POL - CONGRAT TO CALIF. & AHNOLD

[Flasch186]

I support whole heartedly!!!


California says 'no' to junk-food sales in schools

By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Tue Sep 6, 4:00 AM ET

LOS ANGELES - California is poised to ban sales of soda and fast foods on public school campuses - including high schools - in a move being closely watched by many other states that are weighing whether to do likewise.

In a bill that public health authorities call "the most impressive gains in school nutrition since school lunch was introduced after World War II," the state Assembly and Senate have approved legislation they feel will help reduce childhood obesity by eliminating access to certain drinks and snacks sold in vending machines and school stores.

The legislative action, which has the support of Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, has been characterized by supporters as an appropriate regulation to curb an obesity crisis and derided by critics as misguided government intervention.

But it appears the law, the first of its kind nationwide, will easily pass when small differences between Assembly and Senate versions of two separate bills are expected to be ironed out Tuesday.

"Elected officials are supporting parents in protecting their children from the unrestrained marketing and ever-present availability of soda and junk food," says Dr. Harold Goldstein, director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy. "California [schools] can no longer be soda and junk-food superstores."

On the other hand, beveragemakers, as well as some civil libertarians say the moves are well-motivated but interject themselves inappropriately between younger children and their parents. The decision to ban junk food, they feel, should be an individual school's choice.

"While well-intentioned, the [passage] is unfortunate," says the American Beverage Association, the trade association that represents more than 211,000 people who produce US sales of nonalcoholic beverages in excess of $88 billion per year. The soda legislation, it says, "is an ineffective means of addressing obesity, a complex problem with many causes including lack of exercise, consuming excessive calories, lifestyle, genetics, and other factors."

Other critics of the law say that one-size-fits-all solutions could undermine a school's ability to fundraise and support programs needed to combat the epidemic from another angle, such as athletics.

"I don't have a problem with individual schools making this decision but when the state legislature makes the decision for everyone, they could hurt revenue that goes to physical education," says Radley Balko, policy analyst for civil liberties and consumer choice at the Cato Institute.

Initially, that was the case in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), which implemented a local soda ban in 2003 and a junk-food ban last year. Loss of income jeopardized both after-school activities and equipment from volleyball nets to band uniforms. But after early concerns from withdrawn sponsorships and lost revenue, officials now say they are glad they made the switch.

In June, the LAUSD and Pepsico, the makers of Pepsi, signed a new contract for company water products, juices, and sports drinks. As a direct result, the company is donating $2 million back to schools as a signing bonus.

"Now we have the soda industry coming back to us and saying, 'We do have a healthy line of products so let's promote that," says Amy Dresser-Held, director of policy and communication for LAUSD. "They realize that schools are a huge market and if they want to continue to play ball, this is our demand now."

It was the evidence that schools would not be hurt by the ban that helped proponents win over state legislatures.

"Studies have shown that while there were reduction in sales at snack bars and vending machines, kids actually purchased more and better meals at school," says Dr. Goldstein.

Those who track obesity numbers nationwide as well as attempts by states to regulate soda and junk food on campus, say the California laws will have a significant effect on breaking down legislative barriers elsewhere.

"This is a great victory and is definitely the strongest law in the country because it includes high schools," says Michele Simon, director of the Center for Informed Food Choices, in Oakland, Calif. Connecticut, Arizona, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Oregon, have attempted K-12 bans which have either been watered down or had the high school portions of the ban dropped altogether. But high school is the place where the bulk of such products are sold, when kids are beginning to solidify habits for life, say nutritionists. "The best thing about this is that it raises the bar for the rest of the country," says Ms. Simon.

The new law is expected to be implemented over the next four years.

[Buccaneer]

Sigh, another step in government-sponsored "good intentions" eroding personal and civil liberties.

[Chubby]

I'm glad I'm out of HS. No Dew or cookiewiches would have sucked.

[Ksyrup]

We weren't allowed to have pop or go off-campus for lunch when I was in high school. And that was in the late 80's.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sigh, another step in government-sponsored "good intentions" eroding personal and civil liberties.

Yep. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'd rather have some unhealthy kids given something called choice, than healthy robots not given a choice.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We weren't allowed to have pop or go off-campus for lunch when I was in high school. And that was in the late 80's.

Me, neither. We didn't have vending machines at all, either. We also walked 5 miles both ways in the snow barefoot.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Me, neither. We didn't have vending machines at all, either. We also walked 5 miles both ways in the snow barefoot.

no no no you walked 5 miles uphill both ways in the snow barefoot. get it right

[Ksyrup]

We had one vending machine, which was off limits until after school was over. We had the usual lunch menu, with the opportunity to buy some junk food but probably not like it is these days.

[Easy Mac]

Maybe if they stopped cutting gym class and recess kids wouldn't be getting so damn fat.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Maybe if they stopped cutting gym class and recess kids wouldn't be getting so damn fat.

The government won't allow embarrassment in schools anymore.

[Buzzbee]

Part of me says I'm glad. Kids don't need access to junk food while at school. They are there to learn. Also, the line about it funding other avenues to control weight loss, like athletics is kinda silly to me.

However, the other part of me says that the responsibility should rest with the parents. The school isn't giving the kids the money to buy the junk. The school isn't putting the junk on the lunch tray. The kids are making a choice. Then again, I've seen some of the choices teens make. Hmmm...maybe I'm more in favor of this than I thought.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sigh, another step in government-sponsored "good intentions" eroding personal and civil liberties.

Why should the government not be allowed to decide what can and can't be sold on government property? I'm pretty sure you would not have a problem with the local Catholic school taking exactly the same action.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by clintl

Why should the government not be allowed to decide what can and can't be sold on government property? I'm pretty sure you would not have a problem with the local Catholic school taking exactly the same action.

because the STATE is deciding what LOCAL schools are able to sell. Hence Radley Balko's statement that he wouldn't have a problem with a local school board making this decision, but that he doesn't like the state legislature doing this.

Of course, I think local school boards have already abdicated so much responsiblity that this is really a minor thing. But yes, one has to wonder when the state will decide to ban the selling of fast food to minors. I mean, why couldn't California decide that Happy Meals have no tangible benefit to children and should therefore be off-limits?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by clintl

Why should the government not be allowed to decide what can and can't be sold on government property? I'm pretty sure you would not have a problem with the local Catholic school taking exactly the same action.

Ah, I forgot about Prop 13. In most other states, the authority lies with the local school board. Unfortunately, the states are horning in on local control with the feds forcing god-knows-what influence. Don't you think that any decisions regarding local schools should be up to the people in the districts? Why should the politicians and bureaucrats in some far off state capital, or worse, in Wash DC have any authority - and their one-size-fits-all mentality - in how your local school(s) should be run?

[Subby]

I think this a great example of our government doing something good.

I equate this to mandatory motorcycle helmets and seatbelt laws...

[Flasch186]

I think the long term ramifications to the education of kids, in that they'll be on a more even keel in class, proven to be better able to focus and concentrate, will result in our countries youth being more educated through every group that graduates through school.

I guarantee that this will blaze trails and more states will adopt similar rules.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Subby

I think this a great example of our government doing something good.

I equate this to mandatory motorcycle helmets and seatbelt laws...

...and the Patriot Act?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

...and the Patriot Act?

....some parts of it, yes.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by clintl

Why should the government not be allowed to decide what can and can't be sold on government property? I'm pretty sure you would not have a problem with the local Catholic school taking exactly the same action.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

because the STATE is deciding what LOCAL schools are able to sell. Hence Radley Balko's statement that he wouldn't have a problem with a local school board making this decision, but that he doesn't like the state legislature doing this.

Of course, I think local school boards have already abdicated so much responsiblity that this is really a minor thing. But yes, one has to wonder when the state will decide to ban the selling of fast food to minors. I mean, why couldn't California decide that Happy Meals have no tangible benefit to children and should therefore be off-limits?

These two posts, by intelligent persons, illustrate something to me. I am neither liberal nor conservative, Dem or Rep (never have been, never will) but here we have a left-leaning person justifying this action while a right-leaning person dares to question the authority.

Whether this is no big deal or not as a libertarian, I don't know. It may be a good thing to do but it just shows to me how easy we can give up local control and accountability.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Why should the politicians and bureaucrats in some far off state capital, or worse, in Wash DC have any authority - and their one-size-fits-all mentality - in how your local school(s) should be run?

Well, conceivably your local school district could be run by morons. Maybe they can't make reasonable decisions and it woul take years worth of education in the district before they could possibly run their own system adequately?

I'm not saying I'm for federal control mind you but this is one answer to your question. I'm not against natural selection but to willingly condemn entire communities to it seems a bit harsh.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

...and the Patriot Act?

No, not really...

I guess I don't really see this as a civil liberties issue.

Just seems like a no-brainer to me. *shurg*

[RendeR]

This is a good thing.

The state has every right to enforce such a thing as a large amount of money for each school system comes directly from the state.

If a school system wants to buck the system and offer vending machines then they can forgoe the monetary input from the state's board of education.

Not sure we'll see any of them choose THAT road, go figure.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This is a good thing.

The state has every right to enforce such a thing as a large amount of money for each school system comes directly from the state.

If a school system wants to buck the system and offer vending machines then they can forgoe the monetary input from the state's board of education.

Not sure we'll see any of them choose THAT road, go figure.

Can they go that road? I don't know. Can a community not offer a public school and go it on their own?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Well, conceivably your local school district could be run by morons. Maybe they can't make reasonable decisions and it woul take years worth of education in the district before they could possibly run their own system adequately?

I'm not saying I'm for federal control mind you but this is one answer to your question. I'm not against natural selection but to willingly condemn entire communities to it seems a bit harsh.

These local school boards are elected. If you're continually electing morons, perhaps you should elect new school board members.

Honest to goodness, we're inundated with evidence this week that the government isn't all that great at taking care of people or managing their lives. It just boggles my mind that some people are so willing to let the government make the "good decision" for them, rather than making the good decision (or bad) themselves.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think the long term ramifications to the education of kids, in that they'll be on a more even keel in class, proven to be better able to focus and concentrate, will result in our countries youth being more educated through every group that graduates through school.

I guarantee that this will blaze trails and more states will adopt similar rules.

I'll argue this will have no tangible impact on our schools when it comes to learning. The students will still be largely disengaged from the material being taught and in the manner in which it is taught as our schools continue to struggle to find new ways to relate the materials to a new generation. They'll continue to teach towards nothing but 1 test a year and completely forget the whole idea of teaching is to educate and allow children to develop independent thought instead of gearing everyone's mind towards 1 pointless goal.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

These local school boards are elected. If you're continually electing morons, perhaps you should elect new school board members.

Honest to goodness, we're inundated with evidence this week that the government isn't all that great at taking care of people or managing their lives. It just boggles my mind that some people are so willing to let the government make the "good decision" for them, rather than making the good decision (or bad) themselves.

Cam, I'm talking about a hypothetical. What if your local area has no good candidates? They have a limited pool of candidates and if that pool is naturally inferior; then what?

Like I say, it's a hypothetical but things like this have happened in the world with plagues, diseases, wars etc and a population is left with poor/no leadership. What then?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Cam, I'm talking about a hypothetical. What if your local area has no good candidates? They have a limited pool of candidates and if that pool is naturally inferior; then what?

Like I say, it's a hypothetical but things like this have happened in the world with plagues, diseases, wars etc and a population is left with poor/no leadership. What then?

Then you run for office yourself instead of complaining about the lack of good candidates yourself? You move to another school district? You get involved in the school district and your child's education to make sure that you make up for whatever deficiencies the district has?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Then you run for office yourself instead of complaining about the lack of good candidates yourself? You move to another school district? You get involved in the school district and your child's education to make sure that you make up for whatever deficiencies the district has?

But you're a product of your local school district therefore you're undereducated and can't run for yourself. If you're in that case, getting involved in your school district only adds another ineffective hand in the soup. I can certainly see that places like this more or less already exist.

Again, I think this is a stupid rule ( the lunch thing ) but I was answering a question with a situation where it would make sense to have outside assistance when you are unable to handle a situation yourself. In my opinion that assistance should be asked for not mandated but the original question didn't deal with this but simply implied that the answer would be "why indeed" when I could think of certain cases where it should rather be "why not."

[CamEdwards]

Ah. So the hypothetical person we're talking about is too stupid to be of any use to the system, yet smart enough to realize that and is modest enough to ask for help from people smarter than they are?

Sorry, this is now beyond the realm of believability to me.

Besides, what you're advocating also precludes the possibility of local school boards made up of individuals SMARTER than the legislature from enacting their own rules. How's that a good thing?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Can they go that road? I don't know. Can a community not offer a public school and go it on their own?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't offer a public school, I'm saying that like some states refuse to enforce seat belt laws(New Hampshire) they lose federal money for their roads, some schools in california COULD opt to not get state education funding so they can offer vending machines in their district.

I find the idea completely ludicrous based on the dire need every school has for funding however.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Ah. So the hypothetical person we're talking about is too stupid to be of any use to the system, yet smart enough to realize that and is modest enough to ask for help from people smarter than they are?

Sorry, this is now beyond the realm of believability to me.

Besides, what you're advocating also precludes the possibility of local school boards made up of individuals SMARTER than the legislature from enacting their own rules. How's that a good thing?

Hmm, not everyone in the world are arrogant idiots. Many people are smart enough to know when they are out of their element and act accordingly. When my car breaks down I am smart enough to seek a mechanic and I barely know which side of a wrench to hold. That's a silly argument.

Second, I'm really not advocating anything but a thought did cross my mind even before you posted the second question. Why not just set minimum standards and if a school can reach/exceed this standard then they're left alone. If they can't/won't then they get a stricter set of rules. It's still not quite fully voluntary but it does allow those who have a better idea to run with it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Ah. So the hypothetical person we're talking about is too stupid to be of any use to the system, yet smart enough to realize that and is modest enough to ask for help from people smarter than they are?

Sorry, this is now beyond the realm of believability to me.

Besides, what you're advocating also precludes the possibility of local school boards made up of individuals SMARTER than the legislature from enacting their own rules. How's that a good thing?

Perhaps, Mr. I can't comment on this topic without being a smartass, he is proposing that there are those who would run for the position who are no qualified for the job, and would win based on any number of other qualities, like popularity. These people might in fact, NOT be worthy of or able to fulfill the position adequately and turn to the state for support and assistance in doing what they have failed to do.

This doesn't preclude anything, its a very valid fact that people will use whatever means they can to gain power in their community. Power to promote themselves at the expense of the program or positions they are supposed to be handling.

We're in America here Cam, not everyone is altruistic.I apologise if I sound angry, I've been catching up on a number of "those" threads, and frankly cam, some of your comments here sound an awful lot like those we're all trying to get rid of. No offense intended.

[Easy Mac]

kirby puckett

32 posts to devolve

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

kirby puckett

32 posts to devolve

Really? I swear I was being nice in that post....I wanted to say much meaner things, really..I was being polite =)

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't offer a public school, I'm saying that like some states refuse to enforce seat belt laws(New Hampshire) they lose federal money for their roads, some schools in california COULD opt to not get state education funding so they can offer vending machines in their district.

I find the idea completely ludicrous based on the dire need every school has for funding however.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I was just mentally shorthanding that if you weren't taking the feds funds you were basically a state sponsored private school.

Which wouldn't be a bad idea either. Let the federal government offer a federal public school with schools accessable to everyone and let the states set up their own deals if they want to so the consumer gets the choice and the end product is that everyone has access to at least some standard public schooling and the curriculum at the other schools could be more tailored to the needs of the community.

Of course, prohibitive financially but I'm just throwing out ideas here. This is the bottom line though. We don't have the money to do what we need to now and no one really wants to spend more, even if it improves things.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I'll argue this will have no tangible impact on our schools when it comes to learning. The students will still be largely disengaged from the material being taught and in the manner in which it is taught as our schools continue to struggle to find new ways to relate the materials to a new generation. They'll continue to teach towards nothing but 1 test a year and completely forget the whole idea of teaching is to educate and allow children to develop independent thought instead of gearing everyone's mind towards 1 pointless goal.

this goes against scientific studies regarding attention span, energy levels, ability to remember, etc.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this goes against scientific studies regarding attention span, energy levels, ability to remember, etc.

I've seen those studies which is why I like the year round school lunches programs I've read about. The point though is not so much what they're eating it's being undernourished in general.

As long as these vending items are not presented as the meal, no they're not healthy but they're not the culprit either. Not unless the kids are entirely relying on the snacks for their sustenance and if that's the case, how is that the schools fault?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this goes against scientific studies regarding attention span, energy levels, ability to remember, etc.

I'd say these studies are flawed and these are just as likely correlated to home life, whether it be with a computer, TV, video games...

My girlfriend went to a school where there was a pizza hut, chic-fil-a, mcdonalds stuff on campus. They had a very high college acceptance rate.

I went to a school where we had school lunches. This school was in the bottom third in the state.

We did have vending machines though... so maybe that caused the poor performance... no, I doubt it.

I really don't think there's a correlation to the kind of food available and a student's performance in school. Personally, we I think we should mandate some form of physical education every year. There are far more studies that show a physically active child is far more attentive after being physically active.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I'd say these studies are flawed and these are just as likely correlated to home life, whether it be with a computer, TV, video games...

My girlfriend went to a school where there was a pizza hut, chic-fil-a, mcdonalds stuff on campus. They had a very high college acceptance rate.

I went to a school where we had school lunches. This school was in the bottom third in the state.

We did have vending machines though... so maybe that caused the poor performance... no, I doubt it.

I really don't think there's a correlation to the kind of food available and a student's performance in school. Personally, we I think we should mandate some form of physical education every year. There are far more studies that show a physically active child is far more attentive after being physically active.

It's undernourished kids that have the adverse effects. They even had a study that showed feeding breakfast to kids before a test improved scores a bit. As long as your nutritional needs are met and for the poor in general this is hard as most of the cheap filling food isn't worth much nutritionally.

Your screen name does come to mind.

As long as the person does get enough nourishment though, I personally haven't seen any study which said the fat ones who eat cake and pepsi perform less well than the thin ones who eat carrots and water.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Ah. So the hypothetical person we're talking about is too stupid to be of any use to the system, yet smart enough to realize that and is modest enough to ask for help from people smarter than they are?

Sorry, this is now beyond the realm of believability to me.

Besides, what you're advocating also precludes the possibility of local school boards made up of individuals SMARTER than the legislature from enacting their own rules. How's that a good thing?

By this same token, you're assuming that your state and federal government are full of morons. True, there are quite a few there but I think they're just as incompetent at the local level- just not as high profile. And presumably, if you're dredging from the same level of ignorant people, then you might as well have someone who deals with all the schools in the state and has more experience than one person who only sees one district and is in the middle of a situation rather than where they can see the forest for the trees.

SI

[rexallllsc]

We had a choice at my school (in CA)...It was Dominos, Hot Dogs, Carls Jr., or McDonalds.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

By this same token, you're assuming that your state and federal government are full of morons. True, there are quite a few there but I think they're just as incompetent at the local level- just not as high profile. And presumably, if you're dredging from the same level of ignorant people, then you might as well have someone who deals with all the schools in the state and has more experience than one person who only sees one district and is in the middle of a situation rather than where they can see the forest for the trees.

SI

actually, I'm not. I'm just stating that I don't believe it is the job of state legislatures to make decisions like this for local schools. I'm pretty sure it was Axxon who introduced the idea of letting the "smart people" make the decisions, regardless of whether or not it's their job.

[jeff061]

I don't see how people can argue this. You think the responsibilty should fall with the parents? That's exactly what this does. For the most part, these kid's are not going to be eating shit at school unless their parents provide them with it. This is empowering parents and increasing their control of their kid's diet for 6 hours a day, not taking away from them.

The only way I can see people being against this is if they are in school in CA or really really hate republicans .

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I don't see how people can argue this. You think the responsibilty should fall with the parents? That's exactly what this does. For the most part, these kid's are not going to be eating shit at school unless their parents provide them with it. This is empowering parents and increasing their control of their kid's diet for 6 hours a day, not taking away from them.

The only way I can see people being against this is if they are in school in CA or really really hate republicans .

yup. Its also been shown that the time span for focus is not long enough to span the time from when a child eats said lunch until theyre done with school...therefore their "crash" happens during school and whatever class that falls in will inevitably score lower than the one immediately following their high. BUT theyve also shown that lunches eaten effect those who didnt eat that lunch at all. Kids who eat poorly are shown to be more disruptive as well.

The scientific studies regarding nourishment and school, IMO seem to be the easiest to test and I believe their results. The variables, while not nonexistant, are so small that in this day and age this is likely the easiiest human study considering that there are built in benchmarks.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sigh, another step in government-sponsored "good intentions" eroding personal and civil liberties.

I don't see anywhere in the article that says students can't bring their own food or drink to school, so how does this erode personal and civil liberties?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I know it's a little late to the party, but was it just me or did it take other people about 5 minutes to even figure out what in the hell the title of this thread meant.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Subby

I think this a great example of our government doing something good.

I equate this to mandatory motorcycle helmets and seatbelt laws...

I agree. Except this is even more acceptable to me than motorcycle helmets because it's minors we're talking about here, not adults.

I don't see the argument against it at all.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Perhaps, Mr. I can't comment on this topic without being a smartass, he is proposing that there are those who would run for the position who are no qualified for the job, and would win based on any number of other qualities, like popularity. These people might in fact, NOT be worthy of or able to fulfill the position adequately and turn to the state for support and assistance in doing what they have failed to do.

This doesn't preclude anything, its a very valid fact that people will use whatever means they can to gain power in their community. Power to promote themselves at the expense of the program or positions they are supposed to be handling.

We're in America here Cam, not everyone is altruistic.I apologise if I sound angry, I've been catching up on a number of "those" threads, and frankly cam, some of your comments here sound an awful lot like those we're all trying to get rid of. No offense intended.

Okay, so sarcasm is off limits but condescension is all right? I'll keep that in mind.

There's a saying in this country that we live in (America, as I understand it): you get what you vote for. If you vote for someone because you think they're a great person, yet you don't think they're qualified, you deserve the government that you get.

As for Axxon's statement about not knowing how to fix a car but knowing enough to hire a mechanic, that's fine. But we're talking about something as little as a Coke machine in the hallway at school. This isn't a mechanic fixing your engine... this is hiring a mechanic to roll down your window.

Then of course there is the irony of people supporting the state making a decision like this while opposing the federal government getting involved in the education process with things like No Child Left Behind.

As I said earlier, I really think this is a minor issue, but it belies a larger problem (for me, anyway) of our willingness to abdicate responsibility to larger and larger entities.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Okay, so sarcasm is off limits but condescension is all right? I'll keep that in mind.

There's a saying in this country that we live in (America, as I understand it): you get what you vote for. If you vote for someone because you think they're a great person, yet you don't think they're qualified, you deserve the government that you get.

As for Axxon's statement about not knowing how to fix a car but knowing enough to hire a mechanic, that's fine. But we're talking about something as little as a Coke machine in the hallway at school. This isn't a mechanic fixing your engine... this is hiring a mechanic to roll down your window.

Then of course there is the irony of people supporting the state making a decision like this while opposing the federal government getting involved in the education process with things like No Child Left Behind.

As I said earlier, I really think this is a minor issue, but it belies a larger problem (for me, anyway) of our willingness to abdicate responsibility to larger and larger entities.

couple of points to rebut you:

one, many times those elected do not vote according to their districts leanings but defend themselves by saying, "I got elected on what I believe in." I think we just had a case of the governor of one of the states doing this regarding stem cell research. While I supported his move there, it does go against your broad painted stroke there.

the problem with NCLB is that it is faulty. If he or the next pres. would like to try again with something different, thats cool by me but its NCLB that is the prolem, IMO, not the government trying to help out.

Government can be there to help those that need it. Yes, it can be abused especially when we keep cutting taxes while running a credit card debt that is staggering and growing and leave us unprepared and vulnerable to any sort of catastrophe both in ability to respond and economically.

[QuikSand]

I'm pretty much with Cam here. I really don't think this is a bad policy, but I would much rather have it come from the elected school boards than from the top down as a statewide edict. I also fail to see how this is a matter of personal liberties at all.
Sure, older children are capable of making their own choices regarding nutrition - but there's no particular reason why public schools must have contracts with junk food vendors and offer those items on school grounds.

I think the esoteric debate about the hypothetical community without leaders is best left to the dustbins of academia. You simply have to embrace the idea that a community, even a small one, can take care of itself -- or else you end up putting big government in charge of everything, and I really don't think that's the logical conclusion we're looking for.

The notion that this is an "option" for local school districts is also absurd on any practical level. The California state constitution guarantees public education, it is an absolute mandate -- without the state contributions, it would be virtually impossible for nearly any jurisdiction to provider this in a constitutionally viable manner without smothering taxation. You can call it an "option," and say all's fair since the state puts up the dough -- but I think in principle the decision-making is best made at the local level, and the state's best rol is to help provide the added means that the locals use to reach their collective goals (proper facilities, quality education, good outcomes for students).