Comments on The Morning News
Good catch on Sarah Moosehead's quote from Westbrook Pegler (the Pat Buchanan of his day). How long until we uncover the evil geniuses who wrote that speech? They will go down in infamy, wondering why they asked not what they could do for their country.
That salad is nothing but a slap in the face. I'd dash the plate off the table immediately.
And good for Edmonds. Debt is no good, and we should encourage teaching that to kids. Maybe even throw up a board in the cafeteria telling everyone how much they owe.
re Dino Rossi: I have been trying to explain to my dad why it is so important that pharmacies carry plan B, and that the market won't "correct itself". He just doesn't get it. And hearing Dino say it makes my blood boil. Do all republicans get some sort of script each day? Like a daily email of what to say to refute indefensible positions?
Whatever happened to names for dishes of food. Now it's just the list of ingredients instead of a snappy name like Baked Alaska or Spotted Dick or Toad in the Hole......
@4
Would you like a name for this one? Shit.
In Seattle schools, if you're more than 3 meals ($6.75) in the hole, you get the cold cheese sandwich. Unless you're in 6th grade or above, in which case you get nothin'! Is this only news because it's Edmonds?
Last year I saw a kindergartener in tears because his parents weren't paid up. At 5 years old, he's supposed to remind his parents of their financial obligations? The shame of the cold cheese sandwich.
re: The Bellevue Teachers' Strike.
Once again, it looks like the Seattle Times, which urged the district to file an injunction against the teachers in a Tuesday editorial, has come out exactly opposite of public opinion. When those community members who attended last night's school board meeting were asked whether they were for an injunction, the response was overwhelmingly negative.
Way to keep your finger on the pulse, Times.
@6 Yeah, that's a sad story and everything, but shame is a very powerful tool for burning things into a young person's brain - in this case, the concept that owing too much money means bad things will happen. I'm totally with Poe on this one. Considering all that's happening in this country today because of people's problems with lending and credit, it's of paramount importance that we raise the next generation to have a healthy fear of debt.
I love Recipe of the day! this looks good, I'm going to make it next week.
ECB, more vegetarian options please?
The saddest article is the Seattle Times one on Rossi and Gregoire's "views on social issues" (i.e., what religious views guide your decisions): both of them base their views on their religious beliefs. They don't think with their heads about the fucking law, they think about what they were taught in sunday school. Hallelujah! Our governor's election will be for spineless-theocrat-in-chief.
Yum. Those croutons look delicious and stupid. Stupid, stupid croutons.
You people disgust me.
The school lunch story is so sad, and that interim director of food services sounds like one cold, child-hating bitch. lunch time at school is hard enough without the shame of having your lunch confiscated in front of everyone, and THEN, just in case anyone DIDN'T see that, you've got the stigmatic cheese sandwich to show how much you suck.
I am strong!
Strong!
I am invincible!
Invincible!
Hernandez @8, shaming a little kid because his parents didn't fulfill their responsibilities to him does not teach him to be financially responsible. It teaches him to feel ashamed of his parents and to blame himself for things that are not his fault. In other words, you're teaching him that the world is an irrational, unsafe place, which will only make him anxious and unwilling to learn.
Ironically, you are also probably setting him up for a future of poor financial decisions, because you've "burned it into his brain" that he (through his parents) is somehow not good with money.
Hey all, Obama made another embarrassing gaffe last night on Letterman. He said he wasn't going to play Monday morning quarterback. This is a serious gaffe that deserves the MSM's full attention for at least 48 hours, as Obama is not a quarterback, nor was it Monday.
@18 It's not the end of the world, at least he's not starving. There are many, many aspects of a child's life that carry a bigger potential for shame and/or embarrassment than having a cheese sandwich and milk for lunch once in a while. As a young one, I had a number of choice moments of shame involving various school fees that my parents failed to pay on time, but I got over it, and guess what? I learned a lesson that when you don't pay on time, it's embarrassing and you miss out on things. The idea that giving a kid a cheese sandwich and saying, "sorry, tell your parents to pay your outstanding lunch fees" dooms a child to a future of poor financial decisions (as you assert) is absolutely ludicrous.
#18 has got to be the dumbest comment (meant to be taken seriously) I've seen on Slog all week.
Original Monique @ 3:
Let me get this straight. It's not just a different opinion, not simply wrong, but "indefensible" to believe that a business shouldn't be forced by law to carry a particualr product. Is there any precedent for such a law, any product that you must sell in order to be allowed to be in business?
Holy fuck. A cold cheese sandwich is not even food.
Dude! It isn't that hard to keep up on your school lunch debt. My kids' school sends home at least three weekly notices before things get ugly.
Jakers@7: NEWSFLASH -- Frank Blethen hates labor unions. I can't wait for the Times' "McCain For President" endorsement.
Hell, screw the cold cheese sandwich. From what I remember, it was rumoured the hot lunches we got were the same ones that were used by the prison system. You know, the ones that say, "not for human consumption" on them. I'd rather have a damn cheese sandwich. In fact, I want one right now.
Geez, I had no idea the cold cheese sandwich would cause such controversy. And I'm the only one here who saw the kid cry! (@8: I know the kid. There's no way he learned a lesson from this, much less "a healthy fear of debt." Get off yer high horse.)
If I have an opinion on this (my kid brings a lunchbox), it's... why is this news? It's a longstanding practice in Seattle, yet when Edmonds does it, it's newsworthy?
@23: a pharmacy isn't a typical "business selling a product". Drug distribution is tightly controlled. Their line of work is filling out prescriptions issued by medical doctors. By refusing to issue one of those lawfully prescribed medicines, pharmacists are PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE.
Frarf @ 29:
So would you require that pharmacies carry all drugs? Because what's proposed addresses only one drug, and it's perfectly legal now, and under the proposal would remain legal for other drugs, for a pharmacy to say "sorry, we don't carry that".
In any case, my comment was intended to address Monique's "indefensible" adjective. I certainly see your and her position as defensible. Can she really not extend her father the same courtesy?
@David Wright:
No. Because in many, many places there isn't another pharmacy that women can go to. And the RU-486 drug is needed to be taken as soon as possible. And it's not that it is 'market-driven' for them to carry that drug, they are refusing to carry a legal thing that is necessary to prevent a woman from going through further pain of a surgical procedure.
Let's say that if you got into a fight, as a dude, that if you didn't take a pill right afterward that you would then (in short order) have to go through a painful and expensive surgical procedure. You probably don't get into fights often, but I bet you'd want every pharmacy to carry that drug in the chance you would need it.
And what about asthma medicine? Do they have to carry that? Or pills for cancer patients? What do they get to carry, o wise free market obi wan kenobi?
And yes, David. It is indefensible. For people that are against "abortion" and apparently science, to deny access to this for no other reason than religion is wrong.
They should be looking for a new line of work. Period.
Monique @ 31: No, pharmacies don't have to carry all asthma or cancer drugs. And they wouldn't under your proposed law, either. Are you going to go on a campaign to change that, too?
David, you are aware, aren't you, that pharmacy is a highly regulated profession, with complex rules, training, professional standards and licensing? It's not just some dickhead selling balloons. If a pharmacist said "no, I won't carry insulin, it's against my beliefs" he would lose his license in a minute. He has a LEGAL, PROFESSIONAL, and MORAL obligation to work cooperatively with prescribing physicians.
Pretending that it is some kind of libertarian prerogative, as you always do, is disingenuous and ahistorical.
Hernandez @21, your anecdotal evidence is meaningless; every kid is different. This kid was shamed into tears over something that, I repeat, was not his fault. He learned a lesson alright, but it had nothing to do with managing debt.
My point was that shame is a great tool for punishment, but a really crappy tool for teaching. And there is loads of research out there that backs up my point.
Fnarf @ 34:
Your claim that a pharmacy must carry insulin to maintain its liceense is simply false. Not in a libertarian fantasy-land, but in the real world, pharmacies are not legally required to carry insulin or any other particular drug.
You seem to be living in a left-wing fantasy land, where we can write laws that say "well, if you don't carry this drug because of lack of demand, or supply problems, or warehousing problems, that's okay, but if you don't cary it because of your right-wing beliefs, then we'll come after you." I trust you can see why someone might defensibly think that is simply a bad law.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.