Thursday, June 10, 2004

Taking Candy From Pupils? School Vending Bill Says Yes. The State Assembly has passed a bill that would severely limit what could be sold in school vending machines. By Marc Santora. [New York Times: Education] OK, one more for this morning - I almost fell out of my chair when I read this.  Like so many areas of late, there must be something in the drinking water in Albany, NY.  This is the next line of the article: After a spirited debate during which feeding candy to schoolchildren was equated with giving them pornography and drugs, the State Assembly overwhelmingly passed a bill that would severely limit what could be sold in school vending machines. Now, don't get me wrong, I am very much against vending machines in schools.  I don't think they are adding anything (other than revenue) to the value of the school day (and if the schools need money that badly, why isn't there a more concerted effort by the politicians to fund them, rather than waste time banning vending machines?  But I digress).  But this is only part of my argument (which is long standing).  The argument is:  if our children are getting fat (like a large majority of the rest of us) what can we do?  If you read the news on a regular basis, you will have noted the following: 1) Money for physical education classes is drying up.  Either because it is to "dangerous" or "belittling" for the students or the school system. 2) Money for after school athletic programs is drying up because of the liability insurance schools need to carry. 3) If you live 500 yards from a school, you can expect a ride (either by bus or personal vehicle). 4) No one plays outside any more. Now, one and two are victims of a couple of "social" changes over the past 20 or so years.  The "fat kids" in school are now in positions of authority and don't want to see children "victimized" as they were in school.  So, no dodge ball, no running around the track, no exposure to forms of exercise.  As a result, the chance for getting a little workout during the day is diminished for those children that need it most.  Let's face it, the school athletes are NOT the ones that are benefiting from phys. ed. classes by and large.  The other side of the coin is that there is a greater emphasis placed on learning (a la No Child Left Behind) which doesn't leave a lot of room for "fluff" courses like music, history, geography or phys. ed.  The issue of liability is something we are all stuck with.  There is a joke email floating around that says that none of us over 30 should be alive today.  It cites things such as our playgrounds were mounted on asphalt (mine sure was), or we used to climb trees, or ride bicycles without helmets.  Now while I think that riding a bicycle with a helmet is a good thing, there are some things that need a good slap about the head and some dose of reality applied.  If you let your child play soccer or football and they get injured, it is the nature of the sport.  It does not mean the school system is liable for their medical coverage or the loss of their potential future carrier as a pro player. Three and four get my goat.  I live in a development that backs onto an elementary school.  Between my house and the school, there is a paved path, maybe 500 yards long that winds down to a creek and back up to the school.  There are no less than 3 bus stops for the children (including one across the street from my house) to shuttle them to school - a distance of about a mile if you have to drive it.  Elapsed time from walking is 10 minutes.  It takes about 7 to drive if you are unlucky.  And the PARENTS stand and talk with each other for up to 15 minutes before the bus arrives waiting with their children!  In that time, they could have escorted them to school and been back home again!  Tell me again it is too much television?  I call it laziness. Again, I live in a development that has a fair number of children.  Growing up, I lived across the street from my elementary school.  We would play there sometimes, but other times, we would just play in the neighbourhood.  Not so now a-days.  On any given day, you can step outside and hear nothing but silence.  During the summer it is even quieter.  And we wonder why our children (and ourselves) are overweight?  Really?   7:18:24 AM    comment []

Athens Games' TV Coverage 3 Times Longer Than in 2000. NBC Universal Sports will televise 1,210 hours of Olympic coverage from Athens in August over six networks and in high definition. By Richard Sandomir. [New York Times: Sports] Is it that time already?  I thought they were still building the stadium in Athens.  Anyway, is anyone really looking forward to the Olympics this year?  Besides the athletes and their immediate families that is?  I don't mean to take anything away from their hard work and determination - I used to strive to that goal as well (although I really was never going to make it past local competition) and I used to look forward to the Olympic games.  But after the winter games, I just cannot get excited.  It may have something to do with all the prepackaging.  I don't care about the biographies, or the behind the scenes looks or the quaint travelogs.  I want to see the events.  I may not want to sit through all the heats, but I might want to watch them without the second guessing and splicing and editing, and I sure get tired of the talking heads. Give me a schedule of events, without the network debris and I might get excited about the upcoming Olympics - otherwise, I will be watching baseball. 6:45:31 AM    comment []

For Bush, a good week. Between Iraq, the summit, and Reagan's passing, Kerry has been effectively sidelined. [Christian Science Monitor | Top Stories]. I think this falls under the "spin" cycle.  If this has been a good week for President Bush, then he is in serious trouble in November.  Let's review: 1) Gas Prices: Still high and forcing the Chair of the Federal Reserve to consider RAISING interest rates to prevent inflation from kicking in (which it has in some areas, especially where transportation costs are a major factor in the cost of goods - have you bought a quart of milk lately?). 2) Jobs: Yes, there were some 20,000 jobs added to the economy, but they seem to have stopped reporting the number of jobs lost, as well as the huge number of unreported unemployed who have dropped off the backside of the equation (if you cannot apply for unemployment because you have run out of benefits, how do they count you?). 3) Iraq/Afghanistan: Forget there are still hundreds of thousands of US troops abroad being shot at daily?  How about that the Department of Defense has said that anyone scheduled for Iraq isn't getting out anytime soon?  Then there are those on their second and third (involuntary) hitches.  And none seem to be destined to return to the United States anytime soon, regardless of the proposed transfer of power next month. 4) Ashcroft: Perhaps you missed the memo, the Congress certainly did, that AG Ashcroft wrote saying torture, in some form, is perfectly legal.  I was under the mistaken idea that the reason the United States invaded not one, but two countries was to liberate them from just that sort of thing.  Silly me. Now Kerry is no great shakes - he has presented little in the way of real ideas or even a plan for moving things in a better? different? direction that actually stands a chance of working.  To be quite honest, I have seen little in the last few weeks about the presidential campaign that gives me ANY hope that either party has a clue what it would do if it were in power.  But then, the best and the brightest know that there is little for them if they run for elected office, so why should we expect it?   6:32:13 AM    comment []