i posted a legitimate topic on State taxes and then provided the back up data. WSB then closed the subject WHY?
i also posted concerns regarding High Fructose Corn Syrup and this topic is now gone WHY?
i posted a legitimate topic on State taxes and then provided the back up data. WSB then closed the subject WHY?
i also posted concerns regarding High Fructose Corn Syrup and this topic is now gone WHY?
my guess is that it had nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with how the topic was or wasn't addressed
i know many do not agree with my comments; but i try not to personalize any.
at the end of the day i think everyone wants things to be better for our children; the debate is about how to get from here to there
maybe you should ask the editor.
Also, check to make sure that you don't have someone on "ignore". If they posted last , you will not see the post.
Also if you tied HFCS in with obesity in your post, if you were beating up on persons of size, that will get it axed quickly. It's definitely an unwritten rule here.
ok thank you
info about high fructose corn syrup... ok
blaming people for being fat because they ingest high fructose corn syrup.. not ok
i never blamed anyone for being obese for ingesting HFCS; it is in so many products everyone ends up ingesting it (personally i read labels and try to avoid it).
i had stated initial studies are indicating HFCS could be a culprit in obesity with no blame on anyone. it simply is a product that may be deserving of being taxed like cigarettes if indeed a link is determined
For what it's worth, hooper, which I click on your profile and see your threads, I do see a recent thread re: taxes, with no replies other than your own. http://westseattleblog.com/forum/topic/taxes
I don't see a thread about the HFCS (unless it's got a totally unrelated topic name).
it got removed; that is why my inquiry.
i'm sure she will post with feedback at some point.
btw how are you doing these day's Jan?
I'm hanging in there. Not everyone knows I had a skin graft on my foot in October. It's still healing, and I can't use my foot very much until it does. It prevents me from working, which means at least an hour on my feet. Have had no income since early July...life is getting interesting.
I have recovered from the heart surgery in Sept., still get tired. It's been a roller coaster , for sure. I'm looking for a better year in 2013. Will speak with the transplant clinic on 1/18. Hopefully, I'll get the go ahead for doing a transplant.
Thanks for asking. While it's not been easy, I know there are others far worse than me...:)
the hoop: if you're against HFCS as a food additive, you should understand the history of the american farm subsidy.
you're not going to get rid of HFCS without taking away agribusinesses' monetary incentives to grow corn and export it.
and obesity may not be the only result of an increase in HFCS in the american diet. studies have also suggested that a spike in type 2 diabetes may be related.
you know why i think it's true? because the corn industry is fighting it, and they're throwing ad dollars in an attempt to push back.
and the same thing goes for wheat, which may have a direct correlation to higher incidence of celiac disease and gluten intolerance.
like others have said, don't blame people for choosing food that is cheap and subsidized over that which is healthy and expensive. blame the folks who are making the crappy food cheap and easily-available. there's no need for it.
and as others have pointed out, obesity can also be congenital. be careful how you make your arguments about food choices.
tobacco fought the studies linking smoking to cancer for years. now cigarettes are taxed accordingly. if the link is established HFCS also should be taxed heavily
There is a crucial difference between tobacco and HCFS in terms of risk and benefit.
Tobacco has no health benefit of any kind. Moreover, it is inherently risky, and there's plenty of good science to support that.
HFCS, on the other hand, is considered food. It might not be great food, but it's still food. Unlike tobacco, it is not inherently unhealthy, and there is no hard science to support the claim that it is. However, if you can find some, I'll be happy to look at it.
Although I don't think HCFS should be taxed, I don't think it should be subsidized either.
all i said is that if a link is determined it ought to be taxed accordingly.
i agree that it should not be subsidized.
The rules against size-ism (I forget the term that TR uses in the post) are written explicitly. I don't understand why people come on here to ask about threads being deleted. Instead of passive-agressively calling out the editor, why isn't your first instinct to contact her directly? These threads always come off as going and yelling on TR's lawn instead of just wanting an answer.
"HFCS, on the other hand, is considered food. It might not be great food, but it's still food. Unlike tobacco, it is not inherently unhealthy, and there is no hard science to support the claim that it is. However, if you can find some, I'll be happy to look at it."
DBP - check out this article for some history of how evidence of toxicity from the start has been stunningly suppressed:
Thanks, meg. Now we're getting somewhere. (Pay attention, hooper.)
The Mother Jones piece suggests that sugar and other sweeteners are inherently bad. What it actually demonstrates, however, is something like this:
► Eating LOTS of sweets is unhealthy.
► The sugar industry wants you to consume more of their product, and they're willing to spend lots of money to make that happen.
Any surprises there?
So . . . just how much sugar/HFCS can you consume before it becomes unhealthy anyway? No one knows, of course, because there are so many variables involved. If you exercise a lot, you can probably eat more sweets – and more of everything else, too – without a health impact. Conversely, if you're sedentary, or prone to diabetes, you should eat less.
But how much is ok for the average person? None? That can't be right. "None" might be the right answer for tobacco, but not for sugar. And that's why the two substances need to be treated differently.
Do we really want to see sugar regulated, too, though, as the MJ piece recommends it should be? Do we really want the government guilt-tripping us every time we have a soft drink or a piece of birthday cake? I don't. Besides that, I worry about what's next. Eating too much butter, bacon, and cheese is also unhealthy. So shall we tax, ration, and ban them, too? Or can we can let them off with a warning label?
Imagine yourself strolling through the brave new world of regulated sugar when you happen upon a slack-jawed adolescent lolling about with a cigarette in his mouth.
You say: Hey! Don't you know that stuff can kill you?
What's your hang-up, man? comes the retort. It's not like it was CANDY!
You're welcome DBP.
Dr. Lustig, pediatric endocronologist, has a video lecture on line, called "Sugar the Bitter Truth". It's very science-y, and explains some of the intricate biochemistry of sugar metabolism.
He also did a great video series out of UCSF, along with fellow researchers called "The Skinny on Obesity" Check it out, too. It's in about 8 parts.
Unfortunately DBP, the exercise thesis doesn't pan out well as the reason for obesity. As Dr. Lustig points out, we now have an epidemic of obese six-month olds. Six-month olds have never worked out, they have never intentionally exercised or balanced their calories-in with their calories-out. So, why *Now* do we have an epidemic of obese infants?
The slippery slope of govt. regulation. Yup.
IDK, perhaps we could have govt. put a limitation on HFCS production, right now, you know like Europe does? Not totally outlawed, but a quota that sufficiently limits production thus curtailing its availability and presence.
Why...in this country, why why why do we decide to wait for a huge health epidemic, before digging the decades of industry suppressed evidence out of the closet? Why do other countries, but not USA, first make producers *prove* safety -- with independent tests -- before allowing substances a GRAS seal of approval and an unlimited presence in their food environment? We were their laboratory rats on this, while at the same time filling their pockets - and their DC pets' pockets - with wealth. No thanks, it has NOT been proven safe. USA needs to go back to the old reports, find & study them, then set up a completely independent research. No more industry-sponsored research.
The MJ article noted that HFCS was chemically nearly identical to sugar. I might add that the authors weren't singling out any one sweetener for blame. Rather, they seemed to think that all sweeteners were bad. Except artificial ones. (!)
I will readily admit that there's a problem with our consumption levels of sweets and fatty foods. I also agree that we should be doing more about the problem. (And when I say "we" I mean both government and individuals.) However, I don't think it's right to put all the blame for obesity on fat and sugar, because if you do that, you're minimizing the personal attitudes and behaviors that also contribute so heavily (!) to the problem. As I see it, blaming the food lets individuals off the hook for their own bad food choices.
(Ptweeet! Hey, look hoop! I'm agreeing with you.)
Although I don't think taxing food is the right way to go, I'd gladly compromise on that, with some conditions (see below).
Anyway, here's what I propose . . .
► Education. Government, schools, and health advocacy groups should ramp up education around healthy eating and exercise. Schools can take the added step (many already have) of reducing or banning sales of high-fat/sugar snacks on campus.
► Taxation. If people feel that "unhealthy" food should be taxed, so be it. But let's not single out sugar or HFCS, because that's misleading. Let all kinds of unhealthy foods be taxed, and let the taxes be dedicated to evidence-based programs aimed at reducing consumption and encouraging healthy lifestyles.
► Behavior modification. As hooper and others have pointed out, food stamp usage is at an all-time high. Although this is bad in some ways, in other ways it's good. We can use food stamps as a way to encourage Americans to eat healthier, by taking certain foods (soda, sugary or salty snacks) off the list of buyable items. Now I know that some people will whine about this, calling it "patronizing," but I'm ok with that. I'm willing to be people's daddy. Just not their sugar daddy.
I've gotta tell you that I'm chary – not just wary, I say, but chary – of any so-called sin tax whose proceeds aren't devoted entirely to eliminating the sin in question. Take tobacco taxes, por ejemplo. With every tobacco-tax dollar that gets dumped into the general fund, we are encouraging the government to become addicted to the very sin we are trying to eliminate in the citizenry. And I gotta tell you that when it comes to sin . . . I'm agin'.
–Why? 'Cuz it's EVIL. (Duh!)
DBP - i fully agree food stamps should not be allowed to be used for any junk food.
'nearly' identical? OK, in the laboratory under a microscope. But where it matters - in the body - our biochemical processes know the difference. True, the microscope only sees a slight difference, but the body uses its own primal lens. So, my response to the shrug of 'nearly identical' is: What are we doing here? Are we sketching these sugars, or metabolizing them?
In post #21 above, the first video (StBT) goes through some of the biochemical detail of sucrose/fructose/glucose metabolism, and what happens to the liver and within cells. Well worth the 1-1/2 hour watch. I had to watch more than once to understand some of it.
Regarding the HFCS tax, tho. I think we already have enough, accumulated and recent, non-industry-supported studies and research to implicate HFCS as Junk substance, harmful to health. So, if HFCS must persist in the food environment, then I say tax the hell out of it.
If we want to spread the fairness & also tax other so-called junk food (salt, trans-fats, saturated fat) those substances should undergo their own rigorous non-industry supported studies and if enough solid research emerges to show any of these significantly harmful to human health, then tax it, too.
Key to the kind of junk food research needed are: 1) keeping the industry-sponsor industry-interests out of the research and publications, 2) developing high-quality tests and using proven scientific methodologies so the results can withstand professional scientific scrutiny. I think the problems in getting that kind of research done are: 1) Good research, esp. on human populations, costs LOTS and LOTS of $$ and the question is "Who's gonna benefit, therefore who's gonna fund it?", 2) US govt. constantly turns to the industry 'experts' for scientific evidence, 3) not to speak of the industry/government revolving door.........Got Bias?
Here's more on this:
Your body can tell the difference:
It would be Swell if govt. could impose a temporary tax to be revoked when health statistics improved across the country - say, for 5 years in a row. Health markers like diabetes, heart disease, obesity, fatty liver disease... the diseases tied to metabolic disorder.
Unfortunately, reversing taxes is govt no-go.
"DBP - i fully agree food stamps should not be allowed to be used for any junk food.'
so if you're poor
you don't deserve treats of any kind?
the word for your worldview is punitive...
and it doesn't say nice things about you
JoB - food stamps are to help someone not starve. if they want a candy bar they can buy it; just not using public money. why should the public pay for some one to buy pop and junk food and then have to pay more because they get diabetes from consuming the junk food?
why should "the public" dictate what they choose to eat with their food dollars?
it's not your business
JoB food stamps are provided by the taxpayer THEY ARE NOT THEIR FOOD DOLLARS; thus it IS THE TAXPAYERS INTEREST. If they want their own food dollars they can get a job and work! It's called adding a string.
I read an interesting article regarding Roe vs wade. The pro-choice camp is so focused on the woman's right to choose at any time and for any reason (it is a woman's right in my opinion) that they are losing public support as the anti abortion foes add steps and roadblocks to the process. being so rigid on a position is self defeating.
The fact is food stamps when used should be limited to milk, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables, meats and whole grain cereals and the like. Junk food, candy and soda pop clearly should be off-limits
Re: Behavior modification
The government already does dictate what people can buy with food stamps, so this is a non-issue.
You can't buy wine on food stamps, for example, even though it's supposed to be good for you, in moderation. You also can't buy some kinds of prepared food, and you can't use food stamps at a restaurant.
Paraphrase: So if you're poor, you don't deserve to go out to eat?
–Correct. Not on the public's dime you don't.
But cheer up. You can still buy salmon and T-bone steaks at the meat counter with food stamps.
Which is saying something, because I don't get to eat steak unless I'm sick. Or the cow is.
"...Or the cow is." That's disgusting!
Food assistance is for ppl who - supposedly without it - wouldn't have the bare minimum food dollars per day, to eat. Like $6-7/day for one person, $10/day for two. You cannot qualify for food stamps, if they decide you & your partner have $10/day after your housing expense (rent/mortgage) is deducted from your income.
I think there's some folks who have enough money to buy food, but still easily qualify for food stamps because the program only counts your income, not your savings or retirement accounts for example. Plus, for the dishonest, it seems easy enough to hide other sources of cash flow, such as support from other people or parents, rentals collected in cash, cash jobs on the side, etc. That's just my guess as a possible reason why some food stamps usage looks like discretionary, not essential, spending.
There are many poor people who cannot qualify for food stamps. I wonder how many of them only have a bare minimum, the govt's $6/day or less, and still purchase junk food with that. It would be interesting to study that population.
When there's two or more people, they don't double or triple the single person's food allowance. The program assumes it takes incrementally less money, per person, to purchase and prepare food for everyone sharing a home. That, by itself, seems to imply- cooking at home, not eating out.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the no junk food for food stamp folks as well. It's a total bummer, but so is being on food stamps. We should not be subsidizing junk food for people who don't have the money necessary to feed themselves properly.
it's easier to cook at home if you have a kitchen to cook in and someplace to store all those healthy foods..
when you don't.. it gets very difficult
"it's easier to cook at home if you have a kitchen to cook in and someplace to store all those healthy foods..
when you don't.. it gets very difficult"
This is true. I didn't say it was easy. I also didn't say I have the answer for this problem. However, feeding someone crap food Is not helping anyone and in my opinion, should not be done.
wow. politics make strange bedfellows, eh?
thanks for doing the legwork, meg. natural sugar(s) and HFCS are two completely different substances, and they are broken down differently by human digestive organs. the effects of artificial sweeteners - as opposed to natural sugars - are deleterious, and they can cause anomalies in the human liver and pancreas.
now, meg, if i can just convince you that corporations don't have the same rights as people, we might be able to move our government in the right direction.
in other words, government is the biggest and best hammer that we, the people, can wield against titanic forces who want to sell us HFCS instead of natural food sources.
I agree with Hoop and WC. Food stamps should not be used to buy junk food, any more than junk food should be sold in schools. I've been on food stamps, and there isn't a penny to spare for "extras". Nor do I buy into the current mindset that individuals bear no responsiblity for their own weight/addictions - choices.
Hoop actually has some good ideas, if you can get past the delivery.
so.. what exactly is junk food?
is it what i say it is?
or is it what hoop says it is?
or is it what meg says it is?
if HFC is on the label.. is it junk food?
What about MSG?
Or artificial sweeteners? .. don't get me started on those
all of those are junk food for me yet i persist in buying cocacola because the HFC/caffeine combo gets me going and keeps the energizer bunny part of me pretending to function.
i quit and my activity level went in the toilet and my doc told me to start again.. at least until i was doing a lot better than i was then.
so would you yank the cocacola out of my foodstamp basket if i had one?
Or what about high fat foods?
i know a kidney patient for whom the low fat alternatives are actually dangerous.
the problem is that our assumptions about other people's choices often ignore their reality.
Everyone makes assumptions, Jo. One of your favorites seems to be that everyone who's poor and unhealthy is either unlucky or a victim of "the system."
That, however, is not one of my assumptions.
What is Junkfood?
I think that depends (as you seem to imply) upon your perspective.
Is it reasonable to have some sort of objective quantification of junkfood? Maybe the ratio of protein/vitamins/minerals to fat and calories. I don't know what that ratio is as I'm not a doctor or nutritionist, but I would bet there's a reasonable answer. There's also different types of fat, and things like avocados shouldn't be treated the same as Crisco or Doritos. There's also a difference between fruit sugars and processed sugars. It doesn't seem that complex...just a bit expensive to implement. I would assume the coding of products could include info on acceptability for food stamp purchases.
I also don't think taking away all junk food for poor people is necessarily ok, but I do think we should be pretty close to that. Maybe a small (very small) percentage of the overall money could be allowed for treats. Just because you're poor shouldn't mean you get no guilty pleasure, but I think that it should be negligible if you are having trouble feeding yourself in the first place.
The issue is not about people making assumptions about other peoples specific dietary issues at all.
The issue is the appropriate use of the public's money when given to needy citizens.
The use of public funds to feed the needy is OK with me But the idea that this money is for guilty pleasures, or in the case of welfare, expensive phones, multi-channel cable contracts etc is ludicruous.
Being a hard-working person who pays lots of taxes and who has to be very careful about spending on guilty pleasures, expensive phone and TV contracts I find it ridiculuous that people living on the publics money can often afford more guilty pleasures than I can.
If you want more guilty pleasures out of life you need to do so with your own efforts.
"Everyone makes assumptions, Jo. One of your favorites seems to be that everyone who's poor and unhealthy is either unlucky or a victim of "the system."
No, i do not make that assumption.
working with them, i know better.
but i also know that making the kinds of assumptions that are voiced on this forum about how people "should" eat and what they "should" do and how they wouldn't be in that situation if they hadn't "made a bad decision" is equally erroneous.
there are people who choose to be homeless for reasons of their own..
surprisingly, alcohol and drug abuse is lower on that list than people think
but the vast majority didn't choose to become homeless...
they had accidents, lost jobs, became chronically ill ..
and yes, sometimes they made some really bad choices that they can't recover from unless someone gives them the opportunity.
look around you..
the homeless are just like you and me David..
with every good and bad attribute the rest of us have
what is different is that they don't have a warm safe place to spend the night...
or a safe place to store their belongings during the day
or access to a place to make themselves clean and presentable in the morning.. before seeking either assistance or work
or a kitchen to safely store food and make meals
they are literally dependent upon what they can get, when they can get it.
I agree with you here, Jo. I'm just trying to find a balance.
Yes, we need to avoid judging each other. But that doesn't mean we can't give each other advice and guidance, as long as we do it mindfully.
If I see someone who's made some bad life choices, I'm not going to take the hooper approach and say: "Good. Let 'em suffer. That'll teach 'em." But neither am I going to pat them on the head and say: "There there, you poor thing. Life's been unfair to you." I'm looking for the middle ground, a place where we take responsibility for each other but also where we can be honest with each other about what's causing the problem.
As Hillary has said, "It takes a village . . ."
" Just because you're poor shouldn't mean you get no guilty pleasure, but I think that it should be negligible if you are having trouble feeding yourself in the first place."
to us, Doritos are a guilty pleasure.
to a homeless person without a kitchen they are a food they can buy on foodstamps that does not need to be cooked and will not spoil if stuffed into a backpack all day.
i personally would choose jerky and nuts over doritos but those are also considered "junk" foods by too many.
"The use of public funds to feed the needy is OK with me But the idea that this money is for guilty pleasures, or in the case of welfare, expensive phones, multi-channel cable contracts etc is ludicruous.
Being a hard-working person who pays lots of taxes and who has to be very careful about spending on guilty pleasures, expensive phone and TV contracts I find it ridiculuous that people living on the publics money can often afford more guilty pleasures than I can."
in the first place, an expensive tv contract assumes a shelter of their own...
if a person is on public assistance and has a shelter of their own and has an "expensive" tv contract,
they are making a pretty hard choice between having a television at all and something else that you and i would consider necessary..
i was surprised to find that basic comcast cable combined with basic internet coverage is $100 a month... on a limited income that's a lot...
but it also often means the difference between total isolation and feeling connected to the rest of the world.
trust me.. a basic comcast package is cheaper than the medical care and medications that fight the depression that kind of isolation creates...
denying people the ability to stay connected with their world is a false economy.
I have also been enlightened recently about those "expensive" phones.
A good many of the phones you see the homeless using are provided free with basic minute programs that can be extended fairly cheaply as long as the person who has the phone has some card with which they can contract a debit... which they will have if they are lucky enough to be on public assistance.
they have to budget for extending their minutes a couple of times a month..but it is doable.
without a phone, people are isolated from whatever support system they might have and are unable to conduct everyday business.. like being contacted to go to work.
for those who don't qualify for the free phones or don't have the necessary card to refill their minutes ... those "expensive" phones turn out to the cheaper alternative
they also provide internet access making it easier to find and secure resources and job opportunities.
there are unlimited plans available for $50 a month... Once they are paid, the phone will work for the entire month without the need for a debit style card. they can be paid by stopping by the local phone network store or by picking up a card at the store.
Once i figured out that the unlimited plan was such a good deal i stopped buying the throwaway phones that can only make and receive calls and texts for people i needed to stay in contact with and now go for the "expensive" version topping out at bout $100 ... with the unlimited plan... so that i can actually reach people when i have resources for them and they can find resources for themselves.
again.. int his case.. the cheaper version is another false economy.
if you see someone who is on public assistance who has more than the basic cable/internet or basic smart phone, either they have family or some kind of support system that pays the bill for them
or they some alternative .. possibly illegal.. source of income...
the welfare queen myth is just that.. a myth.
welfare reform pretty much eliminated the kinds of abuse of the system that were once possible.
Rico, i don't work any more because of a long term legitimate disability that i sincerely wish i didn't have..
but i can assure you that hubby works very hard
and that we pay more than our fair share of taxes because we don't choose to arrange our financial lives to limit taxation.
We too carefully consider our luxuries...
I grew up poor so use, reuse and recycle are a way of life for us...
as is shopping well to limit the cost for the luxuries we do enjoy
i will confess that i too wonder a lot about the economic choices that other people make
whether they live in houses or not.
but ... Bottom line.. whether we rely on public assistance or not, we should all have the choice to make whatever we consider to be the best choice of our resources at that moment.
case in point..
i breakfasted on potato chips and cocacola
it sure beat the dry heaves the pain pills i had to take this morning brought on...
if you didn't know that i had to take pain pills that make me heave
you might think i was just luxuriating in junk food
heck.. you might think that even after i told you why i made my choices
you might think i had better choices
but that wouldn't make those choices better for me
and that's the point.
We don't know enough about the choices individuals are making to make judgments about them..
not even when we think we have gotten to know them well
i happen to know that there are a lot of choices i make that seem peculiar to my friends and family
i am not about to share the reasoning for those choices even with them..
some of those reasons are far to personal to share even with family
sadly, when we make assumptions, what we don't know generally exceeds that which we do..
" I'm looking for the middle ground, a place where we take responsibility for each other but also where we can be honest with each other about what's causing the problem."
every day i try to walk that fine line
every day i fail
and every day i succeed
you would think that i would learn which actions failed and which succeeded so i could tip the balance towards success..
but.. because each individual is different and each individual circumstance is different..
i may never know which actions succeeded and which failed.
i can see trends..
i label those trends "helping people who help themselves"..
but i am aware that labeling them that way is pretty self serving.
i will never know how often my actions weren't what was needed that day for people who wanted to help themselves to surmount whatever hurdle they faced ...
all we can do is what we can do when we can do it
and hope for the best.
sometimes it works
sometimes it even works wonders
OK meg . . . looks like you were right and I was wrong.
The Princeton-led HFCS study you cited was compelling. Based on that data, I'd agree that HFCS needs to be regulated in the short term and banned in the long term -- provided the study results are repeatable.
You know, it's a weird thing about HFCS. Why did they even start using that stuff in the first place? What was wrong with sugar?
Thanks for posting those studies. Disturbing results. It's been a while since the facts have been put in my face and it's a good reminder.
How HFCS affects our body is pretty insidious. And the stuff is ubiquitous in our food supply.
DP: in response to post 46, like i said, you need to look at the history of agriculture subsidies to understand why america has a surplus of corn, and how industry was compelled to find ways to turn it into other things.
surprisingly, there's lots of good intel on HFCS at wikipedia:
but it goes deeper. we grow so much corn that it's substituted for grass and seeds in feeding livestock. the result is health problems not only for the livestock, but for the people who eat corn-fed beef, poultry, and pork.
and you know cheap mass-produced beer (often referred to as fizzy yellow beer by purists) like budweiser, miller, and PBR? also brewed with corn or rice as a cheap substitute for barley and other flavorful grains.
it's high time to overhaul big agribusiness subsidy and change the way we look at mass-produced food and how it affects health. if we're going to subsidize farming, it should be for the benefit of smaller family farms that actually respond to what people want to buy, as opposed to agribusiness, which dictates what they think is best for us based on profits.
regarding the food stamp argument, poor people would very likely require far fewer government-provided services (like health and dental care) if they could get more nutritionally-rich food with our tax dollars.
redblack, you're a model citizen.
No really. If I were king, I would name you Minister of Citizenship or something.
I'm still deciding what I'd call Jo.
Er . . . I mean what I'd name Jo.
So, why do I say you're a model citizen? Because not only do you talk right, you LIVE right. Yeah. You really get the connection between corporate evil and individual evil, and you live your life mindfully, so as to minimize your part in either one.
I can't say that I wish everyone was just like you. But I do wish the average person was MORE like you. Because if they were, there would be a lot less evil afoot in the world today.
OK Ready for the punchline?
Sorry. No punchline.
actually, i'm a walking contradiction. just like a lot of americans.
but thanks for giving me my own flag. that's pretty cool.
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2013, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^