Re: oreos

[Guest guest]

'companies can also dramatically reshape the market...

by lobbying

careful PR campaigns

promulgation of pseudo-science'

what I said is 100% true. These facts you list above are also

true and accurate corporate practices, but their success rides on

ONE thing...

Sheeple being unable to ask, probe and critically think. Sorry

friend but the ultimate responsability for the rise or fall of the

sheeple lies with the sheeple. It can't be pawned off on someone

else. If you're stupid enough to believe and not question that

Oreo's or the like are fine, considering the boatload of clear info

that says otherwise you deserve your own horrible self sealed fate.

It continues to amaze me how intelligent critcal thinkers like

yourself and other folks I meet simply want to give the sheeple a

free pass and make it the " fault " of the big bad corporations who

admittedly suck in the most major way, but still fall short on the

responsability scale. If you eat oreo's and the like and feed them

to your kids the responsibility for your consequences and those of

your kids lie with you not nabisco.

Yes the schools should stop taking their money, yes they should be

forced to advertise fairly and truthfully, yes they should not be

baiting children. Yes to all of these, but when someone plunks down

4 bucks for a bag of oreos the responsibility is nowhere with anyone

but the plunker. Sorry NO FREE PASS. There is no substitue for the

capacity to have a critical thought.

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Mike-

>

> This is only partly true. Yes, companies go down the tubes all

the time

> because they fail to satisfy the market, but companies can also

> dramatically reshape the market, and not just by lobbying the

Dread Demon

> Government, but by careful PR campaigns and the promulgation of

> pseudo-science. Government is far from the only tool they use.

>

> There's no better book on the subject than _Trust Us, We're

Experts_, by

> Stauber and Sheldon Ramton. You can look into it at

> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-

/1585421391/qid=1053120144/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9288758-6795103?

v=glance & s=books

> and even read a few sample pages there.

>

> >Companies are NOT helpless to act, but the are helpless if a

> >marketplace, community, etc... says " we hate you and your stuff

and

> >we won't buy it. " The only thing the company can then do is die

or

> >provide something of value to that marketplace. As it should be.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

You still missed the point . I agree the things these companies

do is utter nonsense and unacceptable. (How many times do I have to

say that?)

However this stuff is NOT being forcefed to anyone. Parents

volunteer to go to the store, buy this garbage, eat it and feed it

to their children. No guns, No legal requirement, NO Force feeding.

Kids eat it because their parents tell them to!!!!

The only proof necessary is the fact that there are so many parents

who say their kids can't eat the stuff, the parents don't eat the

stuff and their kids don't eat the stuff... at home, school or

otherwise. And to say that its just too hard for some parents is

just a cop out.

I agree go ahead get consensus on what the poisons are and get them

to stop being sold, that's just peachy but until then the only

people responsible for " feeding " kids this stuff are the parents.

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Mike-

>

> Well, then what do you say to my question about why it should be

OK for

> companies to sell poisons to children? As says, forget

about actual

> foods, like sugar. There is absolutely no possible virtue to

putting PHVO

> in food. Zero. It's not found in nature, it's not healthy in any

> dose. It's no different from adding a little cyanide to cafeteria

> meals. There's no conceivable medical or health reason for it to

be

> there. The same could probably be said of many preservatives and

food

> colorings. Why should they be there, force-fed to hapless,

ignorant children?

>

> > you missed the point.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on

this one...

as a 5 year old with my father smoking in the house I could not have

even spelled carcinogenesis never mind say it and I could have told

you it was stupid. None of the primitive cultures smoked the

equivalent of " packs " of tobacco every single day and neither did

the combine it with the modern day stress and diet.

Smoking makes zero sense to me and never has, and I'd suggest that

would be true for many people.

DMM

> Mike,

>

> Native Americans smoked tobacco because they thought it promoted

body warmth

> and actually thought it had benefits. And this is without

advertising.

> Stupid? The San in the Kalahari took up smoking as soon as they

discovered

> it, and it didn't give them any problems. They remained more or

less

> disease-free, except a handful of infectious diseases of European

origin. It

> wasn't " obvious " to either group that smoking was bad for them,

and they all

> remained in far better shape than most people, including non-

smokers, are in

> today.

>

> That smoking is bad is obvious to us for " obvious " reasons-- we've

been

> bombarded with this information at every level at every corner for

quite a

> long time now. Smoking is pleasurable, increases mental

efficiency, has a

> positive effect on mood, etc. To someone like you and me who have

some basic

> understanding of carcinogenesis it *becomes* obvious that inhaling

smoke is

> bad, but clearly to people without this scientific knowledge, it

is anything

> but. And if you require scientific information to understand

soemthing, that

> makes it ipso facto not obvious.

>

> Chris

>

>

> In a message dated 5/16/03 3:16:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > You know what Irene I'm not a very smart fellow but I'm smart

enough

> > to know that sucking in smoke is probably not a great idea. I

don't

> > need them to tell the truth, I don't need a study or warning

label.

> > The good sense that I was endowed with tells me that putting my

> > mouth on the end of my exhaust pipe of my car is also a bad

idea.

> > No warning labels, no legislation, no studies just a teeny tiny

> > amount of critical thought.

> >

> > Just because someone or some company says something is so, don't

> > make it so.

> >

> > The way the market gets the truth is by being smart and doing

its

> > homework and making a commitment to not be sheeple. Anything

less

> > is an active choice for a life of crud.

>

>

> " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or

that we are

> to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic

and

> servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --

Theodore

> Roosevelt

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Theresa I know of numerous parents who have done this with

measurable success. From cookies to pepsi to beer. Children raised

without sugar generally don't like sugar.

DMM

> Christie,

>

> How I came up with the idea to include the statement that " maybe a

child will

> eat a package of Oreos and decide they don't like how it makes

them feel " is

> from personal experience. When my son persistently asks for a

sugary snack,

> sometimes I go ahead and let him have it. On more than one

occasion he says

> that his stomach hurts afterward. So I then explain that he ate

too much

> sugar and his body is trying to tell him that it's not good for

him. I then

> say, " next time don't eat the whole thing and see how you feel " .

He is

> always making a point of telling me that when he has a treat, that

he didn't

> eat too much and that he only had a little bit. Sounds like he is

learning to

> me.

>

> Theresa

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jafa I didn't say it was a parents responsibility to raise perfect

kids, simply to " do the right thing " and teach that. As far as I'm

concerned you did you job. Maybe there are things you could have

done different to get more compliance and maybe not. Either way you

at least did something. Which is far more than most.

This is totally off topic but one of the problems I see with our

school system is that when they enter school our children begin to

be raised by their peers and not their parents. This is obviously

to varying degrees depending on the situation but I feel it is an

unfortunate, dangerous and unacceptable situation. I don't have a

great solution for every person on this, its just an observation

I've made.

DMM

> > <<Every person on this group, every WAP member grew

> > up in this same environment, without any special benefits or

> > skills. >>

> >

> > That is simply not true. My mother never allowed white bread in

> our house, nor desserts except birthday cake, or pie at Christmas.

> My grade school had no vending machines. We brought lunch to

school

> every day, as did the majority of the kids I went to school with.

We

> sat down and ate a " balanced meal " every night and never went off

to

> school without breakfast. I had zero opportunity during the day to

> eat crap, not because I wouldn't have wanted to but BECAUSE IT

> WASN'T THERE TO EAT. I learned good habits by force of

circumstance.

> >

> > Did I leave them behind later in life? Yes. But here I am now,

> remembering many of the things I " learned " as a child, and

comparing

> the way we ate in my school to the way kids eat today, and all the

> absolute garbage that is being shoved down their throats, both

> literally and figuratively. Was I raised WAP? No, but neither was

I

> raised to think that sugared cereal, white bread sandwiches, and

> oreos were a balanced diet! Junk food and fast food literally did

> not exist as options in our life (much easier in those days - I'm

> 44).

> >

> > If kids don't develop a taste for certain unhealthy foods and

> habits at certain ages, they will not have as much trouble with

> those foods and habits later in life. Children who learn to think

of

> fruit and vegetables and meat and milk as food will continue to

> think of them as food when they are older, even as they experiment

> with other options. (I'll never forget the first time my little

> brother saw unhomogenized milk- he thought we were trying to kill

> him with " sour milk. " And yet I, eight years older, who had as a

> child experienced milkman-delivered unhomgenized milk, and also

goat

> milk on a family friend's farm, had no such aversion or mistrust.)

> >

> > I think it's nonsense to say " maybe a child will eat an oreo and

> discover how it makes them feel and not eat them anymore " - that's

> just silly. Oreos are, to most people, delicious. That is how

> science designed them, and they did a damn fine job. Anything that

> is self-reinforcing has the power to create cravings and positive

> associations for that food. If I want my child to not have that

> experience in the place she is being conditioned to think of as a

> learning center, then that is a good and valuable goal and

shouldn't

> be dependent on some sort of superhuman parenting skills.

> >

> > Get the frigging vending machines and sugared soda pop and

> corporate food sponsorships and junk food and diet propaganda out

of

> our schools. Period. They do not belong there and they harm

> children.

> >

> > Christie

> > Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

> > Holistic Husbandry Since 1986

> > http://www.caberfeidh.com/

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> >-------------As for arguing the other side. They get the right to

> >advertise at the school from the school. The advertising they do

> >isn't graffiti on the wall saying " drink coke and eat oreo's " they

> >pay big money and the schools say fine.

>

> OK, but I'm one of the parents and I'm one of the ones trying to

make it

> NOT all right. I'm one of the parents entrusting the welfare of my

kid to

> the school, so I get a vote too.

================= You do get a vote and I hope you vote twice ;-)

> > The schools and parent

> >whine that the schools need the money which is baloney. Education

> >is not expensive. If Real education was expensive nobody would be

> >able to home school and every inner city kid ever would be an

> >illiterate derelict.

>

> Well, I grew up in the inner city and a big portion of my class

WERE

> illiterate derelicts!

===============Again, Hedi why are you the exception. You had crud

circumstances to learn in but you did as have many others in the

same situation. Catering to the lowest common denominator and

making excuses for them just allows them to go lower.

Homeschooling is inexpensive, but when you grow to

> class size it gets amazingly pricey.

================Why would you want to grow class size. Its a proven

fact that the smaller the class size the more learning occurs. No

reason to grow class size.

We tried a small group school, which

> was a wonderful school, very minimalist, but it still cost a lot

to run

> (and ended up losing money and had to close). There are a ton of

rules that

> apply when you teach other kids besides your own. There IS some

waste in

> the system, for sure, but no, education IS expensive.

================Sorry Heidi let me restate that to help and get a

child to learn is CHEAP!!!! Meaning doesn't require lots of cash.

You are correct Institution education is expensive and requires lots

of cash.

>

> Homeschooling is " cheap " mainly because you are not paying the

Mom's

> salary. If I am worth, say, $20,000 a year, then my kid's

schooling would

> cost $10,000 a year each, which is NOT cheap. And the fact is,

I'm worth

> more than $20,000 on the open market. Having a stay at home Mom is

> priceless: it is NOT cheap!

==================Don't nitpick here, I'm not minimizing mom's here

that's ridiculous. Stay at home mom's are priceless however THEY

WORK CHEAP! As in FREE. Again cheap = need no cash.

>

> As for the progression of events -- it is more like:

>

> 1. Government cuts funding for schools.

> 2. Schools look for alternative funding.

> 3. Corporations step in to take up the slack.

> 4. Parents figure it is better than nothing.

>

> This whole " give the power back to the people " bit is really

> government-speak for " give the power to the corporations " . I don't

like

> some of the government stuff, but in general there is more public

oversight

> for government agencies. Giving MORE power to the Enrons of the

world does

> not sound like a safe life to me.

Heidi, I'm cerainly not suggesting anything of the sort. And my

next statements if they were honest would take us into a whole

unproductive discussion of political idologies and how very wrong I

find your last statement. So we'll just have to skip the banter and

just agree to disagree. The only thing I will say is this if you

hear " give the power back to the people " from Bush then your

statement is 100% correct. As a matter of fact if you hear it from

anyone in the current federal US government. However such a

sentiment were it actually executed in an honest and appropriate way

(not the co-opted version- the one you commented on) the world would

be far safer than the one you know and Enron wouldn't even exist!

DMM

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

this is awfully myopic. Is it possible that someone has had a

different experience than you? My experience (which is no more, but

certainly no less valid than yours) is that children who grow up in

a health conscious home that does not provide sugar generally don't

like sugar. I have seen this same story literally dozens of times.

Are there exceptions sure. But by and large children who are not

fed sugar don't like sugar when its presented to them.

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Mike-

>

> I was raised without sugar, and from my personal experience and

from

> watching other people like me I can assure you that's just not

true.

>

> >Children raised

> >without sugar generally don't like sugar.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

its just your day to be contrary. What's your point.

Again to repeat I am NOT minimizing the value of a stay at home

mom. I live with one she would be worth any less than 10 million

per week. Nonetheless. She works cheap. It costs taxpayers tons

of money to keep a school open. It costs consumers tons of money in

tution for private schools. A mom who stays at home does NOT

require the family spend any extra money for the children to learn.

Generally she's not 'costing' the family anything in that her

contribution is far greater than any sum of money she could bring in

and also if its a nuclear family they obviously didn't " require " her

working financial contribution in that you don't see many

homeschoolers living under bridges or in cars. My statement had

zero to do with a stay at home moms value and there's no need to

discuss it.

Please get the point I'm making and don't nitpick just to be

contrary.

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Mike-

>

> >Stay at home mom's are priceless however THEY

> >WORK CHEAP! As in FREE. Again cheap = need no cash.

>

> No, they're generally not paid in cash, but that doesn't mean

they're

> free. For example, they cost the family the money the mom could

earn in

> the workplace less the extra money that would spent to put her in

the

> workplace (on transportation, daycare, whatever). That can be

considerable.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I have at no point suggested people should limit their actions in

any way. I simply find that blaming nabisco is too easy a cop out.

If people actually did exercise their capacity to choose not to buy

oreos there would be no need for a lawsuit.

DMM

> >'companies can also dramatically reshape the market...

> >by lobbying

> >careful PR campaigns

> >promulgation of pseudo-science'

> >

> >

> >

> > what I said is 100% true. These facts you list above are

also

> >true and accurate corporate practices, but their success rides on

> >ONE thing...

> >

> >Sheeple being unable to ask, probe and critically think. Sorry

> >friend but the ultimate responsability for the rise or fall of the

> >sheeple lies with the sheeple. It can't be pawned off on someone

> >else. If you're stupid enough to believe and not question that

> >Oreo's or the like are fine, considering the boatload of clear

info

> >that says otherwise you deserve your own horrible self sealed

fate.

> >

> >It continues to amaze me how intelligent critcal thinkers like

> >yourself and other folks I meet simply want to give the sheeple a

> >free pass and make it the " fault " of the big bad corporations who

> >admittedly suck in the most major way, but still fall short on the

> >responsability scale. If you eat oreo's and the like and feed

them

> >to your kids the responsibility for your consequences and those of

> >your kids lie with you not nabisco.

> >

> >Yes the schools should stop taking their money, yes they should be

> >forced to advertise fairly and truthfully, yes they should not be

> >baiting children. Yes to all of these, but when someone plunks

down

> >4 bucks for a bag of oreos the responsibility is nowhere with

anyone

> >but the plunker. Sorry NO FREE PASS. There is no substitue for

the

> >capacity to have a critical thought.

> >

> >DMM

> >--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

> >wrote:

> > > Mike-

> > >

> > > This is only partly true. Yes, companies go down the tubes all

> >the time

> > > because they fail to satisfy the market, but companies can also

> > > dramatically reshape the market, and not just by lobbying the

> >Dread Demon

> > > Government, but by careful PR campaigns and the promulgation of

> > > pseudo-science. Government is far from the only tool they use.

> > >

> > > There's no better book on the subject than _Trust Us, We're

> >Experts_, by

> > > Stauber and Sheldon Ramton. You can look into it at

> > >

> > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-

>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-

> >/1585421391/qid=1053120144/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9288758-6795103?

> >v=glance & s=books

> > > and even read a few sample pages there.

> > >

> > > >Companies are NOT helpless to act, but the are helpless if a

> > > >marketplace, community, etc... says " we hate you and your

stuff

> >and

> > > >we won't buy it. " The only thing the company can then do is

die

> >or

> > > >provide something of value to that marketplace. As it should

be.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

As I said to this is " your " experience.

I personally know dozens of children who this does in fact apply to.

Just because it was untrue for you doesn't mean its untrue for

everyone.

DMM

> >But kids who

> >don't get vending machine food at home don't eat vending machine

> >food away from home. So while there are things we can do to help,

> >it begins and ends at home.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" I just find it interesting that responsibility is only for

> " sheeple " and not for companies "

Irene I at no time have said or implied such a statement as a matter

of fact I have stated exactly the opposite on more than 1/2 a dozen

times. You should actually read posts before you reply and misquote

and misinterpret. That would result in a responsible post.

DMM

> >Just because someone or some company says something is so, don't

> >make it so.

> >

> >The way the market gets the truth is by being smart and doing its

> >homework and making a commitment to not be sheeple. Anything less

> >is an active choice for a life of crud.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Theresa can defend her own statements but I don't see where you

continue to see that we are saying its only one or the other.

Yes we do feel the greater responsability is with the individual but

have stated at NO time that it was either or.

DMM

> >,

> >

> >It is never possible to make someone have a conscience.

Corporations are

> >simply made up of individuals who may have a collective

conscience or not,

> >but to expect a corporation to act responsibly if the human

beings who make

> >up that corporation are not responsible is impossible. We can hit

them with a

> >lawsuit or stop buying their products, but it is only affecting

their

> >wallets, not their consciences. You can sue and it will

potentially put them

> >out of business, or you can refuse to buy their goods and

potentially put

> >them out of business, but neither will produce a world with a

higher level of

> >responsibilty or concern for health. That can only be achieved by

each

> >individual.

> >

> >Theresa

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I think this is now time number 8. I at no time have said the

companies should NOT be held accountable. They should.

BUT, its no different than someone purposely shooting themselves in

the head with a firearm. Who is ultimately responsible. The bullet

maker, gun maker, gun seller, gimme a break a human being makes the

conscious choice to put a gun in their mouth and the consequences

rest comfortably at their own feet, nobody elses. Yes the gun

maker, seller, etc... you might find morally and ethically

implicated but it is not their fault or responsibility that someone

CHOOSES to commit such an act. In the same vane I have NEVER heard

about the nabisco concentration camps where small children and their

parents are bathed in coca-cola and forcefed oreos at gun point.

These things are willingly consumed, as a matter of fact the sheeple

would raise holy hell if you tried to stop them from feeding this

stuff to themselves or their kids.

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Mike-

>

> >Kids eat it because their parents tell them to!!!!

>

> And every parent who tells a kid to eat margarine or oreos or

whatever is

> doing a very bad thing, and is responsible for the kid eating

those bad

> things. But at the same time, companies creating poisonous

products and

> marketing them directly to kids are creating demand among kids.

They're

> responsible too. We have to oppose those companies just as much

as we push

> parents to be more educated and responsible.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Mike,

> It continues to amaze me how intelligent critcal thinkers like

> yourself and other folks I meet simply want to give the sheeple a

> free pass and make it the " fault " of the big bad corporations who

> admittedly suck in the most major way, but still fall short on the

> responsability scale.

Intelligent, critical thinking doesn't mean that everyone will reach

the same conclusions that you do. Life and the myriad of issues we

encounter are complex.

I haven't heard one person here say that they want to give sheeple

a " free pass " and make all problems be the fault of corporations.

Just as you want people to hear that you aren't saying corporations

don't have responsibility, hear that others *aren't* saying

corporations have sole or primary responsibility.

[Guest guest]

(repeated time #9) I agree that the companies should be held

accountable.

However if nobody buys their products or wants their products they

cease to exist and there is NO company to sue. That is the bottom

line and the parents are the first line of defense in that they are

the ones doing the buying. They are the ones feeding the monster

and keeping it alive.

This doesn't exclude the companies from being responsible but it

does leave them a secondary issue. Nobody is responsible for what

parents feed their kids except themselves.

Lets be honest the bulk of children at school eating doritos and

oreos eat the same stuff at home at the encouragement of their own

parents.

DMM

> > > >Just because someone or some company says something is so,

don't

> > > >make it so.

> > > >

> > > >The way the market gets the truth is by being smart and doing

its

> > > >homework and making a commitment to not be sheeple. Anything

less

> > > >is an active choice for a life of crud.

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Irene you clearly have failed to read my posts and I won't be

replying to any more of yours on this thread.

I have not said at any time that nabisco has no responsibility and

shouldn't be accountable.

Once again who buys 75-80% of the nabisco product? PARENTS!!!

DMM

> >I think this is now time number 8. I at no time have said the

> >companies should NOT be held accountable. They should.

> >

> >BUT, its no different than someone purposely shooting themselves

in

> >the head with a firearm. Who is ultimately responsible. The

bullet

> >maker, gun maker, gun seller, gimme a break a human being makes

the

> >conscious choice to put a gun in their mouth and the consequences

> >rest comfortably at their own feet, nobody elses. Yes the gun

> >maker, seller, etc... you might find morally and ethically

> >implicated but it is not their fault or responsibility that

someone

> >CHOOSES to commit such an act. In the same vane I have NEVER

heard

> >about the nabisco concentration camps where small children and

their

> >parents are bathed in coca-cola and forcefed oreos at gun point.

> >These things are willingly consumed, as a matter of fact the

sheeple

> >would raise holy hell if you tried to stop them from feeding this

> >stuff to themselves or their kids.

> >

> >DMM

> >

> >--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

> >wrote:

> > > Mike-

> > >

> > > >Kids eat it because their parents tell them to!!!!

> > >

> > > And every parent who tells a kid to eat margarine or oreos or

> >whatever is

> > > doing a very bad thing, and is responsible for the kid eating

> >those bad

> > > things. But at the same time, companies creating poisonous

> >products and

> > > marketing them directly to kids are creating demand among kids.

> >They're

> > > responsible too. We have to oppose those companies just as

much

> >as we push

> > > parents to be more educated and responsible.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> >

> >

> >

>

>Sponsor<http://rd./M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egrou

pweb/S=1705060950:HM/A=1564415/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?

mqso=60164784 & partid=3170658>

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

What I have proposed is in reply to a thread that started by

proposing sueing nabisco. What would be the point of restating

that. It is an option and its been stated.

I am laying the responsibility at the feet of the parents because

they are the people keeping this company in business.

I have yet to see a 5 year old motor up to the grocery, get out of

his/her rig and wait in line and plunk down some bucks to buy a bag

of oreos.

In addition I am just amazed again at how the PERSONAL

responsibility aspect of this is just sloughed off in the name of

the big bad wolf (companies).Sure they are evil. But when 99% of

our culture is happy and committed to feed them its at least clear

to me that the BULK of the responsibility lies with that 99%.

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Mike-

>

> I think the perception problem is coming from the fact that

(unless I

> missed something) the only remedy you've proposed comes squarely

down on

> the shoulders of parents: make them be more responsible and

educate their

> kids more.

>

> >I think this is now time number 8. I at no time have said the

> >companies should NOT be held accountable. They should.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Who's the bulk of the community if its not the parents?

> >and that is US - we cannot leave *community* out of the equation.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" what Dr. Mike keeps arguing for is a very heavy burden - for

individual parent/units living unbelievably busy lives and being

shamelessly lied to by the corporations & government "

I just couldn't pass this one up, sorry.

being a parent IS in fact a very heavy burden by

definition and the rest of this statement is ridiculous apologist

speak making excuses. Being a parent is a heavy burden and should

be. The parents are " unbelievably busy " because the CHOOSE to

be " unbelievably busy " . Want a single example? I'll use myself. I

have been scolded by 3 accountants and many colleagues for my work

schedule. The decry " you are leaving so much money on the table,

you could be retired in less than 10 years, blah, blah, blah, blah. "

They are right I could have an office full of people 6 days per

week, I could hire other docs to work for me. I could be accepting

CedarCanyon clients daily, resulting in hundreds of thousands of

dollars literally in additional income. But I CHOOSE NOT to.

I limit my office hours to 6 hours 3 days per week and I only take

on a small number of Cedar Canyon Clinic clients each month. I

don't do this to be some kind of hero, I do it because my priorities

and values dictate that I love to spend as much time with my wife

and son as is possible. Its a choice and making that choice is my

responsibility as it is every parents responsibility. While there

certainly is a sector of our culture who doesn't have this option,

the majority do. The majority could live in a smaller house, have

one car, have a cheaper car, not take expensive vacations, not waste

money on expensive junk food, etc.... to allow them to work less and

play with their family more. Its about choices not victimization

and misfortune.

As for being lied to. You know what grandfather said;

" lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me. "

Signed,

The very proud and happy owner of a very heavy burden

DMM

>

>

> I wasn't saying that sugar should be banned, just that there were

> grounds for banning it. As for all the complexities of other

refined

> sugars, I think it comes down to whether a substance comes

straight from

> nature and whether it has been approved for human consumption by

our

> ancestors (that is having a history of sustainable,

intergenerational

> human consumption). When we master the integration of those foods

again

> we can talk about fudging around with newfangled technology-derived

> sweeteners. Again, this is my fantasy world here.

>

> Two points to make: first, I think in order to continue the

> conversation on this thread we must have read Sugar Blues to fully

grasp

> both the shocking and devastating power of sugar on health and

society

> itself, and also the importance of appropriate scale and context of

> human society. Price called them " the displacing foods of modern

> commerce. " This is how they spread - by infiltrating (and

eventually

> undermining) local economies and food systems. Rebuilding local

> economies must start by rebuilding local food systems, educating

the

> community, and nurturing culture. Helena Norberg-Hodge's " Ancient

> Future, " Schuman's " Going Local, " and " Short Circuit " by

Douthwaite are

> all incredible resources in this regard.

>

> Second, what Dr. Mike keeps arguing for is a very heavy burden -

for

> individual parent/units living unbelievably busy lives and being

> shamelessly lied to by the corporations & government - to make

> consistent, informed, good choices for themselves and their

children.

> From my studies of anthropology I would say that culture is what

informs

> us, guides us, and helps us make good choices among the infinite

choices

> that exist, to live a healthy balanced life. It was culture that

helped

> traditional cultures to navigate the many dietary choices they did

have,

> often in very difficult circumstances. We don't have culture

today. I

> would call it " vulture " because it doesn't come from life but

feeds off

> life. To rebuild culture, again, we must rebuild local economies

and

> food systems which by increasing wealth, giving us our time back,

making

> affordable high quality foods available, and encouraging us to work

> together and know each other, provide the breathing room from the

global

> economy to do more than tread water - we can build sustainable

wisdom

> cultures! Simply trying to create and enforce a native diet in

one's

> family today is as we all know - very difficult. The best activism

> would make it easy like falling off a log. Having said this I do

feel

> that every person must constantly think for themselves and not just

> follow blindly -any- cultural dictates.

>

> One might wonder whether a healthy culture can really maintain

itself

> against the full might of corporate confections given that we can

look

> around and see that most cultures have fallen victim to them

around the

> world. This touches on the prospect of banning sugar. This is a

> question that could never have arisen before the 20th century. We

don't

> know the answer but I have faith in humans and hope that if we are

able

> to rebuild sustainable wisdom cultures, that we learn the lessons

of our

> history and take appropriate precautions. We now have a century of

> tragic evidence to take into account and we must do so before it

is too

> late.

>

> Cheers,

>

>

>

> Re: Re: oreos

>

> ,

>

> As much as I hate sugar, I'm not really with you on this.

>

> Sugar is not comparable to PHVO for numerous reasons.

>

> As to the rat study, first, it was a rat study. That's

informative--

> but

> there is too much info to look at sugar's impact on humans to

revert to

> a rat

> study on it. Second, they were *only* fed sugar. Rats fed part of

> their

> diet as sugar, like humans, do live a considerable length.

>

> The difference between PHVO and sugar is that sugar in a proper

context

> and

> amount can be safe or perhaps even healthful in the proper form,

whereas

> PHVO

> does not occur in nature, and confers zero benefit at any quantity.

>

> Define sugar. Fruit is mostly sugar. Table sugar is sugar.

Rapadura

> is

> sugar. Raw honey is sugar. Beets are largely sugar. Bananss are

> *full* of

> sugar. Is *everything* with sugar to be banned?

>

> If you want to ban only refined white sugar, there is an enormous

burden

> of

> proof on you to demonstrate that unrefined cane sugar is more than

> marginally

> better than refined cane sugar that you probably cannot meet.

> Rapadura's

> charts on how much more nutritious they are than other sugars looks

> good, but

> if you compare it to non-sugar-cane foods the difference really is

> marginal.

> I use it, but I don't consider it a healthy food, and I use it

very,

> very,

> rarely.

>

> Raw honey is basically pure sugar. But it also has tons of

benefits if

> used

> in the PEROPER CONTEXT AND AMOUNT. But someone could *easily*

damage

> their

> health with enough raw honey if they used it as recklessly as

people use

>

> white sugar today. In fact, the could do the same with fruit.

>

> Aside from nutritional history studies or whatever about people

who eat

> fruit

> (because they're also more likely to eat vegetables) you probably

> couldn't

> find that great of a health benefit to fruit. And you could make

a case

>

> fruit is more toxic than glucose syrup, based on metabolism of

fructose

> and

> glucose. I don't agree with it, but you could certainly make a

good

> case.

> And *definitely* could for fruit *juice*.

>

> I very much doubt fruit juice is better for kids than table sugar.

> Should we

> ban that? If it is made with high fructose corn syrup, probably

even

> worse.

>

> Oh, but that's a dillema-- high fructose corn syrup and corn syrup

are

> essentially unrefined sweetneers. What makes them different than

maple

> syrup, or are we banning that too?

>

> There are people who live into their 90s and eat sugar. Sure they

might

> be

> hidden away in the boondocks of Maine with a family of hunters

eating

> moose

> heart and liver every day, but they're there. Melvin Page found

that

> about

> 20% of the people he studied could eat sugar without disrupting

their

> calcium-phosphorus ratios. This roughly corresponds to Barry

Sears'

> claim

> that about 25% of Americans do not have significant

hyperinsulinemic

> responses to sugar and starch.

>

> The fact is that sugar affects everyone differently. It is a

poison to

> some,

> and not to others.

>

> Moreover, for most people sugar must simply be prepared in the

proper

> way,

> used in the proper context, and used with the appropriate degree

of

> MODERATION exercised, in order to get the benefit of good taste

without

> the

> harm.

>

> Chris

>

> In a message dated 5/16/03 8:12:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> radiantlife@e... writes:

>

> >

> > I think that there are good grounds to ban sugar altogether. It

is

> > addictive, and damages health beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sally

> > regularly quotes the study which showed that rodents lived longer

> > consuming just water I believe, than sugar. If a substance

can't help

> > you live longer than water fasting than it fails the most basic

test

> for

> > being called " food. " Anything that does not pass such a test,

if it

> > could be confused for food, should be labeled " NOT FOR HUMAN

> > CONSUMPTION. " Heck, put " or animal " ( " or rodent? " ) on the label

too.

>

> >

> > One could argue that the government is already dictating the

foods we

> > can and can't eat to a very large extent. Look at stevia, raw

milk,

> > laws against small farming/butchering practices, subsidies of big

> > agriculture while small farms go broke by the tens of thousands,

> > labeling laws that deceive and benefit the big guys, crackdowns

on

> > really effective supplements and healing technologies, and the

last 50

> > years of gov./biz collusion around fats and oils and the low-fat

> > paradigm. Not to justify the government's practices, but to

point out

> > what is already happening. I would be in favor of a radical

honest

> > independent reassessment of the food supply, and subjecting every

> > coloring, flavoring, excitotoxin, sweetener, preservative,

additive,

> as

> > well as any other proposed food substance sold in the US, to

> independent

> > scrutiny - demanding that proof be shown (independent, not

> > corporate-funded studies) that the substance actually supports

human

> > health both in the short- and long-term (and intergenerationally

most

> > importantly of all!) with no side effects. Nice fantasy eh?

> >

> > My grandfather, Herbert Dutton, is a lipid chemist who blew one

of the

> > first peer-reviewed whistles on trans fats around the time that

> > Enig published her original papers on the subject. He is quoted

in

> > " Facts about Fats " by Finnegan as saying that if trans fats were

> brought

> > before the FDA today, they would not be approved for use in the

food

> > supply. Why should foods be " grandfathered " into the food

supply (is

> > that a pun or just a play?) just because they were approved

before we

> > knew better?

> >

> > One key (and essential) victory for consumers would be a change

in the

> > powers of corporations, as others have mentioned on this list.

Taking

> > away corporate limited liability and the current corporate right

to

> > personhood would strike fear into the scheming hearts of

thousands of

> > CEOs and executives who now sit around all day long and devise

new

> > colorful, impossibly sweet and tasty confections to lure

kids/parents

> > into dropping $5 on $.50 worth of wheat, sugar, trans fats, and

> > colorings (cereal). It figures that most of these guys answer

to a

> > master that has already addicted and killed too many millions -

the

> > tobacco industry (their parent corporation). If Price were still

> around

> > I'm sure he would have created another maxim: that food must

never

> > become a commodity like oil or computers, which is bought and

sold

> > between strangers and where the primary motivation is profit.

We must

> > resist the commodification of our lives, and work to regain the

> richness

> > of our natural context, which as Irene pointed out, is

community. In

> > that context, it is hard for people to sell poison to each

other, and

> > they certainly wouldn't pollute the river upstream of their

neighbors

> if

> > they could help it. It will be a long road to get back to some

kind

> of

> > bioregional self-sufficiency and sustainability for most of us,

but

> > that's where high-quality nutrient-dense community oriented food

> systems

> > lead us whether we realize it or not.

>

>

> " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or

that

> we are

> to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic

and

> servi

> le, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

> Roosevelt

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" Should we just consign people who are too busy with jobs and

families and

> the desperate struggle for bare survival to their fate "

sorry again this was too good to pass up.

Firstly, people who are too busy with their jobs CHOOSE that fate.

People who are too busy with their families are probably doing

reasonably well.

And The desperate struggle for survival thing, gimme a break. Most

of the western world is NOT " struggling for survival " most of us

are too busy with misappropriated priorities.

And as for leaving them to their fate? it works for all the other

mammals on planet earth, why not?(he said flippantly)

All from my very own personal myopic hallucination

DMM

[Guest guest]

Ummm...here's an idea.

If we don't ban sugar (which would probably create a whole new batch

of bootleggers anyway, ala Prohibition days), why not at least

relegate those who publicly buy or consume sugar to practice their

habit in some less-than-comfortable location, the same way we force

smokers to stand outside in all kinds of weather to practice their

habit?

Or put them into cubicles, so their sorry immune systems won't cause

the rest of us to be exposed unnecessarily to the bugs they're

incubating?

And how about flagging them as people who shouldn't be in positions

of responsibility, since their judgment will be less than optimal,

and their longetivity shortened.

We could have blood sugar testing the same way we have drug testing

now. I keep thinking some insurance company would be REALLY

interested in knowing which of their insureds were continually

experiencing the highs and lows of excessive sugar consumption.

(You know, this stuff doesn't sound all that outlandish!)

The states could sue the soft drink companies the same way they have

sued the tobacco companies.

Now, let's work on the angle to use on those who make and use

hydrogenated oils. Anyone?

~With tongue firmly planted in cheek~

> >>>As much as I hate sugar, I'm not really with you on this.

>

> -------->for the record, I don't agree with banning sugar either,

for the

> same reasons you presented.

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@v...

[Guest guest]

I don't necessarily disagree .

My orneryness if that's a word is more frustration from seeing the

fact that few people work on the " micro " level of their own lives

and many complain about the " macro " aspect and how victimized they

are. I see this daily in private practice and all around me in

virtually every venue. So generally I don't tolerate " adjusting the

macro " as a solution in that as I said few address the location of

real change which is the " micro " their own lives. Many of those

hung up on the " macro " as primary would argue that Gandhi is one of

the greatest humans the world has ever seen. I would agree, however

he is the best example of " getting your own " micro " house in order "

before whining about the " macro " and how your being victimized by it.

Certainly he had a huge impact on the " macro " as was his intent and

where he did much of his work. But he'd be the first to tell you it

ALL began in his own heart, his own soul and his own house. This

you obviously would agree with based upon your post.

As I said my " orneryness " is more frustration with the utter lack of

this activity. It becomes even more frustrating when people I

respect appear to want to make excuses for those too lazy, too busy,

too poor, too whatever, not getting their house in order.

Your points are well taken.

DMM

> >

> >

> > I wasn't saying that sugar should be banned, just that there were

> > grounds for banning it. As for all the complexities of other

> refined

> > sugars, I think it comes down to whether a substance comes

> straight from

> > nature and whether it has been approved for human consumption by

> our

> > ancestors (that is having a history of sustainable,

> intergenerational

> > human consumption). When we master the integration of those

foods

> again

> > we can talk about fudging around with newfangled technology-

derived

> > sweeteners. Again, this is my fantasy world here.

> >

> > Two points to make: first, I think in order to continue the

> > conversation on this thread we must have read Sugar Blues to

fully

> grasp

> > both the shocking and devastating power of sugar on health and

> society

> > itself, and also the importance of appropriate scale and context

of

> > human society. Price called them " the displacing foods of modern

> > commerce. " This is how they spread - by infiltrating (and

> eventually

> > undermining) local economies and food systems. Rebuilding local

> > economies must start by rebuilding local food systems, educating

> the

> > community, and nurturing culture. Helena Norberg-

Hodge's " Ancient

> > Future, " Schuman's " Going Local, " and " Short Circuit " by

> Douthwaite are

> > all incredible resources in this regard.

> >

> > Second, what Dr. Mike keeps arguing for is a very heavy burden -

> for

> > individual parent/units living unbelievably busy lives and being

> > shamelessly lied to by the corporations & government - to make

> > consistent, informed, good choices for themselves and their

> children.

> > From my studies of anthropology I would say that culture is what

> informs

> > us, guides us, and helps us make good choices among the infinite

> choices

> > that exist, to live a healthy balanced life. It was culture

that

> helped

> > traditional cultures to navigate the many dietary choices they

did

> have,

> > often in very difficult circumstances. We don't have culture

> today. I

> > would call it " vulture " because it doesn't come from life but

> feeds off

> > life. To rebuild culture, again, we must rebuild local

economies

> and

> > food systems which by increasing wealth, giving us our time

back,

> making

> > affordable high quality foods available, and encouraging us to

work

> > together and know each other, provide the breathing room from

the

> global

> > economy to do more than tread water - we can build sustainable

> wisdom

> > cultures! Simply trying to create and enforce a native diet in

> one's

> > family today is as we all know - very difficult. The best

activism

> > would make it easy like falling off a log. Having said this I

do

> feel

> > that every person must constantly think for themselves and not

just

> > follow blindly -any- cultural dictates.

> >

> > One might wonder whether a healthy culture can really maintain

> itself

> > against the full might of corporate confections given that we

can

> look

> > around and see that most cultures have fallen victim to them

> around the

> > world. This touches on the prospect of banning sugar. This is a

> > question that could never have arisen before the 20th century.

We

> don't

> > know the answer but I have faith in humans and hope that if we

are

> able

> > to rebuild sustainable wisdom cultures, that we learn the

lessons

> of our

> > history and take appropriate precautions. We now have a century

of

> > tragic evidence to take into account and we must do so before it

> is too

> > late.

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Re: oreos

> >

> > ,

> >

> > As much as I hate sugar, I'm not really with you on this.

> >

> > Sugar is not comparable to PHVO for numerous reasons.

> >

> > As to the rat study, first, it was a rat study. That's

> informative--

> > but

> > there is too much info to look at sugar's impact on humans to

> revert to

> > a rat

> > study on it. Second, they were *only* fed sugar. Rats fed part

of

> > their

> > diet as sugar, like humans, do live a considerable length.

> >

> > The difference between PHVO and sugar is that sugar in a proper

> context

> > and

> > amount can be safe or perhaps even healthful in the proper form,

> whereas

> > PHVO

> > does not occur in nature, and confers zero benefit at any

quantity.

> >

> > Define sugar. Fruit is mostly sugar. Table sugar is sugar.

> Rapadura

> > is

> > sugar. Raw honey is sugar. Beets are largely sugar. Bananss

are

> > *full* of

> > sugar. Is *everything* with sugar to be banned?

> >

> > If you want to ban only refined white sugar, there is an

enormous

> burden

> > of

> > proof on you to demonstrate that unrefined cane sugar is more

than

> > marginally

> > better than refined cane sugar that you probably cannot meet.

> > Rapadura's

> > charts on how much more nutritious they are than other sugars

looks

> > good, but

> > if you compare it to non-sugar-cane foods the difference really

is

> > marginal.

> > I use it, but I don't consider it a healthy food, and I use it

> very,

> > very,

> > rarely.

> >

> > Raw honey is basically pure sugar. But it also has tons of

> benefits if

> > used

> > in the PEROPER CONTEXT AND AMOUNT. But someone could *easily*

> damage

> > their

> > health with enough raw honey if they used it as recklessly as

> people use

> >

> > white sugar today. In fact, the could do the same with fruit.

> >

> > Aside from nutritional history studies or whatever about people

> who eat

> > fruit

> > (because they're also more likely to eat vegetables) you probably

> > couldn't

> > find that great of a health benefit to fruit. And you could

make

> a case

> >

> > fruit is more toxic than glucose syrup, based on metabolism of

> fructose

> > and

> > glucose. I don't agree with it, but you could certainly make a

> good

> > case.

> > And *definitely* could for fruit *juice*.

> >

> > I very much doubt fruit juice is better for kids than table

sugar.

> > Should we

> > ban that? If it is made with high fructose corn syrup, probably

> even

> > worse.

> >

> > Oh, but that's a dillema-- high fructose corn syrup and corn

syrup

> are

> > essentially unrefined sweetneers. What makes them different

than

> maple

> > syrup, or are we banning that too?

> >

> > There are people who live into their 90s and eat sugar. Sure

they

> might

> > be

> > hidden away in the boondocks of Maine with a family of hunters

> eating

> > moose

> > heart and liver every day, but they're there. Melvin Page found

> that

> > about

> > 20% of the people he studied could eat sugar without disrupting

> their

> > calcium-phosphorus ratios. This roughly corresponds to Barry

> Sears'

> > claim

> > that about 25% of Americans do not have significant

> hyperinsulinemic

> > responses to sugar and starch.

> >

> > The fact is that sugar affects everyone differently. It is a

> poison to

> > some,

> > and not to others.

> >

> > Moreover, for most people sugar must simply be prepared in the

> proper

> > way,

> > used in the proper context, and used with the appropriate degree

> of

> > MODERATION exercised, in order to get the benefit of good taste

> without

> > the

> > harm.

> >

> > Chris

> >

> > In a message dated 5/16/03 8:12:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> > radiantlife@e... writes:

> >

> > >

> > > I think that there are good grounds to ban sugar altogether.

It

> is

> > > addictive, and damages health beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sally

> > > regularly quotes the study which showed that rodents lived

longer

> > > consuming just water I believe, than sugar. If a substance

> can't help

> > > you live longer than water fasting than it fails the most

basic

> test

> > for

> > > being called " food. " Anything that does not pass such a test,

> if it

> > > could be confused for food, should be labeled " NOT FOR HUMAN

> > > CONSUMPTION. " Heck, put " or animal " ( " or rodent? " ) on the

label

> too.

> >

> > >

> > > One could argue that the government is already dictating the

> foods we

> > > can and can't eat to a very large extent. Look at stevia, raw

> milk,

> > > laws against small farming/butchering practices, subsidies of

big

> > > agriculture while small farms go broke by the tens of

thousands,

> > > labeling laws that deceive and benefit the big guys,

crackdowns

> on

> > > really effective supplements and healing technologies, and the

> last 50

> > > years of gov./biz collusion around fats and oils and the low-

fat

> > > paradigm. Not to justify the government's practices, but to

> point out

> > > what is already happening. I would be in favor of a radical

> honest

> > > independent reassessment of the food supply, and subjecting

every

> > > coloring, flavoring, excitotoxin, sweetener, preservative,

> additive,

> > as

> > > well as any other proposed food substance sold in the US, to

> > independent

> > > scrutiny - demanding that proof be shown (independent, not

> > > corporate-funded studies) that the substance actually supports

> human

> > > health both in the short- and long-term (and

intergenerationally

> most

> > > importantly of all!) with no side effects. Nice fantasy eh?

> > >

> > > My grandfather, Herbert Dutton, is a lipid chemist who blew

one

> of the

> > > first peer-reviewed whistles on trans fats around the time

that

>

> > > Enig published her original papers on the subject. He is

quoted

> in

> > > " Facts about Fats " by Finnegan as saying that if trans fats

were

> > brought

> > > before the FDA today, they would not be approved for use in

the

> food

> > > supply. Why should foods be " grandfathered " into the food

> supply (is

> > > that a pun or just a play?) just because they were approved

> before we

> > > knew better?

> > >

> > > One key (and essential) victory for consumers would be a

change

> in the

> > > powers of corporations, as others have mentioned on this

list.

> Taking

> > > away corporate limited liability and the current corporate

right

> to

> > > personhood would strike fear into the scheming hearts of

> thousands of

> > > CEOs and executives who now sit around all day long and devise

> new

> > > colorful, impossibly sweet and tasty confections to lure

> kids/parents

> > > into dropping $5 on $.50 worth of wheat, sugar, trans fats, and

> > > colorings (cereal). It figures that most of these guys answer

> to a

> > > master that has already addicted and killed too many millions -

> the

> > > tobacco industry (their parent corporation). If Price were

still

> > around

> > > I'm sure he would have created another maxim: that food must

> never

> > > become a commodity like oil or computers, which is bought and

> sold

> > > between strangers and where the primary motivation is profit.

> We must

> > > resist the commodification of our lives, and work to regain the

> > richness

> > > of our natural context, which as Irene pointed out, is

> community. In

> > > that context, it is hard for people to sell poison to each

> other, and

> > > they certainly wouldn't pollute the river upstream of their

> neighbors

> > if

> > > they could help it. It will be a long road to get back to

some

> kind

> > of

> > > bioregional self-sufficiency and sustainability for most of

us,

> but

> > > that's where high-quality nutrient-dense community oriented

food

> > systems

> > > lead us whether we realize it or not.

> >

> >

> > " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,

or

> that

> > we are

> > to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only

unpatriotic

> and

> > servi

> > le, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --

Theodore

> > Roosevelt

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> >

> Because I want my kids to know other kids besides their siblings.

Myself,

> I'm pretty high on the Asperger scale and could care less. But

they are

> actually getting *social skills.* They like having friends.

============ There are plenty of places for children to gain " social

skills " outside the walls of a school. I'm not anti school per se.

I am anti institutional school and I find it completely

unnecessary. It can be an excellent place for children to learn but

is certainly not necessary. The most functional, social, critically

thinking children I've met have all been educated without an

institutional school.

>

> >

> > > Homeschooling is " cheap " mainly because you are not paying the

> >Mom's

> > > salary. If I am worth, say, $20,000 a year, then my kid's

> >schooling would

> > > cost $10,000 a year each, which is NOT cheap. And the fact is,

> >I'm worth

> > > more than $20,000 on the open market. Having a stay at home

Mom is

> > > priceless: it is NOT cheap!

> >

> >

> >==================Don't nitpick here, I'm not minimizing mom's

here

> >that's ridiculous. Stay at home mom's are priceless however THEY

> >WORK CHEAP! As in FREE. Again cheap = need no cash.

>

>

> OK, so you are a doctor. Quit your practice and stay home to teach

your

> kids. Then ask your wife if that decision was CHEAP = needs no

cash!

============= I really don't see the point of this. You are acting

as if I were trying to degrade stay at home moms and nobody has more

respect and value for that role than I.

My wife staying home does NOT cost us cash. We have chosen a

certain lifestyle and I provide x amount of finances to support that.

If we wanted my wife to work as our money provider I would be happy

to quit my practice and provide the role she plays. Then I'd be the

one working cheap. What's your point? The person at home is in

fact invaulable mom or dad. We simply have chosen to have her play

that role. Again its about choices and priorities.

[Guest guest]

you are twisting what I said. I am not saying there are not

lots of poor who need help. I am simply saying that The vast

majority of the western world is not wondering where their next meal

is coming from.

[Guest guest]

> The threats were anonymous so who knows where they were coming

from, but

> there is basically one king of the all-natural ice cream market...

good ol' B &

> J's-- who are, btw, now owned by Unilever.

I'd always considered Haagen Daaz ice cream to be superior to B & J.HD

Strawberry Ice cream:

INGREDIENTS:

Cream, Strawberries, Skim Milk, Sugar, Egg Yolks.

I don't have a pot to hand of B & J, but the equivalent flavour

contains a list of about 15 ingredients!!

So what am I missing?

Jo