Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[bridge of love]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
. Getting to watch the race is just a great bonus - I know some people who go and watch the race in the parking lot because they just went for the party and don't want to spend $110 on a ticket. I have learned a few things at NASCAR races: one, in general, women who are willing to show you their tits do not have anything you really want to see; two, some people lose their teeth before they are old people; and three, there is a drunken dumbass in every crowd who likes to start his campfire with 5 gallons of gasoline which should prompt the state to consider intelligence-based sterilization laws.

The best is the souvenir/trailor row. For those of you who have not had the good fortune to attend a NASCAR event, every Winston Cup car has a trailor with crap with its car number, driver's image etc. I used to go to a race every year sponsored by a client. I once saw a young couple have an intense important family decision making conversation about whether to get the black velvet Dick Trickle or the Earnhardt for the mantle (or trailor wall, not sure and don't want to make any broad generalizations). Standing behind them, seeing the two of them, framed by Dick and Dale's black velvet images (with subtle halo), it was real nice and explained alot of the scene around the track.

[evenodds]

Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos

SAN FRANCISCO - Kids in California may have to give up their Oreos, if a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco public interest lawyer is successful. _

The lawsuit, filed last week in Marin County superior court, seeks a ban on the black and white cookies, arguing the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat.

Stephen Joseph said he filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, after reading articles that said the artificial fat is hidden in most packaged food, though consumers have no way of knowing.

Full text: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=/ap/oreo_suit

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/fashion/11REST.html

[Spree: "The Restaurant," a reality show set in a working Manhattan restaurant that will be featured in July on NBC.]

Thurgreed(bringing one of yesterday's threads to life)Marshall

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by evenodds
Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos

Full text: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=/ap/oreo_suit

The dangerous partially hydrogenated fats are listed right on the package. If parents are too stupid or lazy to read it, and the ingredient is legal for food use, why should the company be punished?

Not sympathetic to companies pushing crap to kids. But can't these lard-ass parents teach their kids to eat Oreos in appropriate moderation?

pj

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by evenodds
Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos

SAN FRANCISCO - Kids in California may have to give up their Oreos, if a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco public interest lawyer is successful. _

The lawsuit, filed last week in Marin County superior court, seeks a ban on the black and white cookies, arguing the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat.

Stephen Joseph said he filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, after reading articles that said the artificial fat is hidden in most packaged food, though consumers have no way of knowing.

Full text: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=/ap/oreo_suit

Funny, I was just discussing this with someone. Their comment was that apparently Oreos are as bad as crack cocaine which got me to thinking. If everything that makes you fat is bad and needs to be thrown into the flaming pits of hell, shouldn't things that make you thin be encouraged? Couldn't the "legalize all drugs" crowd use this? Seems logical that because every crack ho I have ever had the pleasure of seeing is scraggly thin crack should be legalized. Of course, marijuana wouldn't be legal because of the munchies problem but hey skip the small stuf and go straight for the coke.

[evenodds]

Originally posted by purse junkie
The dangerous partially hydrogenated fats are listed right on the package. If parents are too stupid or lazy to read it, and the ingredient is legal for food use, why should the company be punished?

Not sympathetic to companies pushing crap to kids. But can't these lard-ass parents teach their kids to eat Oreos in appropriate moderation?

Ultimately, it is all our problem when stupid, fat parents reproduce and have no idea how to feed their children properly.

I saw some daytime freakshow with obese children (I think it was Dr. Phil) and the mother and grandmother, who otherwise seemed very smart and self-possessed, denied they had done anything wrong though the kid was 4 and weighed 120 pounds. It was incredibly sad to see this poor child with a lifetime of health problems (especially knee and hip) ahead of him because his family has no clue about nutrition.

I cannot imagine what the health statistics will be when this generation of obese children becomes obese adults. I only know our health insurance will skyrocket as a result.

[purse junkie]

I saw that Dr. Phil. Since the child had no medical disorder causing the obesity after endless tests, and it was clear the mom was overfeeding to the point of guaranteeing an early death for it, the kid should be taken away just as if the mom were beating it.

I'm all for spending my tax dollars on healthy parenting/nutrition programs so kids don't suffer. But to blame the company instead of the college-educated middle-class parents who so often let their kids become so fat they get adult-onset diabetes and die young as a result is misplaced--it's the parents who aren't fit to raise them.

[evenodds]

I am sorry to report that the BBC program Coupling has been added to next fall's NBC schedule. I am only sorry because they are remaking it, and it will suck in comparison. Oh, and now they live in Chicago.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...en_tv_eo/11777

[evenodds]

Originally posted by purse junkie
I'm all for spending my tax dollars on healthy parenting/nutrition programs so kids don't suffer. But to blame the company instead of the college-educated middle-class parents who so often let their kids become so fat they get adult-onset diabetes and die young as a result is misplaced--it's the parents who aren't fit to raise them.

I agree the parents are completely at fault. I also agree education of parents in general would be a good idea.

I wonder if health professionals could ever all agree on what consitutes a healthy diet enough to promulgate a curriculum. You'd think it would be easy to teach people about healthy BMIs and a concept of calories intake and expenditure, but then what? My idea of a healthy food pyramid differs greatly from the government's idea.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by evenodds
My idea of a healthy food pyramid differs greatly from the government's idea.

Undoubtedly because you are not lobbied to death by the agriculture industry.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by purse junkie
I saw that Dr. Phil. Since the child had no medical disorder causing the obesity after endless tests, and it was clear the mom was overfeeding to the point of guaranteeing an early death for it, the kid should be taken away just as if the mom were beating it.

Isn't it you who always says this? "Take the kid away!" cant be your solution to everything. Where do you think all these kids who have been removed from their homes are going to go, anyway?

TM

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Isn't it you who always says this? "Take the kid away!" cant be your solution to everything. Where do you think all these kids who have been removed from their homes are going to go, anyway?

TM

In terms of what constitutes enough abuse to justify removal from a home, I don't think there's a hell of a difference between a parent who endangers a kid by beating or neglecting it and one who so monstrously overfeeds their child it has severe health problems at an incredibly young age as a result. Like I said, spend all the tax money needed--even raise my taxes by a modest amount--to train and help the parents hold on to the kid; but yes, if the parent is so severely harming it, it may be safer even in our crappy foster care system.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Does anyone ever go back and read old posts? I am going to just keep editing this post, instead of creating new ones, wasting bandwith and all that. Maybe I'll write a new poem here from time to time, and replace the old poem, adding to the fleeting ephemeral nature of my poetic art.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by purse junkie
In terms of what constitutes enough abuse to justify removal from a home, I don't think there's a hell of a difference between a parent who endangers a kid by beating or neglecting it and one who so monstrously overfeeds their child it has severe health problems at an incredibly young age as a result.

You'll be happy to know that, since we rarely actually remove a kid from home just because of beatings, the overly fat kids ARE being treated in an equal manner.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by purse junkie
In terms of what constitutes enough abuse to justify removal from a home, I don't think there's a hell of a difference between a parent who endangers a kid by beating or neglecting it and one who so monstrously overfeeds their child it has severe health problems at an incredibly young age as a result. Like I said, spend all the tax money needed--even raise my taxes by a modest amount--to train and help the parents hold on to the kid; but yes, if the parent is so severely harming it, it may be safer even in our crappy foster care system.

What is your definition of severe? Bad knees and hips? How obese is so obese that the kid needs to be removed? If the kid has a thyroid problem and the family's other somewhat fat kids don't, is it abuse because they failed to realize it? Do you realize how understaffed and underfunded child care organizations are now? Do you realize that people won't pay for the 10,000,000 extra children that will need foster care after complying with all of your criteria of what amounts to abuse, no matter how "modest" that amount is?

A lot of unhealthy shit goes on in households. You can't take the kids away every single time you think you see abuse. Think of alternative answers.

TM