Original Post: Daily Caller
White House seeks child-speech oversight
By Neil Munro
President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama speak at a conference on bullying prevention in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 10, 2011.
Roughly 150 various advocates — lobbyists for gays and lesbians, legislators, White House officials, at least one cabinet secretary and the first lady — gathered around President’s Obama’s bully pulpit in the White House Thursday to cheer for increased government monitoring and intervention in Facebook conversations, in playgrounds and in schoolrooms around the country.
No officials at the televised East Room roll-out of the White House’s anti-bullying initiative suggested any limits to government intervention against juvenile physical violence, social exclusion or unwanted speech. None mentioned the usefulness to children of unsupervised play. None suggested there were any risks created by a government program to enforce children’s approval of other children who are unpopular, overweight, or who declare themselves to be gay, lesbians or transgender.
“It breaks our hearts to think that any child feels afraid every day in the classroom, on the playground, or even online,” first lady Michelle Obama said.
“We’re going to prevent bullying and create an environment where every single one of our children can thrive,” the president said, as he announced a series of government actions intended to fund, guide and pressure state and local officials to adopt regulations and programs that would shield children from insults or social-exclusion as well as from physical harm.
But the lethal risks of additional federal school-yard regulation will be underlined May 2 in a California courtroom. Brandon McInerney was 19 days past his 14th birthday, and living with his divorced father, when he murdered Larry King, by shooting him dead in a classroom, said McInerney’s lawyer, Scott Wippert.
In the pending trial, “the evidence we will introduce is that [King] was bullying and sexually-harassing” McInerney, with the tacit approval of school officials who excused the harassment as legitimate expression of a female “gender identity,” Wippert said. The approved sexual-harassment took place on the schoolyard, in front of other kids, and it included offers of sexual favors and precipitated taunts from other boys. “It was outrageous,” said Wippert. When school officials refused to discipline King, McInerney shot him in front of a teacher who had given him the dress he was wearing, he said.
If the situation turned out differently and McInerney had killed himself, the “focus would have been on the school [officials] for allowing the [sexually themed] bullying,” Wippert argued. But that’s not what happened, and the local district attorney is now trying McInerney as an adult and charging him with first-degree murder for shooting and killing King, which could put him away for the rest of his life, Wippert said.
Gay advocacy groups, principally the New York-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, argue that kids who may be gay or lesbian need protection from taunts and insults, as well as from already-illegal violence, and that schools should promote acceptance of homosexuality. “GLSEN envisions a world in which every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression [and it] seeks to develop school climates where difference is valued for the positive contribution it makes to creating a more vibrant and diverse community,” according to a statement from GLSEN, whose founder, Kevin Jennings, now heads the anti-bullying program at the Department of Education.
GLSEN and Jennings are anathema to D.C.-based Family Research Council, which argues that children, parents, local governments and clerics are best able to counter episodes of bullying. “Bullying violates the Christian’s obligation to love our neighbor as we love ourselves [but] some homosexual activists are using this issue as a way to silence legitimate and respectful moral disagreement with homosexual conduct,” according to a statement from the Family Research Council. “Using the bureaucratic machinery of the federal government to promote homosexuality in the schools is precisely what Family Research Council and many others warned about when GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings was appointed to the Department of Education,” continued the statement.
Congressional opposition from social-conservatives and libertarians will likely bottle up several GLSEN-backed bills pending in Congress. To promote their cases, both factions showcase speakers, as well as dead children, including those who committed suicide after bullying, or after expulsion from school for minor offenses.
But federal officials can push the initiative forward with many other tools, including agency employees, federal grants to advocacy groups, agency regulations, cooperation from companies such as Facebook, and the White House’s bully pulpit. In the next few weeks, Facebook is set to announce new steps that could allow kids to highlight online conversations and insults for subsequent inspection by adults, school officials and regulators.
This expanded adult oversight of juvenile interactions was welcomed by invited speakers at the White House event.
A “greater effort to monitor [kids’ interactions] is a good thing,” said George Sugai, at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education in 2005. “We have to encourage the children not to fight back” against insults and online harassment, but instead to call for help from adults, said Catherine Bradshaw, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence.
Joel Burns, councilman in a Fort Worth, Texas, applauded the president’s focus on kids who say they are gay or lesbian. “The president did not shy away from LGBT as a topic,” he said. Also, the president endorsed “enumeration,” which is especially important, he said. Enumeration is the specific inclusion of gay, lesbian and transgender categories as deserving of regulatory protection.
GLSEN’s spokesman Ryan Schwarz declined to comment about the initiative, saying “the sensitivities abut lobbying on this issue are deep.” However, he added, White House officials “have been really great on taking full leadership.”
The White House’s East Room meeting did not include any children who spoke out for or against federal oversight. Two grade-school kids who attended, however, were Ryan Thompson and Eric Kanchuger, who have established Channel 6 News. Federal policies intended to help parents tracks their kids’ Facebook conversations is “a bit too much,” said Kanchuger. “It would intrude on our privacy.”
It appears that at least one of the president’s daughters may agree with this criticism. “Barack and I also know that sometimes, maybe even a lot of the time, it’s really hard for parents to know what’s going on in our kids’ lives,” the first lady told the East Room audience. “We don’t always know, because they don’t always tell us every little detail. We know that from Sasha. Sasha’s response [to our question] ‘What happened at school today?’ [is] ‘Nothing.’ That’s it.”
Showing posts with label nanny state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nanny state. Show all posts
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Black community debates possible menthol ban
Original Post: Daily Caller
By Caroline May - The Daily Caller
A potential ban on menthol cigarettes has sparked a debate within the African American community over whether a government ban should be welcomed for health reasons or considered a condescending demonstration of paternalism.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering implementing a ban on menthol cigarettes believing that the additive is more appealing to young people as it “has cooling and anesthetic effects that reduce the harshness of cigarette smoke.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), based on data from 2006, 75 percent of African American adult smokers and 23 percent of white adult smokers use menthol cigarettes.
Niger Innis, national spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), told The Daily Caller that while he is not a smoker and loathes the habit, he is frustrated to see his community targeted and condescended to in this way.
“It is so much more abhorrent to think that some government entity is going to come in and say, ‘well, because blacks tend to disproportionately smoke this type we are going to ban it to protect them from themselves,’” Innis said. “That is the utmost in paternalism and contempt for a community. We should be allowed to regulate our own lives. Part of freedom is having the freedom to make choices and deal with the consequences of those choices.”I agree with Innis. How is it at all not racist to say blacks make poor decisions with smoking and we have to protect them by banning menthol cigarettes?
For the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, John Payton, it is a health issue. Payton told NPR host Michal Martin in November that the issue at hand is keeping African Americans from smoking, specifically African American children.
“What I’m saying is that there is a tremendous number of kids, underage, unlawfully starting to smoke,” Payton said. “And one of the things that lures them into it, especially the African-American kids, is the flavoring of menthol.”
The African American community, however, is doing much better than other races in keeping their children away from cigarettes. In 2009, the University of Michigan and Monitoring the Future conducted a survey of 12th graders which found that African American youth smoking rates tend to be much lower than other races. Just 9.8 percent of African American youth said they smoked, compared to 23.9 percent of white youth and 15.7 percent of Hispanic youth.
While the NAACP and others push for a menthol cigarette ban, Innis said he is concerned about the potential for a black market developing in menthol cigarettes which could land more African Americans in prison for something that was not illegal at the outset.
“I find the NAACP to be extremely hypocritical in this question…While simultaneously promoting the criminalization of a legal product, and creating a new class of criminals within our community, was it not they who were pushing for the legalization of marijuana — which is illegal?” Innis asked. “The gross hypocrisy of this is the reason they were pushing for legalization is because of the number of African Americans that get caught distributing or possessing.”
By Caroline May - The Daily Caller
A potential ban on menthol cigarettes has sparked a debate within the African American community over whether a government ban should be welcomed for health reasons or considered a condescending demonstration of paternalism.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering implementing a ban on menthol cigarettes believing that the additive is more appealing to young people as it “has cooling and anesthetic effects that reduce the harshness of cigarette smoke.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), based on data from 2006, 75 percent of African American adult smokers and 23 percent of white adult smokers use menthol cigarettes.
Niger Innis, national spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), told The Daily Caller that while he is not a smoker and loathes the habit, he is frustrated to see his community targeted and condescended to in this way.
“It is so much more abhorrent to think that some government entity is going to come in and say, ‘well, because blacks tend to disproportionately smoke this type we are going to ban it to protect them from themselves,’” Innis said. “That is the utmost in paternalism and contempt for a community. We should be allowed to regulate our own lives. Part of freedom is having the freedom to make choices and deal with the consequences of those choices.”I agree with Innis. How is it at all not racist to say blacks make poor decisions with smoking and we have to protect them by banning menthol cigarettes?
For the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, John Payton, it is a health issue. Payton told NPR host Michal Martin in November that the issue at hand is keeping African Americans from smoking, specifically African American children.
“What I’m saying is that there is a tremendous number of kids, underage, unlawfully starting to smoke,” Payton said. “And one of the things that lures them into it, especially the African-American kids, is the flavoring of menthol.”
The African American community, however, is doing much better than other races in keeping their children away from cigarettes. In 2009, the University of Michigan and Monitoring the Future conducted a survey of 12th graders which found that African American youth smoking rates tend to be much lower than other races. Just 9.8 percent of African American youth said they smoked, compared to 23.9 percent of white youth and 15.7 percent of Hispanic youth.
While the NAACP and others push for a menthol cigarette ban, Innis said he is concerned about the potential for a black market developing in menthol cigarettes which could land more African Americans in prison for something that was not illegal at the outset.
“I find the NAACP to be extremely hypocritical in this question…While simultaneously promoting the criminalization of a legal product, and creating a new class of criminals within our community, was it not they who were pushing for the legalization of marijuana — which is illegal?” Innis asked. “The gross hypocrisy of this is the reason they were pushing for legalization is because of the number of African Americans that get caught distributing or possessing.”
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Congress CAN in fact regulate thoughts
Federal Judge Rules Congress Can Regulate "Mental Activity" Under Commerce Clause
Original Post: Spectator
By Philip Klein on 2.22.11 @ 9:12PM
A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.
The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler's ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.
Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler's ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate "mental activity":
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
It is worth noting, however, that even Kessler concedes that "there is little judicial guidance" on this question.
Also, Kessler joined the other four judges in dismissing the Obama administration's fallback argument that the mandate was justified under Congress's taxing power, ruling "that Congress did not intend the mandatory payment...to act as a revenue-raising tax, but rather as a punitive measure." Given that even those judges sympathetic to the Commerce Clause argument have rejected the taxation argument, I wonder if the administration will eventually abandon it as the case moves up the food chain.
Original Post: Spectator
By Philip Klein on 2.22.11 @ 9:12PM
A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.
The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler's ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.
Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler's ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate "mental activity":
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
It is worth noting, however, that even Kessler concedes that "there is little judicial guidance" on this question.
Also, Kessler joined the other four judges in dismissing the Obama administration's fallback argument that the mandate was justified under Congress's taxing power, ruling "that Congress did not intend the mandatory payment...to act as a revenue-raising tax, but rather as a punitive measure." Given that even those judges sympathetic to the Commerce Clause argument have rejected the taxation argument, I wonder if the administration will eventually abandon it as the case moves up the food chain.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Michelle Obama on child nutrition: ‘We can’t just leave it up to the parents'
Original Post: Examiner
First Lady Michelle Obama is on a crusade to end child obesity - a worthwhile goal in and of itself. But in remarks at Monday's signing of the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act", she seemed to denigrate the role of the parent.
In deciding what children ought to eat, she said, "We can’t just leave it up to the parents." We can't just leave it up to the parent's to raise a child, we need the federal government to do so. It it any wonder that some of us think the Obama's are authoritarians.
She added:
I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.
The bill signed by President Obama regulates what children can eat before, during, and after school. It also regulates diets during summer vacations in school programs funded by the federal government.
The bill passed the House 264 - 157 on December 2. Idaho's Walt Minnick voted for the measure, while Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) did not vote - along with 12 others.
For the first time, the federal government has the authority to regulate all food at schools - including food found in vending machines.
In her remarks, the First Lady even went so far as to tie childhood obesity to national security:
“And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well. These folks come at this issue from all different angles. But they’ve come together to support this bill because they know that it’s the right thing to do for our kids. And they know that in the long run, it won’t just save money, it will save lives.”
Politico reports that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee supports the measure. Frist reportedly said:
“I join President Obama and the first lady in celebrating the signing of ... this bipartisan legislation. ... As a physician, I know smart nutrition leads to healthy and productive lives."
Huckabee, who ran for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008 said:
“Reversing the childhood obesity epidemic in a single generation — as first lady Michelle Obama has called upon our nation to do — won’t be easy. ... The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act makes great strides toward eliminating this threat to our children's health.”
But the bill may not sit well with those who already see the government as being far too intrusive in individual's lives.
According to a report at CNS News, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin called it the “nanny state run amok.”
The President joked that if he had not signed the bill, he would "be sleeping on the couch." Does anyone really think he was joking? Given Michelle's very dominant personality and Obama's willingness to bow before secretaries, I'm pretty darn sure that this is how our policies are being made. I'm sure Michelle told Barack to sign this bill and he cow toed to her.
First Lady Michelle Obama is on a crusade to end child obesity - a worthwhile goal in and of itself. But in remarks at Monday's signing of the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act", she seemed to denigrate the role of the parent.
In deciding what children ought to eat, she said, "We can’t just leave it up to the parents." We can't just leave it up to the parent's to raise a child, we need the federal government to do so. It it any wonder that some of us think the Obama's are authoritarians.
She added:
I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.
The bill signed by President Obama regulates what children can eat before, during, and after school. It also regulates diets during summer vacations in school programs funded by the federal government.
The bill passed the House 264 - 157 on December 2. Idaho's Walt Minnick voted for the measure, while Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) did not vote - along with 12 others.
For the first time, the federal government has the authority to regulate all food at schools - including food found in vending machines.
In her remarks, the First Lady even went so far as to tie childhood obesity to national security:
“And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well. These folks come at this issue from all different angles. But they’ve come together to support this bill because they know that it’s the right thing to do for our kids. And they know that in the long run, it won’t just save money, it will save lives.”
Politico reports that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee supports the measure. Frist reportedly said:
“I join President Obama and the first lady in celebrating the signing of ... this bipartisan legislation. ... As a physician, I know smart nutrition leads to healthy and productive lives."
Huckabee, who ran for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008 said:
“Reversing the childhood obesity epidemic in a single generation — as first lady Michelle Obama has called upon our nation to do — won’t be easy. ... The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act makes great strides toward eliminating this threat to our children's health.”
But the bill may not sit well with those who already see the government as being far too intrusive in individual's lives.
According to a report at CNS News, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin called it the “nanny state run amok.”
The President joked that if he had not signed the bill, he would "be sleeping on the couch." Does anyone really think he was joking? Given Michelle's very dominant personality and Obama's willingness to bow before secretaries, I'm pretty darn sure that this is how our policies are being made. I'm sure Michelle told Barack to sign this bill and he cow toed to her.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Democrats want to control bake sales
Hold The Brownies! Bill Could Limit Bake Sales
Original Post: WITN
Don't touch my brownies!
A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.
Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.
"This could be a real train wreck for school districts," Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. "The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level."
The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.
It wouldn't apply to after-hours events or concession stands at sports events.
Public health groups pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent. The language is broad enough that a president's administration could even ban bake sales, but Secretary Tom Vilsack signaled in a letter to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., this week that he does not intend to do that. The USDA has a year to write rules that decide how frequent is infrequent.
Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says the bill is aimed at curbing daily or weekly bake sales or pizza fundraisers that become a regular part of kids' lunchtime routines. She says selling junk food can easily be substituted with nonfood fundraisers.
"These fundraisers are happening all the time," Wootan said. "It's a pizza sale one day, doughnuts the next... It's endless. This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."
Not all see it that way.
Palin mocked the efforts last month by bringing a plate of cookies to a school speech in Pennsylvania. Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said the federal government "has really gone too far" when it is deciding when to hold bake sales.
Some parents say they are perplexed by what the new rules might allow.
In Seminole, Fla., the Seminole High Warhawks Marching Band's booster club held a bake sale to help send the band's 173 members to this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade in New York. One of the bake sale's specialties: New York-style cheesecake, an homage to the destination they'd pursued for 10 years.
"Limiting bake sales is so narrow-minded," said Laura Shortway, whose 17-year-old daughter, Mallory, is a drummer in the band. "Having bake sales keeps these fundraisers community based, which is very appealing to the person making the purchase."
Several school districts and state education departments already have policies suggesting or enforcing limits on bake sales, both for nutritional reasons and to keep the events from competing for dollars against school cafeterias. In Connecticut, for instance, about 70 percent of the state's school districts have signed on to the state education department's voluntary guidelines encouraging healthy foods in place of high-sugar, high-fat options.
Under those rules, bake sales cannot be held on school grounds unless the items meet nutrition standards that specifically limit portion sizes, fat content, sodium and sugars. That two-ounce, low-fat granola bar? Probably OK, depending what's in it. But grandma's homemade oversized brownie with cream cheese frosting and chocolate chips inside? Probably not.
One loophole in Connecticut: The nutritional standards apply if the food is being sold at a bake sale, but not if it's being given away free, such as by a parent for a child's birthday.
"If a mom wants to send in cupcakes to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, that would not be subject to the state guidelines," said Thomas Murphy, a spokesman for the state's education department.
In New York City, a rule enacted in 2009 allows bake sales only once a month, and they must comply with nutritional standards and be part of a parent group fundraiser.
Wootan says she hopes the rules will prompt schools to try different options for fundraising.
"Schools are so used to doing the same fundraisers every year that they need a strong nudge to do something new," she says. "The most important rebuttal to all of these arguments is that schools can make money other ways — you don't have to harm kids health."
Original Post: WITN
Don't touch my brownies!
A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.
Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.
"This could be a real train wreck for school districts," Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. "The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level."
The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.
It wouldn't apply to after-hours events or concession stands at sports events.
Public health groups pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent. The language is broad enough that a president's administration could even ban bake sales, but Secretary Tom Vilsack signaled in a letter to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., this week that he does not intend to do that. The USDA has a year to write rules that decide how frequent is infrequent.
Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says the bill is aimed at curbing daily or weekly bake sales or pizza fundraisers that become a regular part of kids' lunchtime routines. She says selling junk food can easily be substituted with nonfood fundraisers.
"These fundraisers are happening all the time," Wootan said. "It's a pizza sale one day, doughnuts the next... It's endless. This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."
Not all see it that way.
Palin mocked the efforts last month by bringing a plate of cookies to a school speech in Pennsylvania. Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said the federal government "has really gone too far" when it is deciding when to hold bake sales.
Some parents say they are perplexed by what the new rules might allow.
In Seminole, Fla., the Seminole High Warhawks Marching Band's booster club held a bake sale to help send the band's 173 members to this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade in New York. One of the bake sale's specialties: New York-style cheesecake, an homage to the destination they'd pursued for 10 years.
"Limiting bake sales is so narrow-minded," said Laura Shortway, whose 17-year-old daughter, Mallory, is a drummer in the band. "Having bake sales keeps these fundraisers community based, which is very appealing to the person making the purchase."
Several school districts and state education departments already have policies suggesting or enforcing limits on bake sales, both for nutritional reasons and to keep the events from competing for dollars against school cafeterias. In Connecticut, for instance, about 70 percent of the state's school districts have signed on to the state education department's voluntary guidelines encouraging healthy foods in place of high-sugar, high-fat options.
Under those rules, bake sales cannot be held on school grounds unless the items meet nutrition standards that specifically limit portion sizes, fat content, sodium and sugars. That two-ounce, low-fat granola bar? Probably OK, depending what's in it. But grandma's homemade oversized brownie with cream cheese frosting and chocolate chips inside? Probably not.
One loophole in Connecticut: The nutritional standards apply if the food is being sold at a bake sale, but not if it's being given away free, such as by a parent for a child's birthday.
"If a mom wants to send in cupcakes to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, that would not be subject to the state guidelines," said Thomas Murphy, a spokesman for the state's education department.
In New York City, a rule enacted in 2009 allows bake sales only once a month, and they must comply with nutritional standards and be part of a parent group fundraiser.
Wootan says she hopes the rules will prompt schools to try different options for fundraising.
"Schools are so used to doing the same fundraisers every year that they need a strong nudge to do something new," she says. "The most important rebuttal to all of these arguments is that schools can make money other ways — you don't have to harm kids health."
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Janet Napolitano Places Cameras in Wal-Mart
Original Post: Vision to America
More than 230 Walmart stores nationwide launched the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign today, with a total of 588 Walmart stores in 27 states joining in the coming weeks. A short video message, available here, will play at select checkout locations to remind shoppers to contact local law enforcement to report suspicious activity.
The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign—originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and funded, in part, by $13 million from DHS’ Transit Security Grant Program—is a simple and effective program to engage the public and key frontline employees to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities.
So while standing in line with your inflatable lawn Santa, tampons, dog food, and waiting for your tires to be rotated, you’ll be treated to a freakish video of Napolitano doing anything but actually stoppingterrorism, like securing the borders (9/11 began as an immigration issue with the hijackers here on expired visas), paying closer attention to the FBI watch list, and implementing effective security protocols at airports instead of get-lucky random searching.
More than 230 Walmart stores nationwide launched the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign today, with a total of 588 Walmart stores in 27 states joining in the coming weeks. A short video message, available here, will play at select checkout locations to remind shoppers to contact local law enforcement to report suspicious activity.
The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign—originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and funded, in part, by $13 million from DHS’ Transit Security Grant Program—is a simple and effective program to engage the public and key frontline employees to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities.
So while standing in line with your inflatable lawn Santa, tampons, dog food, and waiting for your tires to be rotated, you’ll be treated to a freakish video of Napolitano doing anything but actually stoppingterrorism, like securing the borders (9/11 began as an immigration issue with the hijackers here on expired visas), paying closer attention to the FBI watch list, and implementing effective security protocols at airports instead of get-lucky random searching.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Public School Bans U.S. Flag To Avoid “Racial Tension”
Original Post: Judicial Watch
A public middle school student in central California was forced to take an American flag off his bike because administrators feared Old Glory would ignite “racial tension”among Hispanic students.
The enraging violation of the teenager’s First Amendment right took place this week in Stanislaus County’s Denair Unified School District, where officials say Mexican flags brought in by Hispanic students created racial tension on Cinco de Mayo, the holiday that commemorates Mexico’s victory over France in the Battle of Puebla.
To avoid similar problems, a boy at Denair Middle School was forced to put away an American flag displayed on his bike to support war heroes, including some in his family, on Veterans Day week. The 13-year-old was ordered to remove it after students at his U.S. taxpayer-financed school complained, according to officials quoted in a local news report. All this while an American flag flaps in the wind on campus as is the case at practically all of the nation’s public schools.
Here is the official explanation offered by the district’s superintendant, Edward Parraz: "Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Who would have ever imagined that the Stars and Stripes would be considered offensive on its own soil and in a government-financed institution, no less? An acclaimed educational center dedicated to studying the First Amendment (Vanderbilt University’s First Amendment Center), points out that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling allows school officials to ban student expression if they can reasonably forecast that the speech or display will cause substantial disruption.
However, addressing this incident, one of its First Amendment scholars asks: “Since when is honoring Veterans Day with the display of the American flag disruptive?” He goes on to suggest that schools facing tensions over cultural differences can teach all students that disruptions over displays such as flags on bikes or backpacks will not be tolerated rather than banning the expression.
A public middle school student in central California was forced to take an American flag off his bike because administrators feared Old Glory would ignite “racial tension”among Hispanic students.
The enraging violation of the teenager’s First Amendment right took place this week in Stanislaus County’s Denair Unified School District, where officials say Mexican flags brought in by Hispanic students created racial tension on Cinco de Mayo, the holiday that commemorates Mexico’s victory over France in the Battle of Puebla.
To avoid similar problems, a boy at Denair Middle School was forced to put away an American flag displayed on his bike to support war heroes, including some in his family, on Veterans Day week. The 13-year-old was ordered to remove it after students at his U.S. taxpayer-financed school complained, according to officials quoted in a local news report. All this while an American flag flaps in the wind on campus as is the case at practically all of the nation’s public schools.
Here is the official explanation offered by the district’s superintendant, Edward Parraz: "Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Who would have ever imagined that the Stars and Stripes would be considered offensive on its own soil and in a government-financed institution, no less? An acclaimed educational center dedicated to studying the First Amendment (Vanderbilt University’s First Amendment Center), points out that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling allows school officials to ban student expression if they can reasonably forecast that the speech or display will cause substantial disruption.
However, addressing this incident, one of its First Amendment scholars asks: “Since when is honoring Veterans Day with the display of the American flag disruptive?” He goes on to suggest that schools facing tensions over cultural differences can teach all students that disruptions over displays such as flags on bikes or backpacks will not be tolerated rather than banning the expression.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Texting and Walking: Dangerous Mix
Original Post: Time
You might call it an avocational hazard. A recent ITN News video in the U.K. shows that some London pedestrians have become so preoccupied with e-mailing and text messaging on their BlackBerrys and cell phones that they can't make it down a city block without crashing into lampposts or trash bins. One of the most hazardous streets for "walking while texting," according to the Monty Python–esque video clip, is East London's busy Brick Lane, lined with trendy boutiques and curry shops, where people have been filmed walking head down, ricocheting off various stationary sidewalk objects. The solution? Wrap Brick Lane's lampposts with fluffy, white rugby goalpost cushions.
The video hit the Internet in early March and was met with widespread media attention ("Britain's first safe text street has been created complete with padded lampposts to protect millions of mobile phone users from getting hurt in street accidents while walking and texting," the London Daily Mail proclaimed) along with much twittering in the blogosphere about the possible expansion of the Brick Lane pilot project. But it turned out that the lamppost-wrapping scheme was just a clever public-relations ploy mounted by 118118, a British directory assistance company, and Living Streets, a well-known charity dedicated to making cities more pedestrian-friendly. In tandem with the publicity stunt, Living Streets conducted an unscientific survey of 1,000 texting Brits and found that 1 in 10 — or, potentially, 6.5 million people nationwide — had suffered injuries while texting and walking.
In a world where billions of text messages move through the ether daily — Filipinos hold the national record, having sent a billion texts per day in 2007 — it's no surprise that news of texting-while-walking accidents piqued such global interest. Though the lamppost bumpers were removed from Brick Lane after only 24 hours, the debate over such "nanny government" maneuvers and the rampant dangers of walking while texting rages on. It's a debate that New Yorkers joined last year when State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn introduced a bill in Albany to combat "iPod oblivion." His bill, which was prompted by the death of two constituents who were killed crossing the street while listening to their iPods, sought to ban pedestrians from using earphones in crosswalks in New York's large urban areas. The bill languished in committee last year, but the Senator has reintroduced it in 2008.
Intuitively, the perils of texting while walking make sense. But George Branyan, pedestrian coordinator for the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, says that in most pedestrian accidents, neither text messaging nor iPod oblivion are major factors. "I am not seeing it in the crash data," Branyan says.
Most pedestrian accidents, according to Branyan, happen because people jaywalk or drivers ignore existing traffic laws — which require, for example, yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, heeding the speed limit and stopping at red lights. A pedestrian dies every 110 minutes in the United States, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and there has been an increase in the last few years in pedestrian deaths in Washington and other urban areas across the country, prompting governments in the D.C. metro area to launch a new advertising campaign aimed at increasing pedestrian safety. It is both "edgy and blunt," Branyan says of the radio spots and posters, which depict a violent pedestrian-car collision. The most recent pedestrian fatality in Washington was typical, Branyan says: an elderly woman who was crossing the street with the right of way was hit last week by a driver turning right on a green light, knocking her almost 50 feet.
When the Department of Transportation and the D.C. police recently conducted a two-month street-safety campaign, undercover cops at crossings and pull-over police units issued 6,000 tickets — two-thirds to drivers and one-third to pedestrians for jaywalking, Branyan said. Though Washington police, along with other law enforcement agencies, agree that the increase in text messaging endangers both drivers and pedestrians (many states have outlawed text messaging while driving, and Maryland and Virginia are considering banning cyclists from text messaging on the go), Branyan thinks that creating new laws to ban texting, particularly in urban areas where police already face many law-enforcement challenges, is less useful than enforcing laws that are already on the books.
Traffic safety engineers are developing new technologies to alert drivers to areas where pedestrian traffic is heavy at certain times of the day. St. Petersburg, Fla., for example, has installed motion detectors at some crossings where there are no traffic signals; when a pedestrian approaches, a squawkbox urges him or her to push a button before crossing, triggering high-intensity flashing lights that drivers can see some distance from the intersection. City officials credit the system with boosting driver compliance with crosswalk laws from 8% to 84%. Washington plans to install similar bilingual devices at some of its high-risk intersections. In Boulder, Colo., the city has placed audible warning devices at busy crosswalks — when a pedestrian pushes the crosswalk button, lights flash and a "Use caution when crossing" message is played to remind the pedestrian to be careful.
Some communities, however, have opted for much lower-tech solutions. In County Mayo, Ireland, where rising pedestrian accidents have caused concern, elementary-school children persuaded the Irish Road Safety Authority last week to revive a popular 1970s ditty called the "Safe Cross Code," which exhorts six easy steps (including "look for a safe place" and "don't hurry") for safe street crossing. But even the classics can sometimes afford a little modernization: the Irish musician Brendan Grace has agreed to re-record the old-time jingle as a cell-phone ringtone, which can now be downloaded for a fee that goes toward supporting national traffic-safety programs.
You might call it an avocational hazard. A recent ITN News video in the U.K. shows that some London pedestrians have become so preoccupied with e-mailing and text messaging on their BlackBerrys and cell phones that they can't make it down a city block without crashing into lampposts or trash bins. One of the most hazardous streets for "walking while texting," according to the Monty Python–esque video clip, is East London's busy Brick Lane, lined with trendy boutiques and curry shops, where people have been filmed walking head down, ricocheting off various stationary sidewalk objects. The solution? Wrap Brick Lane's lampposts with fluffy, white rugby goalpost cushions.
The video hit the Internet in early March and was met with widespread media attention ("Britain's first safe text street has been created complete with padded lampposts to protect millions of mobile phone users from getting hurt in street accidents while walking and texting," the London Daily Mail proclaimed) along with much twittering in the blogosphere about the possible expansion of the Brick Lane pilot project. But it turned out that the lamppost-wrapping scheme was just a clever public-relations ploy mounted by 118118, a British directory assistance company, and Living Streets, a well-known charity dedicated to making cities more pedestrian-friendly. In tandem with the publicity stunt, Living Streets conducted an unscientific survey of 1,000 texting Brits and found that 1 in 10 — or, potentially, 6.5 million people nationwide — had suffered injuries while texting and walking.
In a world where billions of text messages move through the ether daily — Filipinos hold the national record, having sent a billion texts per day in 2007 — it's no surprise that news of texting-while-walking accidents piqued such global interest. Though the lamppost bumpers were removed from Brick Lane after only 24 hours, the debate over such "nanny government" maneuvers and the rampant dangers of walking while texting rages on. It's a debate that New Yorkers joined last year when State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn introduced a bill in Albany to combat "iPod oblivion." His bill, which was prompted by the death of two constituents who were killed crossing the street while listening to their iPods, sought to ban pedestrians from using earphones in crosswalks in New York's large urban areas. The bill languished in committee last year, but the Senator has reintroduced it in 2008.
Intuitively, the perils of texting while walking make sense. But George Branyan, pedestrian coordinator for the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, says that in most pedestrian accidents, neither text messaging nor iPod oblivion are major factors. "I am not seeing it in the crash data," Branyan says.
Most pedestrian accidents, according to Branyan, happen because people jaywalk or drivers ignore existing traffic laws — which require, for example, yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, heeding the speed limit and stopping at red lights. A pedestrian dies every 110 minutes in the United States, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and there has been an increase in the last few years in pedestrian deaths in Washington and other urban areas across the country, prompting governments in the D.C. metro area to launch a new advertising campaign aimed at increasing pedestrian safety. It is both "edgy and blunt," Branyan says of the radio spots and posters, which depict a violent pedestrian-car collision. The most recent pedestrian fatality in Washington was typical, Branyan says: an elderly woman who was crossing the street with the right of way was hit last week by a driver turning right on a green light, knocking her almost 50 feet.
When the Department of Transportation and the D.C. police recently conducted a two-month street-safety campaign, undercover cops at crossings and pull-over police units issued 6,000 tickets — two-thirds to drivers and one-third to pedestrians for jaywalking, Branyan said. Though Washington police, along with other law enforcement agencies, agree that the increase in text messaging endangers both drivers and pedestrians (many states have outlawed text messaging while driving, and Maryland and Virginia are considering banning cyclists from text messaging on the go), Branyan thinks that creating new laws to ban texting, particularly in urban areas where police already face many law-enforcement challenges, is less useful than enforcing laws that are already on the books.
Traffic safety engineers are developing new technologies to alert drivers to areas where pedestrian traffic is heavy at certain times of the day. St. Petersburg, Fla., for example, has installed motion detectors at some crossings where there are no traffic signals; when a pedestrian approaches, a squawkbox urges him or her to push a button before crossing, triggering high-intensity flashing lights that drivers can see some distance from the intersection. City officials credit the system with boosting driver compliance with crosswalk laws from 8% to 84%. Washington plans to install similar bilingual devices at some of its high-risk intersections. In Boulder, Colo., the city has placed audible warning devices at busy crosswalks — when a pedestrian pushes the crosswalk button, lights flash and a "Use caution when crossing" message is played to remind the pedestrian to be careful.
Some communities, however, have opted for much lower-tech solutions. In County Mayo, Ireland, where rising pedestrian accidents have caused concern, elementary-school children persuaded the Irish Road Safety Authority last week to revive a popular 1970s ditty called the "Safe Cross Code," which exhorts six easy steps (including "look for a safe place" and "don't hurry") for safe street crossing. But even the classics can sometimes afford a little modernization: the Irish musician Brendan Grace has agreed to re-record the old-time jingle as a cell-phone ringtone, which can now be downloaded for a fee that goes toward supporting national traffic-safety programs.
San Francisco Bans Soda in Vending Machines
Original Post: AOL Health
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans Jul 9th 2010 12:06PM
The city of San Francisco has made good on its promise to ban sodas and other sugar-sweetened drinks from public-property vending machines, replacing them with diet drinks and soy milk.
The executive order, signed by Mayor Gavin Newsom months ago as part of his battle against the obesity epidemic, went into effect this week, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
"There's a direct link between what people eat and drink and the obesity and health care crises in this country," mayoral spokesman Tony Winnicker told the paper.
Eliminated from soda machines on city grounds: sodas, juice with added sweeteners, sports beverages and water with artificial flavors. Drinks made with 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice will stay. Soy and rice milk will be added.
Newsom says people who drink at least a can of soda a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese. His war on the epidemic mirrors the efforts of First Lady Michelle Obama to fight the problem among children.
One nutritionist said San Francisco's move is unlikely to have any great impact, however.
"I kind of look at that approach as trying to bring all the cows in after they've already escaped from the barn," Dr. Douglas Husbands, who has a nutrition and wellness practice in northern California, told AOL Health. "I don't think that's really effective."
Husbands said people who crave sodas and artificially sweetened drinks will just go somewhere else to buy them if they can't get them on public property in San Francisco.
"It will be a minor inconvenience," he said. "If they want a junk food fix, they're going to look for it elsewhere. ... And the people who are trying to plan out healthy snacks generally don't go to vending machines anyway."
A greater public health benefit, Husbands believes, would be a reduction in exposure to ads for diet drugs and obesity-related health problems as they help create an illusion that there are easy solutions to being overweight.
He'd also like to see an increase in public service announcements about the importance of eating enough fruits and vegetables.
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans Jul 9th 2010 12:06PM
The city of San Francisco has made good on its promise to ban sodas and other sugar-sweetened drinks from public-property vending machines, replacing them with diet drinks and soy milk.
The executive order, signed by Mayor Gavin Newsom months ago as part of his battle against the obesity epidemic, went into effect this week, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
"There's a direct link between what people eat and drink and the obesity and health care crises in this country," mayoral spokesman Tony Winnicker told the paper.
Eliminated from soda machines on city grounds: sodas, juice with added sweeteners, sports beverages and water with artificial flavors. Drinks made with 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice will stay. Soy and rice milk will be added.
Newsom says people who drink at least a can of soda a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese. His war on the epidemic mirrors the efforts of First Lady Michelle Obama to fight the problem among children.
One nutritionist said San Francisco's move is unlikely to have any great impact, however.
"I kind of look at that approach as trying to bring all the cows in after they've already escaped from the barn," Dr. Douglas Husbands, who has a nutrition and wellness practice in northern California, told AOL Health. "I don't think that's really effective."
Husbands said people who crave sodas and artificially sweetened drinks will just go somewhere else to buy them if they can't get them on public property in San Francisco.
"It will be a minor inconvenience," he said. "If they want a junk food fix, they're going to look for it elsewhere. ... And the people who are trying to plan out healthy snacks generally don't go to vending machines anyway."
A greater public health benefit, Husbands believes, would be a reduction in exposure to ads for diet drugs and obesity-related health problems as they help create an illusion that there are easy solutions to being overweight.
He'd also like to see an increase in public service announcements about the importance of eating enough fruits and vegetables.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)