Ammo For Sale

« « Cave paste says what? | Home | Google v. Gov » »

Dumb Lawsuit

The AP:

Advocacy groups and parents are suing the Nickelodeon TV network and cereal maker Kellogg Co. in an effort to stop junk food marketing to kids.

The plaintiffs are citing a recent report documenting the influence of marketing on what children eat. Ads aimed at kids are mostly for high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks, according to the government-chartered Institute of Medicine.

Wakefield, Mass., mother Sherri Carlson said she tries her best to get her three kids to eat healthy foods.

“But then they turn on Nickelodeon and see all those enticing junk-food ads,” Carlson said. “Adding insult to injury, we enter the grocery store and see our beloved Nick characters plastered on all those junky snacks and cereals.”

Here’s an idea: When you’re at the store, don’t buy your kid the jumbo pack of Ho Hos, the pack of Oreo Double Stufs, and a 12 pack of Mountain Dew. Your kids’ nutrition and diet habits begin with you.

16 Responses to “Dumb Lawsuit”

  1. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    Here’s another thought: don’t let your kids watch so dang much TV.

    All Jr. gets to watch is the free OnDemand PBS Sprout stuff, which has no commercials.

    Except in the morning when I’m watching Sportscenter.

  2. constituent Says:

    2 Responses to “Good news on Alito”
    constituent Says:

    Link to this comment
    the constitution was based on foreign law. it is ignorant and arrogant to ignore what the rest of the world is doing.

    SayUncle Says:

    Link to this comment
    Sorry, but that’s crap.

    Had to do it here because, stragely enough, the comments section was closed for that topic. Certainly not because you’re too narrowminded to hear opposing views? Of course not. In any case, “Sorry, but that’s crap” just doesn’t cut it.

    “To a small degree, historians disagree on the specific international influences on the development of the Constitution, possibly due to the variety of sources. Many argue that several of the ideas embodied in the Constitution were new, and that a large number of ideas were drawn from Classical Antiquity and the British governmental tradition of mixed government, which was in practice among 12 of the 13 states. Many historians do not specifically consider other sources, but the ideas advocated by the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu are prominent among the contenders of non-British European influences. A number of historians also note the direct influence of the Republic of the United Provinces, which had itself a Constitution in place for two centuries by 1781 with many similarities to the American Constitution — some of their ideas though were also drawn from Classical Antiquity.

    Not surprisingly, the influence of the United Kingdom is considered more prominent than other contemporary European influences. The United States Constitution was partly based on ideas from the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom, such as Article 39 from the Magna Carta of 1215 which states that:

    No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.
    The English Bill of Rights (1689) also acted as a source of ideas for the United States Constitution. For example, like the English Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution requires jury trials, contains a right to bear arms, and prohibits excessive bail and of “cruel and unusual punishments.”

    Liberties guaranteed by Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights were directly incorporated into state statutes and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and many were then further incorporated into the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights.

    Nevertheless, arguments for a significant Dutch influence of the Constitution are probably best pronounced by our founding fathers themselves: Benjamin Franklin said that “in love of liberty and in the defense of it, [the Republic of the United Provinces] has been our example” [[1]], while John Adams remarked that “the originals of the two Republics are so much alike that the history of one seems but a transcript from that of the other” [[2]]. James Madison, writing in 1822, said “The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe and even useful … that religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government” [[3]]. Several of the founding fathers were keen students of history.”

    wikipedia, look it up.

  3. SayUncle Says:

    Comments close automatically after a certain number of days (7 IIRC) so, no, it has nothing to with my ignorance or arrogance.

    It’s still crap. It’s one thing to say the Constitution is based on other countries’ laws (which it was, in part) and I agree. It’s another to say that our courts should rely on other foreign courts or foreign law.. We have a means of passing our own laws and, in the event we happen to like what another country is doing, we can pass that law here. There’s a method for it, you know.

  4. constituent Says:

    “rely” is too strong a term. i wouldn’t agree with anyone who says we should “rely” on foreign laws and interpretations in our own court system. but to ignore it completely, and not look at the context and consequences of foreign judicial rulings, is foolish and isolationist. legal precedent should not necessarily be american and only american.

    as to my insinuations in the previous post, i apologize. while, i never directly called you ignorant and arrogant, only your opinion, which was inappropriate and and inconducive.

  5. SayUncle Says:

    But relying on foreign laws is what Alito was discussing. It’s far from foolish and not isolationist at all. It’s, you know, going by our laws.

  6. Masked Menace© Says:

    Looking at foreign law serves some purpose. To help decide whether a law is a good idea or not. The problem is that it is not the judicial branch’s job to decide what law is a good or bad idea. That is the legislature’s job. The court’s job is to decide whether or not *our* constitution gives the government the power to enact the law. I don’t care if Canada has the ability to regulate speach (which, btw, they do), *our* constitution forbids it.

    It is not the court’s place to strike down stupid laws that our constitution allows because foreign law demonstrates it’s stupidity. It’s not the court’s place to uphold good laws that our constitution forbids because foreign law demonstrates its’ benefits.

    It’s our job to convince/elect legislators who will change it.

  7. Barry Says:

    What does this have to do with breakfast cereal?

    Back on that subject, I’m continually amazed to hear words like the mom said coming out of their mouths. From the first whiny hints of rebellion, parents have effectively given up control of their kids, because they’d rather give in than stand up to the bugging.

    Dads, be a man. Moms, be a…well, be like a man.

  8. Xrlq Says:

    but to ignore [foreign law] completely, and not look at the context and consequences of foreign judicial rulings, is foolish and isolationist. legal precedent should not necessarily be american and only american.

    It should be, though, when it comes to interpreting a law that is itself American and only American. It’s fine to interpret a constitutional provision in light of the specific foreign laws that inspired it, or even to look a foreign court’s interpretation of a similarly-worded law, but the recent Supreme Court cases that sparked this controversy are about neither.

  9. Xrlq Says:

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot – this suit blows. Just try bringing a suit like this in any of the “cool” countries the internationalist Justices love to point to.

  10. cube Says:

    “Here’s another thought: don’t let your kids watch so dang much TV.”

    here here…the parent lets the kids watch tv then blames the tv for what it tells the kids….moron.

  11. tgirsch Says:

    I’m torn on this one. On the one hand, I wholly agree that it starts with parenting, but I’m not ready to release the advertisers from all responsibility here, either. And besides, isn’t suing the Libertarian Way of correcting things you think are wrong? :)

    The fact is, we already restrict to some extent what can and can’t be advertised to children. It’s merely a question of where you draw the line. Maybe a solution is to have the junk food equivalent of the “erections lasting longer than four hours” guy at the end of such commercials. :)

  12. Les Jones Says:

    Weekly Gun Links

    “What caliber should my first defensive handgun be?” It’s one of the most common questions around, and Chris Byrne gives an excellent, comprehensive answer that looks at all of the considerations. Cutter looks at gun choice as a religion. Turns out …

  13. Blake Says:

    Spinach will make an excellent addition to your dinner choice.

    I have no idea what this has to do with anything, but it seemed like a good time to post some random something about something.

  14. Tam Says:

    When even the Yahoo News link is titled “/fat_kids_lawsuit”, you know it’s a dumb one. ;)

  15. _Jon Says:

    I think it would be wise for Nic to select the commercials better.
    Lest parents start using TIVO and DVR’s to record shows and weed them out.

    Grocery stores added “no candy” lanes in response to parent’s needs.
    Mebbe this stupid lawsuit will serve as a wake-up call for them.

    (does anyone else in computers have a problem whenever they type ‘serve’, that your fingers always write ‘server’? I always have to go back and delete the ‘r’. Just my contribution to the off-topic-ness of the comments.)

  16. Tam Says:

    “Lest parents start using TIVO and DVR’s to record shows and weed them out.”

    Why do that when you can sue? ;)

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills


blog advertising is good for you

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives