"Journalism"

https://twitter.com/Badluckrabbit/status/1443072660921929730

Two restaurant-related articles.

"If an Illinois restaurant serves a ‘kid’s meal,’ the default drink now can’t be a sugar bomb...A new state law says the default option must be water, milk, or another healthy beverage — and that’s great for kids."

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/8/27/22641879/childrens-health-diet-kids-meal-illinois-serve-kids-better

By State Senator Mattie Hunter.
___________________________________

Others, however, say this is just another example of parents not doing their job and saying "no" to sugar. (Though I don't quite understand what "default drink" means. Do kids' menus typically offer only one beverage, meaning the parent would have to pay extra for water or milk? If so, yes, that's unfair to the parent.)

From elsewhere:

C: "So what is to stop parents from ordering a full-size soda and giving that to their kids? And I'm sure there will be screeching about discrimination and rights and how restaurants aren't in a position to make parenting decisions because if someone wants to load their kid up with full-sugar soda every day, that's their 'right' as a parent!

"...some parents will send their very small kids to bed with baby bottles full of soda! I remember when I was a kid, I had to have a huge jug of Hawaiian Punch with me every night at bedtime for some reason. Big shock, I was a huge fatass as a kid!"

Starvingauthor: "It's a sad state of affairs when a law like this becomes necessary. I know young me would have hated it but that was because the rare times we ate at restaurants was the only time I got to have soda. Maybe if that was more common we wouldn't need this law."

Craftyzits: "One of the problems is that restaurants see soda as a cheap means to put a beverage on the table. The syrup that makes the sugar water can cost far less than the milk, juice, or other beverage, and only a tiny amount can make a large soda."

And here's the second one, from El Dorado County, California.

https://news.yahoo.com/california-burger-joint-bans-under-155808032.html

"California burger joint bans under-18s from dining without parents, saying young people threw fries at staff and stuck candy to the ceiling."

LovetoLurk writes:

"I doubt this behavior will cease until the brats are banned all together.

"Back in the day I used to be a hostess for a restaurant that was popular with sports teams, meaning that teams would reserve tables of 20 and come after they had finished their tournaments. Even though the parents were present, we still saw a lot of this type of behavior because the brats were allowed to run amok. The parents were also rude as hell to the staff.

"Everyone hated them, but corporate office wouldn’t let us ban them because they brought in $$$. The managers were constantly implementing new rules in an effort to make the parents actually parent."

Starvingauthor: "It's a sad state of affairs when a law like this becomes necessary. I know young me would have hated it but that was because the rare times we ate at restaurants was the only time I got to have soda. Maybe if that was more common we wouldn't need this law." ~ Lenona at September 29, 2021 6:49 AM

As children, we were never allowed soda at mealtimes at home. It was iced tea, milk, or water. Occasionally, we got Kool-Aid with lunch; also a sugar bomb, albeit a smaller one than soda. We'd outgrown Kool-Aid by middle school, so milk or water were our main meal beverages. Eating out, soda was allowed, but only one and not a giant one.

Allowing kids to gulp soda like water is contributing to high rates of diabetes ("die-beetus" according to Wilford Brimley) and obesity. Soda is cheaper than most other drinks, so many parents opt to allow it, both in eating out and at home.

As awareness of the long-term effects of sugar consumption grows, any parents are now pushing seltzer drinks on their kids. Soda consumption is down and continuing to decline. However, it's still at almost 40 gallons per person per year.

Unfortunately, the beverage industry has discovered how to push sodas on people - don't call them sodas, call them energy drinks. In addition, Starbucks and other coffee purveyors now sell high-sugar concoctions as coffee pick-me-ups - "hot candy bar in a cup."

The bad news is that many products contain added sugar and consumers may not know it - crackers, barbecue sauce, ketchup, pasta sauce, etc. If you're serious about reducing your intake of sugar, the food and beverage industry is not your friend.

" Do kids' menus typically offer only one beverage, meaning the parent would have to pay extra for water or milk?" ~Lenona

Typically water and soda were your two choices. And as it is already paid for many chose soda. But places are offering more options these days. Apple juice, orange juice, or milk are sometimes available. But honestly it is even better if your kids don't eat a 'kids meal'.

"As awareness of the long-term effects of sugar consumption grows, any parents are now pushing seltzer drinks on their kids." ~Conan

Another mistake. Drink water.

"Unfortunately, the beverage industry has discovered how to push sodas on people - don't call them sodas ..." ~Conan

Or take out the carbonation and call them juice. Most sold around here sugar and water are the top two ingridients. Though some replace sugar with juice concentrate. Either way not a healthy alternative.

My father was a bit shocked when I told him that Heinz ketchup has high fructose corn syrup. (Not that he buys ketchup much, but he certainly avoids sugar.)

The inconvenient truth kids have to learn is that sugar counts as sugar (and as something to be avoided, MOST of the time) even when you can't quite taste it. Of course, to many kids, this seems horribly unfair.

Parental scenario: "Yes, I know you like canned tomato soup better than any homemade tomato soup, but we're still not buying it, even with your allowance money. Why? Because sugar happens to be the second ingredient - surprise, surprise."

(No reason to phrase it exactly that way, of course.)

Classic FBORFW strip:

https://fborfw.com/strip_fix/monday-october-16-2017/

SPOILERS:

Note that Lizzie (aged 7 or so), doesn't even consider the fatty granola in the shopping cart to be sweet enough!

If I were her mother, I'd say "sure, we can buy the Karamel Koated Sugar Poofs this once - so long as you only eat them for dessert and never for breakfast."

Ben: But honestly it is even better if your kids don't eat a 'kids meal'.

Because the foods also tend to be unhealthful, or what?

I remember that in a newspaper, the children's page was where the children got to send their letters. One letter naively demanded of restaurant owners that the portions in "kids' meals" be made larger.

Clearly, the kid didn't realize that those small portions are what you get because PARENTS don't want to pay for an adult-size meal that will become mostly leftovers that the kid will later refuse to eat.

Or else the kid was too cowardly to confront the parents.

Fighting the male gaze one bankrupt company at a time:

https://twitter.com/Playboy/status/1443015684573761542

Something wholesome for a change:

https://twitter.com/horrormuseum/status/1443387957709131777

I miss the taste of American candy bars and chocolate made before Bush Jr. approved the retarded bill that turned corn into Ethanol for cars..

I hadn't noticed a big change in American candy bars... I do notice the same brands taste different in different countries though

I hadn't noticed a big change in American candy bars... I do notice the same brands taste different in different countries though

NicoleK at September 30, 2021 5:31 AM

I’m a big fan of Japanese and European chocolate and desserts. Most of the American stuff is too sweet for me now.

Same for sodas. I like San Pellegrino on rare occasions but everything else I drink is zero sugar, and zero caffeine.

"Because the foods also tend to be unhealthful, or what?" ~Lenona

Kids meals do tend to be less healthy than adult ones. They also tend to be less flavorful and less textured. On top of that they often don't follow the theme or style of the restaurant. All of that leads to kids becoming picky eaters and unhealthy diets in general.

As for the leftovers issue you brought up, adult meals are typically too big for most adults. Having the kids eat off your plate when they are small actually results in less food waste. When they are medium sized if you have two kids just split a meal between the two of them. Of course if they are teenagers they are physically adults and thus should eat adult meals.

You can look up the origins of American kids meals for more reasons the practice should never have started. Intentionally feeding kids worse food just because they are smaller is a pretty moronic idea.

I mean, it's not just America, right? Traditionally in many places kids ate in the kitchen with the help, and no one was wasting fine steaks on them when they couldn't appreciated

Ben, sorry, but it's "unhealthful." Not "unhealthy."

You're smart enough not to be a lazy sheep when it comes to the dumbing-down of the American vocabulary and grammar.

(I like to fantasize about all the TV media, especially, vowing to each other to help raise the public respect for the general media by always using correct grammar - and as few cliches as possible. Even if it took over a year for audiences to stop snickering. After all, even entertainment reporters, when they do written pieces, don't use "like" in EVERY sentence, so even they sort of understand the need for formality. Even if they DO say "like" in every sentence when they're on TV.)

From one of my favorites:

"Healthy does not mean 'healthful.' Healthy is a condition, healthful is a property. Vegetables aren’t healthy, they’re dead. No food is healthy. Unless you have an eggplant that’s doing push-ups. Push-ups are healthful."

We will have to disagree on that Lenona. This is the standard usage.

"Traditionally in many places kids ate in the kitchen with the help, and no one was wasting fine steaks on them when they couldn't appreciated" ~NicoleK

Well, the first thing that jumps out to me is most people don't have help. They are the help. So you are talking only about the very wealthy and not the common man.

The second thing that jumps out those kids are eating adult food with the adults. Just like I recommended. They aren't intentionally cooking an inferior meal just for the kids because they are kids. That is stupid. It takes more effort to cook an entirely separate meal than to cook a little more of the meal you are already cooking.

It's also "standard usage" to use "infer" as a synonym for "imply."

This, despite the fact that that's like using "catcher" to mean "pitcher."

No one would do the latter, so what's to be gained by the former misuse of the language?

Welcome to the English language Lenona. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't correct.

Next you'll be asking why we park on the driveway and drive on the parkway. Damned if I know. But it is still the correct usage.

I dislike the dumbing-down of language because that IS incorrect, thank you. (I once saw an article about "driveway" and "parkway," and, IIRC, there was nothing to suggest that those words used to be used DIFFERENTLY.)

There's a reason formal documents don't include slang words such as "gonna" and "wanna," after all. Even if those words show up in modern dictionaries.

Besides, it's very unfair to elementary students - and immigrants - when the rules keep being CHANGED. How are they supposed to know when they're speaking and writing clearly or not? How can they be sure the teachers won't give them bad grades when they were doing their best? Or that strangers won't think of them as horribly rude - or uneducated - when they thought they were speaking properly?

To put it another way, people didn't USED to use "infer" to mean "imply." They just didn't use it for years, so when they started using it again, they used it the wrong way.

(I assume that by "standard usage," you really mean "the new, popular usage." That does not make it "correct.")

In the same vein, Americans don't like to be reminded that anyone is dead, so in this century, whenever they refer to a birth anniversary, they say "birthday" instead. (I suspect this wasn't so common before Google Doodles.) When the number of the anniversary is well under 100, that only causes confusion for those young people who didn't know that so-and-so is already dead. Why do that when one could just say "anniversary" instead?

Another example.

We are, of course, free to pronounce the name of a certain Indiana university very differently than the way we pronounce the same name in reference to a well-known Paris cathedral - and it's always been that way, to my knowledge. After all, that way, you know which is which, in conversation.

That does not mean we should get to CHANGE the way we pronounce the name of the cathedral, per se, just because some Americans are too lazy or uneducated to use the French pronunciation. Laziness should not be an excuse for an entire population to sound more and more like a silly child.

Another example - from what I've heard, the name Beethoven has more than one pronunciation in Austria and Germany. But even in the U.S., we don't get to pronounce it the way it's spelled - that is, the way an American child would pronounce it. So, there's an example of the truly correct - AND classic - way to use language that people are expected to use, even if they don't "like" it.

Again, it's the constant lazy CHANGES in language use that are annoying. We don't constantly change rules in sports, mostly, after all. There's nothing wrong with saying "please use proper English when you're addressing me; it's not fair or polite to expect me to keep up with every new slang word you young people keep inventing."

As I said we will have to disagree. Nothing you've presented here persuades me you are correct. Instead you have contradicted your own argument multiple times.

The only place for correcting anyone’s grammar or pronunciation is your own children, and then only in the privacy of your home or quietly when out and about. No public announcements.
There is one exception to this; when foreigners ask you for directions in your home country, or you are asking in theirs. Then for the sake of clarity a gentle correction such as repeating the place name or object with the correct pronunciation is allowed by either party to make sure you are talking about the same thing or place.

Anything more, is just rude and condescending.

I can think of at least two more situations. One is when you're trying to save a friend from huge embarrassment, such as when someone told the unschooled adult Harry Houdini: "Harry, you shouldn't say 'I ain't got nothing up my sleeve.'" Houdini realized that proper grammar would improve his popularity, took the time to learn it, and changed his act accordingly. (Another case was when a world-famous pop celeb - who died prematurely - had to be told how to pronounce Socrates, which is certainly not a name most Americans WOULD know how to pronounce without being told. But when you're about to go on stage, whether for the first time or the thousandth, chances are you'd want to be warned about how to avoid embarrassing yourself.)

The other situation, regarding pronunciation, came up recently at Miss Manners' column.

https://www.uexpress.com/life/miss-manners/2021/09/29

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My name is unusual, and admittedly not pronounced the way it looks on paper to English speakers. Because of that, I usually answer to all sorts of permutations of my name when speaking with people with whom I do not have either a friendly or business relationship.

However, with people I expect to work with or see more frequently, I offer the correct pronunciation of my name the first few times they get it wrong. If they are really struggling with it, I even offer a mnemonic to help them to remember. My name consists of only two syllables, so it is not that difficult to get it right.

For how long should I offer assistance to people who, for whatever reason, just can't get it right?

GENTLE READER: At a certain point -- and there is no hard rule about when this happens -- repetition of the mistake becomes studied disrespect.

Rather than give up, that is the time to identify a third party in a position of authority: a spouse, a boss, a mutual friend -- or a human resources director.

What you are seeking from that person is not advice (which is easy for them to give), but some personal intervention, and it is therefore necessary to be direct.

Well, somewhat direct. "I am sure this is not meant as intentional disrespect," Miss Manners would have you say to the third party, when soliciting their intervention, "but because it has been going on for months, it feels that way to me." This gives the offender a way out without letting the third party off so easily.

And Ben, nowhere did I say that relatively RECENT changes are OK. All they do is cause confusion and creeping laziness. "Gubmint" may be a normal pronunciation of "government" in some parts of the country, but one is NEVER supposed to spell it that way, except as a joke, and learning to enunciate, even if it's time-consuming, makes a far better impression on strangers and other people than not doing so. If the majority of the people started insisting on spelling it as "gubmint," would you really just ignore that, instead of at least thinking that that needs to stop?

(Another example - "nucular." Where did that come from, when it should be easier to pronounce the correct word, which only has two syllables? Why don't those people who go on TV a lot, work harder to pronounce it correctly? It makes no sense that they don't; it gives fodder to their enemies.)

Spellcheck and Grammarly exist for a reason, after all.

While it's certainly true that for centuries, English has been so illogical and complicated that children and foreigners practically had to learn one word at a time, changing the rules every year in childish ways just doesn't help.

(Especially when those changes are about reducing one's vocabulary and stripping it of nuance - or, as children whine: "Why do we have to learn long words anyway?! We don't need them when we're just talking to each other!" As if kids don't need to grow on a daily basis.)

Speaking of that, I was just reminded of a Boondocks comic strip in which the 8-year-old, future dropout Riley is told to write a whole page about what he did on summer vacation. Since he's lazy and anti-literate in general, he fills the page with four huge words: "I KEPT IT REAL!"