Kids are remarkably stubborn when it comes to food. And if they're growing up in a household where the adults glean their knowledge of nutritional value from a bag of potato chips, they're simply not going to eat these lunches.

I think this is a case where we're trying to do too much. Kids are resilient little machines. They can process junk food a lot better than we can. Focus on getting them outside and running around, and the machines will work just fine.

I'm not saying replace the salads and fruits with a table full of twinkies and ding-dongs. But slightly junkier and tastier will do the job - get their tummies full so they can learn.

I wish Obama had a much clearer vision of the utility of any strikes. I also wish Congress would demand a formal declaration.

Neither of these will happen.

I think the one place where Obama has really shined is foreign policy and that's making this misstep really stand out. Was there ever really a "winning" side or a side you even pretend to want to back? I guess you could say the same about Libya and we'll always find someone coming out of the woodwork who is "better" than the last guy. But I think the politically easy thing would, frankly, have been to downplay Syria and act all surprised when the inevitable genocide happened and then bring out the handwringing and "if only we had known"s. Or can you only go to the Darfur card once per decade?

SI

Really? So you'd be fine with just sitting around while a genocide happened?

There needs to be a world-wide response. Right now, there's no structure in place to handle Russia's block of any substantial intervention. If Obama strikes, the result is uncertain.

We know Russia's government identifies with the Syrian government, and sees the conflict through glasses colored by their wars with Chechnya. Obama should understand exactly why Russia has taken its current position.

I know the ICC is hopelessly political and not even, not sure how to put this, active at the moment. But a structure like the ICC, combined with the forceful extraction of leaders who are determined to have supported genocide, could be a solution.

But we have a policy against targeting specific leaders, probably out of fear of having our leaders targeted by others. Even though there are many entities out there that would leap at the chance to even get close to Obama.

Unfortunately, sitting around is all we can do because unilateral action inevitably makes the situation worse and there's no structure in place for effective world-wide response. The ICC was in the process of running around Africa to bring people like Ahmed Haroun to justice, but it simply isn't effective. With a better international structure in place, it could be quite effective.

I said politically easy- I didn't say right or wrong. Libraries of books have been written about which international conflicts we should or shouldn't get involved in from all angles including political, strategic, moral, and others.

While, morally, we should strive to stop all genocide, I'd hazard that if I had an hour to think about it, I could probably find at least 10 genocides going on in the world today so this is not as simple as "intervene in every genocide".

So, c'mon, you know
A) I was speaking solely to the political nature of the decision as I still think that's Obama's guiding principle.
and B) it's not as simple as "yeah, I'm cool with sitting by watching genocide happen".

SI

I didn't realize (a) - I must not have read your post that quickly.

Not so sure that's his guiding principle though. Maybe he has a moral compass?

I think he does have a moral compass but I think he's very much a pragmatist. I don't think he'd much rather find a compromising diplomatic solution than push too hard for a moralistic one. I think he'd much rather get 60% of what he wants than significantly risk getting 0% (tho he sometimes misreads the situation and doesn't do well with "all or nothing" propositions as they go against what he understands).

EDIT: In short, I think personal Obama fairly regularly finds it difficult to sleep at night because of the decisions political Obama has to make.

SI

I'm glad possible mocking is what's driving our policy.

The rates of juvenile obesity and diabetes beg to differ. Not saying the fault is the school lunches, but for some of these kids it's the only "actual" meal of the day.

If it's the only actual meal of the day, they wouldn't be so fat.

Well, that's pretty intelligent. I know you are smarter than that.

Where's Damascus?

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/damascus/

I was off by fifteen miles east.

For some reason I thought it was near whatever some of those bodies of water are in the northeastern part of the country.

I know that's true, but when I think about what I ate as a teenager, and how life at my parents' house just revolved around food, and how we went to McDonald's fairly often, and how wiry and thin I was, it's just had to comprehend how it's even possible to be obese as a teenager. I mean, there were real dinners at my house, but I would also throw down a box of oreos afterwards like they were nothing.

Now what? UK lawmakers reject military action

British leader loses vote on Syria response - CNN.com

We can depend on the French to come through.

That's our big plan?

How quaint. Don't they know their job is to make a public fuss but take no action that will share responsibility? Silly British parliament.

It's not just food. I blame central air and video games for obesity. More so. Kids just don't go outside and play. That's the biggest problem.

.

Totally agree. The Congress wants to complain about the president but doesn't want any of responsibility for anything. Doesn't mean I think the president can just do what he wants but it certainly should be up for a vote that the lawmakers can be held accountable for.

A symbolic vote of approval/disapproval? Or one that carries actual weight?

I guess I'm asking whether you're proposing to make Congress, rather than the President, Commander-In-Chief.

Only Congress can declare war. Planning and executing a strike on a sovereign nation that has not attacked the U.S. shouldn't be decided by the President.

But as I said earlier, Congress doesn't want the responsibility. Most of them would rather keep their options open so they can say "Told Ya" regardless of outcome.

Is this actually a sentence in this article?

I'm asking the Congress to make a declaration of war. None of this skirting around with words like conflict or military action or strike. Sure it would be mostly symbolic but then come 2016 if Syria goes to shit the congressmen can defned their vote or if things go wonderfully Congressmen can run on their votes. Right now all we have is nonsense like this...

"Absolutely. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don't say those things lightly, Chris. you've known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that -- and I don't say it lightly, I don't say it lightly."

Joe Biden 2007


I realize its all political threatre and there are quotes from GOP members doing to exact opposite thing supporting Bush. All I am asking is to add a layer to the political threatre and put a vote next to their name.

I'm surprised at how excited the American press seem to be at the prospect of going to war - isn't America just on the verge of getting out of a very expensive war and finally getting its economy (and the deficit) slowly back on track? ...

(especially as nothing has been proved with regards to who used chemical weapons on whom and frankly from where I'm standing the US wading in will do little but generate deaths and dislike of the US in the region)

The biggest difference to me is what kids do these days - eating habits have gone awol to some extent, but thats nothing compared to the ill effects of the media on kids exercise.

Very few parents seem comfortable with their kids going out and roaming the neighborhood or cycling off for miles in a random direction- when I was a teenager I cycled a minimum of 15 miles a day (distance to my local town and back) and spent most of the rest of the time running around with my friends .... I probably burnt off 2,000 calories a day through exercise, as such it didn't matter much what I ate - it'd be near impossible to get overly fat with that much exercise.

Today I have to argue with my wife in order to give my kids the freedom to walk around a store in the mall without being under constant supervision ...

Since 1960, roughly every 40 months we embark on a military campaign. It's just what we do. Think of the poor defense contractors.

Yes the military industrial complex has sadly become a jobs program. Kill a few more brown people? We would hate for a guy in St. Louis to have his Boeing hours cut back. WMD's in Iraq? War. WMD's in Iran. Didn't take we tried too soon. WMD's in Syria? Check, time to go to war again.

Depending upon your location/neighborhood (or that of the store moreso), I'd say she could have a pretty reasonable argument.

So I have no idea who this particular news agency is and I notice that a lot of the other agencies giving it play are places like infowars which I am aware of their credibility. Howver this guy is an AP reporter so take it for what it's worth. It's at least worth a discussion IMO...

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

(The best I can tell mint press seems to be a humanitarian anti-war type outfit but not out to lunch like Alex Jones etc)

None of the neighborhoods we frequent are half as rough as some of the places I hung out as a kid ... plus my kids have a modicum of common sense and the ability to shout loudly (and kick people in the testicles) if the need arises ...

Bear in mind my boys are 14 and 10, hardly toddlers at this stage (in England my daughter was walking herself to school at the age of 10, it amazes me how restrictive America is towards kids having responsibilities for their own actions).

We've had too many Jerry Sandusky types.

That's quite an ironic statement given what is going on in the UK right now, I suggest looking up Operation Yewtree if you get a second

Generally I agree with Marc but everything in the US is just on such a bigger scale than the UK I don't know if its an apples to apples discussion. Back home we went everywhere on buses from the age of 7 or 8, there's no way I let my kid ride a bus in LA until they are at least 16

Yeah, my kids are as skinny as sticks, yet eat constantly. We eat fairly well, but I think them being outside and active most of the day is a big part. We really curtail screen time, so while they do like to sit and read, they don't spend any significant portion of their day sitting. That's a real difference with most of their peers who are putting in hours every day on video games and TV. We live in a safe place, but that culture of fear has certainly infiltrated here. In reality though the chances that my kid's going to get kidnapped or molested because he's out of my sight are infinitesimal compared to the chances that he's going to develop serious health conditions if he sits around the house.

But Jerry Sandusky didn't molest kids he found running around. :confused:

If anything Jerry Sandusky types should make parents afraid of leaving their kids with family members or family friends.

Then again, I live in a county where there have been multiple sexual assaults in the past 12-18 months involving school kids attacked by strangers who made their way onto middle/high school campuses.

Even the whole 'my kids don't play video games and watch TV all the time' thing is overplayed IMO. My kids play games and watch TV quite a bit, but it's what they play that matters. We have multiple PS Move games that are very active games that the kids love to play. They get good exercise, but they just don't know it. Similarly, we let my kids watch 'Bo on the Go' as much as they want on Netflix. It's a show that encourages lots of exercise in the plot and they love to do all the actions. It's all about targeting their activities even when watching TV or playing video games.

My kids sit on their butts a lot and are on the heavy-ish side. They also eat their fair share of crap. They do not burn through their food like little efficient engines.

They just don't have much they want to do outside. We live on a 1/4 acre, and the back yard real estate is made even smaller with trees, swing sets, and the trampoline (there is only so much they can do on the trampoline). They don't really play with kids on our or neighboring steets, and aren't comfortable riding their bikes to friends' houses.

I used to ride my bike all the time, but then there were all sorts of residential cross streets and back roads that had little traffic, so riding was pretty darned safe. Were we are now just isn't built for bike travel. When I got to my destination, I'd usually be playing football, or baseball, or basketball, or street hockey, or...etc. (all this and I still wore "husky" sizes, even though weighed considerably less than my kids at the same ages). My kids aren't sporting types, so they have no interest in doing any of that.

Oh I stay up to date with UK news and am well aware of it, however such things are very rare incidents despite what the press might try and convince people of.


I'm more restrictive than my parents were with me - but I am trying hard to give my kids some independence and a chance to build up character by making their own decisions at times ... otherwise they'll turn 18 and have no capability for dealing with the real-world, at some point they're going to be out in it without my support ... so better to let them dip their toes while I'm close by for advice when required.

(just my take - your milage may vary and obviously each parent knows their own kids best, mine are (by and large) fairly sensible ...)

My kids prefer inside activities - although I do encourage them to exercise and play outside its just not 'common' over here, rather than kids their age playing outside and them just doing it I find it takes me saying "I'm going to do x, want to join me" to get them out there.

That first comment wasn't aimed at you Marc, the person after you who suggested the US was less safe bc of Sandusky :) I was supporting your point (I think)

Yeah I think it's an uphill battle because it's now what hte mass of kids do anymore. We're really lucky because our kids' best friends live a few houses down and also spend their time out here riding bikes or playing in our yards. But when they get with their cousins, for instance, the go-to activities are sedentary. The idea of playing team sports like a lot of us spent a good deal of time doing as kids, informally, is almost mythical at this point. Kids are not only more likely to be indoors, but they're more likely to be in structured activities or afterschool care because parents are working. So they're not even available.

Physical activity can be defined as vacuuming, cleaning windows, and lots of other household chores.
One of 2 things will happen. You will drive them outside to play or you will have a really clean house.
Win-win.

Other than for UK, nothing public yet on other allies. It will suck for US to do this unilaterally. US has to do this either way due to Obama's line in the sand and future credibility ... I wish he hadn't said it and let other countries take the lead.

U.S. officials’ strong words on Syria signal that attack is near - The Washington Post

As bad as the whole chemical weapon thing is, I'm really leery of entering this conflict. It seems pretty clear that both sides are not people we're really interested in hanging out with any time soon.

If we attack, does Iran get frisky? What about Russia? Does Russia do something in response?
This isnt Afghanistan or Iraq. This is a different animal.

He takes his only way out to put it to Congress.

I guess he is showing his respect for congress ...

What a fubar.