Amy and I are gonna wait in the parking lot outside the CVS and flirt with every 20-year-old we see until one buys us a 40 of Coke. Then we're gonna drink it on the golf course after hours.

Well, there goes asking little girls if they want some candy (1 cents a pop). Gotta buy 'em a coke now.

Hah, right there with you, NicoleK!

Now that seems to be a First Amendment issue and that's a struggle, but it's a struggle that we have to be involved in.

This jackass is talking about fighting against the First Amendment like it's some kind of noble cause.

Well, with more and more young people thinking that their feelz are more important than their free speech, now would be the time to repeal the annoying leftover from a bygone age.

There are a couple of interesting ideas to be seen here:

1) How doess the First Amendment cover advertising and the making of money? Its intent was to make sure speech regarding the conduct of government was not suppressed.

2) Why is the public held accountable for providing so many of the "rights" extracted from the Constitution?

The reason I ask: the Constitution is a directive for the operation of government, not a citizen.

If I have to provide ADA-compliant doors in my restaurant, why do I not have to provide comment capability on my Web site?

While most of that was, yes, stupid, I seem to remember media critic Jean Kilbourne (creator of "Killing Us Softly") saying that Europeans don't believe it's OK to market ruthlessly to kids the way Americans do. Granted, I think she said that in the 1980s, so who knows how much as changed or why.

I seem to remember media critic Jean Kilbourne (creator of "Killing Us Softly") saying that Europeans don't believe it's OK to market ruthlessly to kids the way Americans do.

Probably because Europeans dont treat their children as the holy center of all creation to be catered to and have ever whim coddled as most Americans do.

mmmkay - read the article and it's apparent this guy is a monomaniacal kook. He wants post offices and libraries turned into cooking schools and food dispensaries.

Every institution in society needs to be re-engineered to control what we eat and how!

Because no one knows how to eat - except him and his fellow food cultists.

Oh and there has been no evidence of successful genetic modification of food crops. It's just a big lie promoted by The Man to control what we eat - because..?

Mark Bittman: [edited] "You should be sixteen to buy a Coke. Until then, we don't think that you're competent to decide how much soda you can drink. Really, it should be twenty."

That is mind boggling. There is no end or limit to what Progressives want to control with government programs and prohibitions, to produce happy, healthy cogs in the great Socialist machine. People must be made healthy to offer the greatest contribution to utopia, like it or not.

Bittman says "it should be twenty" but is willing to "compromise" because even he knows there would be a huge pushback. But, the fight is for the good, and that fight is what he thinks is fun. Maybe he can consult or serve at the highest levels of the required bureaucracy.

I offer this general criticism of Progressive plans. The choice is not between some teens drinking "too much" Coke, and all teens drinking Coke in moderation. (Where is the study to set the limits?)

The choice is between freedom with sub-optimal choices (according to the Bittman Optimization), and thousands of government bureaucrats imposing obligations, fines, forced counseling, procedures, recommended and mandatory policies for every food store in the land, studies of effectiveness, and proposals to extend these good works where possible. All financed by taking more stuff from the population.

In other words, some number of kids drinking too much Coke, versus some reduction in that number plus a police state. How many kids and people will be harmed by a police state, higher taxes, and the imposed costs of regulation?

Bittman wants an army of people doing good, fighting unending battles against human error, supported by the production of the people they intend to improve. They want a deeply satisfying life for themselves implementing Scientific Socialism, tirelessly working for a better world. They are or want to be the new priesthood, interpreting the statistical laws and wishes of the Universe and directing compliance by the mindless masses.

I understand that I may have demeaned myself by even discussing this. It all should be obvious. Bittman's comments are TSTDAR, Too Stupid To Deserve A Reply. But, I may be a bit deranged by the calm acceptance of hundreds of proposals like Bittman's. Where is the laughter and pushback?

I hate to paraphrase radical, terrorist Muslims, but here goes. It seems that Bittman and his ilk love bureacracy and control more than the rest of us love life.

lenona: I seem to remember media critic Jean Kilbourne (creator of "Killing Us Softly") saying that Europeans don't believe it's OK to market ruthlessly to kids the way Americans do.

I recall reading or hearing, from some other source, about restrictions that European countries have placed on marketing food and drink to children. I just did a quick Google search and found this 2014 WHO article: Protecting children from the harmful effects of food and drink marketing. Only three European countries are specifically mentioned (excerpt below), but there may be others that have restrictions.

I don't think what the UK has done would fly here. For one thing, the food & beverage companies probably have more influence on politicians here than they do in the UK and, for another, I'm sure we hold commercial speech much more sacred than they do in the UK.

Many governments are, however, expressing concerns about the impact of marketing to children. Some countries, such as Spain and Norway, have agreed with food and drink companies on self-regulation whereby industries take the lead implementing voluntary restrictions on marketing, overseen by governments.

In Europe, the United Kingdom (UK's) statutory ban on television advertising of foods high in fats, sugar and salt during children’s programming was a world first and broke new ground internationally for imposing more stringent conditions on food and drink industries.

Amy: "Numbskull . . . Mark Bittman"

Actually, I think you are too kind, Amy. Take this nugget of his:

"I’d like to propose that, just as we have communal swimming pools in some cities, we have communal kitchens."

Considering how often public swimming pools (and other swimming places, e.g. beaches) are closed due to human fecal matter contamination I would NOT eat anything prepared in a "communal" kitchen. Good Lord! Who knows what you would come down with eating food prepared there.

And, yea, norm has it right; Bittman and others like him think that only they know the "correct" way of living.

If coke is outlawed, only outlaws will have coke.

I don't think we have public swimming pools around here. I don't remember any growing up. There are pools attached to HOAs, but they certainly aren't public. You have to be a member to use them. There are pools attached to the schools. Once again, if you aren't a student you can't use them.

"They want a deeply satisfying life for themselves implementing Scientific Socialism, tirelessly working for a better world. "

Or, to put it more bluntly, they are the sort who hold that bossing other people around is the most fun you can have with your clothes on.