Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Weird News Stories => Topic started by: akiratubo on November 18, 2011, 01:21:27 PM



Title: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: akiratubo on November 18, 2011, 01:21:27 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/pizza-is-a-vegetable_b_1101433.html

 :question:


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: WingedSerpent on November 18, 2011, 05:20:13 PM
Good to know their working on the important issues.


(There is great need for a sarcasm font)


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: Jack on November 18, 2011, 05:39:02 PM
Isn't something like two-thirds of the population either overweight or obese?  Thank god for those federal nutrition guidelines.


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: Mr. DS on November 18, 2011, 06:35:53 PM
I'm ordering up a meat lovers pizza to celebrate.


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: bob on November 18, 2011, 07:26:28 PM
our taxes dollars hard at work, we sure as hell don't need Congress to try and fix the economy it's good to see them tackling the big issues that the entire nation is concerned about


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on December 10, 2011, 06:32:48 PM
It doesn't surprise me at all, as I remember a number of years ago, our federal government decreed that catsup was a vegetable.


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: The Gravekeeper on December 10, 2011, 08:31:42 PM
I guess the a surprising majority of processed foods must qualify, then, since corn products are used in almost everything. Can we count cookies as a dairy product, too, since they're often made with butter and milk?

I could understand this ruling if the pizza was made with a low-fat, low-sugar crust (easy to do with a home made crust since there's usually no need to preserve it for months at a time), lots of veggies, and little to no cheese. Y'know, the way pizza was originally made.


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: InformationGeek on December 13, 2011, 09:29:48 AM
Finally!  I'm going to go order a couple of pizzas right now!  Who wants what before I call?


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: El Misfit on December 13, 2011, 08:51:01 PM
Yes, Finally, something bad for us is good!! (slaps head against a pan)


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: Flick James on December 16, 2011, 03:37:29 PM
Alright then, I want my "vegetable" with pepperoni.


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: Flick James on December 16, 2011, 03:51:00 PM
Actually, having read the article now, I can see it as just another example of the corporatist (not capitalist) government we have slowly accepted. Makers of cheap and crappy food that is not good for our kids and increases childhood obesity and diabetes have lobbied our lawmakers to make a decision that they will profit from. That's pretty obvious. This is how a corporatist system works, and it has NOTHING to do with capitalism.

I never ate a school lunch the entire time I went from elementary to middle to high school. Not once. I was a brown-bagger. Not everything in my brown bag was nutritious, it was a mix of nutritious and not-so-nutritious items. Why is it that our school system HAS to provide lunches for our kids? I don't get it. It seems to have become a given that schools have a lunch program. Why? Can somebody explain this to me?

Oh, and I have kids. And I will tell you I am MORE THAN HAPPY to lose ALL government school lunch programs as one of many programs to cut in an effort to balance the budget.


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: ulthar on December 16, 2011, 05:00:30 PM

Can somebody explain this to me?



Because government, via the schools, have become the true parent.

I caught a little flack over the in the "kids named Adolph" thread, but we reap what we sew.

As more and more parents abdicate more and more of their own responsibility in the raising of their own progeny, more and more the government will step in to take it.

Let's see what the score is.  Currently, "government" can

--choose what your child eats
--choose what you name your child
--choose how and when your child learns about reproduction and sex
--choose when your child 'can' drink an alcoholic beverage
--choose if/when your child can use tobacco
--choose how and when your child can practice religion
--choose how your child chooses their friends
--choose if/when your daughter can have an abortion (while still living in your home a legally classified a minor)


etc.

These things USE TO BE the sole provenance of the parents.  Now, in some cases, the parent really has little or no say, even to the point of being JAILED.  This stuff is not separate...it has spawn from one or two basic legal precedence in the 19th century.

You question the school lunch program?  Well, you must just want to starve children, then.  Because of course there's NO WAY children can EAT if they don't eat at school.  Right?

Some light reading here (http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={3A576647-BCB4-417A-A1F7-892355B0E05A}&DE=)


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: indianasmith on December 16, 2011, 05:22:18 PM
I ate at a pizza place the other day, and my pizza confided in me that this thing we call Congress is actually a vegetable. :teddyr:


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: Flick James on December 16, 2011, 05:29:31 PM
Quote
--choose what your child eats
--choose what you name your child
--choose how and when your child learns about reproduction and sex
--choose when your child 'can' drink an alcoholic beverage
--choose if/when your child can use tobacco
--choose how and when your child can practice religion
--choose how your child chooses their friends
--choose if/when your daughter can have an abortion (while still living in your home a legally classified a minor)

I agree with some of what you say, ulthar. I know we got into it on the Adolf Hitler thread.

The government DOES NOT choose what we name our children. I think you're being more than a little silly there. That was an extreme case and in no way represents any kind of normal practice. You're really reaching there.

There have also been recent debates that I was involved in regarding whether or not it would be acceptable for somebody other than a child's parent to swat them if they are misbehaving. My position being that I support that it is the parent's discretion SOLELY when it comes to how their child should be disciplined.

However, there are exceptions that involve abuse and neglect where it is perfectly acceptable for government, as a representative of the people, to step in to protect a child. You and I disagreed about the Adolf Hitler thing, and that's fine, but what I was saying was that in a case like that, there was room to argue that a certain line was crossed that could constitute abuse.

All of that aside, what is truly reprehensible here is that this has nothing to do with protecting children. In fact, it has everything to do with neglecting children's health for the sake of satisfying a powerful corporate lobbyist's interests. The Hitler scenario and this have no corollary. This has nothing to do with the government "choosing" what our children eat. Parents WANTED school lunch programs because they are lazy and that's one less meal they have to worry about providing for their kids. The government simply responded, and because they are a corporatist government, they are more than happy to bow to lobbyists who want to get those tax dollars. Think about that for a moment. The government made a decision that favors a few powerful corporations who make crap processed food for our kids, so that that corporation can get paid from taxpayer money. This is corporatism at work, and our kids' health is at stake. The saddest part of all is that this is endorsed and supported by the people.

The people are who are ultimately to blame here, for accepting, and in many ways, even encouraging this mess.

I understand your sentiment about government involvement in the raising of our children. In principle, I agree. However, we have to pick our battles and figure out what the bigger fish are to fry. This is an outrage. The Hitler thing is small potatoes in comparison. And, I'm sorry if you disagree, I don't find it an outrage that some parents suffered for naming their kid Adolf Hitler, and if it is an outrage, it is nothing compared to this. Yet people want to fuss and fight over government intervention in the Hitler scenario, while this matter, which is far more outrageous, far-reaching, and harmful, doesn't seem to bother many people. I simply question the priorities.


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: ulthar on December 16, 2011, 06:00:33 PM

 Yet people want to fuss and fight over government intervention in the Hitler scenario, while this matter, which is far more outrageous, far-reaching, and harmful, doesn't seem to bother many people. I simply question the priorities.


We agree more than we disagree, but where/how we disagree is perhaps very instructive in seeing how THIS particular issue has arisen.

You and I disagree basically at "where the line is."  That's the big part of the problem, and is exactly your gripe quoted above.

(for purposes of discussion, am going to 'put words in your mouth' below...can we just take my use of "you" as rhetorical so we don't get hung up on that?  I'm not picking on you or what you might or might think....I just need some platform to stand on initially...)

YES...this is an egregious, harmful misuse of the government.  And yes, it is outrageous that so many people seem to accept it..the priorities merit questioning.  I agree with your statement 100%.

But, I argue (and was my underlying point over in the Adolph thread) that the "power to decide that line" is what we really have lost.  Let's say that I think it is okay for a parent to name their kid Adoph Hitler (personally, for the record, I think it's mighty stupid...but that's beside the point and off-track of the current topic).  You disagree, and say that's a case where big bro can/should step in.

Now, we have a case where the government is 'controlling,' via the school lunch program, what many children eat.  Note here government does not have be the Feds....but this may be another digression.

You baulk at this.

Okay, YOUR line is somewhere between school lunches and naming a child Adoph Hitler  (I cannot let this go...naming a girl "Aryan Nation" is beyond dumb).

Yet you lament the lack of others to see what YOU deem unreasonable, to accept the role of government in feeding children.

Where is THEIR line?

That's ultimately the problem...some won't even have a line.  They are perfectly willing to abdicate ALL responsibility for raising their OWN children to the government.  What happens when that number reaches a critical mass.

You say it's lazy parents, but they disagree.  They say they cannot afford to feed their children lunch.  Or something. 

So, who gets to decide where the line really is?

In the end, I guess I disagree that there really is a difference between the Hitler name and just about any other case of government over-involvement, because it ALL represents a case over SOMEONE's line...we are only "arguing" about where the line is.

Cases of clear abuse ARE different...because we all agree that that IS a role for government.  This is my problem with our current government...it's gotten away from representing consensus social values and caters almost exclusively to focused interests....often interests of small minorities.


Title: Re: Congress rules pizza is a vegetable
Post by: Flick James on December 16, 2011, 06:19:45 PM
Well, the difference lies in that in one case, it is an attempt to protect a child from a situation that is at least arguably, if not likely, abusive, and in the other case, we have an institutional commitment to poisoning our children with chemical-filled cheap processed food. That's a pretty vivid difference. The only factor they both share is that a government agency is involved.

Anyway, we are nit-picking here. I'm glad you recognize a fundamental agreement and your responses are measured, so I've got no problem.

As for your question "Who decides where the line is?" Well, the idea is that the line is drawn by the people, and that the government is responding to that will. I doubt either of us is naive enough to believe this happens frequently, but it does happen more than we care to acknowledge.

I'm glad we agree that this is a gross misuse of government power. I will take that as a win.