Smart kids
July 1st, 2008 at 11:16 am by David FarrarThe kids at Wellington High School are showing some good sense in responding to their first brush with Nanny State and the tuck shop. Effects have been:
- The school’s cafe operator has thrown in the towel, saying she could not turn a profit under the Education Ministry’s new healthy eating regime
- a group fundraising for a Japanese trip has seized on the opportunity by setting up a daily sausage sizzle and baking stall
- The Dominion Post watched yesterday as a stream of pupils headed to the nearby Wallace St shop for mince pies, chippies and fizzy drinks.
One also has to praise the principal’s attitude:
Principal Prue Kelly was relaxed about the week-long sausage sizzle, saying she hoped pupils would support the fundraising effort. Asked if the new culinary option met the ministry’s healthy eating guidelines, she said: “Who knows? It’s how we’re coping with the problem today.
“I think they’re using brown bread instead of white.
“They look like pretty good sausages to me. In fact I might get one.”
Good on her.
The Government is as usual missing the point. The problem isn’t kids having a sausage occasionally, but if they are having that for lunch everyday. But rather than concentrate on having a varied diet, instead they are purging tuck shops of any food they do not approve of. It will get worse if the Public Health Bill is passed into law.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Those who abuse our children by supplying them with obesity-inducing foodstuffs should be prosecuted. That is the only way to deal with obesity.
Lee ‘sausage-fingers’ C
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Lee C You are much too lienient IMHO they should be hung drawn and quartered and their 4 parts buried in the four furtherest parts of the land.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 11:54 am
McDonalds next to Wellington Boys College has never had it so good!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Good on you, kids!
FIGHT for your RIGHT to grow up into fat bastards!!!
Don’t let those DIRTY SOCIALISTS keep you from your daily grease fix. You’ve earned it.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I don’t see why anyone should expect schools to be enablers of poor food choices by kids.
Next we’ll be told 18yo students should be sold smokes in the school tuck shop. After all, they just cross the road and buy them anyway. Maybe we should open a TAB next to the new liquor store (18+ only) by the pie cart in the school hall.
But we force these children to wear uniforms or they can’t go to school at all.
Hypocrisy to the max.
This Crosby/ Textor “nanny-state” BS sands out like dogs balls once you’re aware of the strokes being pulled.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“I don’t see why anyone should expect schools to be enablers of poor food choices by kids. ”
Yeah, you can always have a choice under totalitarian socialism- the socialist choice.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The big picture is that kids in the main get fat because they are victims of socialist culture. End of story.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Srteve Whiters said: “I don’t see why anyone should expect schools to be enablers of poor food choices by kids.”
Who are you to keep intruding in others’ lives? Who gave you that mandate?
Stop being a do-gooder and leave others alone.
Neither me nor my children need sanctimonious Green crap telling me what to eat.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
wrong again there ratty..
the obesity timeline confirms the concurrance with the rise of mass-marketed junkfood..
the other big enabler of inaction..the motor car..did not herald obesity..
..it was the rise of crap food/drink that did it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Stop being a do-gooder and let live.”
The trouble is not only that they’re interfering, but also that the outcomes of their schemes are always negative. They think they’re doing good (its all part of the sick deranged liberal mindset- there’s lots of books out there that address it) but it always turns out bad. There’s lots of information out there too to show that government intervention is always a mistake. The left just won’t listen. Their sick mental state doesn’t allow them to.
Excerpt from Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter’s book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness”.
Quote
Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.
What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice.
Unquote
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
that’s the way man-o-lo..you just pig out on whatever you want..
we’ll let natural selection take care of the rest..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Redurbater: “The big picture is that kids in the main get fat because they are victims of socialist culture. End of story.”
Wow, and all along I thought it was a fatty diet combined with not enough exercise that did it. Truly Helen’s evil knows no bounds…
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
whaddayamean..?..’unquote’..?
that was you wasn’t it..?..ratty..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
It would be a utopian wet dream for this government if our society turns into one similar to that depicted in the movie “Demolition Man”
Vote:You know, when all things deemed to be “bad for you” are illegal and people in the underground console themselves by eating contraband such as hamburgers and beer.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
If we’re concerned at obesity, then look no further than the Ms State.
She’s been spending the family inheritance gorging trays of taxburgers three times a day, for nearly nine years now. No sign of work or wealth generation, instead she’s been on the couch eating and playing social videogames while the house falls into disrepair.
The doctor calls for a change in diet, some slimming up and a bit of work related, wealth generating exercise. Now’s good, but November as a last resort.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“Wow, and all along I thought”
Yeah, but what you think you poor dispirited unintelligent bottom feeder is always wrong. The reason kids get fat is lack of parenting and lack of self control and lack of discipline, all the usual widespread and destructive outcomes of the national mindset that develops under socialism.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
face it ratty..!..you’re a table-leg/carpet-chewing raving nutjob/bar..eh..?
..past cartoonish..and veering into deep dementia..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The best way to make a kid want something is to tell them they can’t have it. But then Clark wouldn’t know that would she?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Hi manolo: How you doing? Where are you these days? It’s been a while since IBM. Hope all is well with you.
As for forcing tax-funded schools to sell rubbish to kids, you are free to pack your kids all the rubbish you like for lunch and send them off to school with it. I have no problem with that.But please do not impose your poor choices on other kids at that school by making schools sell rubbish. If you want your kids to eat rubbish, you know what to do. Your “freedom” remains unaltered and uninhibited.
Perhaps you could send your kids to a private school where they can buy any crud they like and the taxpayer isn’t subsidising your poor food choices by providing access and facilities supporting them.
Isn’t it fun how we can paint anyone as coercive?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Phil, talking of dementia, why would you believe I give a flying fuck what opinion a lying smearing loser like you might hold on myself or anything?? You’re just not as important as you think you are you pompous small minded bludging fuckwit.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Redurbater – so are you one of these people that blames “the system” for all of his problems now?
Perhaps if you got out and actually *made a life* for yourself instead of sitting on your tuff writing these nasty hating little blog comments all day, every day, you would learn to
(a) like people, and
(b) see life for the wonderful thing it is, and
(c) stop blaming “the gummint” or “the system” for all of the bewildering things that you think are somehow being done TO you!
Alternatively, stop blog commenting about politics and ACTUALLY PUT YOURSELF AND YOUR POLITICAL IDEAS OUT THERE FOR ELECTION and do something to right all of these supposed hideous wrongs!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
first time caller: Then: “You can’t have free speech!” Now: (Will they EVER shut up?)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“But please do not impose your poor choices on other kids at that school by making schools sell rubbish.”
A lie. Nobody holds a gun at anyones head and forces them to buy any kind of food. Except the socialists that is, whose ultimate objective is the gradual removal of any choice that doesn’t concur with their own.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
If you give kids a selection of foods, from “eat least” to “eat most”, in the hopes that they will, throughout the week, purchase a healthy varied diet, you will simply see them buying sugary and greasy snacks for lunch every day, ignoring the healthier stuff. Does anyone disagree?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“Redurbater”
?????
Go away you patronising knuckle dragger, you’re just a dumbfuck who knows nothing. I need advice from losers like you like I need to put a bullet in my right temple. If you can’t post something relative to the thread, go and seek the attention you crave somewhere else. (Curious that I am always stalked by the same kind of psychotic narcissitic attention seeking dumbfucks)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
onelawforall: I see your ‘reductio ad absurdum’ re: “Demolition man” and raise you:
Next we’ll be told 18yo students should be sold smokes in the school tuck shop. After all, they just cross the road and buy them anyway. Maybe we should open a TAB next to the new liquor store (18+ only) by the pie cart in the school hall.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Free speech is another thread all together…EFA is all I’ve got to say about that.
But honestly, telling a kid what they can and can’t eat for 5 hours a day is just bloody ludicrous.
There was once some research done, (can’t be specific sorry) Where the bowl of fruit was hidden in the cupboard, and the jar of lollies was freely available on the table. After a very short space of time the fruit was considered the treat and desirable to kids, and the lollies lost their appeal. Must try it for myself!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Philu, I would be wary of natural selection. I have a cousin who has been a habitual cannabis user for 30 years+
Vote:Needless to say, with few teeth and diminished cognitive functions and health, he could perhaps serve as a warning to you (hopefully not too late)
Ohh, BTW I hope you don’t feel the urge to indulge in any evil multinational fast food after herbal brainstorming sessions.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Sproull,
and so what? What business of it is yours what someone elses kids eat at school. if you don;t want your kids to eat junk food, don;t let them! and leave other parents to make the decisions themselves.
tuck shops sell what people want, they are not made to buy pies, if there was demand for filled rolls people would buy them.
when i was at college there was always plenty of choice for a sandwich, filled roll etc, but everyone bought a pie or a hotdog becuase they wanted to, and them most of them went and burned it off playing scrag or just being teenagers.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
It’s people like Steve Withers that makes me wonder why NZ doesn’t just give up. Declare Helen Clark dictator and accept that you will need to ask the Overmind when you are allowed to do anything in your personal life.
I can see it now.
A daily delivery of the government approved foods to our homes.
A daily delivery of the news and events the government approves for us to read of.
People assigned to jobs that best suit their skills for standardized pay rates.
Five year plans.
You know how it goes. Those type of experiments have been tried and have failed miserably. Steve, I’ll make it simple for you. If a school tuck shop offers a variety of foods, people have a choice. There is no enforcement. If you must stick your meddling legislation in there legislate that they MUST carry healthy options. Do not legislate that they must REMOVE something.
But no, it would seem you’re more comfortable with gradually allowing the government to take more and more of your decision making away from you. More power to you if you want to always roll over and accept the government’s interference in your life.
But how about you and your government stay the fuck out of mine, eh?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Ryan Sproull: Not all kids make unhealthy food choices. Some clearly do. It doesn’t pay to generalise, especially when the issue has become a political football and disconnected from anything resembling credible research or a fact. Until recently, many / most schools ONLY sold rubbish. Maybe that’s why kids have such a taste for it……it’s what they are used to. That isn’t a good reason to not offer other, better choices.
If you’re looking for stalinist compulsion combined with draconian punishment, look at school uniforms.
We force kids to wear outrageously expensive uniforms they can only buy via the school or a shop acting as an agent.
The uniforms come complete with (expensive) stitched school crests on every item so you can’ substitute cheaper alternative shirts or jerseys or trousers.
If you fail to comply, your children are sent home and denied an education altogether.
If you’re looking for outrageous coercion and restriction of choice, you can’t do much better than that.
Not selling chippies they can cross the street to buy don’t even rate on the “Force-o-meter” compared to the institutional Stalinist compulsion surrounding uniforms.
Is National opposed to school uniforms as a tax on parents and a gross imposition on parent and child choice? When they are, I’ll believe the propaganda about “freedom” and “choice”.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
OTOH, it is a pity that more school principals, as “chief shareholders” (or whatever) of their schools’ tuck shops, don’t exercise their free will (their sacred, sacred free will) and decide “well MY tuck shop is only going to stock the following healthy food items” thus diminishing a perceived need for any proposed government regulations of the sort that the kiwiblog right don’t like!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Pascal – Everything’s a slippery slope isn’t it?
There are no honest small, immediate little objectives with straightforward transparent and HARMLESS little benefits that the government would want to bring, are there? It’s always the insidious beginnings of their scheme for world domination isn’t it?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
RRM: Public schools are taxpayer funded. The Principal doesn’t own them and has no such property “right” as you suggest .The introduction of healthier foods into schools is, broadly, a reasonable and appropriate response to parental requests that schools not undermine the good food choices that responsible parents are encouraging their children to make.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Steve,
I agree, and am very much opposed to the psychological effects of school uniforms, in addition to the financial impact on parents. I remember they were always justified to me because without them, school would become some kind of fashion competition, with kids who can’t afford nice clothes feeling shitty about it. I think that’s a risk worth taking.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
The principal is obliged to run “his” (or her) school within the year’s funding allocations though, and report to the board at the end of the year. So I would have thought that for this sort of model to function there would have to be a certain amount of leeway for operational matters to be dealt with by principals…?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Sproull,
and so what? What business of it is yours what someone elses kids eat at school. if you don;t want your kids to eat junk food, don;t let them! and leave other parents to make the decisions themselves.
tuck shops sell what people want, they are not made to buy pies, if there was demand for filled rolls people would buy them.
May I ask if you would object, and what your objection would be, to the cafeterias selling cigarettes to 18-year-old students, assuming there was a demand for them?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Except the socialists that is, whose ultimate objective is the gradual removal of any choice that doesn’t concur with their own.
Wrong Redbaiter, the only objective of socialists is to enjoy the baubles of office… witness Helen
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“..Ohh, BTW I hope you don’t feel the urge to indulge in any evil multinational fast food after herbal brainstorming sessions..”
not me buddy..!..i’m a vegan sorta guy..
..and just on this school lunch thing..
..i’ve attempted to be reasonably concientious in the raising of the nipper..
..and to those ends…he has never had a school tuck shop lunch..that word again..’never’..
(i usually give him avocado sandwichs/fruit + ‘decadent treat’..(some black/vegan chocolate/biscuits..)
he is 13..over six feet..and he hopped on one of those wii fiit things the other day..and was assesed as ‘perfect’..
so…?
and as for ‘let them choose..!..bullshit..!
the boy would have coco-pops for breakfast…if it was down to him..
..i foist a nut/fruit-laden cereal/porridge on him..
(purely ‘anecdotal’..i know..!..but..y’know..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Philu,
I believe their point is that, as your son’s parent, that’s your call to make, and you made it. But how other parents decide for their kids should not be up to anyone but them.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“the boy would have coco-pops for breakfast…if it was down to him..”
Obviously a chip off the old block- completely lacking in common sense, taste, self discipline and will power.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Ryan;
But wouldn’t you be even a tiny bit critical of a parent who endorsed their 16yo daughter entering the – entirely legal – business of prostitution?
Or, if the parent’s right to absolute freedom in raising their child is all that, then why do we tolerate compulsory schooling?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Kiwi kids got more brains than the bureaucratic inertia that fails them !
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
no ryan..i think the point is that if you have a choice of exposing children..away from their parents..to healthy food..or junk food..
..they should be given healthy food..
..if people like man-o-lo want to try and guarantee their children bad diets/health problems..i would even debate that is not his choice to make..
..that he is poisoning his children..by encouraging them to eat a crap diet..
..and is infringing on their rights to suitable care..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
You lefty lying twits are poisoning our children phil, with your absurdity and lack of common sense . Get a job !
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Yeah Phil – and with all that healthy food! I don’t know how you can sleep at night…
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
dad…did you take those meds when i told you to..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
As an act of solidarity with the jetset freedom fighters of Wellington High School, I’m off out for a pie.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I also love Mr DPF’s “One also has to praise the principal’s attitude”
Yes, good on her for recognizing that, healthy food for kids or not, liberty and a free market are what *really* matters
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
But wouldn’t you be even a tiny bit critical of a parent who endorsed their 16yo daughter entering the – entirely legal – business of prostitution?
I would be entirely critical of a parent endorsing their 16-year-old daughter entering the legal business of prostitution. It is one item on a long list of things for which I would be critical of a parent. But there is a difference between criticising and restricting. If the force of the state was used to impose on people all the many things I personally think are right and good, and prevent those things I think are bad, there would be no end to it, as I’m terribly opinionated.
Or, if the parent’s right to absolute freedom in raising their child is all that, then why do we tolerate compulsory schooling?
That’s an interesting analogy. What would you say the reasons for compulsory schooling are?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
um..!..because they are children..ryan..and need ‘guidance’..maybe..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
But if you criticise certain parental decisions/actions because you believe they really are wrong, but do nothing about stopping them it, what is achieved – other than a bit of hot air being diffused in a happy academic environment?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Ryan Sproull: The school isn’t restricting you from sending your kids to school with rubbish to eat. They just aren’t helping you feed the kids rubbish. Your freedom is not being violated. You are not restricted.
At the same time, the school and other parents aren’t having your poor choices imposed on them, violating their freedom.
What about denying kids an education if they don’t wear a uniform imposed by a Stalinist monopoly charging outrageous prices?
Maybe this will give you some insight into why it is useful to considers points of view other than your own.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Ryan Sproull: The school isn’t restricting you from sending your kids to school with rubbish to eat. They just aren’t helping you feed the kids rubbish. Your freedom is not being violated. At the same time, the school and other parents aren’ having your poor choices imposed on them. maybe thiswill give you some insight into why it is useful to considers points of view other than your own.
Steve,
You misunderstand me. I have adopted your perspective in replying to RRM’s question.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
But if you criticise certain parental decisions/actions because you believe they really are wrong, but do nothing about stopping them it, what is achieved – other than a bit of hot air being diffused in a happy academic environment?
What is achieved is the freedom for parents to raise their children as they will, restricted only when it involves direct harm to those children. The absence of coercion is an achievement in itself.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Steve Withers et al … stopped to consider that everytime you try and defend nanny state you gain votes for National?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Haha, even when I argue from the perspective of the regular right-wingers, I get thumbs down!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
If a parent wants to stop their kids eating junk food that is their right. But the state is not anybody’s parent, particularly when the head of state is barren like Hellen. (A rhyme!)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Barren Helen hopefully chokes on a piece of watermelon.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Ryan: Ok Thanks. Understood. Re: the fashion argument. This is a silly argument. It assumes kids have no life outside school where they may (though most often NOT) find themselves in the company of people who evaluate others based on fashion. I cannot think of ANY items of clothing I would NOT have bought my kids during their school careers other than the uniforms themselves. Everything else they own they wear whenever, wherever as they please with no issues.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Ross Miller: You have me confused with someone else. I’m rejecting the efforts of irresponsible parents to misuse our tax-funded schools to impose their poor parenting practices on our children.
I’ve made it very clear I’m opposed to the Stalinist imposition of school uniforms on parents and children – on pain of defacto expulsion for failure to comply.
How you can mistake that for support of the nanny-state defies rational explanation…..unless you’re a party hack and the truth doesn’t matter. Then your comment makes perfect nonsense.
Party hacks are beyond persuasion by the facts. I hope none of them waste their valuable time reading my comments.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
RRM: There are no honest small, immediate little objectives with straightforward transparent and HARMLESS little benefits that the government would want to bring, are there? It’s always the insidious beginnings of their scheme for world domination isn’t it?
As long as people keep on surrendering more and more of their choices to the government how can you see it otherwise?
And the Labour government, aided and abbetted by the Greens, have been all too happy to take more and more decisions away from the public because people allow it.
As long as the government keeps on writing legislation that denies access to things, rather than relying on education and, if they have to legislate, mandating alternatives people are selling their choices to the government with every election.
But fools will always be happy to relinquish their decision making ability to the government. It’s the ultimate cop-out because then they are absolved of responsibility for their choices as well. Are your kids too fat? It’s easy to blame the government. It’s a damn sight harder for the people with obese children to look at what actually made their children fat.
It is the ultimate failure of socialism. It breeds generations of people who cannot accept responsibility for what they have done to themselves. And all it’s doing to New Zealand is making thousands of people dependant on the government for their lives.
And that, RRM. That government dependance herd mentality is utter bullshit.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
The nanny state is doing real well keeping kids at school . How many playing the truancy game today- check out your local shopping mall – 70,000 or 80,000 ? Well done Liarbour dogs.
Vote:What a piffle country !
July 1st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
um DPF
Vote:eating junk food is never good sense
its enjoyable
I do it often
but its not good sense
July 1st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Aren’t most of these tuck shops private ventures in partnership with the schools? If, on public health grounds, you make them sell food kids won’t buy to eat, shouldn’t you then subsidise the loss? The alternative seems to be no tuck shops – or tuck shops that are allowed to provide a living to their operators by selling food that kids will buy.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
These smart kids are showing entrepreneurial spirit – which I think is excellent. It’s also worth noting that Wellington High is usually associated with the more artistic & social sciences subjects, rather than the hard-core traditional academia. Proof perhaps that given the opportunity, entrepreneurialism can thrive in lots of different environments.
I expect that our socialist government is a bit peeved. Fancy students finding legal ways to circumvent the very righteous intervention of our caring nanny state.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
When I was in High School the tuck shop sold pretty much what the local dairy sold. We all ate chippies, pies and fizzy and very few of us were overweight because we ran around in the playground, rode bikes to school and played heaps of sport. My parents fed us mainstream Kiwi tucker and none of us were fat.
I have a mate whose wife is a vegetarian Nazi and imposes all manner of healthy food on her kids. Their fridge, when she is in town, is a veritable mini health food shop. She has three teenaged sons who I help coach on a rugby team here in the US. At school these boys eat the cafeteria food or eat out at local junk food places. When Mum leaves to go to visit her family out of state, guess what they all eat – you guessed it meat, normal food and sometimes junk food. These boys are the fittest, healthiest most athletic boys you could ever meet. The mother lectures them about the healthy food – heck some of what she eats I happily eat because I like healthy food. Sometimes they eat her dinners if they aren’t too over the top, other times they buy their own food or eat at friends because they are sick of lentils and rice milk. I frequently feed them a good tasty burrito at their favourite Mexican take away on the way back from a game because they’d rather that than the chaff they know will be for tea.
The point is teenagers will eat what they want even if you try to impose healthy food on them (like the government is trying to do). The defenders of this policy like Steve Withers blithefully assure us that there is no compulsion to eat the healthy food in the tuck shop ignoring the whole reason for all this nanny state crap – that is to persuade young people to eat healthy food by denying them the choice of so-called ‘unhealthy’ food options. If tuck shops serve granola bars, bottled water, lettuce/tomato sandwiches on chaff bread and vegan smoothies then the students will buy what they like off campus and the tuck shop will go out of business.
If parents like phil wants to feed his teenage son healthy vegan food, good on him. Maybe his son likes this food and if he does, then again that’s great. But if he doesn’t like it, he’ll passively resist and eat the food he wants when away from home.
Good on these students for poking nanny state health nazis in the eye.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The fuckin leftie socialist wankers are dictating what kids can take to school, not just what can be sold at school. That’s the sickening thing.
No chocolate in packed lunches, only food stamped “Approved By Unkle Hellbeast”. At least fat kids can lose weight, she’ll always be a fucking corrupt dictatorial pig.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
That’s inspiring Robotnik, why don’t you put that on a press release for the whole country to see?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Would I need to register myself as a third party under the EFA?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Maybe if you were ruled as an election advertisement for Labour
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Mind you, it makes for a great case study for economics classes. Imagine that as an NCEA exam question?
“Explain, using basic economic princples such as Supply and Demand, and showing an understanding of basic marketing techniques, why the school tuck-shop had to close.”
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Yes, Ryan Sproull, I am perplexed to see the negative Karma on some of those comments of yours above, you are on the right side of the argument here as far as I am concerned.
One of the problems here is that kids do far less walking and cycling to school due to their parents fear of child molesters, kidnappers, rapists, etc; a phenomenon for which the Left’s long assault on moral standards in society is largely responsible.
Pascal:
“It is the ultimate failure of socialism. It breeds generations of people who cannot accept responsibility for what they have done to themselves………..”
Actually, it is the ultimate SUCCESS of Socialism, if you’re a Socialist!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“moral standards” of what? Labour boosted kidnapping and rape how….
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Steve – their evil sphere of socialist negative energy expanded and has enveloped us all, apparently…
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“..a phenomenon for which the Left’s long assault on moral standards in society is largely responsible..”
really determined to prove yourself as a feckin’ idjit..eh..?..phil-the-inferior..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
RRM, A socialist scorch-ed my eyebrows off the other day just by looking at me – is there no end to their power and nefarious schemes?!
Gotta go, time to blame Labour for transexual indoctrination camp down the road
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Ryan Sproull (516) Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Haha, even when I argue from the perspective of the regular right-wingers, I get thumbs down!
Ryan;
I wear all my thumbs-downs from the Kiwiblog Right as a badge of honour. I would be DEEPLY concerned if I started to find they were in agreement with me…
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Is this now a lefty blog?
Vote:G
July 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Even the kids have had enough of the Labour Party bossing them around on food. But there is value in public education here with kids being taught nutrition and how to cook and prepare foods properly. There is no doubt on the obesity epidemic but the Labour Party’s response is to tax it and regulate it with fines and criminal sanctions. But they still don’t get it. Helen Clark simply sees no limit to what the Government should be allowed to do.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I am beginning to view liarbore voters as sad and pathetic souls who are better off living and working in a sheltered workshop.
In the 1970′s my dear mother was a volunteer supervisor in the sheltered workshop at the Wilson Home on the North Shore of Auckland.
She would help the retarded learn how to count 10 screws (say) into a packet and get onto the next packet.
They loved their work, were paid and had GREAT self esteem.
Except it’s got so bad they want all our privelages, aren’t protected in the sheltered workshop and wander the streets or as in sonic and philu case, pretend to be like us and annoy our blog.
So so sad!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Liarbore voters as sad and pathetic souls who are better off living and working in a sheltered workshop.
They used to exist but liarbore closed them down. Now it’s got so bad they want all our privileges, aren’t protected in the sheltered workshop and wander the streets or as in sonic and philu case, pretend to be like us and annoy our blog.
So so pathetically sad!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
does repetition increase the power of your message..?..scum..?
go on..!
say it again..!
go for the trifecta..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
KIA..Right on the button, mate.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
…Banning food and light bulbs. Yep, that sure is going to make us one helluva rich country alright.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I’d like to see National instigate, and promote, and deliver an program of repealing the Nanny State legacy that they’re about to inherit. One law at a time. Carefully and publicly.
1. Describe the damage done (attribute to Labour’s ‘Nanny State’)
2. Call for public input on best way to roll back
3. Decide best approach and repeal
Use this programme to regularly remind the NZ public of how insidiously intrusive the government has been.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Hell if you eat healthy,you could grow up looking like a dog like helen clark nee davis ,aka AS AUNTY HELEN, a perfect parent,who knows all???
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Have they banned unhealthy food choices at Bellamy’s, or do Gerryand Parekura eat out?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
So Phool, ‘feckin’ idjit’ is your contribution to the debate? Another great contribution to the English language. Another well-rounded argument (not).
You think you are so clever, but in reality we all tire of your useless contributions. Just childish.
If you can’t or won’t use proper English, or engage your brain when the smoke around you has cleared, then just go away. Do us adults a favour and get lost.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Question: are unhealthy eating habits in kids a problem?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I have a 16 year girl and am quite old, so well remember when this “not letting kids walk to and from school” started . Theresa Cormack was when it started. Add to that the removal of school PE teachers who used to order the kids to do the PE at the appointed time. No argument. Now we have massive, expensive Govt. expenditure trying to persuade kids to do what they don’t like. Waste of time and money. Yes, the kids are fixated on computers, etc, and will eat all sorts of crap on the way to school and home; but if we could, at least, get them going for 1 hour a day at school. It would help. Cut out all the extraneous, taxpayer crap and get down to basics.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
There are many kiddies in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma etc that would kill for a sausage in a bun. We are told by socialists this imbalance between butterball kiddies in the west and the nearly dead in the hellholes of the world is caused by capitalism. The truth is its the complete lack of capitalism in these same hellholes that is the real problem.
As for dealing with little lard on legs in NZ- well kids will always go for the option that gives the biggest up-yours to authority won’t they? So what will all this hammering on the healthy eating do?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
awww..!!..heathcote..
i..i..thought we could be friends/could ‘work it out’….
(who are you..?..anyway..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
As the recession bites, basic economics will see kids eating better food as they cannot afford the highly priced junk food, parents will keep the money (no pocket/lunch money dear – have this sandwich to take to school instead), and actually get the kids to make their own lunch from basic ingredients.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
C’mon Paul Marsden, the govt set an efficiency standard for bulbs that are sold, nothing else.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Hows the Push Pulling, opps i mean Push Polling going for the National Party hacks. Starting to get worried yet that “Honest John Key” is turning into another Don Brash!
[DPF: Well it is Helen who is the one refusing to rule out push polling]
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Does Aunty Helen’s collection of teddy bears eat plenty of healthy food? At least they get food, unlike many primary school kids.
Edit ; Hi Dalley Prick.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“Have they banned unhealthy food choices at Bellamy’s, or do Gerryand Parekura eat out?”
Quite possibly. Half of Labour’s female MPs do.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Question: are unhealthy eating habits in kids a problem?
Ryan – your question assumes an accepted definition of what constitutes unhealthy eating habits.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I do hope those children / adults who turn 18 before november can make their own mind up without the polititians deciding what they can eat, and what they can not eat.
Vote:Straight bananas and bent cucumbers?
OMG I don’t know, Nanny State will deicide
July 1st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
It’s socialism that causes obesity alright. Remember those female shot-putters from the GDR during the Munich and Montreal Olympics? Yeah? They were fucking huge, weren’t they? Whereas most people in non-socialist countries, like, say, to take a random example, the USA, are relatively svelte and non-lardy, aren’t they?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
capills_enema (162) +0 Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
It’s socialism that causes obesity alright. Remember those female shot-putters from the GDR during the Munich and Montreal Olympics? Yeah? They were fucking huge, weren’t they? Whereas most people in non-socialist countries, like, say, to take a random example, the USA, are relatively svelte and non-lardy, aren’t they?
Hmmm..sorry to burst your bubble mate (matess?), but it was called…’steroids’. (I know, my brother was a competitor in both, that took them. And…as almost every other competitor at that level did. A hidden fact from the world. )
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Yes DPF, but she is not tripping over her tonuge trying to hide it.
Dick4Justice. Nice to see that you are still abusing and denigrating women.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
“tonuge”
Dalley ; are you really the MP Chris Carter?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Philu “the boy would have coco-pops for breakfast…if it was down to him..”
Then don’t include them on your shopping list. Show some backbone man. Decide what gets eaten in your home.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Steve – “Straight bananas and bent cucumbers?”
Where has that cucumber been Hels, where has that cucumber been?
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 am
Ryan – your question assumes an accepted definition of what constitutes unhealthy eating habits.
Psycho Milt,
True, though some things are fairly conclusive, aren’t they? And obesity in children is generally considered unhealthy for them, isn’t it?
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 am
Paul Marsden (120) +1 Says:
Hmmm..sorry to burst your bubble mate (matess?), but it was called…’steroids’. “
Paul, either you haven’t been paying attention to this thread, or you’re a pinko socialist overlord. It’s socialism that causes obesity, OK? And AIDS too. And rickets and strep throat.
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 am
It seems the one answer the socialists have to their authoritarian tendencies being exposed is to obfuscate, denigrate and generally try to divert the topic. Not one has the balls to actually stand up, take some responsibility and say: “Sod it yes, we are here to dictate what you can and cannot do. Because we know best.”
Figures.
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 8:05 am
philu’s sole role here is to try and turn right supporters feral thereby neutralising any validity their arguments may have.
now thats a nice strategy if you are dealing in an oficial gummint, OIA, Ombudsmen, Enquiry situation however it doesnt hold too much water here.
philu is a laybore stoolie through and through.
its only natural hes a bit bitter, labour are out.
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Remeber folks, you are what you eat.
Socialist vegans must eat a lot of nuts.
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am
I must admit I found Sue Kedgley’s argument on Newstalk ZB this morning somewhat amusing. She accused the tuck shops that are closing of being more interested in making a profit than selling “healthy” and “appealing” food. What is actually happening is there is simply no demand for the health food; it is more expensive to produce (a cost which cash strapped schools would have no choice but to pass onto students) hence higher priced, nor is it appealing to the majority of teenagers. Given that nearby dairies continue to sell pies and soft drink (that students actually want) at lower prices than the health food (which students don’t want if an alternative exists) simple economics tells us there will be very little demand for the tuck shop and its going out of business is a foregone conclusion. Her lack of the most simplistic economic understanding only serves to illustrate the green party’s communist tendencies, and why they shouldn’t be allowed to run the country.
Perhaps the green’s “final solution” to all of this will be to outright ban the sale of anything they deem unhealthy. Either way I must admit there is also something amusing about a party who wants to legalise marijuana but limit the sale of pies “because they are bad for you”.
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 am
“..philu is a laybore stoolie through and through..”
um..!..expat..i am an excommunicated green who still votes for them..because t.i.n.a….
there’s no secret where i’m coming from..
but that john key..?..whoar..
who knows..?..eh..?
(we hear he was a hot-shot trader..then today we find out he was the hatchet-man..firing 500 staff at merrill lynch in sydney…!
um..!..isn’t that ‘human resources’ work..?..not trading work..surely..!..)
and expat..i am here to show you righties/waverers the errors of your ways..
using the weapons of logic/example(?)..
..and when people are feckin’ idjits..pointing that out too..
how do you do..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
I wander what Nandor’s choice of munchies is?
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 am
philu said:
“(we hear he was a hot-shot trader..then today we find out he was the hatchet-man..firing 500 staff at merrill lynch in sydney…!
um..!..isn’t that ‘human resources’ work..?..not trading work..surely..!..)”
Its entirely possible for someone to have had several different jobs in the course of their career. Just as it is apparently possible for you to have none. But here’s hoping that he sacks AT LEAST 500 bureaucrats in his first week in power.
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
“..Its entirely possible for someone to have had several different jobs in the course of their career..”
yes.but we are talking about within the same company..?
..and from ‘hot-shot trader’ to human resources hatchet-man..?
where’s the dignity/promotion/logic there..?
surely that’s a slide down the evolutionary scale..?
(or at the very least..sideways..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 am
It’s probably akin to going from the Unemployment Benefit to the Sickness Benefit, you know, sick of getting of your arse and going to work?
HR don’t necessarily do the hiring and firing alone, they are a support service to management.
Vote:July 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
It’s simple, what is the aim of the new legislation?
Vote:Is it to educate people or the next step our government is taking to dictate to us what we can and cannot choose? Clearly the latter if they continue to remove the “unhealthy” alternatives.
Like the original poster said what is wrong with enjoying a pie? I enjoy pizza and pies but it doesn’t mean i’m going to scoff myself with them everyday… Basically to say that ALL children should treat so-called junk food as taboo and not be allowed access to it is patently absurd since it rests on the misguided logic that if they have a possibility of enjoying it then that’s all they’ll eat. At BEST this is a fear mongering tactic and rhetoric NOT fact. But since when have we been presented with facts by advocates of the obesity clauses?
They keep telling us there is a problem according to their unreliable BMI chart but the reality is they have yet to provide conclusive empirical evidence that by advertising and providing the option of fatty food this will result in increasing obesity.
Here’s how they constructed their argument.
False premise, we are obese according to the unreliable BMI chart = “true” conclusion, we are getting fatter because of the access to “junk food”
I think we need a bit more conclusive evidence before deciding to tackle this issue as though it really is an epidemic. Attaching terms like that from which negative connotations are derived is hardly compelling justification for government intervention
Worse still is the use of straw men arguments such as comparing the advertising of junk food and its sale to the sale of contaminated food and drink driving as some Doctor who wrote in to the Dom Post tried to argue. That is not fact, that is once again rhetoric and misrepresenting the situation. It is grossly misleading to compare something as harmful as drink driving to obesity.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
oh yea and as some poster above pointed out Sue Kedgley’s argument could be a prime example of rhetoric.
Vote:Why should we endorse the public health bill?
Sue sympathiser: because tuck shop operators only care about making a profit. (Therefore they don’t care about the health of our children.)
How did you logically make that transition?
Sue sympathiser: Excuse me? Child hater!!!!