OT: More wacky school admin

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=desmond]Jolly Rancher, next the kid is popping Mentos, then the advance to chocolate, probably starts with a Hershey bar, then all the way to a Snickers, I have seen it before.[/quote]

Nutella…

The creamy smooth meth of the junk food world…

Knew a girl that would kill you if you got between her and Nutella… She even had a special spoon for it just like a herion addict…

CE[/quote]

You say that like there’s something wrong with this type of behavior.

Keep in mind that a jar of Nutella has saved many a man’s sorry ass when his mate’s hormone levels were in flux. Next time you run across someone like that, it might be in your interest to go down to Tiffany and surprise her with a silver Nutella spoon.

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
I’m for freedom of choice with a guiding government hand to assure welfare and safety.[/quote]

“You can’t eat candy” is not freedom of choice. You seem to make that mistake a lot.[/quote]
Of course you know that conservative Supreme Court has basically said that students do NOT have freedoms that are supposedly promised in the Constitution. From random drug testing for any extra-curricular sport, denying fourth amendment rights to cutting facial hair, schools are almost a prison state with their own rules. The Court needs to expand those rules for caning gang members, disruptive students, etc.

I’m sure you all know that school districts in Texas may enforce rules on facial hair as long as they don’t interfere with students’ religious beliefs. That means you can’t have long hair or grow a moustache. Even bogus religious reasons are routinely denied.

You don’t need to move to Singapore or send kids to Jewish schools with Mossad trained substitute teachers to find discipline in schools, just move to Texas public school district.
That’s how they kept hippies from ruining Texas!! I’m sure there is research that shows direct correlation between grooming standards and high tests in Texas and low crime rates.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/122807dnmetmustacheboy.1c81a01.html

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/06/texas-school-district-has-no.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
I’m for freedom of choice with a guiding government hand to assure welfare and safety.[/quote]

“You can’t eat candy” is not freedom of choice. You seem to make that mistake a lot.[/quote]
Of course you know that conservative Supreme Court has basically said that students do NOT have freedoms that are supposedly promised in the Constitution. From random drug testing for any extra-curricular sport, denying fourth amendment rights to cutting facial hair, schools are almost a prison state with their own rules. The Court needs to expand those rules for caning gang members, disruptive students, etc.

I’m sure you all know that school districts in Texas may enforce rules on facial hair as long as they don’t interfere with students’ religious beliefs. That means you can’t have long hair or grow a moustache. Even bogus religious reasons are routinely denied.

You don’t need to move to Singapore or send kids to Jewish schools with Mossad trained substitute teachers to find discipline in schools, just move to Texas public school district.
That’s how they kept hippies from ruining Texas!! I’m sure there is research that shows direct correlation between grooming standards and high tests in Texas and low crime rates.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/122807dnmetmustacheboy.1c81a01.html

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/06/texas-school-district-has-no.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
I’m for freedom of choice with a guiding government hand to assure welfare and safety.[/quote]

“You can’t eat candy” is not freedom of choice. You seem to make that mistake a lot.[/quote]
Of course you know that conservative Supreme Court has basically said that students do NOT have freedoms that are supposedly promised in the Constitution. From random drug testing for any extra-curricular sport, denying fourth amendment rights to cutting facial hair, schools are almost a prison state with their own rules. The Court needs to expand those rules for caning gang members, disruptive students, etc.

I’m sure you all know that school districts in Texas may enforce rules on facial hair as long as they don’t interfere with students’ religious beliefs. That means you can’t have long hair or grow a moustache. Even bogus religious reasons are routinely denied.

You don’t need to move to Singapore or send kids to Jewish schools with Mossad trained substitute teachers to find discipline in schools, just move to Texas public school district.
That’s how they kept hippies from ruining Texas!! I’m sure there is research that shows direct correlation between grooming standards and high tests in Texas and low crime rates.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/122807dnmetmustacheboy.1c81a01.html

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/06/texas-school-district-has-no.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
I’m for freedom of choice with a guiding government hand to assure welfare and safety.[/quote]

“You can’t eat candy” is not freedom of choice. You seem to make that mistake a lot.[/quote]
Of course you know that conservative Supreme Court has basically said that students do NOT have freedoms that are supposedly promised in the Constitution. From random drug testing for any extra-curricular sport, denying fourth amendment rights to cutting facial hair, schools are almost a prison state with their own rules. The Court needs to expand those rules for caning gang members, disruptive students, etc.

I’m sure you all know that school districts in Texas may enforce rules on facial hair as long as they don’t interfere with students’ religious beliefs. That means you can’t have long hair or grow a moustache. Even bogus religious reasons are routinely denied.

You don’t need to move to Singapore or send kids to Jewish schools with Mossad trained substitute teachers to find discipline in schools, just move to Texas public school district.
That’s how they kept hippies from ruining Texas!! I’m sure there is research that shows direct correlation between grooming standards and high tests in Texas and low crime rates.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/122807dnmetmustacheboy.1c81a01.html

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/06/texas-school-district-has-no.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]
I’m for freedom of choice with a guiding government hand to assure welfare and safety.[/quote]

“You can’t eat candy” is not freedom of choice. You seem to make that mistake a lot.[/quote]
Of course you know that conservative Supreme Court has basically said that students do NOT have freedoms that are supposedly promised in the Constitution. From random drug testing for any extra-curricular sport, denying fourth amendment rights to cutting facial hair, schools are almost a prison state with their own rules. The Court needs to expand those rules for caning gang members, disruptive students, etc.

I’m sure you all know that school districts in Texas may enforce rules on facial hair as long as they don’t interfere with students’ religious beliefs. That means you can’t have long hair or grow a moustache. Even bogus religious reasons are routinely denied.

You don’t need to move to Singapore or send kids to Jewish schools with Mossad trained substitute teachers to find discipline in schools, just move to Texas public school district.
That’s how they kept hippies from ruining Texas!! I’m sure there is research that shows direct correlation between grooming standards and high tests in Texas and low crime rates.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/122807dnmetmustacheboy.1c81a01.html

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/06/texas-school-district-has-no.html

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]You can eat candy after school is freedom of choice.

If you educate kids, they know what is good for them. My 6 year old niece doesn’t eat McDonald. She knows it’s not good for her. In fact she thinks it’s poison. How does she know? Adults told her.[/quote]

Those adults were likely her parents…not employees of the state. There is a difference you know.

It’s funny that I just finished rereading Animal Farm…you seem to have a lot in common with the pigs in that book.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]You can eat candy after school is freedom of choice.

If you educate kids, they know what is good for them. My 6 year old niece doesn’t eat McDonald. She knows it’s not good for her. In fact she thinks it’s poison. How does she know? Adults told her.[/quote]

Those adults were likely her parents…not employees of the state. There is a difference you know.

It’s funny that I just finished rereading Animal Farm…you seem to have a lot in common with the pigs in that book.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]You can eat candy after school is freedom of choice.

If you educate kids, they know what is good for them. My 6 year old niece doesn’t eat McDonald. She knows it’s not good for her. In fact she thinks it’s poison. How does she know? Adults told her.[/quote]

Those adults were likely her parents…not employees of the state. There is a difference you know.

It’s funny that I just finished rereading Animal Farm…you seem to have a lot in common with the pigs in that book.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]You can eat candy after school is freedom of choice.

If you educate kids, they know what is good for them. My 6 year old niece doesn’t eat McDonald. She knows it’s not good for her. In fact she thinks it’s poison. How does she know? Adults told her.[/quote]

Those adults were likely her parents…not employees of the state. There is a difference you know.

It’s funny that I just finished rereading Animal Farm…you seem to have a lot in common with the pigs in that book.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]You can eat candy after school is freedom of choice.

If you educate kids, they know what is good for them. My 6 year old niece doesn’t eat McDonald. She knows it’s not good for her. In fact she thinks it’s poison. How does she know? Adults told her.[/quote]

Those adults were likely her parents…not employees of the state. There is a difference you know.

It’s funny that I just finished rereading Animal Farm…you seem to have a lot in common with the pigs in that book.

[CA renter]

[quote=eavesdropper]
CA renter, you’re absolutely correct: there are many overweight (labeled) people out there that are healthier than their slender fellow citizens. There’s a lot of individual-specific factors, aside from weight, that go into the equation for good health and longevity: heredity, emotional health, relationship status, environment, mental attitude, etc. However, there is an abundance of empirical data that clearly indicates the causal relationship between morbid obesity and health risk. Don’t quote me, but I believe that the jury is still out on many cancers. But morbid and super obesity very often results in chronic diseases and disorders such as heart disease, diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension/stroke, and musculoskeletal pain and disability. These are difficult to treat, and have an extremely low rate of cure in the absence of weight loss. The cost to society, to the patient’s family, and to the patient is extremely high, in terms of health care delivery, strain on relationships, and lost or reduced work hours and capabilities.

On the opposite extreme, I think that scientists and researchers are fully aware of the extraordinary health risks posed by eating disorders. However, I think that this information has not been completely disseminated throughout the medical care provider community. This is not unusual: practitioners are typically so busy handling their patient load that they are unable to keep up with advances and discoveries in biomedical research. Add the cultural predisposition against obese people, and – you got it – a lot of unhealthy skinny people flying under the radar.

I’m not in favor of the government monitoring of people’s flawed eating habits; I’d be much happier if they would make it easier for people to get regular exercise. But I’m not necessarily against public information campaigns and taxes on zero-nutrition foods (to be earmarked for covering excessive obesity-related health costs). It seemed to help with smoking: many fewer tobacco-related diseases and deaths, with concomittantly lowered health costs.

I think they need to stay away from the ad agency that did the Hidden Valley Ranch salad dressing ads, though. Every time I see kids choosing raw vegetables over ice cream, I practically split a gut laughing. Possibly explained by my experiences raising four kids of my own.[/quote]

Yes, absolutely right.

There is no doubt that **obesity** is very unhealthy.

I like to give Brian grief though because he’s said that Michelle Obama is “fat” while Angelina Jolie is the picture of good health. Personally, I think it’s reversed.

Just trying to point out that size alone is not necessarily indicative of a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. Severe “anything” is almost always unhealthy, though. No disagreement there.

[CA renter]

[quote=eavesdropper]
CA renter, you’re absolutely correct: there are many overweight (labeled) people out there that are healthier than their slender fellow citizens. There’s a lot of individual-specific factors, aside from weight, that go into the equation for good health and longevity: heredity, emotional health, relationship status, environment, mental attitude, etc. However, there is an abundance of empirical data that clearly indicates the causal relationship between morbid obesity and health risk. Don’t quote me, but I believe that the jury is still out on many cancers. But morbid and super obesity very often results in chronic diseases and disorders such as heart disease, diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension/stroke, and musculoskeletal pain and disability. These are difficult to treat, and have an extremely low rate of cure in the absence of weight loss. The cost to society, to the patient’s family, and to the patient is extremely high, in terms of health care delivery, strain on relationships, and lost or reduced work hours and capabilities.

On the opposite extreme, I think that scientists and researchers are fully aware of the extraordinary health risks posed by eating disorders. However, I think that this information has not been completely disseminated throughout the medical care provider community. This is not unusual: practitioners are typically so busy handling their patient load that they are unable to keep up with advances and discoveries in biomedical research. Add the cultural predisposition against obese people, and – you got it – a lot of unhealthy skinny people flying under the radar.

I’m not in favor of the government monitoring of people’s flawed eating habits; I’d be much happier if they would make it easier for people to get regular exercise. But I’m not necessarily against public information campaigns and taxes on zero-nutrition foods (to be earmarked for covering excessive obesity-related health costs). It seemed to help with smoking: many fewer tobacco-related diseases and deaths, with concomittantly lowered health costs.

I think they need to stay away from the ad agency that did the Hidden Valley Ranch salad dressing ads, though. Every time I see kids choosing raw vegetables over ice cream, I practically split a gut laughing. Possibly explained by my experiences raising four kids of my own.[/quote]

Yes, absolutely right.

There is no doubt that **obesity** is very unhealthy.

I like to give Brian grief though because he’s said that Michelle Obama is “fat” while Angelina Jolie is the picture of good health. Personally, I think it’s reversed.

Just trying to point out that size alone is not necessarily indicative of a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. Severe “anything” is almost always unhealthy, though. No disagreement there.

[CA renter]

[quote=eavesdropper]
CA renter, you’re absolutely correct: there are many overweight (labeled) people out there that are healthier than their slender fellow citizens. There’s a lot of individual-specific factors, aside from weight, that go into the equation for good health and longevity: heredity, emotional health, relationship status, environment, mental attitude, etc. However, there is an abundance of empirical data that clearly indicates the causal relationship between morbid obesity and health risk. Don’t quote me, but I believe that the jury is still out on many cancers. But morbid and super obesity very often results in chronic diseases and disorders such as heart disease, diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension/stroke, and musculoskeletal pain and disability. These are difficult to treat, and have an extremely low rate of cure in the absence of weight loss. The cost to society, to the patient’s family, and to the patient is extremely high, in terms of health care delivery, strain on relationships, and lost or reduced work hours and capabilities.

On the opposite extreme, I think that scientists and researchers are fully aware of the extraordinary health risks posed by eating disorders. However, I think that this information has not been completely disseminated throughout the medical care provider community. This is not unusual: practitioners are typically so busy handling their patient load that they are unable to keep up with advances and discoveries in biomedical research. Add the cultural predisposition against obese people, and – you got it – a lot of unhealthy skinny people flying under the radar.

I’m not in favor of the government monitoring of people’s flawed eating habits; I’d be much happier if they would make it easier for people to get regular exercise. But I’m not necessarily against public information campaigns and taxes on zero-nutrition foods (to be earmarked for covering excessive obesity-related health costs). It seemed to help with smoking: many fewer tobacco-related diseases and deaths, with concomittantly lowered health costs.

I think they need to stay away from the ad agency that did the Hidden Valley Ranch salad dressing ads, though. Every time I see kids choosing raw vegetables over ice cream, I practically split a gut laughing. Possibly explained by my experiences raising four kids of my own.[/quote]

Yes, absolutely right.

There is no doubt that **obesity** is very unhealthy.

I like to give Brian grief though because he’s said that Michelle Obama is “fat” while Angelina Jolie is the picture of good health. Personally, I think it’s reversed.

Just trying to point out that size alone is not necessarily indicative of a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. Severe “anything” is almost always unhealthy, though. No disagreement there.

[CA renter]

[quote=eavesdropper]
CA renter, you’re absolutely correct: there are many overweight (labeled) people out there that are healthier than their slender fellow citizens. There’s a lot of individual-specific factors, aside from weight, that go into the equation for good health and longevity: heredity, emotional health, relationship status, environment, mental attitude, etc. However, there is an abundance of empirical data that clearly indicates the causal relationship between morbid obesity and health risk. Don’t quote me, but I believe that the jury is still out on many cancers. But morbid and super obesity very often results in chronic diseases and disorders such as heart disease, diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension/stroke, and musculoskeletal pain and disability. These are difficult to treat, and have an extremely low rate of cure in the absence of weight loss. The cost to society, to the patient’s family, and to the patient is extremely high, in terms of health care delivery, strain on relationships, and lost or reduced work hours and capabilities.

On the opposite extreme, I think that scientists and researchers are fully aware of the extraordinary health risks posed by eating disorders. However, I think that this information has not been completely disseminated throughout the medical care provider community. This is not unusual: practitioners are typically so busy handling their patient load that they are unable to keep up with advances and discoveries in biomedical research. Add the cultural predisposition against obese people, and – you got it – a lot of unhealthy skinny people flying under the radar.

I’m not in favor of the government monitoring of people’s flawed eating habits; I’d be much happier if they would make it easier for people to get regular exercise. But I’m not necessarily against public information campaigns and taxes on zero-nutrition foods (to be earmarked for covering excessive obesity-related health costs). It seemed to help with smoking: many fewer tobacco-related diseases and deaths, with concomittantly lowered health costs.

I think they need to stay away from the ad agency that did the Hidden Valley Ranch salad dressing ads, though. Every time I see kids choosing raw vegetables over ice cream, I practically split a gut laughing. Possibly explained by my experiences raising four kids of my own.[/quote]

Yes, absolutely right.

There is no doubt that **obesity** is very unhealthy.

I like to give Brian grief though because he’s said that Michelle Obama is “fat” while Angelina Jolie is the picture of good health. Personally, I think it’s reversed.

Just trying to point out that size alone is not necessarily indicative of a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. Severe “anything” is almost always unhealthy, though. No disagreement there.

[Author]

Posts