I'm an old fashioned kind of guy, I work on the assumption that schools are for learning.
Government and the left wing of course assume that schools are for indoctrination, whether it be revisionist history or the officially approved physical jerks.

Uhm....why not just introduce some martial arts stuff into schools? No! Hear me out! I have reasoning behind this apparently insane idea:

1 - Martial arts means the kiddies get a fair amount of knocks, and that's good on two counts. They get to learn that life isn't easy and nice all the time, and....well, a few bruises helps keep an ego in check.

2 - Not all kids are brats, scum, chavs, etc. Some, maybe even a large majority, are great kids with the ability to do well and bring good things into this miserable world. And then they die in a botched mugging. How much better if they'd known how to fight and survive the encounter!

3 - Martial arts, taught properly, instill discipline and respect in people. And I don't think any of Mr FM's regular readers can argue that discipline and respect in kids is a bad thing (nor would Mr FM, I imagine?)

I'm not making this up, I've seen it taught well and instill those things in people. It works, if given a chance.

Ah, I can see the headlines now!
"mugging classes in our schools"
"Deadly techniques taught.."
"School sued after slight bruising"

Mike, our view of the world is alien to the liberal chattering classes that infest this fair land old chum!

Then it's up to the like of us to knock some sense into them. One day we're gonna have kids, and they're gonna have to grow up in this country. And that's scarier than all of Lovecraft and Poe put together.

Childrens behavior patterns are heavily influenced by their built enviorment. If The PepsiCoke Co. has arranged a deal based on a licensing agreement to only sell their soda in the school -- this is modification of the built enviorment for the financial benefit of a) PepsiCoke and b) the Educational System (Goverment). Since obesety can be viewed as cost , first to the children, then to society, the extracted value of this transaction comes first from the children, and then, the society.

Extracted Value is simply a term used to describe what takes place in a market exchange in which a profit is made. VALUE is ALWAYS displaced from one source to another in the name of PROFIT, but there CAN BE NO PROFIT, without LOSS.

So in this instance, the Child is being sold an unhealthy product for the profit of PepsiCoke (or UnhealthySnack, etc). From the schools perspective, the eating habits of children are already heavily influeced by advertising and culture, so if they want to make THE MOST SALES they will opt for an unhealthy snack over a healthy snack, to boost there sales. Again, the health of the student compromised to boost profits for Education Inc.

We also know, that if kids are exposed to healthy food options, they are more likely to eat them, and if they ONLY have healthy food options, they are MUCH MORE likely to eat healthy food.

Since most school age children are not able to leave the school building on during school hours, offering only healthy snacks would shape behavior. Either develop a taste for healthy food, or do not eat (or bring your own - which could be mitigated everywhere outside the cafeteria).

This might spur entrprenurial students to sell unhealthy food in schools -- the nutritional drug dealer -- but school policy sould resrtic such sales.

Schools have always been a tool of the capitalist system, put in place to create capable managers to run the factories produced via the industrial revolution.

If we want to convert schools to be used to the PUBLIC GOOD (as most people now think was there original intention -- which, given the level of knowledge at the time of their creation, it was for the PUBLIC GOOD) we would strive to teach healthy BEHAVIOR based on FACT in schools.

We can educate children not only on the nutritional benfit of healthy foods, but also on the concept of how advertising is meant not to help, but to DIRECT. In todays society, much behavior is dictated via ADVERTISING, and not INFORMATION. Pure Information is unbiased, and relies apon the observer to make connections, while ADVERTISING is INFORMATION USED to Change behvior.

Since commerical advertising, televiradionet, is aimed at profit extraction, shouldn't public advertising, Education, aim to shape behavior in a positive way? Or at the very least, in a NON-NEGATIVE WAY?

Riiight. So schools are evil capitalist manufacturing plants, and what's needed is a good old dose of PURE INFORMATION? So who's going to decide what's right and proper PURE INFORMATION and what's ADVERTISING that DIRECTs children instead of TEACHING them (I apologise for my typing, my CAPS key seems to be BROKEN) You, perhaps?

Lest we forget, children have 5 meals out of 21 a week in school. Sensible diets start and end at home. Children are not becoming obese on school meals alone. Obese and lazy parents produce obese and lazy children.
And Mr.Adams.....get a life.

If you question the truth of the original intent of the public school system, you ought to research the history of the education system. The notion of the school system being designed to produce managers for the capitalist economy is not something that is argued in most academic circles -- anyone whos read a single book on the history of education ought to be familiar with that.

You were quick to label the capitalist system 'evil', however I made no such distinction.

As for PURE INFORMATION, it is an effective tool at revealing the truth. Simply allow all sides of an argument to be presented, and people can decide for yourself. Is that not the scientific method? The unbiased analysis of data. You seemingly have drawn conclusions based on the INFORMATION I provided, I would assume children can do the same.

PURE INFORMATION however, can also be understood as love.

As for obese and lazy parents producing obese and lazy children, this may be true. However obesity is also occuring in children with fit and active parents, so this is not entirely the case.

As for your comments, I would be intrested in actual conversation / structured argument, however I question the stability of the information presented when the presenter resorts to personally attacks on his opponent.

As for myself, I have done graduate level research into foodsystem distribution and policy and would be happy to provide you the contact information of many proffessionals in the field who research this type of thing full time.