The general decline in standards today

[ButteMT61]

But the "Death Lights" are better for ya, right? Right?
What's that equate to - coma?

 

[rue]

To be honest, PoohBang, I'm not into that.

You always handle yourself so well Marc

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Someone did exactly that.

Brazil and Chile have tried a different tack, one that has apparently met with some success. Their cigarette packs have an enormous warning label showing a photo of a sad-looking man and an irate-looking woman in bed together. The label says: "Smoking Can Cause Impotence."

 

[LoveMyHats2]

All I do is try to eat what would have been available when our grandparents were around. I don't eat very many (in fact hardly any) processed foods and I try make everything from scratch, including my own bread and it IS cheaper to cook and eat this way, unless of course you're buying ramen. But if you're that poor.... none of this matters.

Really more than half we have today did not exist even 100 years ago. I agree with what you said, about eat what was back in the day. I have to admit it is better than what is on the shelves today, really, I have not one time had some "frankenberry" dry cereal, or some of the other ripe junk they sell, "potted meat"...oh lord...that stuff is so nasty you could use it to ward off evil spirits!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Brazil and Chile have tried a different tack, one that has apparently met with some success. Their cigarette packs have an enormous warning label showing a photo of a sad-looking man and an irate-looking woman in bed together. The label says: "Smoking Can Cause Impotence."

Well that gives a whole new meaning to the word, "stiff"!

 

[PoohBang]

To be honest, PoohBang, I'm not into that.

neither am I. Never thought you were either. I was referencing the previous juvenile comment that was posted before, as if it was said out loud, it would have included three snaps.

It's refreshing when some one backs up what they're saying with real factual examples, instead of just, "Wrong" or "Call the Cops"

 

[TidiousTed]

All I do is try to eat what would have been available when our grandparents were around. I don't eat very many (in fact hardly any) processed foods and I try make everything from scratch

So do I, but knowing how much time it takes even if I make large batches and freeze for later, I also know that not all people got the time to do this. Besides it makes a lot healthier food but it is not cheap to do it that way, particularly if you use ecologicly grown vegetables and fruits and meat from farms that do their slaughtering on the farm as I do.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Wow! Since my last post almost two hours ago this thread has grown twelve pages! :eeek:

Well did you think all of us would really wait for you to decide to enter back into the "fray"?

 

[LizzieMaine]

This might be a good time to suggest people give the Ration Book Diet a try. It works.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

neither am I. Never thought you were either. I was referencing the previous juvenile comment that was posted before, as if it was said out loud, it would have included three snaps.

It's refreshing when some one backs up what they're saying with real factual examples, instead of just, "Wrong" or "Call the Cops"

No matter what, I would hope that everyone, ( to me there is no right or wrong to this desire) to be able to state things in such a manner as to not be offensive in nature to anyone, and that no one is offended by what anyone else may say. True nothing is perfect and I am far from it...last I looked I still cannot seem to get that walking on water down very well...so....for what it is worth, take in consideration that everyone can takes things the wrong way and don't let it have that much importance that it "rents space" in your mind.

 

[TidiousTed]

Well, it is good night from me now. It's a little over three in the morning and my girlfriend will be expecting breakfast on the table at half past eight. It's a good thing I don't need much sleep

 

[rue]

This might be a good time to suggest people give the Ration Book Diet a try. It works.

It really does work, but try getting your husband and kids to do it! I was/am on my own with that one.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

This might be a good time to suggest people give the Ration Book Diet a try. It works.

I have not read this yet and will get around to it, but I have to say, I am not able to set so many items out to eat and then stick to it. When I am hungry you have to keep your hands back and protect small children and pets that may be close...really I eat tons of fruits and veggies.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Well, it is good night from me now. It's a little over three in the morning and my girlfriend will be expecting breakfast on the table at half past eight. It's a good thing I don't need much sleep

Thanks for being here, and give Rose a kiss for me!

 

[Tango Yankee]

Yes, what I meant, and we're good!
Problem with those laws? Guess who obeys them? Yup, us. Not the a-holes that do it, those like us that don't need the laws to begin with. So, while there may be some people that aren't crak heads because it's illegal, and some don't drive drink, most do in spite of the laws and we once again lose rights/privileges because of said dolts.

Cool.

I agree that when it comes to drug use that the laws against it aren't all that effective in preventing it. Heck, I live in the county that A&E profiled in a documentary called "Hillbilly Heroin" about prescription drug abuse! The laws against drunk driving, though, are effective. I'm not going digging right now, but in this case I think that it often means that someone who might think they're OK to drive (even if they're not) will opt out just to be safe. The additional education that has been out there for years has helped as well. So some laws are more effective than others in bringing about desired behaviors.

So far as the losing rights or privileges due to laws enacted to keep said dolts in line, to play devil's advocate what have you lost if you aren't going to engage in that activity anyway? Well, besides the right to act like a dolt, anyway. In the end, some laws enacted to protect the general public are more effective than others. The drug laws are ineffective (in my opinion) in part because they do not do anything to address the social ills that often lead to drug abuse. Please note that I didn't say "always" and that I am aware that drug abuse occurs at all levels of society, often in people whom we think would have every reason not to need to resort to drugs for whatever reason. Addiction is a very complex issue; more so than many are willing to admit. But I digress.

The government (and not just ours, most governments) has regulations concerning food safety. Granted, here in the US we don't have enough inspectors and things still happen, but we do have laws and regulations about it. There can only be so many insect parts per pound of something, for example. It is not that much of a stretch to move to regulating ingredients and indeed, we've seen it done already in some locales. Trans-fat bans, for one.

Another hot-topic area on government regulations is helmet use by motorcyclists. I personally see mandated helmet use on par with mandated seat-belt use. The objection that a seatbelt comes with the car and that a helmet has to be bought separately doesn't wash if there is an existing helmet law as it just means that the cost of helmets need to be included when a motorcycle purchase is concerned. I personally subscribe to ATGATT and am very reluctant to ride with anyone who doesn't. But this is another slipperly slope; if a helmet is good, then requiring everyone to wear fully armored riding gear is better, right? Or better yet, ban the death machines entirely! But a lot more people die of head injuries in automobile accidents than in motorcycle accidents (sheer difference in numbers sees to that) so why not require helmet use in cars? Race car drivers use them, right?

All in all I actually think that for the most part (recent years insanity on both sides aside) the US government does a fairly decent job of balancing out the need to regulate certain things, reality, and what the people want through compromise. Sometimes things that should be fairly obvious get delayed for years by things like lobbyists and the money they bring to the table, but still it mostly works in the long run.

For the most part corporations (i.e., the people who work in them) care far more for profit than they do the common good. It is that which makes government regulation necessary in so many areas. If it costs money to ensure that a factory isn't destroying the nearest body of water through chemical releases then the company won't want to do it and have to have regulations enacted to force them to do so; perhaps the fast food/junk food industries are areas that will find they need to either change on their own or find change forced upon them as well. This could happen, especially if public opinion starts to swing that way. Well, it might happen!

Regards,
Tom

PS. I have a feeling this may be a bit rambling... but I'm tired.
PPS. Dang! It doesn't look that long when you're typing away in that little Quick Reply box!!!:eusa_doh:

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Cool.

I agree that when it comes to drug use that the laws against it aren't all that effective in preventing it. Heck, I live in the county that A&E profiled in a documentary called "Hillbilly Heroin" about prescription drug abuse! The laws against drunk driving, though, are effective. I'm not going digging right now, but in this case I think that it often means that someone who might think they're OK to drive (even if they're not) will opt out just to be safe. The additional education that has been out there for years has helped as well. So some laws are more effective than others in bringing about desired behaviors.

So far as the losing rights or privileges due to laws enacted to keep said dolts in line, to play devil's advocate what have you lost if you aren't going to engage in that activity anyway? Well, besides the right to act like a dolt, anyway. In the end, some laws enacted to protect the general public are more effective than others. The drug laws are ineffective (in my opinion) in part because they do not do anything to address the social ills that often lead to drug abuse. Please note that I didn't say "always" and that I am aware that drug abuse occurs at all levels of society, often in people whom we think would have every reason not to need to resort to drugs for whatever reason. Addiction is a very complex issue; more so than many are willing to admit. But I digress.

The government (and not just ours, most governments) has regulations concerning food safety. Granted, here in the US we don't have enough inspectors and things still happen, but we do have laws and regulations about it. There can only be so many insect parts per pound of something, for example. It is not that much of a stretch to move to regulating ingredients and indeed, we've seen it done already in some locales. Trans-fat bans, for one.

Another hot-topic area on government regulations is helmet use by motorcyclists. I personally see mandated helmet use on par with mandated seat-belt use. The objection that a seatbelt comes with the car and that a helmet has to be bought separately doesn't wash if there is an existing helmet law as it just means that the cost of helmets need to be included when a motorcycle purchase is concerned. I personally subscribe to ATGATT and am very reluctant to ride with anyone who doesn't. But this is another slipperly slope; if a helmet is good, then requiring everyone to wear fully armored riding gear is better, right? Or better yet, ban the death machines entirely! But a lot more people die of head injuries in automobile accidents than in motorcycle accidents (sheer difference in numbers sees to that) so why not require helmet use in cars? Race car drivers use them, right?

All in all I actually think that for the most part (recent years insanity on both sides aside) the US government does a fairly decent job of balancing out the need to regulate certain things, reality, and what the people want through compromise. Sometimes things that should be fairly obvious get delayed for years by things like lobbyists and the money they bring to the table, but still it mostly works in the long run.

For the most part corporations (i.e., the people who work in them) care far more for profit than they do the common good. It is that which makes government regulation necessary in so many areas. If it costs money to ensure that a factory isn't destroying the nearest body of water through chemical releases then the company won't want to do it and have to have regulations enacted to force them to do so; perhaps the fast food/junk food industries are areas that will find they need to either change on their own or find change forced upon them as well. This could happen, especially if public opinion starts to swing that way. Well, it might happen!

Regards,
Tom

PS. I have a feeling this may be a bit rambling... but I'm tired.
PPS. Dang! It doesn't look that long when you're typing away in that little Quick Reply box!!!:eusa_doh:

No rambling from what I am reading, and you are right. Too many things have happened lately due to profit.

You recall the latest round of problems with some sort of toxic crud in products from China that got sent here, some in baby foods, and some in dog foods, and we think so badly of China, but, what company here decided to give the "go ahead" and import that junk and use it?

 

[LoveMyHats2]

It really does work, but try getting your husband and kids to do it! I was/am on my own with that one.

I also have to say, I was one time so wanting to eat ice cream, cake, pie, lots of hot fudge or caramel on it, snack and snack on chips, eat more than I needed to eat and eat more than what I should have. But now, I just crave real food. I want beets, carrots, apples, pears, mixed in with cheese or unsalted nuts. Salads. And because these things are for the most part good for me, I get to pig out and not pay so much of a price for wanting to eat as much as I do.

I have never been really over weight, I am one match head short of 6 foot and the most I have ever weighed was 190. But I want to stay right at 170 and am keeping it there.

 

[sheeplady]

Here's another little factoid for you, everyone is aware of the food pyramid (major food groups) and how we should consume a portion or more of each daily. Notice how dairy enjoys such a prominent place in that pyramid! Ever wonder why?
It is because the dairy industry devised that little chart for the government! Is dairy bad for you, probably not terribly so, but is it a necessary ingredient of our daily diet, I would argue not. I think it is another stellar example of the use of one industry's use of their position to further themselves financially.

This is very true. The pyramid I was taught in school was based upon eating 4-5 carbohydrates- the "base" of our diets. I grew up on a farm in the northeast part of the US, and most grains won't grow there. We ate what we grew, which was mostly vegetables, eggs, and some meat. Fruit was dessert. We never ate more than 2 servings of starches in a day- perhaps a sandwich for lunch or a potato for dinner. The pyramid was the exact opposite of what I ate as a child, mainly because what we ate was out of necessity.

Sadly, for some of my classmates the best nutrition advice they got was from school (some of their parents had absolutely no clue about food). For others, their diets and the contexts of what to eat came exclusively from the local food pantry (which serves 200 out of 800 families where I grew up). The pantry did the best that it could, but couldn't serve many fresh foods. Veggies are totally different if they don't come from a "tin can."

 

[AtomicEraTom]

This is a very important lesson to learn, if you ask me. Nobody wants to discipline their kids and tell them 'No.'They wanna be the 'cool parent' and all that stuff. You can be a cool parent and still have rules. My parents were plenty strict on me. Did I hate it at the time? You bet your bippy. However, they always said, 'someday, you'll thank me' and I have.

Just because your kid throws a fit doesn't mean they should get their way. In my youth, I would have gotten my back porch painted red for that!

I think the culture does indeed have a lot to do with it but we are kind of an anachronism here. The culture doesn't affect me. I still raise my children MY way. I do indeed tell them not to eat food between meals and especially before dinner. So does my wife.
I am sure it is much easier to cave in to them and there lies the rub with our culture---a lot less backbone in many areas.

With all due respect, if you look at the world, money makes the world go 'round. Now, I come from a business running family, so perhaps I'm a bit biased, but our rule of thumb always is 'go where the money is.'

It seems 'big business' is always attacked and made out to be this big bad wolf who's gonna get us all. Now, especially in the world we're living in now, we should have at least a tiny iota of appreciation for big businesses. Odds are, if you work for a living, they affect you in one way or another and we need all the work we can get! It affects me. Among our company contracts is producing process slice for McDonald's and Burger King. Nothing different goes into it than any other process cheese you buy. And for anyone wondering, process cheese is made of cheese (go figure), butter and whey powder (derived from milk). It's all dairy.

I repeat: if Chileans liked the idea of McDonald's food so much per se, then why didn't they create their own successful version of it in the 1970s and '80s? Here's why: because no homegrown version of McDonald's would have had a McDonald-sized financial and advertising war chest to destroy Chile's long-held healthy eating habits. It took a lot of money, a lot of advertising, to introduce obesity to Chile. But McDonald's did a bang-up job of it.

I am in favor of healthy fast food, BIG TIME. Now, I like to eat fast food now and then and if it could be healthy, all the better. I think it just comes down to two things. Supply and demand, and cost. A lot of people like a good ol' greasy burger, fries, and a soda-pop and they like it cheap. Now, if you can make a burger, fries, and pop that is healthier and about the same price, you'll make a huge business (and I would love to see it happen, I'd be a lot thinner if that fast food wasn't so gosh darn bad for me)

There's no law of Nature dictating that fast food has to be unhealthy. It's that way because of choices made by those who produce it. Nor is there any law of Nature dictating that unhealthy fast food be cheaper and more easily accessible than healthy fast food. It's the result of choices made that favor the suppliers' best interests ... at the expense of their own consumers' health.

Now, I never saw an issue with them taking candy machines out of the schools. What I did find to be a bit silly was when they wouldn't let them sell candy in the fund-raisers. The parents are buying it and are mature enough to make the decisions. When they stopped allowing this, Wisconsin Cheeseman, in business since 1949, and where my mother worked almost all my life, folded within a couple years.

I think fast food falls right in with booze and tobacco in the fact that know it's bad for you. This is America, it's a free country, you're free to eat it, you're free to not eat it. Same goes for booze and tobacco.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I think the issue of regulation is not really that of do we need them or not, but how much do we need? To ensure product safety, workplace safety, fairness or to address any of the other concerns that are important to us, do we just need some logical, commonsense rules that are easily enforced or an endless myriad of complex, byzantine regulations requiring vast armies of bureaucrats to administer and legions of lawyers to interpret? Rules that are often incomprehensible, costly and ultimately counterproductive for everyone involved.

I once read somewhere that the federal, state and local governments combined pass some 100,000 new laws every year. This is on top of the 100,000 that were passed last year ad infinitum. I believe there is such a thing as overregulation (i.e. California).