does take some backbone and common sense -- things that seem to be woefully lacking in some people.  I would rather keep my freedom to be a parent sans anymore government intervention, thank you -- therefore, I'm obligated to try my best and take the risks of getting it wrong.

418 Shoot the neighbors cat instead.

419

Suddenly a lot more people would in fact find the government to have a good-faith interest in preventing the marketing of sexualizing clothing to immature minds during cartoon shows.

Still wouldn't look to the gov't for help.

There are a lot of ways to deal with this, and no lame assed well intended but full of unintended consequences tax money spending legislation is not on the list.

420

More regulation is clearly needed. Perhaps it should be a law, with some consequences, too.

Parents are not capable of parenting, clearly, and something must be done.

421 51 >>>No, actually, we can't, or at least I can't. You seem determined to treat kids as "Little Adults" where all the libertarian rules of adulthood apply.

>>>I don't get this-- is there anyone arguing that a high-sugar diet is actually a good thing for a kid (or anyone), or at least not a bad thing?

No, ace, we're arguing that PARENTS ARE ADULTS and have the right and responsibility to set the rules of their own household without the nattering control of the government.

I have friends who are totally organic, granola hippie parents who don't buy any processed food, and others raising their kids on hot dogs and mac and cheese. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL THEM HOW TO BE PARENTS? Who are you to judge their values and their family and tell them how government knows what's best for their kid? Literally, that the government will tell their kids what to put in their mouths and that that right reigns supreme over their responsibilities as parents?

F**K THAT, ACE.

422

>>If you ever give a child what he wants to shut him up because he won't stop screaming, you'll get nothing but more screaming for it.

Posted by: Entropy>>

True words, indeed.  My sis had a co-worker with a toddler who had developed a charming habit of biting people.  Brilliant parent began bribing her toddler with McDonald's so she wouldn't bite.  One day the child asked for McDonald's.  Mom said no, and the child said "Then I bite."  Fucking moronic parent.

423

HeatherRadish, I think the federal government just says they have to have gym at some point during the week, not every day. So schools, at least here in WA only have gym class either once or twice a week at the elementary level.

424

Once Obama gains control of children's marketing to act in loco parentis for the kids own good, then he'll want control of teenagers marketing to act in loco parentis for the kids own good, then he'll want control of twentysomethings marketing to act in loco parentis for the young adults own good, then he'll want control of adults marketing to act in loco parentis for the people's own good.  Who could object to so much good being done?

Obama thinks the gummint should control everything according to his preference.  Don't let his nose in the tent.

425 Well, looking back through the article, I suppose I probably am the first to say GOOD ARTICLE.

Don't let the heehaws discourage you.  They can't watch their children 24/7 and they can't always control what their kids want.  They like to play Larry Libertarian because they think they're super parents, but they don't remember how often they got away with stupid shit when they were a kid without their parents not knowing.

Junk food should not be marketed to kids.  They don't know better and they don't know why it's harmful to them.

426 And the obesity problem isn't because kids eat frosted flakes, cheetos, fritos, and bags of keebler cookies. I ate all of that, regularl throughout my childhood. I never got fat - and I was only moderately active, not very athletic. I was so typical of the kids of my generation. I went for long walks, and might ride my bike a block or two, but spent plenty of time flopped in front of the TV. I suspect the HF corn syrup. It's ubiquitous and in everything now...it was in nothing when I was a kid. Princeton said when net calories were the same, the HFCS rats gained more weight, more abdominal fat, and became less healthy. Is it true? I dont know. But I ate all the crap kids eat today, and so did my friends, and we were all rails.

427 "I've been embarrassed MANY a time in the grocery store, doesn't mean I give in. I'm sure I just look like a total rag to everyone around me. But I don't care. Posted by: pajama momma at May 11, 2010 07:01 PM (fo4Wl)" You don't "look like a total rag" to me, PM. I appreciate seeing parents who are willing to be parents. I suspect all adults feel the same.

428 Pallooka, garbage. If they can't buy it and can only beg for it, then it's mom and dad's fault. And by the way, all of that stuff is FINE in moderation.

429 Junk food should not be marketed to kids.  They don't know better and they don't know why it's harmful to them.

Posted by: Palooka at May 11, 2010 07:31 PM (TQSLy)

Parents control the money.

430

Cosmic irony (or Google adserving at its finest):

The left bar ad was for California's First Five children's education initiative -- then I refreshed the page and that ad was replaced by one for Jack in the Box's 3 for $3 menu.

431 Junk food should not be marketed to kids. They don't know better and they don't know why it's harmful to them. Posted by: Palooka at May 11, 2010 07:31 PM (TQSLy) Hey, awesome. Shitwagon agrees with you.

432 Smurfberry Crunch is fun to eat!

A crunchy, fruity breakfast treat!

It's taken me 20 years to get that song out of my head. You just got it back in. You have ruined my life!

433 Sarahw: Do you mean to tell me that you don't take your child-rearing advice from single, middle-aged men who've never had children? You've got a lot of nerve missy!!

434 And the snark about being perfect parents was pretty lame

Agreed.  I don't think it follows, necessarily, that because not every parent is perfect children will be, on the whole, better off with more government intrusion into American family life.

435 Also, it seems like a majority of people posting in this comments section don't really grasp what's going on.

No one is telling anyone how to raise their kids.  If you want to feed them McD's every day, that's fine. 

The reality here is that a company will not be allowed to directly market a largely harmful product to a set of people who absolutely do not know that the product is harmful.

436

429  Of course kids get away with stupid shit -- sometimes they pay the consequences of their stupid shit.  It's known as life and the process of growing up.  Childhood is a dangerous occupation, because life is risky.  Parents do the best they can (or should), but there are no guarantees.

What would life be like if you were kept "safe" 24/7?

437 Junk food should not be marketed to kids.  They don't know better and they don't know why it's harmful to them.

Posted by: Palooka at May 11, 2010 07:31 PM (TQSLy)

And the only influences in their lives are television commercials.  Because their parents are mute, and anyway only interact with them from behind a curtain, and their teachers likewise never speak to them about the dangers of junk food.

Marketing is not mind control.  Not even for little kids.

438 The reality here is that a company will not be allowed to directly market a largely harmful product to a set of people who absolutely do not know that the product is harmful.
Posted by: Palooka at May 11, 2010 07:34 PM

Parents control the money.

439 children grabbed candy , girly books, stole stuff, and killed animals before cereal commercials. or tv.

440 402 And someone upthread touched on it, but the flip side to the obesity epidemic isnÂ’t just that kids are eating more junk food today, itÂ’s that schools have eliminated gym class every day and theyÂ’ve cut way back on recess time as well . . .

My youngest hasn't been in elementary school for 10 years, but even back then any child could spend their recess sitting on their butts if they wanted.  When I was in elementary school recess was spent in an assigned game.  Now to do so is apparently a violation of their civil rights or some such crap.

441

The reality here is that a company will not be allowed to directly market a largely harmful product to a set of people who absolutely do not know that the product is harmful.

1. Sugary cereal is not harmful in moderation.

2. My kid can't eat sugary cereal in my house if I don't buy it.

3. If he eats it at a friend's house that has nothing to do with advertising.

4. You're stupid.

442 >>>I don't get this-- is there anyone arguing that a high-sugar diet is actually a good thing for a kid (or anyone), or at least not a bad thing? You know what? I DO argue that, as long as it's a reasonable amount of cane sugar and not the fructose business - It's not a bad thing, per se. And I notice you didn't mention FAT. Is this the carb thing? Some people are better off with low carbs, but that doesn't apply to the whole world.

443 Why don't we just put the morning after pill in all adult foods and head this problem off at the pass.

444

Fucking idiot Palooka.

The only food that comes into a home or from a drive through window is what adults buy, until children have a car and money.

They can't obtain the product, dumbass, unless an adult buys it.

445 Keep in mind, this is coming from the administration of the guy who regularly whines about video games, cable news, and now iPods and Playstation. Those things are not good for you, he says. They are not good for democracy.

I'm not saying the food stuff is a slippery slope. I'm just saying I remember that before he proposed these laws, he told us he had worried about his daughter's weight, complained about the price of arugula, and how hard it was for Michelle to get her kids to eat fruit.

446

Because young kids ARE going to want Frosted Flakes over Special K., particularly if they ads for Frosted Flakes a lot.

Dear Ace, as a father of a 9 year old daughter I feel I must respond.

1) The government has no say in this matter IMHO. They intrude into far to much as it is.

2) When I say no to my daughter she has learned by God it means NO. And if she pushes the issue there is pushback for trying to be a whiny bitch to her father.

I'm the parent and my word is frickn law in this house and I own your ass till you turn 18.

 

447 You people never had money as kids?  Never had a job?  I was mowing yards and fixing computers at the tender age of 11.

The arguments presented aren't well thought out.

448 Yes, that must be it. Atkins freak-out bias.

449 The reality here is that a company will not be allowed to directly market a largely harmful product to a set of people who absolutely do not know that the product is harmful.


Breakfast cereal is harmful when used as directed on the packaging?  What color is the sky on your planet? 

450 The reality here is that a company will not be allowed to directly market a largely harmful product to a set of people who absolutely do not know that the product is harmful.

It's not harmful in moderation. The government needs to but out. I guarantee you everyone knows it's unhealthy. Schools bombard you with that info every day, while they serve up their incredibly unhealthy meals of fish sticks and cheeseburgers and chocolate milk and cookies for lunch. I guarantee you that the kids that you are talking about eat those particular lunches at school 5 days a week.

My kids' school, I kid you not, serves Cocoa Puffs with chocolate milk and a Pop Tart for breakfast. Why? Because well, the kids won't eat it if they're served something healthy.

451 >>>I don't get this-- is there anyone arguing that a high-sugar diet is actually a good thing for a kid (or anyone), or at least not a bad thing? Man, Ace, never seen you put up so many strawmen so quickly. If that's ALL they're eating ALL the time? If it's even a substantial portion of their diet REGULARLY? HTF is this gonna help? Is it gonna get harder for parents to pick up McD's because there's no toy? You were a kid before Happy Meals. You tell me. I also blame HFCS for our current woes. Mostly because it tastes crappy, though.

452 "IMHO if we let the govt regulate the advertising because its "for the kids" where does it stop after that?"
It stops when it's not about kids.
A lot of you just keep claiming that it's hard to tell advertising from adults from advertising for children.
--Ace

As I said in my previous comment:
Here's the problem, Ace.  Now you have the government deciding what "advertising to children" is.  And a good example of how this results in the inevitable government power grab is flavored cigars and cigarettes.  The usual suspects have pretty much gotten them banned because a peach-flavored cigarette was deemed "advertising to children."  God knows no adult might find such a thing enjoyable.  And you may remember they tried to ban flavored wine coolers for the same reason.  Because only children like flavored things.  Right?  It's for the children.

453

Posted by: willow at May 11, 2010 07:37 PM (7FgWm)

You just made me think. There goes Halloween...

454

You know what would really help? If parents would hang up their damn cell phones and do some parenting every once in a while. Maybe the government should regulate that as well. When you are accompanying your child in public you may not talk on a cellphone. Because God knows IÂ’ve seen enough little holy terrors destroy store displays while their oblivious parent chats about the boil on her butt to her best friend.

 

Kids are not little adults. But, they are people, not decorative objects for adults.

455 Pallooka, I had babysitting money at 12 and up. I bought some junk food. I mostly bought clothes. At that age a few ho-hos aren't going to mess up a kid who earns them with yard-work sweat.

456 In a case with a bright-line boundary -- is the case here-- yes, I do think it is easily possible to restrict what is marketed to kids without taking away an ADULT's right to eat a cheeseburger.

By moving that bright line to total protection of the children from potentially detrimental broadcast messages well you can imagine all the messages which COULD be defined as detrimental to children by government given the assumption of perfectly neglectful parents, and some troubling demographic.

457

Part of the problem, and yes I totally blame celebrities for this, is that about 10 years ago suddenly a baby/child became an accessory, like a purse, or a new pair of shoes. And, now weÂ’re seeing a lot of buyerÂ’s remorse among people who probably shouldnÂ’t have had children. And, unlike their celebrity role models they donÂ’t have nannies and servants to step in and parent. That doesnÂ’t mean the government should step in, though.

458 It isn't rocket science to raise a kid, but it does take some backbone and common sense -- things that seem to be woefully lacking in some people.  I would rather keep my freedom to be a parent sans anymore government intervention, thank you -- therefore, I'm obligated to try my best and take the risks of getting it wrong.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 11, 2010 07:29 PM (5/yRG)

Besides, if the argument is that some parents are not able to police their children's behavior, shouldn't the solutions be directed to those parents?

459 For the safety of the children, we will be assigning them to camps.

460 Wow.  Turns out you are a squish.  This question has not a thing to do with "libertarian" ideals of "freedom".  It has to do with the role of the government.  And this sure as shit isn't one of them.

461

They can't watch their children 24/7 and they can't always control what their kids want.  They like to play Larry Libertarian because they think they're super parents, but they don't remember how often they got away with stupid shit when they were a kid without their parents not knowing.

HAPPY MEAL TOYS Palooka you nitwit. Sugary cereals.

I present into evidence Exhibit #A into the fine line between what constitutes "children", Palooka thinks we're talking about banning ads for Frosted Flakes aimed at teenagers (and is all for it).

No, I have no goddamn idea where my 4 year old is. He said he was going to grab a quart of milk and some smokes and headed out on his bigwheel with a backpack full of lunchables and I haven't seen him for 6 hours.

Yes, one time when I was 16 I told my parents I was going over to Joe's house and then I went to McDonalds and bought a happy meal without them knowing, with money I got at my pizza delivery job.

462
The reality here is that a company will not be allowed to directly market a largely harmful product to a set of people who absolutely do not know that the product is harmful.

Posted by: Palooka at May 11, 2010 07:34 PM (TQSLy)

i think we see that point fine

children rarely drive themselves to mickey 's. or buy their own sexy clothing.

463 Sorry to see Ace being stupid as fuck.

464 My youngest hasn't been in elementary school for 10 years, but even back then any child could spend their recess sitting on their butts if they wanted.  When I was in elementary school recess was spent in an assigned game.  Now to do so is apparently a violation of their civil rights or some such crap.


Recess was a good time to read without having to pretend I was paying attention.  "Assigned games" is where I learned to hate myself and my body.  P.E. is where I learned to hate exercise.

I don't understand the "one size fits all" approach to kids. 

465 <> You mean, at 11, you had NO CLUE that, maybe, the greasy burger at fat-soaked fries and sugary soda were NOT as good for you as a balanced home-cooked meal? You've healed nicely for someone who must have had a railroad spike driven into his skull at a young age.

466

Need to take a word or two of advice from George Carlin...

 http://tinyurl.com/3x7vd6k

467

And, if my teenage daughters had ever wanted to wear inappropriate clothing (with or without the advertising), this would be the conversation...

Kid: "Mom, can we buy that?"

Mom: "No."

Kid: "Why not?"

Mom: "Because you're neither a slut nor a prostitute."

Kid: "But other girls wear them."

Mom: "Then they have rather unhealthy relationships in store for them."

One of my daughters brushed up against owning a pair of very low-cut jeans once.  Once.

468

children rarely drive themselves to mickey 's. or buy their own sexy clothing.

17-26 y.o. children do and something needs to be done!

469 The whole "sweets are bad" thing could be eliminated if we developed a large scale commercial way to transform Dextrose into Levose.

470 No, I have no goddamn idea where my 4 year old is. He said he was going to grab a quart of milk and some smokes and headed out on his bigwheel with a backpack full of lunchables and I haven't seen him for 6 hours.

Did you remember to ask him to pick up that 6 pack for me? You better have or we're gonna have trouble.

471

451  Oh yeah, I had money as a kid -- started working (outside of chores) by age 10, mowing lawns, running errands, washing cars.  My parents made me take half my money and put it in the bank.  Told me it was for my future.  I got to spend the rest.  Funny thing; I never got obese or cavities from eating junk food (probably because I was running around working my ass off for that money in the first place and my parents encouraged sports, plus there were all those chores I had to do, plus keep my grades up).  It also taught me that the more I worked, the more I made, the bigger stash I got to spend (and the fatter my savings account grew).

Amazing isn't it?

472 If you scroll down the page, you'll see a post by Laura W. about Obama's opinion that American children should be spending more time in the outdoors. That's two stories in what? - 48 hours - where Obama is focussing on other people's children. If he were a Catholic priest, any half-sentient parent would already be on his way to the police to report this unhealthy interest in how other people's children are passing their time and developing their bodies. I remember an essay by S.J. Perelman, where he was forced to read sanctimonious articles from some sophisticated style magazine about the "best" way of doing things. After reading "Why don't you wash your blond child's hair in dead champagne, as they do in France?" he decided "I'll let my blond child go to hell her own way, as we do in America." And I think a little more of that attitude would be good, instead of the quivering anxiety that one moment of inattention will result in ruin.

473

  that the product is harmful.

 

I don't think you understand what that word means

474 Fat kids are fat for the same reasons grown ups are. If you sit on your ass and eat all the time and never get out and do anything. Guess what? Your ass is going toget fat. Do some work, get out and walk. Do something , dont say its just the way I was raised  or whatever. Get your lazy ass up off the couch and do something.

475 Ace, frosted flakes are seriously not that bad for you, and if you really think they are, someone has sold you a bridge to the totalitarian century. My mother worked so I got carnation instant breakfast a lot. I wasn't overweight as a kid and none of my friends were except for the Grizzards who really liked their butter.

476

17-26 y.o. children do and something needs to be done!

Posted by: Entropy at May 11, 2010 07:42 PM (eL+YD)

true, I', all in for sharing my roll of duct tape and sharing this hall closet. till they're 30

477 HeatherRadish, I think the federal government just says they have to have gym at some point during the week, not every day.

The every-day thing is new...might not take effect for a few years.  My hometown (approx 700 kids K-12) just had to levy a multimillion-dollar bond to build a new gym because the two existing gyms only provide enough space for P.E. every other day.

478 I'm

479 Don't let the heehaws discourage you.  They can't watch their children 24/7 and they can't always control what their kids want.  They like to play Larry Libertarian because they think they're super parents, but they don't remember how often they got away with stupid shit when they were a kid without their parents not knowing.

No amount of candy I
A. Could acquire on the meager resources my parents afforded me at the age when I wanted it.

and

B. Could sneak without permission and without my parents finding out.

Could ever have been substantially harmful.

And I submit if you are neglectful to the point where A and B allow obtaining harmful levels of candy, or french fries or whatever, then drug use is likely in your kids future as well. OH I KNOW, YOU CAN BAN ADS FOR POT! Then they'll never know...

480 I'm against happy meal toys but not because they lure children into bad eating habits ,its because they always seem to get left on the floor and I have stepped on those things barefooted one too many times.

481 Ace, we're talking about taking away a parent's right to given their kid a damn cheeseburger, to have a fat kid. It's not the govermment's damn business.

482

Also, @ #24, you are right about local communities, which is why it is always described that we have 50 individual experiments in democracy in the 50 states.  And infinite number of more experiments at the local level. 

Banning toys in kids meals by that CA town was idiotic, but that is their right.  Nowhere in the Constitution, though, is it stated that the federal government should be regulating children's toys or food, especially advertising, to protect them from marginally "bad" things. 

Nowhere. 

483 Get your lazy ass up off the couch and do something.

Ah, yes, the ignorant asshole insistance that fat = lazy.  Surprised it took that many comments to get to it.

Injury or medication is never a factor; hours spent working at a desk can't possibly be a factor...it's just pure laziness.

Right.  STFUADIAF.

484 It's true you can't watch your kids 24 hours a day. That's why you teach them things.

485 ANY PRODUCT SOLD COULD BE HARMFUL.  Where are we going to draw the line with these meddling fucks?

486 SarahW: Is it true? I dont know. But I ate all the crap kids eat today, and so did my friends, and we were all rails.
=============

I'll just say that from where I sit, most of the kids are still rails.  I don't think obesity is an evenly distributed epidemic. I can say I've lived in 4 US school districts and 2 international ones, and there have never been more than a handful of overweight kids.

I think a big part of the problem comes from kids living among adults and peers who are overweight. It's like living among women who get too much plastic surgery.  It just becomes normal and ok.

487 ANY PRODUCT SOLD COULD BE HARMFUL.

Except the mercury-filled eco-lightbulbs, lol. Those are perfectly safe, you planet-killing liars.

Ban dihydrogen monoxide!

488

As a kid, I ate sugary cereals, corn dogs, fast food, fried chicken, all kinds of crap, and I was not the athletic type.  I ended up as a size 5 in college.

I raised my kids the same way I was raised and neither of them has a weight issue.

All accomplished without the interference of the government.  Go figure.

There is a huge difference between "optimal" nutrition and "acceptable" nutrition.  And none of it should be dictated by the Feds.

489

Funny thing; I never got obese or cavities from eating junk food (probably because I was running around working my ass off for that money in the first place and my parents encouraged sports, plus there were all those chores I had to

And since I was in the same boat, money for comics, BB's, and maybe some junk food. But not much. Like shoestring potatoes. Once every 3 months or so?

And riding a bike every day had a tendency to burn off those calories.

490 The reality here is that a company will not be allowed to directly market a largely harmful product to a set of people who absolutely do not know that the product is harmful.

Mouthwash.

Swallowing that shit will kill you way faster the sugar or McD's fries.

How the bloody hell can you say these products are harmful?

Sola dosis facit venenum.

491 You people never had money as kids?  Never had a job?  I was mowing yards and fixing computers at the tender age of 11.

And then you saw an ad for Frosted Flakes and biked on down to the 7-11 and bought 25 boxes of them and stashed them in your treehouse and sneaked over there every day to gobble down those sugary carb-flakes and then you got diabetes.

And that's why we need to regulate Frosted Flakes advertising.

492 When I was 10, a friend and I were riding our bikes behind the drugstore when we saw a clerk throwing away full boxes of Butterfinger candy bars. The expiration date on the boxes was the previous day. We each took a box, 24 bars each.
We used to sleep in a tent in the backyard almost every night during the summer. We ate everyone of those candy bars that night.

493

MayBee has a point. I read that “1 in 3 children is obese” statistic and was puzzled. In my son’s class of 21 children none of them are obese. Most are skinny, only one has a bit of a belly, but I wouldn’t describe him as overweight, I’d say he has a bit of a husky build, he’ll probably end up being a linebacker or something. Same with the other 2^nd grade class. I guess that must mean that out there somewhere is a classroom full of obese 2^nd graders.

Because we all know, statistics donÂ’t lie. (/sarc obv.)

494 Fairpoint, heatherradish and one that applies to my kid. For his privacy's sake I won't say what he had, but the underlying condition (NOT RELATED TO CEREAL, the surgery which was not successful, the month of illness after, the new surgery and the prolonged recovery and medication left him with extra weight. He's still taking it off.

495

And I'm also not real impressed with all the strawman arguments, Ace.  Dress code in school ?  Uh, yeah, the "state" has an interest in maintaining control over THEIR environment.  There is an argument to be made that if parents are ok with a kids dress, then it should be allowed, but the fact that their clothes could ultimately interfere with someone ELSE's education, trumps that freedom.

In the case of kids food, your choices as a parent affect YOUR kids and nobody else.  Big difference.

Argue in favor of your view of THIS issue.  Don't makeup BS strawman scenarios so you can beat them all to hell.

496

Ah shoot.  I missed all the yelling.

Well ok, allow me to suggest a third way (and apologies if it's been suggested already), persuading the manufacturers to self-regulate, through the time-honored method of "increasing sales and profits by driving demand for better or different products".

Government actually can play a role here, by hinting at the power of regulation and "giving good advice". Consumers can drive it by spending more on what they perceive to be the better choice.

Speaking of which, Fuck You FDA for that goddamned stupid food pyramid (or whichever effed up alphabet agency came up with it). 

McDonalds didn't always sell salads.  They didn't really want to be in the salad business, they wanted to be in the cheeseburger business.  Consumers tastes and attitudes shifted, not to do away with cheesburgers, but to add choices.

I noticed a week or so ago, some major cereal company, I forget which, is touting the amount of dietery fiber in their major "kid-oriented" line-up.

This is not marketing aimed at a 7 year old.

I don't really care about the slippery slope argument so much as I care about how the state uses its power, and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.  To me, I'm kinda "eh" on this.

However I do recognize the role I had as a dad, and the value of teaching my kids to make good choices and the consequences of bad ones.

I can't speak to everyone else's parenting skills or lack thereof, but I can tell you ol Dave here had days when he was a great parent, and days when he was a shitty parent.  Lots of B+ days in between.  I decided for good or not, to pick my battles with my girls.  Tried to be diligent about the important things, wasn't always, let other things go.  Winning every fight crushes a kid's spirit.  Giving up too many makes them assholes.

I also noted along the way that I wasn't exactly the poster child for nutritional choices, which would have been the better example.  In the 24 years that have passed since I told Mrs. Dave "you're WHAT?", I've been 202, and I've been 287.  (225 today and back on South Beach because I went up to 225 and it pissed me off).

That would have certainly helped, and it's the one thing I pretty much sucked at.

 

Also, SarahW, I don't disagree with you on the fructose thing, I do on the low carb thing for some people.  I suspect all foods aren't quite the same to all people, anymore than some folks seem to know how to make a hell of a lot of cholesterol whether they eat it or not. I'm sure there's some genetics at play too, but by and large what we eat that we don't burn up, we get to carry around, yeah. Some of it is just packed with more burnage than other foods.

 

 

497 TC, now that is a proper childhood.

498 Government is not in business to micromanage--end of story.

499

Injury or medication is never a factor; hours spent working at a desk can't possibly be a factor...it's just pure laziness.

Right.  STFUADIAF.

..............

ok Heather, lets say......... what 5% or 10% are ........  what about the other 90% shoving Big Mac's in their mouths

500 In the 30's, Crisco was considered the healthy alternative because it was "scientific". When I was growing up, margarine was considered the better alternative to fatty butter.
In the 90's, when cholesterol was all the rage, I remember my neighbor saying "what kind of person eats eggs any more?". Then came the advice to eat almost no fat grams. It's been one new discovery about nutrition after another, each as specious as the last.

So...I guess I'm wondering which food fad we'll legislate, here.Will it be ok for firms to advertise to kids that they are "organic"? That they are locally grown?  That the apple juice doesn't have Alar? Who decides what the "good" foods are, and based on what?

501 ANY PRODUCT SOLD COULD BE HARMFUL.  Where are we going to draw the line with these meddling fucks?

Posted by: Ken Royall at May 11, 2010 07:50 PM (9zzk+)

It is the act of selling that makes it harmful.  Isn't that what we're told by advocates of drug legalization?  "If you take the profit motive out of it, the drug trade will be non-violent and benign."  Why shouldn't that apply to Happy Meals and Frosted Flakes?  Just give them away for free, and the people in their wisdom will use them safely, in moderation.

502 I can eat all the Big Macs I want, as long as I wash them down with a diet Coke.

503

Hmm, perhaps we should LET KIDS BE KIDS.

Let them crave the stuff that's bad for them.

Let them be occasionally irresponsible.

Let them learn from their mistakes.

504 Three of my kids just asked for ketchup in their jambalaya. I take it all back - DO SOMETHING, BIG DADDY GOVERNMENT!!!

505

And then you saw an ad for Frosted Flakes and biked on down to the 7-11 and bought 25 boxes of them and stashed them in your treehouse and sneaked over there every day to gobble down those sugary carb-flakes and then you got diabetes.

OMG YOU TOO!?

506

Hmm, perhaps we should LET KIDS BE KIDS.

Let them crave the stuff that's bad for them.

Let them be occasionally irresponsible.

Let them learn from their mistakes.

Ever read the book "Lord of The Flies"?

507

Not to mention that the idea that "regulating" advertising geared at kids is going to change anything.  Frosted Flakes are going to be as attractive as ever because - THEY'RE TASTY.  The only kind of regulation that would be effective here is BANNING those ads, thus equating Frosted Flakes with Cigarettes that will absolutely give you cancer and kill you. 

I'm sorry, but there is no way to regulate the awesomeness of sugary cereals, candy, soda, and McDonalds away by setting rules for advertisers.  Its a colossal waste of tax money both to develope the rules and then to enforce them.  No self-respecting small government conservative would even CONSIDER the idea.

508 Worst. Post. Ever.

509

Has Ace jumped the shark?

510 But those are slippery slope arguments, and I never find them compelling.

One last thing before I move on. The whole "slippery slope" thing; ignoring it is exactly WHY WE ARE SO FUCKED UP TODAY! If we had taken a little tougher stance against a lot of "it seems like a nice idea but establishes a bad precedent that will of course never balloon into something unintended" initiatives throughout our history we would never be as screwed as we are.

You want to continue the conservative status quo thinking that has put us on this course saying "wake me when you see the iceberg. " I would like you to take note that the lower three decks are already flooded. When the government asks for more power we, at this point, should be saying "give me definite and compelling reasons why government needs more authority" not "It sounds like a good idea, give me good compelling reasons we shouldn't give the government more power"

511 Shut up Dave in Texas!

and cuffy, just because

512

493  Yep, my best friend and I used to ride our bikes all over town, drumming up odd jobs; then at 13 I got a part time job cleaning horse stalls and  getting lesson horses ready (which gave me steady work and a bit more income).  By 15 I was prepping show horses -- 200 bucks a horse for a three day; I'd have 6 to 8 horses lined up, at least twice a month, usually every weekend.  Worked like a dog, had to live like one two (on a cot in the tack stall), and then there was taking care of and showing my own critters, but I was making some serious cash.

Also got taught I could blow my money on candy bars or save for something nicer -- that put a dent in my junk food intake as well (although I was munching through two Big Mac meals, super sized, a Coke and a chocolate shake every day when I was working -- I was a size 3).

513

If YOU have eaten Kellogg's Frosted Flakes and have since experienced symptoms of diabetes YOU may be entitled to a LARGE CASH SETTLEMENT.

Call 1-888-535-SCAM NOW to recieve a FREE pamphlet informing you of your legal RIGHTS! It's time you got JUSTICE, and a LARGE CASH SETTLEMENT. Call now.

514 A kid got a one week detention for having a Jolly Rancher at school the other day.  This nonsense represents the same mentality. Why in the fuck would we want government to have that kind of power?  Because some of you think kids are getting fat?  What happens when they start banning shit you DO approve of, video games, toy guns, real guns, I could go on and on.  BAD PRECEDENT.

515 I worked with a guy that weighed 400 lbs. He would get 4 honeybuns and a diet coke on every break we had. And he couldnt figure out why he was fat.

516

Put down that cereal box before you tell me to shut up.

 

Whore.

517 You talking to me? You wanna piece of me?

Oh boy, you're going down Texas man!

518 It's pretty dis-heartening to see Ace say this.

519 You mean that book of fiction?

yeah, Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be fiction too. It's happening though. Sadly there's no valley I can escape to. Texas maybe? Oh wait, that's where the Jolly Rancher kid got banned.

520

Oh wait, that's where the Jolly Rancher kid got banned.

Well piracy is wrong.

521 Well piracy is wrong.

Oh.....um. uh.

522 524 It's pretty dis-heartening to see Ace say this.

Posted by: Gary at May 11, 2010 08:09 PM (MYUGa)

.............................

fuck you, he can say whatever he wants to say. Fruit Loops rule............. and Bacon.

523

Everything would be better if we ate vegetables only, from Michelle's sludge bed gardens.

She does know best.

524 You know, Texas wouldn't be a half-bad place to move if cockroaches weren't on that famous list of things that grow bigger in Texas.  God, I hate those things.

525 We need to control the marketing of Obama to our kids.

526 Don't let the heehaws discourage you.  They can't watch their children 24/7 and they can't always control what their kids want.  They like to play Larry Libertarian because they think they're super parents, but they don't remember how often they got away with stupid shit when they were a kid without their parents not knowing.

And I turned out fine without  this law.


Junk food should not be marketed to kids.  They don't know better and they don't know why it's harmful to them.

Since children are incapable of learning, I guess we might as well abolish school.

527

Posted by: unknown jane at May 11, 2010 08:06 PM (5/yRG)

Damn! I got a couple of bucks for cutting lawns or baby-sitting.

(Oh, and there is an industry!)

But again, I didn't have money to waste on junk food. Maybe occasionally, but I can guarentee it wasn't because of advertising. Which, I might add, as far as this thread is concerned, has been around since the '60's.

Ace is on the wrong side of this.

528 @530 Thats why we all have guns. Cockroaches and goddamn Jackalope.

529 Ace,

If you want to make the argument that the federal government has this authority (which I disagree with), that's still not enough. You need to also believe that it's better to regulate it at the federal level than at the state level, and I think you'll have a much more difficult time believing that, let alone convincing anyone else.

Why does every problem have to be solved with federal regulation? Even if it's a good idea (especially if it's a good idea), there's no reason for a federal regulation. If a state does it, and it works, then other states will willingly follow. And if the people of a given state don't want it, then that's fine too.

It makes no more sense to force a good law on the unwilling people of a state than it would to force it on the entire world.

530 529

Everything would be better if we ate vegetables only, from Michelle's sludge bed gardens.

She does know best.

Posted by: Who Knows at May 11, 2010 08:16 PM (7FgWm)

Can I get a cool pair of $400 sneakers like her too!

531 hell if this is how it all goes down for parenting rights being taken and given to "others "more moral gvt sponsers of child welfare " can we at least  ban all children shows, teen shows ,pbs, young adult shows, mtv, jon stewart, oh whatever i don't like and think are objectionable material for many.  also let's do musik next.

532

You mean that book of fiction?

Yeah, that one about the savage nature of humans.

By all means, let's hear about how adults would never behave like that.

533

Can I get a cool pair of $400 sneakers like her too!

Posted by: KLL at May 11, 2010 08:23 PM (/5Axw)

heck i read they have really cool parties every wednesday, with really cool stars , musicians and sports stars! i saw it on the news.

i want parties too!

534 In for a penny, in for a pound. Willow is right. Let's get busy.

535 @497 The obeseity thing is partially about demographics, its misleading. For all the slippery slope deniers, although uncompelling mostly due to the fact its speculation, in law its a truth. How else to explain the near control over everything the feds have by reading the Art. 1 Sec. 2 cl.3 commerce clause. Slippery slope in action. And the UK and all of their problems? Slope so slippery it must have KY on it, and it should for all the cornholeing the government has doled out in the name in compassion. While speculative in its nature, there is a lot of empirical evidence to suggest slopes indeed are slippery when it comes to government

536 I don't want government doing anything "new" for 20 years.  They need to STOP doing so many things and get back to what they are supposed to be doing which is protecting my rights and my property. We don't need new laws or new programs for any reason, most of the shit they have passed in the last 30 years has been bad.  REPEAL most of that, show us they can do their fucking job, live within their means, and THEN we can talk about banning Hostess Twinkies later.  EVERY FUCKING NEW OR PROGRAM LAW SHOULD BE OPPOSED.  They don't have a clue what the root cause of any problem is (it is usually their meddling), and they sure as hell don't know how to deal with the unintended consequences. Enough.

537 If parents -- who actually have a personal interest in the outcome -- don't do an adequate job of policing their children's consumption of food and toys, then why would government officials -- whose main concern is spending their entire budget by the end of the fiscal year -- do any better? Because they care?

Just another power grab by the nanny state.

538 I can't speak to everyone else's parenting skills or lack thereof, but I can tell you ol Dave here had days when he was a great parent, and days when he was a shitty parent.  Lots of B+ days in between.

Hopefully that was before the Obama grade inflation, or God help them...

539 when the Greens stop using children to sell Global Warming I'll let the government decide how to market to them ...

540

don't do an adequate job of policing their children's consumption of food and toys

There goes Christmas...

541 You really need to correct the headline. It should read

Hmm: Obama wants to control everything

542 Ah, federalism... it's not just for breakfast anymore!

543

Oh.....um. uh.

That's pretty much what I was going for.

I'm laughing my ass off.

544 Look at that fucking Crystal Bowersox mess on American Idol. That's what you get when you can't tell your child no.

545 I'm thinking of helping my son build a tree house.... does anyone here know the federal agency of safety and paternal oversight I should consult?

546 Did it ever occur to anyone to leave me and family alone, lest I skullfuck your corpse and grind you in the woodchipper to supplement the goat feed?

Really.  I'm asking as a mother fucking humanitarian.

547 Ace,
You got you some balls; you knew this would be unpopular with Moron Nation and posted it anyway.  Props, brother.  Disagree, but props. 

I was actually thinking about this issue earlier today, somewhat-- in regards to the airlines and the Passenger's Bill of Rights.  The airlines knowingly overschedule departures which ATC could never safely accomplish even in perfect weather, and then when there are delays, the airlines keep the planes for 8 hours on the tarmac with no food and overflowing toilets, then turn around and blame the controllers.  As the airlines consolidate and consolidate, there is less and less choice for consumers, so Delta and United and American can get away with this shit..  Monopolization of the gates means that low-cost carriers like Jet Blue and Southwest can't offer an alternative.  Should the FAA intervene? 

It is so, so tempting to say yes.  But the conservative in me pulls up.  It sucks.  It really, really sucks, the current airline industry; the second I saw those fees for checked bags show up during the "gas crisis," I knew they were never going away.  And they haven't.  The airlines know full well that people just don't have the time and hotel cash to drive cross-country if necessary, and they're taking advantage of it.  This is the shitty part of capitalism.

But we do need to let capitalism work.  I think it's the only answer, and as the major carriers collapse into themselves (as they doubtless will; you can't piss of this many people for this long and not suffer the consequences) that will open the door for the Jet Blues and the Southwests... those who do it right... to step in.  It's going to take a while, and it's going to suck in the meantime, but it's something the industry must sort out for itself.

Re:  your apartment example... there is another solution, dear Ace.  Why does the government have to intervene here?  Why can't the private apartment complex make it a rule of the property that Tubthumping isn't allowed at level eleventy past midnight?  Having lived in every type of apartment under the sun, such rules are obnoxious, as are HOA's... but, well, they serve their purpose in lieu of the government.  The property owners can change the regulations as necessary, and, harsh as it sounds, if you don't like the rules, you don't have to live there.

Yeah, it's easier to call the cops and drop the dime rather than insulate the hell out of the ceiling.  It's just endlessly tempting to go there.  But it's trading off a nuisance for a slice of liberty, and though it may suck, I prefer the liberty.

548

Posted by: Tony B at May 11, 2010 08:33 PM (ZPWRS)

I've heard of a family, I think there name is Robinson, maybe they can help.

Not sure where they are located though...

549 Tony, I'm not sure, maybe your Home association or Home zoning and allowance (city) , they usually have what color your home may be, your front door, your fence, your flower beds your garden and if you may have a satellite dish, and 1 or 2 parking spaces.

550  371 Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale

Another case of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do: Mr. Wannabe Food Czar is a fatty himself:

pic here:

http://tinyurl.com/34v8ghy

551 530 You know, Texas wouldn't be a half-bad place to move if cockroaches weren't on that famous list of things that grow bigger in Texas.

You know what?  You get used to the big ones.  Seriously, after a couple of years of seeing them near pools and in laboratory basements, I stopped being afraid of them.  They're so friggin' huge, they're more like cows than bugs. 

The little ones are still gross.  But you get those anywhere. 

Honestly, despite the fire ants, 'water bugs,' deadly spiders, humidity, hurricanes, tornadoes, and heat, we'd move back to Texas in a heartbeat. 

552

I'm thinking of helping my son build a tree house.... does anyone here know the federal agency of safety and paternal oversight I should consult?

DAR. Department of Aboreal Residence.

It's a subset of HRD, which (like HSD) is an offshoot of HUD.

553 Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale

Ivy League.  The home  of the fat, communist, carpet muncher Supreme Court Justice this worthless fucking piece of shit put up as acceptable to the American people.

Can we get pissed yet?  Fuck this.

I'm starting to lose my shit.

554

Ace,

Unbelievable.  I have a kid and I decide what he does and does not play with, does or does not watch, and does or does not eat while in my house.  I turned off the tv because of those adds and the fits.  If he couldn't control himself, he lost the television.  So I no longer have cable tv at home, nor do we watch tv.  I find other , more intellectually stimulating things for my child to do. To Obama, STAY AWAY FROM MY KID, STAY AWAY FROM ME, AND STOP TRYING TO CONVENIENCE ME WITH YOUR GOOD IDEAS (which also included health care, but wasn't that to help us all?)!

555

I feel like we're being punked.... I hope we're being punked.  We're being punked right, where's Ashton...

556

I read that “1 in 3 children is obese” statistic and was puzzled. In my son’s class of 21 children none of them are obese.

Look up what obese would be for your height. The clinical definition seems a lot lower than I would have thought.

557 Posted by: Dan M at May 11, 2010 08:44 PM

As someone mentioned waaaay upthread, I'm still waiting for the "April Fools" update from ace.  That's how silly ace's position is and how weak (and in some cases outright insulting) his arguments are. 

558 Unbelievable.  I have a kid and I decide what he does and does not play with, does or does not watch, and does or does not eat while in my house

Oh great.  Now we have a so-called "parent" in the house....  With, like, "rules", and shit.

Seriously, this is the truth.  Listen.  I'm not going to rag on Ace.  But, dude, it is so fucking clear you don't have kids.  There's a reason your parents were assholes.  I'm with them, 30 years later.

559

Honestly, despite the fire ants, 'water bugs,' deadly spiders, humidity, hurricanes, tornadoes, and heat, we'd move back to Texas in a heartbeat. 

I have a lovely house in Texas for sale. Never had fire ants, deadly spiders, or cockroaches, had pretty low humidity and not much bad weather. Except for the heat.

560 Filly, whenever you see what you might consider a market failure, stop to consider what role the government played in it. Passengers kept on a tarmac for eight hours against their will? You couldn't do that on a bus because people would just bolt. Try that on an airliner and you'll find yourself afoul of various federal rules and regulations. And as for baggage fees, well the airlines aren't exactly making loads of money, so that's more a matter of disaggregating fees. That's the market working, whether you like the result or not. As for Ace's bright lines, I draw one right after the part where it says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," and leave it to those who would argue otherwise the burden of proof.

561

Honestly, despite the fire ants, 'water bugs,' deadly spiders, humidity, hurricanes, tornadoes, and heat, we'd move back to Texas in a heartbeat. 

Now Y-not. I'll admit I like Texas and Texans.

But as far as you getting a job on the Chamber of Commerce in San Antonio...

You might want to re-think that...

heh

562 Honestly, despite the fire ants, 'water bugs,' deadly spiders, humidity, hurricanes, tornadoes, and heat, we'd move back to Texas in a heartbeat.

I'd probably have gone myself if all my relatives weren't here in sunny Commiefornia.  It might get so bad here I'll go anyway at some point.

563 Here is what Ambinder said after reading Michelle's report:
The new health reform legislation helps, but the obesity epidemic is redefining the term "early onset." Something about that very very early environment -- genes (can't control that!), where parents live, the stress in their lives, how kids are fed, when they're exposed to television, their access to health care, the access to healthy and non-stigmatic cultural norms about body weight, maybe even their exposure to chemicals and lack of sleep -- something, or perhaps everything seems to create the threshold for determining which kids get to grow up obese and which don't.

Is there anyone who believes there isn't a slippery slope at play here?

564 Long thread is long.

Ace.  You apparently don't know anyone with kids and a backbone from what I was able to read before I skipped ahead.

Seriously, man.  A lot of the shit (or at least shit so similar it might as well be the same shit) they're complaining about has been around since the 1950's AT LEAST.  GENERATIONS of people have grown up with the same types of ads targeting the same groups.  You know what previous generations did?  They told their kids to STFU when they didn't want their kids to have it.  And if they didn't they got taken to the car and paddled.  It seems to have worked fine for me and my parents.

As for your dress codes at school example:
1. It's government or private property depending on the school.  Therefore the government or the owner sets the daily operating rules.
2. There are legitimate safety concerns for some of the dress code rules (seriously man, you'd be amazed at what you can pack in in just a pair of sweats.  Your libertarianism stops when it's fully possible for someone to smuggle in a longsword or a stockless pump-action shotgun and then it actually happens).

565 But as far as you getting a job on the Chamber of Commerce in San Antonio...

Heh heh.  Yeah, she's not really selling it very well, is she?

566 Isn't it wonderful when someone who doesn't have children rolls his condescending eyes and tells people who actually have experience raising children what they can and cannot control?  Ya know, like we're too stupid too be good parents?

The sheer arrogance of ace's opinion on this rivals the Teleprompter Jesus.

Fuck.  There really is no going back to sanity.

567 "Use your fork, not your fingers"

"How bout you sit up and eat?"

---Actual contemporary quote from Frau Morgenholz as I type.

"Listen you little fuck".   <----  Possible future quote from Herr Morgenholz if Shithead doesn't knock it the fuck off............

568 Filly, whenever you see what you might consider a market failure, stop to consider what role the government played in it.

Passengers kept on a tarmac for eight hours against their will? You couldn't do that on a bus because people would just bolt. Try that on an airliner and you'll find yourself afoul of various federal rules and regulations.

Exactly.  That's why, ultimately, I don't what the government intervening anymore than it already has. Back off even more, I say.

569

Look up what obese would be for your height. The clinical definition seems a lot lower than I would have thought.

Posted by: Mama AJ at May 11, 2010 08:46 PM (XdlcF)

They keep changing it so there will still be a crisis. Same with cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure, etc.

There are real dietary and activity factors that have affected general health, but as with every subject, 90% of it is crap.

570

I apologize for not reading all the comments before my comment, but come on.....

Nobody so far has seen the need to point out that the people who want to raise our children for us are often drunks, narcisists, and jerks.  Sure.  Let these cretins tell us how to raise our kids--they did such a good job of raising their own.

571

As someone mentioned waaaay upthread, I'm still waiting for the "April Fools" update from ace.  That's how silly ace's position is and how weak (and in some cases outright insulting) his arguments are. 

Nah, I think it's his POV. And he does get pissy in the comments and then swear off delving into the comments for a while.

Conservative POV? B+ 

572

In defense of Ace:

1. Reality is this: our culture is infested with broken homes and irresponsible, incompetent parents.

2. As a society, we collectively have an interest in the welfare of children, who impose costs and represent potential for our future success.

3. Obese children are a bad thing.

4. Mild intervention by the state to discourage obesity in children is not irrational. It is an investment in our future welfare.

In a tribal society, poor parenting would be corrected by the nagging of grandparents. We donÂ’t have that.

To be clear, I am not saying Ace is right about this issue. IÂ’m just saying his ambivalence about it is rational.

573 This is worse than banning crossbows.

574 Three Kids, girls 15 & 14, boy 10. I can raise them myself, but thanks for the help. The adverties have no effect on what we eat, because we (me and the wife/mother) are GROWNUPS, a very important part of every family with children. Show the ads, and I will be the grownup in my house. No one else needs to take that position. Me = parent, you = some random stranger. Show the ads.

575

Holy shit, Ace.  YES that is exactly what we are saying (shitty parents are fucked).  With freedom comes responsibility.  Taking away the responsibility because some parents can't prevent their kids from getting fat ultimately means taking away the freedom to live as you choose. 

Are we going to draw a line EVER on this ?

576 Actually, folks, that was our mommy talking to our daddy.

577 IP = 117.28.77.143

578 Think this is my first post on the site, though i have been an avid reader for a while.  I have to vehemently disagree with this post.  As a parent, it is 100% my responsibility to be a PARENT and control the environment my child is exposed to, what my child is allowed to eat or play with, what my child is allowed to watch and what my child is allowed to act like.  The California law regulating what can be in a happy meal (or what is allowed to be associated with food targeted toward children) is crap.  If McDs was advertising a SIG, i could understand it, but a plastic toy forcing (through the kid) ADULTS to make specific decisions that are detrimental to a child is not because toys/advertising of a company.  It is 100% the fault of the parent/adult. 

The problem i see with this argument is that is allows the government to regulate what food/toys/clothing/games/etc. are allowed to be sold (in any quantity) to regarding children.  The government in essence will dictate which items are allowable and therefore what items will get greater exposure (normally means more sales).  It adds another layer of lobbying and partisan agendas to the US government.  The only thing the government should be regulating is the truth of the advertising or if the item is actually detrimental to children.  Other than that, it is the responsibility of the Parents to regulate the amount of tv watched, amount of sugar in the diet, what cloths the child wears and what toys they play with.  It takes more time, effort and emotional capital, but that is being a parent.    

579

"Use your fork, not your fingers"

TMI, Herr M., TMI...

580 Nah, I think it's his POV. And he does get pissy in the comments and then swear off delving into the comments for a while.

I liked how he seemed to be alternating between calling us all libertarian purists (eleventy!!!) and puritanical so-cons. 

I am neither. 

I still think he's either playing some game with Allahpundit (see who can rile up their readers the most) or is under the influence of a whiny divorcee with a couple of kids who are out of control 'cause they're hopped up on sugar. 

I hope it's the former because then it would just be a temporary blip.  If it's the latter, we could be in for a rough ride. 

581 Look up what obese would be for your height. The clinical definition seems a lot lower than I would have thought.

Problem is, if you have an athletic build, you're considered obese.
see me in this photo? This was in 2007 at 172 lbs. for my height at 5'4", I'm considered  obese by Kaiser Permanente's and my life ins. standards.

582 And he does get pissy in the comments and then swear off delving into the comments for a while.
--------------
Let me know if he gets too pissy -- I'll taze him.

583

Kelly Brownell hasn't missed his share of Happy Meals by the look of his photo.

He should try leading by example, maybe.

584 >>1. Reality is this: our culture is infested with broken homes and irresponsible, incompetent parents.<< And now the people who had a big hand in breaking those homes, and educating those parents into incompetence, are offering to help. What could possibly go wrong?

585 Won't someone protect me from cat filter spam?

586 The problem i see with this argument is that is allows the government to regulate what food/toys/clothing/games/etc. are allowed to be sold (in any quantity) to regarding children.

OK, that is just stupid.  The government regulates all that stuff right now.  Did you know that you now can no longer buy flammable clothes for your children? 

That's right, Big Brother is trying to prevent you from letting your children burn up.

Hey, Big Brother is concerned about your childrens' access to violent and pornographic video games over the internet.

Are you really offended by that?

587 To be clear, I am not saying Ace is right about this issue. IÂ’m just saying his ambivalence about it is rational.

If ace - or anyone - is really concerned about childhood obesity, there are a zillion private charities where he could volunteer.  Big Brothers comes to mind (if he's been taken off the sex offender list, that is). 

588 Because young kids ARE going to want Frosted Flakes over Special K., particularly if they ads for Frosted Flakes a lot.

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 05:44

And this is the money quote...We're talking about influencing immature children to in turn use all their childish wiles to influence their parents to make a purchasing decision.

Sigh...how difficult is it for parents to explain things to kids or just say no?  If as parents you constantly cave in to your childrens' wiles, you're in serious trouble.  And so what if they eat Frosted Flakes?  Yeah it has sugar but you don't think even adults don't put sugar on Special K?  I mean it would be nasty without it, trust me on that one.  None of this is new.  They had plenty of these types of commercials when we all were kids  and what did our parents do?  They said no.  Pretty simple. 

589 Why is there an order for a Bosch alternator on my Visa all of a sudden?

590 Begone security guard at the Players Championship!

591 This is worse than banning crossbows.

Don't forget the longbows

592 Mild intervention by the state to discourage obesity in children is not irrational. It is an investment in our future welfare.

No.  It's not irrational.

It is however unconstitutional and a great excuse to tell you to shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of my living room.

593

fire ants make a pretty good garnish on eggs.

 

they're like teensy jalapenos.

594 PJM -- Wow! I wouldn't have guessed you were 170 there. Maybe 150? (Which is still overweight for 5'4", according to the utterly discredited and worthless BMI formula.) How goes the weight loss efforts? (Last time we talked it was about raw milk, I think, and you were trying to lose weight?)

595

"Use your fork, not your fingers"

TMI, Herr M., TMI...

Posted by: Mama AJ at May 11, 2010 09:02 PM (XdlcF)

That was to the Boy, Mama.

You know.  During supper.

We'll finish this conversation on the ONT........

596 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQkMAPVoIo

Craig Ferguson figured this shit out a long time ago.

597 Keep in mind that state social workers have the IQs of eggplants, and you want them to tell you how you should run your life?  Oy vey.

598

Hey, Big Brother is concerned about your childrens' access to violent and pornographic video games over the internet.

Are you really offended by that?

Yes, we are. Not the .govs job. And we hate the intrusion.

Offended by that?

599 <> Not just flammable clothes, but anything that might have lead in it. Like books. <> Yes, that's a serious problem for those of us throwing children into fire. <> Fuck, yeah. Big Brother needs to get His Own Fucking House In Order before he dares to look into mine. And even then, it's gonna piss me off, since he's spending MY money to do a half-assed version of MY job.

600

fire ants make a pretty good garnish on eggs.

 

they're like teensy jalapenos.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 11, 2010 09:10 PM (Wh0W+)

So are scorpions like little crunchy habaneros, or am I running a meme out too far?

601

Damn these comments are making me hungry.  First it was frosted flakes, then Cap'n Crunch, then Fruit Loops.  And now I just came a cross a 4 stacker from BK.  Drooling....

My personal fave is Fruity Pebbles.  Ooh, and Boston Kreme donuts from Dunkin.  When are they going to ban Bunkin' Donuts commercials ?  As if donuts aren't as bad for you as cereal.

602 How goes the weight loss efforts? (Last time we talked it was about raw milk, I think, and you were trying to lose weight?)

I got goats for my birthday last month just so I could get my own raw milk. haha
I can't quit it. I'm at 175 now. Cept not as firm as you'll see in these two photos.
http://tinyurl.com/2fw7xuq
http://tinyurl.com/22r9rnm

believe it or not, they were taken within a day of each other

the point though is like you said, the BMI is such a stupid way to measure obesity and it totally worthless

603 I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Those kids do not get in their own cars and drive themselves to McD's and purchase Happy Meals with their own money.

Oh no, the kid might have a fit. If you cave now, what are you gonna do when the kid decides to start smoking pot? Let him have cigarettes as a compromise?

Here's a thought: You be a parent so the government doesn't have to.

604 Keep in mind that state social workers have the IQs of eggplants

Your ass is so sued.

605

i feel kinda bad, this is the first time i've disagreed with an Ace post, i feel like i've been in a fight with friend. (even tho he doesn't know me from adam, and rarely reads this blog. hah

606

Is Sacha Obama skinny yet?

I'd like to get the government looking into her welfare, if she isn't.

Michelle Obama is an ineffective parent. Her kids must watch too much tv

607 It is however unconstitutional

Not under current law.  I agree that the most conservative, originalist interpretation of the Commerce Clause would make this unconstitutional.  But that begs the question.  It just pushes the issue down to the state level.  My point went to whether the "state"  should intervene on issues like this.

and a great excuse to tell you to shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of my living room.

You, Herr Morgenholz, are not really in a position to tell me whether I am welcome at AOSHQ.  You're a pissant newbie to me, and a fool.

608

movieque

heh-
Yes, that's a serious problem for those of us throwing children into fire.

<

Are you really offended by that?>>

well ya know it was all the rage in the old bible days or  so i read, humanity hasn't grown a bit, well i guess westerner's have for the most part.

609 Her kids must watch too much tv

Mwahahahaha!  Our plan is working!!!

610 611 Ace don't mind disagreement.Morons disagree all the time.

611 First they came for the Coco Pebbles, but I said nothing, because I don't like Coco Pebbles
Then they came for the Lucky Charms, but I said nothing because I don't like Lucky Charms.
Then they came for the Cap'n Crunch Berries and I got all medieval on their asses.

612

deadrody,

heck i'm craving lucky charms that i haven't eaten in 20 years, hell blogs are bad for our health.

613 OK, that is just stupid.  The government regulates all that stuff right now.  Did you know that you now can no longer buy flammable clothes for your children? 

That's right, Big Brother is trying to prevent you from letting your children burn up.

Hey, Big Brother is concerned about your childrens' access to violent and pornographic video games over the internet.

Are you really offended by that?

So you are likening sugary cereal and a plastic penguin (most recent toy i have seen at McDs) to flammable clothes, pornography and violent games?  That sounds reasonable!  Using your line of reasoning, why shouldn't the government just require parents to hand over their children for proper safety!  Seems obvious to me that if you allow your child to watch shows that include commercials for pornography or video games for 18+, then you either think that your child is mature enough to handle that or don't care what your child does.  Either way, it is your responsibility as an adult and parent. 

My point was that if the government can dictate what items children are allowed to see on tv (associated with cartoons or on commercials), then they completely control what products will be bought for children in any quantity.  Not sure about you, but i personally don't allow my children to watch shows that advertise pornography or extremely violent games (this is already regulated by the government).  Exactly why would people need MORE regulation to assist with raising their kids when the increase in government "help" seems to have driven proper care of a child (responsibility) away from Parents to toward the government? 

614

 You're a pissant newbie to me, and a fool.

Ummm, dude...

615 hell blogs are bad for our health.

Save us, Barack!

616 Won't someone protect me from cat filter spam?

Hey, I'm waiting for Captain BS (Ace's old name for [expletive deleted]) to urge regulation of ads for kitteh food. It's why I don't let my cats watch Animal Planet-- too many Fancy Feast ads.

617 You're a pissant newbie to me, and a fool.

Posted by: michael at May 11, 2010 09:19 PM (JtKsy)

Now that shit there is funny.  I don't care who you are.

Who the fuck are you, you snivelling "living Constitution" pants wetter?

Get your shine box, and be back soon.

Love ya!!!!11!1!

618 why shouldn't the government just require parents to hand over their children for proper safety!

Well, it does take a village...

619 Good for you PJM--on both the milk and the weight. (Second link doesn't seem to work, tho.) I'm going to come down finally on the side of people who say this is some sort of prank, even if Ace doesn't know it yet. Heh.

620

This is worse than banning crossbows.

Yeah,... but not nearly as bad as banning longbows would be, as they are much more effective.

621 Oh man, Freakies.  Now that is going way back in the wayback macine.  They stopped making those when I was like 5 or something.  I still remember collecting the little Freakie magnets.  I'm not even sure if I ever even TRIED the cereal. 

622 General Mills mind-controlled my kids and all I got was this zip-tie helicopter thing!

623

Have any of you guys seen this "ace" guy commenting here before?

I think he might be a moby.

624
@627

WE are the freakies, we are the freakies, this is our freaky tree
We never miss a meal
'cause we love our ce-re-al!

625 Then they came for the Lucky Charms, but I said nothing because I don't like Lucky Charms.

Pajamamommy, you got me crazy hungry for the Charms.  My short stint an NETC had me eating those things like there was no tomorrow.  God i miss them like crazy. 

626 The science is settled.

627 Thanks moviegique

Now please get me out of this bizarro world I seem to have fallen in.

628 587
Problem is, if you have an athletic build, you're considered obese.
see me in this photo? This was in 2007 at 172 lbs. for my height at 5'4", I'm considered  obese by Kaiser Permanente's and my life ins. standards.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 11, 2010 09:04 PM (fo4Wl)

I think your husband holding the baby would be considered a dwarf by any standard.

629

And so what if they eat Frosted Flakes?  Yeah it has sugar but you don't think even adults don't put sugar on Special K?  I mean it would be nasty without it, trust me on that one. 

Last time we were in the cereal aisle, my kids wanted Corn Flakes. I resisted the urge to try to talk them in to getting Frosted Flakes instead.

 

630

Yes, we are. Not the .govs job. And we hate the intrusion.

Offended by that?

Not offended, no.  Just dismayed by your ignorance.  The internet intrudes into your home, in part, because the government makes it possible.  So, the government wants to make this safe for children by, for example, ensuring that ISPs provide parental control software so that children can be protected from inappropriate content.

A "free market" would not necessarily accomplish that result for everyone.

631 I think your husband holding the baby would be considered a dwarf by any standard.

hahahaha, sicko

632 Kll,
I think your husband holding the baby would be considered a dwarf by any standard.

Damn, Coke all over my keyboard.  WTF!  You need a disclaimer before that kind of comment.

633 Let's simplify it.

Beyond ensuring there isn't any actual danger, like lead paint or whatever, it's none of the government's fucking business.

634 The internet intrudes into your home, in part, because the government makes it possible.

So, michael, as a Concerned Christian Conservative, what light would you shed on the current situation?

635

Adorable brood of handsome sons you have there, pajama momma.

 

636 Yo ace. Two kids, one almost a teenager. Things are different now than when you and I grew up. Not only have these kids been in immersed in this stuff since day one, but my wife and I as their parents have too. We grew up with it. We know how to handle it, and taught them to as well. They know that commercials are generally bullshit, and enjoy mocking them as much as I do.

Now, those fools who let the TV raise their children -- they'll reap the whirlwind. But don't soft-pedal this just because you don't have kids and don't feel you have the authority to speak on the topic. Right's right, and wrong's wrong.

And to all of you folks who are saying how your kids only watch Discovery channel and never ever ever see a fast food joint and cetera. Please. You're just as bad as the libs (okay maybe not THAT bad) who always make a big show that they don't even OWN a tv. (It's just too low brow don't you know). If your kids are well balanced, an episode of Spongebob isn't going to screw them up, and a Happy Meal(tm) isn't going to turn them into flabby losers.

637

So, michael, as a Concerned Christian Conservative,

No. Really, really no.

 

638

Herr Morgenholz, scorpions?  Faaack.  You like to live on the edge.

639 So, the government wants to make this safe for children by, for example, ensuring that ISPs provide parental control software so that children can be protected from inappropriate content.

So you can stick your kid on the computer and not have to monitor what he's doing so you can watch American Idol uninterrupted?

And who, if not you, gets to decide what is inappropriate?

Is it really a good idea to allow the government to control information, (because that's what it is, they start with "it's for the children" and then it's the camel's nose in the tent) so that you don't have to be bothered with monitoring your children's activity and like, teaching them right and wrong and stuff? Or is that the governments job, too?

640 587

Mama, that's always been one of my gripes about how they calculate BMI and all that.  I'm more than willing to admit that I'm fat now; but when I was in CAP and trying to join the Army I was fit enough to pass the special forces final PT test.  Hell, in CAP I jogged the 20 mile without stopping and with a full kit...can't do that if you're a tubbo.  It's just that the way my body is proportioned (I'm like a gorilla with long legs) I always come up as Obese-Morbidly Obese no matter what my actual body fat level is.

641

PJM-- you're a pretty women,

another thing about this topic is that the gvt assumtion is that all kids are naturally slender, now mine are, and i was really slender until i hit 40.

we were just fortunate , although i never bought fast food for my older children ( mostly because of finances, stews , soups,were cheaper went further for the buck.) also could put them in a crock pot , go to work it would be done when i got home from work.

my children when they became 17-18 became junk food junkies, (felt deprived haha) they are still thin

i have one left at home 14 he now gets occasional junk fest so that he doesn't feel deprived.

obese..i dunno, michelle said her children needed to lose weight, they looked fine to me. i think them being so creepy about weight will make some that might be prone genetically or whatever to feel really bad about themselves when it is likely many will grow up and be heavier but happy adults. anyway GVT stay out of our diets. let parents, patients , parents take care of their issues.

642 <i>Who the fuck are you, you snivelling "living Constitution" pants wetter?</i>

Nope.  I just said what the state of constitutional law is, not what it should be.  I think SCOTUS went off the deep end during the New Deal and effectively nullified the intent of the Commerce Clause, to our great detriment as a federalist nation.

You are ignoring my real point -- Ace raises a legitimate question when he ponders whether, and to what extent, the state should intervene in defense of children.  Maybe regulating sugared cereals goes too far.  Banning flammable sleepwear is probably OK.  The point is, protecting children is not the same as interfering in the lives of adults.

I think that's the only point Ace was trying to make.

Look at his header.  It says, "Hmmm".

643

The point, Heather, is that in general, the idea that kids don't often stroll into McDonalds with cash to burn is about 95% sound.  There is no need for advertising regulations to prevent the 3 times per year that a kid might find themselves at McDonalds without their parents because they are on a field trip.   

That very rare occasion is exceedingly unlikely to cause them irreparable harm, and certainly not something we need government action to stop.

 

644

So, michael, as a Concerned Christian Conservative,

No. Really, really no.

 

Posted by: Mama AJ at May 11, 2010 09:35 PM (XdlcF)

Yes.  I went there.

645 Let's simplify it.

Beyond ensuring there isn't any actual danger, like lead paint or whatever, it's none of the government's fucking busines

You are begging the question.

Unhealthy foods aimed at children could, rationally, be perceived as "actual danger."

Myself, I don't think Captain Crunch falls into this category, but you get my point.

646 let parents,patients , parents take care of their issues er parents, patients and doctors figure out if there is an issue

647 You are so wrong on so many levels here Ace.  Being a parent is an awesome responsibility, with responsibility being the key word.  There are a lot of children on the lower end of the economic scale that are going to be so fucked up when they become adults because their parents abdicated that responsibility - and there are going to be a lot of children from the upper end of the economic scale that are going to be so fucked up because their parents abdicated that responsibility - and no manner of interference from the nanny state is going to change that.

Years ago, I don't know if you remember, liquor distributors were not allowed to advertise "hard liquor" on television, under the guise that it would influence people (particularly young people) to drink.  How did that work out??  What do you see on TV today??

I've raised kids and I have grand kids and I can tell you that one simple word works...we call it NO.  When a child understands, and it is the parents job to make sure that it understands, what that word means, the parenting job just became about 70% easier.

I don't need the government to tell me how to raise my children...I don't need them shielding my children from all the evils in the world (including sugar)...all I need the government to do is get the hell out of my way...let me teach my children about the dangers out there....let me teach them how to weigh the risks and the rewards....let me teach them to apply logic and facts to the decisions that they will make...and then, let me trust them to make the right decision after taking all the facts into consideration.

That is what will make a productive, independent, thinking citizen.  What the nanny state will do is make one dependent on the nanny state to make all of their decisions for them.

648 Ace raises a legitimate question when he ponders whether, and to what extent, the state should intervene in defense of children.  Maybe regulating sugared cereals goes too far.  Banning flammable sleepwear is probably OK.  The point is, protecting children is not the same as interfering in the lives of adults.

OK.  I see your point though we would disagree vehemently.  (Frankly, flammable sleepwear is the responsibility of the parents, whether it moves in interstate commerce or not.  I read that as a taxation provision, and nothing more.  Keep tariffs fair, and shit). 

Protecting children is a parent's job, not the government's.  The government is nothing more than a collective agreement between you and me that we'll hire somebody to build this road rather than hump it out ourselves. 

The guys building the road have no fucking right to tell me shit.

649 Here's a thought: You be a parent so the government doesn't have to.

Here's a thought:  If the parents are absent or irresponsible, how should we, meaning our government, deal with it?

650

>>  liquor distributors were not allowed to advertise "hard liquor" on television

 

Actually, no.  They self-regulated. It wasn't imposed.

651

Ace getting ready to go Charles Johnson?

If a parent can't tell their kids 'no', then they have no business having kids in the first place.  This is just another way for the federal government to charge those who can to lessen the burden of responsibility on those who can't.

652 thanks who knows and willow's kids

653 Finally, someone on this shitty blog is making some sense! Pass this and the Dems are guaranteed to roll come November!

654 The point is, protecting children is not the same as interfering in the lives of adults.

Except for the adults who have children.

655

Unhealthy foods aimed at children could, rationally, be perceived as "actual danger."

If your all cracked out on crack coccaine, sure.

Also other dire threats to our children... mouthwash... egg whites... anything with an intersection of perpendicular planes at less than a 150 degree angle, anything that fits in your ear, all that crack coccaine you smoked (guess you did it to keep it outta the hands of children eh? Good man... good man).

656 So, michael, as a Concerned Christian Conservative,

More specifically, a concerned Lutheran Libertarian.

657 The fact is that the progressives have been trying for a century to take the role of parenting away from parents.Every little step in this direction is harmless in and of itself but the net result is that the state is your childs defacto coparent.How many more little steps before parents are removed from the business entirely?

658 Here's a thought:  If the parents are absent or irresponsible, how should we, meaning our government, deal with it?

How about they start with not creating an environment that encourages and rewards absentee parents?

Secondly, there's this thing called natural selection.

659 644

Herr Morgenholz, scorpions?  Faaack.  You like to live on the edge.

Posted by: Dave in Texas

I always found scorpions kinda bland...

And no, I'm not joking about that.

660 Here's a thought:  If the parents are absent or irresponsible, how should we, meaning our government, deal with it?

Posted by: michael at May 11, 2010 09:44 PM (JtKsy)

You lost the plot, michael.  "We" is not the government, anymore.  "We the People" is now "They the Shitweeds out for your money".

This is the tragedy of the commons, writ large.

661 552 Did it ever occur to anyone to leave me and family alone, lest I skullfuck your corpse and grind you in the woodchipper to supplement the goat feed?

Really.  I'm asking as a mother fucking humanitarian.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 11, 2010 08:34 PM (OZHqy)

 

See girls? The good ones always get snapped up early. I love Herr and the missus.

662
wow still?

As Alan Iverson would say: We talkin bout cereal? What are we talking about, cereal? Cereal? We talking about Cereal? What are we taling about? Cereal? We talking bout cereal.

663 Lutheran Libertarian.

I don't know squat about Lutherans, but I call bullshit on the libertarian.  You're defending state intervention at every turn, man.

664

>> I always found scorpions kinda bland...

 

so, you cooked em first?

 

lame.

665

Actually, no.  They self-regulated. It wasn't imposed.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 11, 2010 09:44 PM (Wh0W+)

Don't fuck with Dave on this.  He remembers Reagan's Chesterfield ads.  True fact.

666 I don't know squat about Lutherans, but I call bullshit on the libertarian.  You're defending state intervention at every turn, man.

And...IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The rallying cry of liberal douches everywhere.

667

Disappointing to see Ace join the big-government, police-state "consertavies".

668

Spare me. I do have children from 6 to 18. You can say no easily. It's the guilty parents who don't spend enough time with their kids who fold. It's guilt guilt guilt. These are the same ones who buy the fast car for the 16 year old. It's not about marketing to kids, it's about parents without a spine but since they can't tell themselves no----sex, divorce, weed, giant mortages, cars, et al, they can't say no either to the kids. It's a country of whimps and douchbags because govt is there to save you. It's actually people like Obama's fault.

669 Ranba - I always found scorpions kinda bland...

If you toast the small ones (i have no idea what their name is) they are actually quite crunchy and have a nutty taste. 

670 IMO, this goes back to times when it was ok to beat your kid's ass w/o worrying family services were coming to take u to jail. My kids whined, I  said no, and when I'd had enough shit, I beat their ass. Problem solved. Nowadays the kids are the boss. That's the real problem.

671

No toys in the Happy Meals, no pudding or apple pies. That's not a nanny state, that's a sourpuss fubar state.

My tots are not amused at this prez, lol!

672 I read that as a taxation provision, and nothing more.  Keep tariffs fair, and shit

I agree entirely.

So, setting that aside, the issue is simply reframed. To what extent should a sovereign State  intervene in defense of children, at the expense of parental control?

Parent (like myself) are justly offended that the State would be too intrusive.  My point, and (I think) Ace's, is simply that we, as a society, have to deal with the reality that there are  millions of families where the parents a defaulting on the most basic responsibilities, such as regulating their children's diet.

That imposes costs on all of us.

673 Oh..and your analogy of the "crack whore" dress up in Junior High doesn't fly either.  Schools have a "dress code"....whether it outlaws butt crack mini skirts or requires ties and jackets....it makes no difference.  If that is not acceptable, then find a school that meets with what "dress code" you feel comfortable with.

674  
you guys ever smoke a crawdad...

and then listen to The Dark Side of the Moon?

675

I am a parent and my kids watch TV now and then and eat a Happy Meal a couple of times a month (not couple of times a week).  They are not allowed to eat sugary cereals, not matter how much they beg.  They think desert is a bowl of strawberries.  I set the rules in my house because I am the grown up with the $$ money.  If a parent can't tell their kids today they cannot eat burgers and fries and sugary treats every day, how will they tell them to wait to have sex or not drink and drive?  Parents need to act like the adults in the household.  But too often, they have about as much sense and self-control as their children. 

676 These are the same ones who buy the fast car for the 16 year old.

I'm 40.  When I turned 16 my Pop handed me the keys to a 77 Ford truck and said "Go shovel out the barn."

So I went and got beer.

We buried 3 out of my class of 75 or so within 18 months.

677 Next ace is going to try and take the guns out of my kids' hands.

678
Did you know McDonald's stopped making/selling apple pies?

f'n-a, man, f.n.a.

679
and they stopped selling their tasty danishes

680

Michael, if there is abuse of children we already have laws for that, od'ing on frosted flakes or mickeyds every now and than isn't abuse. i dunno voluptuous children and adults used to be a sign of health

remember pictures of big thighs and baby rolls. and for some it might be healthy, it should be left to a doc and parents not gvt.

681 millions of families where the parents a defaulting on the most basic responsibilities, such as regulating their children's diet.

That imposes costs on all of us.

It imposes costs on "all of us" because of the socialist impulse that you won't address.

You're a couple layers too shallow on the whole cause-effect thing, michael.

682

>> We buried 3 out of my class of 75

 

wait just a GODDAMNED minute.

 

That would make you 52, not 40.

683 670

>> I always found scorpions kinda bland...

 so, you cooked em first?

 lame.

Posted by: Dave in Texas

Nope.  Just cut the stingers off then kebabbed them on the tip of my kbar.

I blame it seeming bland on being raised on stuff like Thai food and basically everything mom could find to throw kai ang peppers and paprika into.

684

And who exactly sets the standard for "parents being absent or irresponsible"?

Lo and behold, the government is.

Just so the government can step in and say, "It's up to US now."

Anyone notice a pattern?

685 You're defending state intervention at every turn, man.


No I'm not.  I'm just opposing the mindless criticism of Ace for raising a serious issue.

686 Parent (like myself) are justly offended that the State would be too intrusive.  My point, and (I think) Ace's, is simply that we, as a society, have to deal with the reality that there are  millions of families where the parents a defaulting on the most basic responsibilities, such as regulating their children's diet.

Here's my problem with that as I stated above. The government wants to control the marketing of junk food to kids, while serving them Poptarts and Coco Pebbles with chocolate milk for breakfast. I'm not impressed. School lunches are no better.

They need to fix their own problems before butting into mine.

687 Did you know McDonald's stopped making/selling apple pies?

No, they still have them.

They're just baked, not fried.

688

Taco Bell sells apple pies (they call them empanadas) - so you can just go there now instead.

689
you still have apple pies in TX?

I thought they took it off the menu.

690 >>No I'm not.  I'm just opposing the mindless criticism of Ace for raising a serious issue.

Posted by: michael at May 11, 2010 09:57 PM (JtKsy)

Ace is definitely showing his inner-fascist on this one.

691

This IS the slippery slope.

If you let the gubmint start defining all the dangers to your kids, they will start by defining "danger" as fucking "frosted flakes" and it will get only worse from there.

Sola dosis facit venenum.

Too much water will KILL you. Not enough water will kill you.

Too much salt will kill you. Not enough salt will freakin kill you.

Too much alchohol will kill you. Not enough alchohol will not kill you, but a bit is healthful.

Too much cyanide will kill you. Not enough cyanide won't kill you, but a little bit won't hurt you damned bit.

All the poison is in the dose.

692 You are begging the question.

Unhealthy foods aimed at children could, rationally, be perceived as "actual danger."

Myself, I don't think Captain Crunch falls into this category, but you get my point.

Posted by: michael at May 11, 2010 09:40 PM (JtKsy)

//

Real danger... like razor blades in the food.  Poison.  Radiation.  E coli.

Sure the government can demagogue this issue like it does everything else and say they have to exert more control to protect the children or whatever...but it's a load of crap.

Parents can decide for themselves when to let their kids eat at a fast food place.  They don't need nanny government taking over.

693 So what advertising will be acceptable during children's programming?

What keeps Kashi from sponsoring Saturday morning tv right now?
Will they want to start if Frosted Flakes are banned? 
Will we see a flood of advertisers who have been shut out from this wonderful marketing opportunity by Big Sugar Cereal?
Or will we see ad revenue dry up for kids' television?

694

695 Michael:

Despite our testy introduction, I don't think we necessarily disagree.  My point is as  follows:

Somebody fucks with the way I raise my kids, and I'll kill them.

Simple.  To the point.  Hell, you can put it on a bumper sticker.

Children are not "community property" to be managed in "public-private partnership".  They're my DNA. 

This is not a social democracy.  It is a republic.  Until you learn that, not much more to say.

696
empanadas, eh?

697

This argument is totally stupid anyway - everything my parents forbade me to eat when I was a kid? Yeah, that is what I eat now, almost exclusively.

My kids? They tear off the fried part of the chicken nuggets at McDonalds. They turn down fries in favor of the apples because apples are better for them. Of their own accord. The 5 and 7 year olds.

Seriously - Mind. Your. Own. Fucking. Business.

698 We buried 3 out of my class of 75

 

wait just a GODDAMNED minute.

 

That would make you 52, not 40.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 11, 2010 09:56 PM (Wh0W+)

Obviously they taught math better to a class of 32

699 Barack should go after those Sea-Monkey guys.

700
btw, Ace's argument is lame. You know how I know that? Because you can substitute cereal for govt-run health care and it's the same argument used by the leftist.

701 I hope everyone now understands that BHO wants to control everything, what we hear, what we see, what we read, what we say, and even what we eat.   He is hell bent on controlling the content of talk radio, TV, the internet, our food and ultimately, controlling what we think.   His justification is that we are just too dumb to be left alone.  We might put an eye out, or vote for a Conservative. 

702
In other words, who doesn't want better health care at a lower cost? We all do!

That's what Obama said his plan would do. We know it's horseshit.

The govt always has good intentions but they always fuck everything up.

703 The govt always has good intentions but they always fuck everything up.

704 My point, and (I think) Ace's, is simply that we, as a society, have to deal with the reality that there are  millions of families where the parents a defaulting on the most basic responsibilities, such as regulating their children's diet.

That imposes costs on all of us.

Hellooooooo. Look at me, bitches!

705

>> Nope.  Just cut the stingers off then kebabbed them on the tip of my kbar.

Oh.

Well no wonder I didn't like em.

 

706 Next, I'm going to read Andrew Sullivan on how to woo women.

Posted by: Dave C at May 11, 2010 10:07 PM (qmecx)

My hands are here !!!   There's something I've been dying to try!!

707

That imposes costs on all of us.

 How does the neighbor's fatass kid cost me a damned thing, supposing only that you don't make me subsidize his fat ass with some government program?

708

Hellooooooo. Look at me, bitches!

Shhh! Back in your box!

709

>> How does the neighbor's fatass kid cost me a damned thing, supposing only that you don't make me subsidize his fat ass with some government program?

Posted by: Entropy at May 11, 2010 10:08 PM (eL+YD)

 

You ask me, we need those fat kids. Gives the other kids someone to make fun of w/o my kids having to worry.

710

How does the neighbor's fatass kid cost me a damned thing, supposing only that you don't make me subsidize his fat ass with some government program?

And think of all the taxes generated from the cost of food to feed him!  So, don't fat people pay for their own costs?

711 In my day, we called the fat kids "linemen".

712 Here's the deal. My 5 year old watches TV. He watches kids TV. He loves commercials of all types.

His favorite cereal?

Rice Crispies. Straight up, no sugar. If he wants to fancy it up, he asks for a banana in it.

Given a choice between apple sauce, yogurt or cookies, he'll go with one of the first two.

713 341

Ace,

Glaze over all you want at the slippery slope, just take a look at England. First they banned handguns and non-hunting rifles. Then they clamped down on hunting firearms. Then they went after fox hunting. Then they went after knives - the kind that are designed to cut people, not sandwiches.

Now they've gone after knives designed to cut sandwiches.

There's a law in England that says you can have knives with blades over 6" long only if they are kept in the kitchen.

One of the new British PM guys actually had, as a plank in his platform, the need to reduce knife crime.

Now, in a sane world, you'd reduce knife crime by... giving people back their guns to defend themselves against criminals with knives.

What are the proposals floating around the UK?

Everything from even tighter restrictions on knife ownership (sporks have seriously been floated as an alternative to metal blades), to imposing heavy taxes on violent video games: http://bit.ly/apa0X3

Don't be lulled into a sense of logical complacency by the formal shortcomings of the slippery slope; the practical effect of it is very real.

The problem with your position is not that you want to protect children from predatory marketers, or keep them from getting obese - obviously those are laudable goals.

The problem is that you are willing to entertain the notion that this is within the purview of government such that it has your permission to take steps to regulate certain behavior a priori, as opposed to punishing certain behavior that has actually occurred.

When you step outside of the circle that says, "What we eat, and what we let our kids eat, is open to government regulation," then what you are saying is that you are willing to grant power to the government it has never had, was never intended by the founding fathers to have, and, when you just step back and take a common sense look at it, should not fucking have.

You don't think my kid should be eating that bowl of Frosted Flakes?

FUCK YOU.

_{Not you, ace... I mean... well, you know...}

If I feed my kid nothing but Frosted Flakes to the point that he's diabetic, obese and his health is in danger, then we have laws and agencies designed to step in and protect the kid.

But if I want to treat my kid to a box of Frosted Flakes once or twice a year, or even let him eat a bowl every Friday morning, then that's my business. Not the goddamn government's.

Now you may not want to grant any legitimacy to the argument that cutting into the advertising of a legal product because "the government says it's bad for kids" is a slippery slope, so look at it for what it is, or call it by another name, whatever: A really, really bad precedent.

Bad precedents are what future draconian laws are based on, and for you to say that an inch given in the cereal industry won't become a mile taken in the doughnut or candy industries, is to ignore the very slippery and very slopey nature of American law-making. The trend in virtually every aspect of American law is that once liberties are taken away, not only do they not tend to be given back - the same restrictions tend to be expanded and replicated in other aspects of our lives.

So no - this is not so much about sugary cereals. This is about getting the fucking government out of our fucking lives.

Defend the borders. Pave the roads. Other than that, leave us the hell alone.

714 "No, I have no goddamn idea where my 4 year old is. He said he was going to grab a quart of milk and some smokes and headed out on his bigwheel with a backpack full of lunchables and I haven't seen him for 6 hours." Entropy wins a cheap trophy for that excellent comment! hashahahahahahahahaha

715 His favorite cereal?

Rice Crispies.

Fuck.

716

when I was a kid I used to dump so much sugar on my cereal it would collect in the bottom of the bowel.  pre-sweetened cereal was a step down from my normal morning sugar rush.  It was also always amazing how Captain Crunch would shread the top of my mouth the few times I would get it.  Ahhh Good times....

Needless to say I have grown into a crappy parent who still puts way too much sugar on my cereal.  My kids eat too much sugar drink too much Coke watch too much TV/video games, adn eat too much McDonalds.  I am nothing if not a bad example.  Yet somehow they are healthy, relatively happy, doing well in school already in or heading to college.  They may have suffered form benign neglect but neither did I try to actively mess up their lives.

I said no when I felt I had to, and tried to make sure they knew I cared where they were and what they were doing.

all this sugar and toy crap is sweating the small stuff.  same thing for the tube tops and mini dresses I dont care what you send your kids out looking like I care what mine look like when they go out.  which is not to say I am/ was always happy with their clothing choices. That's why god invented yelling.

It is just a stupid rule, the good parents dont need it, the kids of bad parents have much larger problems than sweetend cereal and parents in the muddle like me probably do enough other bad things changing this won't make a dent.  Yet somehow our children survive to sire or bith other morons.

 

717

Posted by: G$ at May 11, 2010 10:12 PM (ao9DD)

Any pics of your sister available, because that was fucking hot!

718 Holy crap the comments here are funny. *Sullivan on how to woo women *Obama going after the sea monkey people You guys are priceless!

719 I think we should focus on protecting our children from REAL dangers, like Global Warming, Acid Rain, Y2K, SARS, the systemic failure of capitalism, anti-muslim backlashes and a flu that only effects chinese chickens.

720

Michael the critiquing (sp) isn't really directed at Ace, only this specific decision. or idea, look at the jolly rancher case in texas , at the no donuts for old folks homes in Cali. at the no salt in NY. if these and other issues parents have , with sex education classes in low grades and such. that's why we believe it IS slippery, and even tho we all know children should not eat mickeyd's everday or candy the gvt, makes the assumption that all parents need guidance Legally to parent and manage the children and Old people that even though they are old enough to be in an ole folks home are not adept enough  to decide for themselves to eat a donut that day

srsly it IS a slippery slope, we see it everywhere,

721 Here's a thought:  If the parents are absent or irresponsible, how should we, meaning our government, deal with it?

Nothing.  When it comes to minor stuff like this we shouldn't do a damn thing.

722 >>Sorry to be snarky, but I did know that would happen. I knew that everyone taking the other side would start kicking up spurious reasons as to why te situations were *nothing at all alike* and why a little bit of patriarchal forbiddance by state action was a-ok with regard to sexualized fashion at school but, on the other hand, absolutely, violently objectionable when it came to Happy Meals

Posted by: ace at May 11, 2010 06:13 PM (i6ROy)

This argument is fucking retarded. What school serves Happy Meals?

723 "You ask me, we need those fat kids. Gives the other kids someone to make fun of w/o my kids having to worry." Another good one. I'm sorry but this thread is one of the funniest in a long time.

724 That's why god invented yelling.

I'm a parent too.

725

not only am I a bad parent I can't spell or punctuate either.

726 Once again, PJmomma tries to make a thread all about her.

727

FUCK JOLLY RANCHERS.

 

ok, no wait.

728 <i>Despite our testy introduction, I don't think we necessarily disagree.  My point is as  follows:

Somebody fucks with the way I raise my kids, and I'll kill them.

Simple.  To the point.  Hell, you can put it on a bumper sticker.

Children are not "community property" to be managed in "public-private partnership".  They're my DNA. </i>

Are you home-schooling your kids?

If not, you have some teachers who need killing.

729 Either ace had a stroke, his account was hijacked, or he just became best friends with Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan.

730 a flu that only effects chinese chickens.

Posted by: Entropy at May 11, 2010 10:17 PM (eL+YD)

When you bioengineer a dick that only infect Chinese chickens, get back to me, asshole.

731 It's another one of this administration's tempests in a teapot, smoke and mirrors to conceal and to deflect away from the shitty jobs that they're doing in many other areas. I'm incredulous that those people are so petty and irresponsible and so bitchy and so downright sleazy. Like they ever put those efforts in to cleaning up black communities.

732

Posted by: michael at May 11, 2010 10:19 PM (JtKsy)

He sends them to school - his choice, my choice.

733 Are you home-schooling your kids?

Of course.  If you weren't a newbie and a pissant, you'd know that already.

734 michael and ace sure can knock them strawmen down can't they?

735 Once again, PJmomma tries to make a thread all about her.

I did a pretty good job, didn't I?

736 well, maybe he doesn't - lol; but it doesn't matter - still a parents choice to send to public school or not; or what school to send them to; or to homeschool

737 No, actually, we can't, or at least I can't. You seem determined to treat kids as "Little Adults" where all the libertarian rules of adulthood apply. I don't get this-- is there anyone arguing that a high-sugar diet is actually a good thing for a kid (or anyone), or at least not a bad thing? Well, duh, of course a high-sugar diet is not good for you, but we are talking about a bowl of Honey-Os in the morning, not survival food. I used to plop down in front of the telly on Saturday mornings, watching TISWAS with a big HUGE bowl of Frosted Sugar Flakes. But you know, the cartoons ended and the boring movies came on afterwards, and we would burn off all that sugar in the afternoon with an impromptu football match. The point: it ain't the cereal that's the problem, it's the kids parked on their arses all afternoon zoning out on the computer or Wii. A bowl of cereal ain't gonna kill you, and it's not the government's job to do the parent's grocery shopping. So, I'm in the "government sod off" camp here.

738 Herr Morgenholz
and
Michael

neither of you two are newbies for crying out loud.

739 No gm.  My wife teaches them.

They saw a meteor tonight.  The nine year old was pondering if it was really where she thought it was, given the potential gravity wells produced by dark matter and in light of General Relativity.

No shit.

I had to explain that we're not likely to see much dark matter in the atmosphere.  She rolled with it.

740

We were going to homeschool this year, but wife is pregnant again - it already would have been tough with a 7, 5, 3, and 1 y/o

741 neither of you two are newbies for crying out loud.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 11, 2010 10:23 PM (fo4Wl)

He started it.

742 He started it.

true

743 Ace is blaming his fatness on evil corporations and not his own laziness.

744

We were going to homeschool this year, but wife is pregnant again - it already would have been tough with a 7, 5, 3, and 1 y/o

Posted by: gm at May 11, 2010 10:25 PM (ELiBu)

Uhhhh.  Never mind.  You already know better.

Congrats.

745 For those who support this crap, let me ask you something...

What personal liberties/preferences/pleasures would the government NOT be able to micromanage as long as they employ the same line of bull that they need to take action in order to protect people's health or well being or whatever?

746 Since this is all about me, Herr, what program, if any, do you use with your kids?

I should say your wife uses.

747

mare did you see 605

Not just flammable clothes, but anything that might have lead in it. Like books.

<>

Yes, that's a serious problem for those of us throwing children into fire.

<

Are you really offended by that?>>

Fuck, yeah.

Big Brother needs to get His Own Fucking House In Order before he dares to look into mine.

And even then, it's gonna piss me off, since he's spending MY money to do a half-assed version of MY job

i choked on my own tongue reading that, tooo funny

748 Since this is all about me, Herr, what program, if any, do you use with your kids?

We do a state sponsored Charter school, actually.  Kind of a hybrid.  Called K12. They have programs in a lot of states.  Look them up. 

The state pays for all the curriculum, and in return we dance through some hoops:  Testing, shit like that.

Frau wants to shitcan it next year and go heavier on math and science and history.

749 OK, PJ, Herr Morgenholz is not a newbie and pissant.

Actually, I have enormous respect for anyone who home schools their kids.

*Doffs hat to Frau Morgenholz*

750 well, maybe he doesn't - lol; but it doesn't matter - still a parents choice to send to public school or not; or what school to send them to; or to homeschool

Also have the option yanking the kids out if the school starts teaching anything you disagree with it.

At least for now.

751

If it's for the good of the kiddies, then why not, you say?  I say, where's the line?

//

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes. The government’s “children’s secretary” Ed Balls is behind the plan, which is aimed at problem, antisocial families. The idea is that, if a child has a more stable home life, he or she will be less likely to stray into crime and drugs.

It gets worse. The government is also maintaining a private army, incredibly not called “Thought Police”, which will “be sent round to carry out home checks,” according to the Sunday Express. And in a scheme which firmly cements the nation’s reputation as a “nanny state”, the kids and their families will be forced to sign “behavior contracts” which will “set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.”

752 And thus begins a new meme of DiT and what he wants to do to pirates...

753 *Doffs hat to Frau Morgenholz*

Posted by: michael at May 11, 2010 10:31 PM (JtKsy)

She's a great lady.  Damned woman could juggle chainsaws and still keep her shit together.

I got lucky.

754

Yet another case of government overreach.  Allowing the government to take this step makes it ok for them to take the next and the one after that.  As for the guy next door with the sub-woofer that comes down to good old fashioned politeness.  He can politley play his movies at a decent volume or I can politley shove my foot up his ass.  Because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  Every single time we allow any other person to make decisions for us we give up a bit more freedom and make it easier the next time they want to impose more rules.

I have to disagree with you on your conclusions.  Instead of passing laws to force us to get along or feed our children in a certain way people need to do that unheard of thing called taking responsibility.

755 Pajama Mama :another  Home school  Curriculum is American school, they have all the curriculum , they grade the papers, it's a nice service , depends on your states laws

756 I want my fucking Jarts back, dammit.

757

We do a state sponsored Charter school, actually.  The state pays for all the curriculum

You pinko bastard, get your socialist pissant newbie statist ass off the dole.

758 My kid wants to go to McDonalds for the gigantic indoor jungle gym they have. She will play there for 30 minutes running around with the other kids. So, if we penalize McDonalds for their food, how do we reward them for the exercise the kids get there? I suggest we mandate all restaurants selling food to kids have to offer a playground. Is everyone okay with that?

759 Also have the option yanking the kids out if the school starts teaching anything you disagree with it.

At least for now.

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at May 11, 2010 10:31 PM (iBTj9)

With the homeschool laws in Texas, as I understand them, I think you just send a note that says "Fuck you.".  A lot looser than most states.

760 When people are hurting parents are slightly annoyed, government has to move.

Lowering the bar even more.

761 She's a great lady.  Damned woman could juggle chainsaws and still keep her shit together.

Good for you.  You're a lucky guy.

I'll give you $50 for pictures of her nekkid.

762

You pinko bastard, get your socialist pissant newbie statist ass off the dole.

Posted by: Entropy at May 11, 2010 10:34 PM (eL+YD)

Thanks for the money.

I didn't agree with the "making work pay" tax credit either, but I took it.