Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Writers Around Town
Writing in The American, Katherine Mangu Ward assesses the national security threat posed by Girl Scout Cookies.
Dan T.|2.26.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Excellent article. You'd have to be pretty much insane to think that junk food is unhealthful.
|2.26.07 @ 1:52PM|#
This isn't Roth's first anti-fat publicity stunt. She also
hosts the Wedding Gown Challenge, which encourages women to do
annual checks to make sure that they still fit into their wedding
gowns: "Most women I know commit fraud on their wedding days-they
weigh-in for the walk down the aisle with no expectation of
maintaining that weight year after year."
This goes without saying, but that is just plain ridculous to
expect someone to do. Even those who eat a right diet and exercize
can't prevent the natural slowing of metabolism that comes from
aging. Such a challenge would result in at most low self-esteem and
failed goals.
|2.26.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Not to mention the fact that Girl Scout's narrow window of cookies sales (and slightly inflated prices) is so small that the consumption of such cookies would have almost no impact on your health.
|2.26.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Excellent article. You'd have to be pretty much insane to
think that junk food is unhealthful.
Did we read the same article, Dan or did I miss the paragraph where
KMW claims or implies that junk food is healthful? That is, unless
you believe that eating the occasional cookie really will kill
you.
|2.26.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Another example of a Reason staffer trotting out an idea on Hit and Run (see http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118805.html) cut and pasting from the comments, and then submitting for publication.
Dan T.|2.26.07 @ 2:13PM|#
The issue here is not that anybody thinks that Girl Scout
Cookies single-handedly cause obesity or, as Ms. Mangu-Ward
eloquently puts it, represents a threat to national security.
Rather, the objection is that it sends a poor message to young
girls in an age when being overweight has become one of our
society's top causes of health problems.
Why Reason writers are so threatened by this obvious fact is
puzzling.
Relax, Kathy, the nanny state police are not going to raid your
pantry and take your Tagalongs.
|2.26.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Dan, so your point is that food regulations are nothing big to
worry about because nobody is going to raid our kitchen
cupboards?
A few years ago people would have laughed if told that there will
be laws about the sort of grease that restaurants use. Some slopes
really are slippery....or, well, with grease banned, maybe not so
slippery as just really painful due to friction burns.
Dan T.|2.26.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Did we read the same article, Dan or did I miss the
paragraph where KMW claims or implies that junk food is healthful?
That is, unless you believe that eating the occasional cookie
really will kill you.
It was the same paragraph where it was stated that Girl Scout
Cookies were a threat to national security.
|2.26.07 @ 2:24PM|#
So what you saying, Dan, is that we should pit someone like Dr.
Susan Bartell against Meme Roth in an intellectual Thunderdome
where they can slug it out over whether the greater threat is
trying to be too thin or not being thin enough?
I'd buy tickets to that.
|2.26.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Relax, Kathy, the nanny state police are not going to raid
your pantry and take your Tagalongs.
Have you been hiding under a rock the past five years Dan. That's
exactly what they're trying to do.
|2.26.07 @ 2:26PM|#
FWIW, my wife persuaded me that cookies are a sometimes food,
and I've lost weight since then.
But I would never ask any authorities to help me make or adhere to
that decision.
What's really funny is that when my wife does bake cookies she now
says to me "I made you some sometimes food!"
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.26.07 @ 2:28PM|#
I just ordered two boxes of trefoils, two dosidos and 1 box of
somoas.
*drool*
Larry A|2.26.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Another example of a Reason staffer trotting out an idea on
Hit and Run (see http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118805.html) cut
and pasting from the comments, and then submitting for
publication.
As a writer myself I think secondary sales, especially to gain a
wider audience, are a feature, not a problem.
"Most women I know commit fraud on their wedding days-they
weigh-in for the walk down the aisle with no expectation of
maintaining that weight year after year."
I remember several promises from my wife's wedding vows 38 years
ago. I don't think "only if I maintain the same BMI" was one of
them. I'm darn sure I didn't promise to stay thin.
(Thank goodness.)
Rather, the objection is that it sends a poor message to young
girls in an age when being overweight has become one of our
society's top causes of health problems.
Another being bulemic ultra-thin model stereotypes.
"Actually, it's a pity that Girl Scout cookies are being sold
by cherubs," he wrote. "If the sellers were Iranians with turbans
and menacing frowns, then the authorities might be more alert to
the dangers."
Irony alert. "Iranians with turbans and menacing frowns" hate the
U.S. because we enjoy too many pleasures they find sinful. I.e.
they sound like soul brothers to Roth & Kristof Inc.
Dan T.|2.26.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Have you been hiding under a rock the past five years Dan. That's
exactly what they're trying to do.
Come on - junk food is more readily available now that it's ever
been. They even put soda and candy machines in schools these
days.
Bagger|2.26.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Is someone spoofing Dan T. again? He's being more moronic than usual today.
|2.26.07 @ 2:36PM|#
I hope nobody is spoofing Dan, because there is the germ of a
good question there: Is this really something to get upset about? I
mean, somebody said bad things about selling cookies. What does it
matter?
A few years ago I would have said "Eh, whatever." Now, I'm not so
sure.
|2.26.07 @ 2:41PM|#
TPG-
I'm not trying to be wishy-washy. A few years ago, I would have
said it's no big deal if some idiot complains about cookies. Cathy,
on the other hand (hah!), would have written a column about this as
an example of the culture wars.
Nowadays, with foie gras and transfats being banned, I'm like "Oh,
shit! Are they coming for the cookies?"
Dan T.|2.26.07 @ 2:42PM|#
I hope nobody is spoofing Dan, because there is the germ of
a good question there: Is this really something to get upset about?
I mean, somebody said bad things about selling cookies. What does
it matter?
A few years ago I would have said "Eh, whatever." Now, I'm not so
sure.
Yeah, unless I missed it there was nothing in the original piece
about government intervention being needed to stop the spread of GS
cookies.
Instead, the point seemed to be that people, especially children,
don't need any more encouragement to eat junk food. Especially from
an organization whose stated purpose is to improve the well-being
of young girls.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.26.07 @ 3:10PM|#
But at the same time, you make sure poor Dan the troll isn't
being attacked.
hoser.
|2.26.07 @ 3:33PM|#
See Dan, the Girl Scouts are the vendors of the cookies, not the
consumers.
The little dears will receive the real "poor message" when they get
dragnetted into an obesity lawsuit.
|2.26.07 @ 3:51PM|#
What's really funny is that when my wife does bake cookies
she now says to me "I made you some sometimes food!"
OK t, that's a little too much information. You're starting to
creep me out ;)
|2.26.07 @ 3:51PM|#
If you really want the full scare, go to MeMe's (no self
obsession there) NAAO website. (emphasis mine) Oh, don't forget to
find the humor in the bit about 2nd-Hand Obesity.
Through education, legislation, and most importantly-parental action-National Action Against Obesity works independently and as a consultancy to reverse the obesity epidemic by eliminating 'fake foods' from the food supply, barring junk food from schools and eradicating 2nd-Hand Obesity, while encouraging exercise across all ages.
|2.26.07 @ 4:19PM|#
>>Come on - junk food is more readily available now that
it's ever been. They even put soda and candy machines in schools
these days.
They did it when I was in school too, and I graduated high school
in 1984. I can recall some calorie-dense meals from the school
cafeteria too. One of the grossest combos was overcooked spaghetti
with meat sauce (probably not the leanest beef either) and tater
tots. Ugh. Nevertheless, I can recall only a few genuinely obese
people in my graduating class. To be specific, I recall 3 out of
about 200. Double that to correct for bias on my part and you get
an obesity rate of 3%. Triple it, and it's 4.5%
>>"Most women I know commit fraud on their wedding days-they
weigh-in for the walk down the aisle with no expectation of
maintaining that weight year after year."
This wedding gown challenge really is obnoxious for several reasons
-- all of which have been pointed out (maintaining one's wedding
day weight is not in the vows, the fact that women so frequently
diet prior to the wedding, and some to extremes, the natural
slowing of metabolism with age). I just want to say that I agree
with all of these points.
>>Yeah, unless I missed it there was nothing in the original
piece about government intervention being needed to stop the spread
of GS cookies.
That's fine. As Mangu-Ward pointed out, she has no problem with
MeMe's methods. Neither do I. But were the Girl Scouts to give in
to Ms. Chignon-and-Lipstick's boycott, I'd be mighty pissed. Which
is why I intend to increase my consumption of them, year after
year, from now until the end of my life or until they do give
in.
|2.26.07 @ 4:23PM|#
>>eliminating 'fake foods' from the food supply
What stupendous nerve she has. She obviously learned to think very
highly of herself in prep school.
|2.26.07 @ 7:29PM|#
"wedding gown challenge"? I suppose next she's going to get in a
hissy fit because people get grey hair and wrinkles as they get
older. And at some point a woman goes through this horrible thing
called MENOPAUSE (can you spell it, kiddies? I knew you could!) and
after that can't have kids any more! Oh noooes! /end snark
Yeah, I know, silly, but geez that frosted me off. And anyone who
gets her shorts in a twist about the Girl Scouts raising money via
going around selling cookies, what does she suggest, given that it
has to be relatively cheap (so the profit margin is acceptable),
not needing refrigeration, relatively non-fragile, and comes in
easily carried units?
Twit.
|2.27.07 @ 4:38PM|#
I realize this thread is probably dead but...how much do you
suppose her choice of a "wedding gown challenge" to make her points
is based on upper middle class assumptions about the role of the
wife in signifying a couple's social status? Overweight women with
strong appetites are so vulgar and don't represent their families
well in the society pages...
Well hey, what about woman who never marry? What about women who
are already overweight when they marry? What about women who marry
at city hall in a pair of jeans? Her wedding gown challenge
probably doesn't even apply to some fairly substantial proportion
of American women. What's her incentive for them? Doesn't she
realize obesity has a correlation with social class? If she wants
to target obesity she needs to come up with a better strategy than
the wedding gown challenge. Or the Girl Scouts boycott. I just
can't imagine it being effective.
Of course, I have no idea if Ms. MeMe actually is upper-middle
class. But between her name and her "presentation of self" in her
blog photo (perfect hair and makeup, smart and modest navy dress)
she successfully comes across that way.
Having worked for a few years in a haute ladies dining club, I've
observed first hand how blinkered these women can be about the
world around them.
Paul|2.28.07 @ 3:27AM|#
As a writer myself I think secondary sales, especially to
gain a wider audience, are a feature, not a problem.
Isn't the "wider audience" the problem this article's about?
Dan T
Come on - junk food is more readily available now that it's
ever been. They even put soda and candy machines in schools these
days.
So... you are living under a rocket, then. Because they're pulling
soda machines out of schools.
Now, yes, if you RTFA, it is a "voluntary pullout". However, it's a
"voluntary" pullout the way I voluntarily quit doing something when
a former president, flanked with lawyers comes into my living room
and asks me to "voluntarily" quit doing something. On the other
hand, it's smart thinking for the two major manufacturers of soda
products to do this for... the long term. It's a classic
public/private partnership deal where by agreeing to limits on
marketing, they solidify their market share.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245