text:
Soda tax would boost public health
Proposals to tax soda are looking likely to fail in Pennsylvania and New York. Will one pass in DC?
Mary Cheh's DC Healthy Schools Act proposes a tax of 1 cent per fluid ounce of sugary soft drinks. A 1 cent tax would add about $1.44 to the cost of a 12 pack of soda. Such a tax would generate about $16 million annual and provide the $6 million Cheh needs to implement school programs that promote healthy eating behaviors as well as healthier breakfast and lunch options.
If the bill passes, DC would join at least 30 other states that impose small sales taxes on soft drinks and/or snacks. However, Cheh's proposal is unique in that the tax would fund an educational program to foster healthy eating among DC's youth. It is important to lay the foundation of healthy habits early one because children often develop eating and brand loyalties at a young age.
The DC city council should pass this critical piece of public health legislation. While medical technology has certainly helped increase life expectancy, it is good public health policies that have improved the quality of life for many.
Compare the possible benefits of a soda tax to the cigarette tax. Taxing cigarettes has proven to be highly successful in reducing consumption. For every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces sales by 3 to 5 percent and has lead to better health outcomes. Sugary beverages like soda can lead to negative health outcomes for children and adults. Obesity-related medical expenditures cost tax payers approximately 74 billion a year through Medicaid and Medicare.
A reduction in child obesity could lead to major savings for DC tax payers over the long term. In 2008 36 percent of high school students were clinically overweight and obese. If we assume that the patterns of obesity are the same among younger children, then about 41,000 children 18 and younger are overweight or obese in the District.
Researchers estimate that the cost of health care associated with obese children in 2008 is $15.97. If we multiply the number of overweight and obese children in the District by $15.97, then the total cost of obesity related health care is approximately $655,000.
While a small tax can generate millions, will it actually have the effect of reducing soda consumption? Most likely not. Studies indicate that a tax of at least 18 percent would be needed. Experts at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity argue that the tax needs to be high if we want to change American's addiction to sugary drinks. However, city council members and the voting public may be less willing to accept a tax much higher than 1 cent. Only those who truly think that obesity is a major problem for the district would be willing to pay a higher soda tax.
Opponents of a soda tax argue that a tax would disproportionately hurt the poor who spend a larger proportion of their income on food. This may be true, but only for poor people who consume more soft drinks. The bigger problem for low-income households is having access to grocery stores that offer healthy, affordable food options. It is no coincidence that areas of the District that lack access to grocery stores (mainly in Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8) tend to have higher rates of obesity than wards in the upper Northwest. Hopefully Cheh's program could be extended to provide food subsidies to families living in areas with few healthy food options.
The beverage industry is fiercely opposing the proposed tax. The Maryland-Delaware-D.C. beverage association and more than three dozen city grocers and restaurants have formed a group called No D.C. Beverage Tax. The group has run full-page ads in the Metro along with other local papers and radio spots.
The Campaign for Healthy Kids argues that the American Beverage Association has spent $5.4 million to fight various state and local initiatives to tax soda, and that DC is now it's new target. They have started a petition to urge the City Council to pass Cheh's proposal.
While much of the debate regarding the soda tax is focused on the "tax" itself, proponents of the tax need to focus more on the public health message. The purpose behind the Healthy Schools act is to fund nutrition programs and reduce consumptions of unhealthy products. Hopefully it will be the public health message, and not the industry message, that will resonate with city council members when the act is up for a final vote later this month. Pass the soda tax, it's good public health policy.
Here's my biggest beef:
How is it that a massive tax increase is being proposed without there being a single public hearing on the issue?
Cheh never introduced a bill to impose the tax. There's never been a Council hearing to discuss the tax and whether it's a good idea. Instead, she's trying to stick it into next year's budget, without there being a public hearing on the matter.
How exactly does that comport with her good governance views?
Why single out that product? I don't drink that much soda. I don't have a problem paying taxes (in general, at least). I just don't see what's sparking this idea to tax soda _in particular_. Tax all food, or all purchases made anywhere, but why single out soda?
It may be time to take a look at reversing that action.
Recently Safeway had a promotion on Pepsi products -- buy 3 for 7.99
That works out to 2.33 each.
A $1.44 tax = a rate of 47.8%
VA's 2.5% tax on food would net a tax of $0.07
Everyone I know who lives in New York near a (domestic) border has threatened to buy soda across state lines if that tax passed. This even includes my relatives on Staten Island who have an $8 toll between them and soda tax-free New Jersey. That says a lot there, now imagine how it'd work in the worst place for a sales tax hike.
If you look to VA and MD as an analogy then you should support instead a broad-based sales tax on all food, which currently DC does not have.
A: Hmm...pass huge regressive taxes and/or drive business out of the district, I can't decide..so,let's do both!
Yes. I understand that. Maryland specifically taxes prepared/processed foods but keeps foods like meat and produce exempt. I think that would be the way to go generate about the same amount of revenue on the entire range of "unhealthy" foods.
It is fattening yuppies all over the district! We have to stop them from killing themselves slowly through gluttony! They canÂ't control themselves and canÂ't make their own decisions, so we will tax this sin until they just stop sinning!
the thing about people who whine about taxes and threaten to make economically illogical decisions out of spite rarely actually follow through with it. You say that people are shopping outside DC because of the bag tax, where's the non-anecdotal evidence of that?
There is evidence with the cigarette tax that some people will make an economically rational choice to buy their cigarettes outside DC after the tax hike. Where the threshold is is the question. Will people make a special trip to avoid paying an extra buck or so on a six pack? Maybe but I bet it will be fewer people than would change their patterns over the cigarette tax.
My own feeling is that the tax may be on the slightly high side. But not by that much.
And I want to make sure bike-gels are included in this tax as well. Iced tea too.
And does anyone think
1) $6 million is going to really improve the quality of school food in the District?
2) In an era with record deficits, what are the chances of this money being put into the general fund?
3) Isn't the real argument that if we let poor people die quickly, retirement and other health care costs are reduced?
When I see Democrats pretending to be economists, run.
my main issue with this is the .01 per oz rate - it's entirely too high. many have noted that a bottle of generic soda is about $0.88. this would be subject to a $0.67 tax - 76%! absolutely ridiculous. something more like a flat .05 per container would be much more appropriate.
It wasn't a serious tax proposal. Really just hinting playfully at the social and economic issues behind this, and the regressive nature of the tax in general.
("save the fat children", etc).
It's sold as a 'feel good' tax, but is really regressive taxation, harming business, and increased spending in a down economy.
I'll use the "Tax GU" refrain to make sure people get the sarcasm.
The argument that "you can't A unless you also do everything that's remotely like A" is a bit silly. Who says we can't? We're just about to. What, are we infringing on Dr. Pepper's constitutional protections?
Sugar is not inherently unhealthy. There's legitimate research that says carbohydrates in any form are just as much a problem as sugar. Should we tax flour? What about beef? Vegetable oil? Anything with fat?
People who exercise a lot consume a lot more calories than lazy, fat people. This tax makes the healthiest people pay a lot too.
If we need money, fine, raise taxes, but singling out something like soda is just crazy.
It also taxes coffee and tea "if sugar is added at point of sale" meaning that all coffee shops will have to change the way they distribute sugar - you won't be able to add it yourself. This also includes fast food restaurants, 7-11, and so on - no more self-service sugar.
They will basically have to charge you 12-24 cents for a pack of sugar at the register. I can't believe that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
Are we not going to tax sugar in 5 lb bags at the grocery store? Can Starbucks now just start selling sugar packs for a penny each to get around the tax?
The more we try to tax "lifestyles" the deeper a hole we dig. Soda is not directly responsible for bad eating habits and taxing it won't change the problem, it will just shift more tax burden on poorer people.
Right, but we heard the same argument during the debate over the bag fee. Why not tax dry cleaning bags? What about the bags that newspapers come in?
God knows. Could be industry lobbying. But politics, especially at the local level, is the art of the possible. The point of this tax (the front-end, at least) is to make unhealthy sodas marginally more expensive for cash-strapped kids. So, what, 12 cents for a 12 oz soda seems reasonable. As Jamie hinted, the only time that adults will even notice the tax will be when making bulk purchases.
But the idea that it'll drive bulk shoppers to the 'burbs to buy their cases of soda seems a bit overblown. Most folks who buy soda by the case are probably going to big-box suburban stores anyway...
Disclaimer: I usually drink soda water w/ a little key lime juice, so I've got no skin in the game.
Why would people who buy a lot of soda behave differently than people who buy a lot of any other product? Have you already forgotten the stories about all the crazy things people did to avoid paying a nickel for a plastic bag?
That 50 cent tax cost us $7 million in revenue, about 25% of the total vs. 2009. That wasn't from people who quit smoking I assure you.
As you noted, the tax has the least impact on single purchases, where soda costs sometimes 5 times as much as it does in cases or big bottles. Would you really care about paying $1.66 instead of $1.50 for a 16-oz bottle?
Unfortunately this is what kids are most likely to be buying. This means it's very unlikely to affect their consumption habits, which is supposedly the point of the tax. But it is far more likely to affect bulk purchasing habits, like with cigarettes.
Also, I can make up facts, too. The bag tax is the reason why Obama canceled the Orion missions and are funding the taliban.
Soda is bad for me. Sometimes I drink it. It won't kill me to pay a little extra tax (but the corn syrup might).
This tax should be on the uninsured and especially those on Medicare and Medicaid. Their habbits affect all of us because we pay for their healthcare. Fair is fair. You want the government to pay for your healthcare, then you need to take some responsibility over how you live your life.
Let's see if DC has the guts to levy this tax only people on Medicare and Medicaid.
You know what? I read that wrong. Coffee and tea are EXCLUDED when sugar is added at the point of sale. My bad. But it sounds like any coffee beverage OTHER than drip coffee would be subject to the tax.
It does not discriminate between sugar and high fructose corn syrup though. (Any caloric sweetener counts.)
"(3) "Sugar-sweetened beverage" means a non-alcoholic beverage that contains caloric sweeteners. The term "sugar-sweetened beverage" shall not include beverages that contain:
"(A) Milk or milk products;
"(B) Soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes;
"(C) Greater than 70% of vegetable or fruit juice by volume;
"(D) Coffee or tea when a caloric sweetener is added at the point of sale;
"(E) Infant formula; or
"(F) Medically necessary beverages.
Can't wait until starbucks hears about this....Jamie is right, it includes every frappacino...how much do you think it will cost to reprogram all those registers?
This is a publicity stunt combined with a money grab. Not sure which is worse.
Who cares if you have insurance now? In 40 years (if you make it) you'll be claiming the same Medicare subsidies that the rest of us will for prescriptions. And when your MD-based doctor prescribes you pills to treat the hypertension that you cause by decades of crappy eating habits, the rest of us will have to help pay for them.
60 cents per two liter will add up quickly.
I think almost no one is putting this in context of a poor or out of work family's budget, and how large consumption taxes can add up over, say, a month or so.
My guess is that few people on this board grew up poor.
Yes, too much sugar is bad, we all know that.
... but how about a 40% (just like the 60 cents/ $1.50 soda tax) tax on all of your favorite foods? Or, on everything with sugar?
How about a flat 40% tax on everyone's grocery bill?
By the way, good posts, Jamie.
I think it's hilarious that we are concerned about the public safety threat from coke but apparently we're perfectly content with one of the lowest beer taxes in the nation.
Here's to your health...
Beer - 9 cents/gallon (128 oz.)
Wine = 30 cents/gallon
Liquor - $1.50/gallon
Soda (proposed) $1.28/gallon
I guess the liquor lobby is the giant gorilla around here after all.
The objective of Cheh's bill is to improve the eating habits of school-aged students. Beer, wine, and liquor aren't relevant because of...the drinking age.
Also, what are some of these stories of people going to dramatic ends to avoid the $0.05 bag tax? Is there a news story I'm missing? I think most of us avoided them by...buying a reusable bag.
2.The health arguement is bogus as well. How does diet soda fit into that mix which sells at a rate of 8 to one for regular coke as an example. It should not be taxed at that arguement. Do energy drinks factor in as well? What about OJ which is just as high in sugar.
3. This opens up a whole new area where governments can now tax us. Next will be foods high in fat, etc etc.
4. It is not the job of the government to regulate our diet. Yes they should make recomendations, yes they should keep us informed letting us know soda can make us fat, but in the end its our choice.
by kidincredible on May 18, 2010 1:59 pm • link • report
Why would people who buy a lot of soda behave differently than people who buy a lot of any other product? Have you already forgotten the stories about all the crazy things people did to avoid paying a nickel for a plastic bag?
If by "changed their behavior" you mean, stopped shopping in DC, then I wouldn't say I've "forgotten" them so much as "discounted" them. Aside from a few cranks and outliers, no one's making long trips to MD to shop who wouldn't have done it before.
I do see folks who've "changed their behavior" by bringing in reusable bags, and by, say, carrying 3-4 items to their car in their hands if they forget, but that was at least a part of what the bill was intended to produce, right?
2. The diet drinks aren't taxed. Energy drinks that have sugar (almost all of them) are taxed. Most of the "energy" is fructose. Orange juice has vitamins.
4. The government isn't regulating your diet. You would be free to drink as much soda as you want. You would just have to pay more.
No, the objective is to pay for the healthy schools eating program.
How many school age kids buy soda in quantities other than a single can or bottle with any regularity? Do you think 12-16 cents on top of each $1-$1.50 purchase is likely to change that habit in any way?
Do you even have any idea what percentage of the soda in DC is sold directly to school-age kids? I don't... but then I'm not proposing huge taxes on something I don't know about.
"Beer, wine, and liquor aren't relevant because of...the drinking age."
The reason soda is targeted is because sugar contributes to health problems -- of everyone, not just school kids.
"Also, what are some of these stories"
There were many stories about people juggling groceries, carrying them home with one hand, and so on early on to avoid the tax.
What would be the "bring a reusable bag" equivalent when it comes to soda?
The more relevant analogy is the cigarette tax, since there's no "alternative" like bringing a bag to avoid it. It is irrefutable that the tax drove a great deal of business to neighboring states.
Right. The bag tax was less about raising money and more about ending plastic bag use.
The bag tax was designed to protect the Chesapeake watershed from millions of plastic bags. The tax was designed to be offensively high so that people would stop using them.
In the end, the tax would (1) save the local governments money that would have to be used to clean the Potomac, Anacostia, and Chesapeake and (2) increase business by helping to bring back local fisheries. In this case, the total regional utility is inversely proportional to the total bag tax revenue collected.
Understandably, people like Jamie are offended and feel that it infringes on their right to pollute.
Sorry Bianchi. This is not an argument for a tax.
There is very little that you could say that one "needs to survive" other than perhaps ramen noodles.
Anyway, if you like that one, I bring you back to our beer tax which is 1/10 the proposed soda tax.
So, why did you bring it up?
"What would be the "bring a reusable bag" equivalent when it comes to soda?"
Drinking water, actual fruit juice, or milk. And exercising.
Perhaps you've forgotten that 30 square miles, almost half, of DC's territory is within a mile of a border with VA or MD. Perhaps you've also forgotten that a lot of people (actually, myself, my fiancee, and most of my friends) work in Maryland or Virginia.
We aren't in Greenland you know. DC just got it's first Target store a couple years ago, most people go to MD and VA routinely out of necessity anyway. Grocery shopping there is not exactly an inconvenience.
Given the ever-increasing number of taxes on that chore, it's becoming an easier choice to make every day.
Just wanted to point out that your cite of DC's tax on liquor is incomplete. Yes, it's 9 cents per gallon, but there's an additional 8% sales tax for off-premise, and 10% for on-premise, so the net tax is effectively higher:
Somehow the idea that poor folks' quality of life will be adversely impacted unless they're able to pour torrents of cheap sugary sodas down their children's necks isn't very compelling to me. Especially given that the low price of said soda is as artificial as the dyes they tint it with.
If "The objective of Cheh's bill is to improve the eating habits of school-aged students" I, as an adult, would be exempt from the soda tax, right? Or is Councilmember Cheh's "won't somebody please think of the children" handwringing just the excuse behind yet another regressive tax hike aimed at filling the hole in the city's budget without resorting to politically unpopular moves like raising the income or property taxes.
I would hope that before taxing a product with the intent of reducing it's consumption in a particular demographic, you have some idea whether you are actually affecting them primarily, or mostly affecting a lot of other people.
"Drinking water, actual fruit juice, or milk. And exercising."
You must be one of those people who believes that the $7 million in revenue we lost from the cigarette tax is because 25% of DC smokers quit in October of last year, then.
To clarify -- you are arguing that high cigarette taxes dissuade people from smoking, which is bad because we lose tax revenue.
"Somehow the idea that poor folks' quality of life will be adversely impacted unless they're able to pour torrents of cheap sugary sodas down their children's necks isn't very compelling to me. "
This is the most arrogant thing you have said yet. Why don't you just propose a menu that we will mandate every DC resident consume? I assume it will be particularly heavy in quinoa and beets.
"Especially given that the low price of said soda is as artificial as the dyes they tint it with."
You seem to have no problem with saccharin and aspartame, which have been demonstrated to cause cancer in large enough quantities, which are specifically exempt from the tax.
But anyway this is obviously all about what you think is best for people, beacaus Mama Mary knows best.
So, how about we tax YOUR sinful purchases?...at 40%
Oh, you wouldn't like that?? OK, we will just target other people's diets..because, well, they don't know any better.
Besides, do you all think this will go to the super dreamy vision of DC kids eating organic vegetables all day? Think this money won't be stolen by Fenty?
It's a regressive tax and a huge tax in the middle of a recession. Great Idea. "Save the fat babies!"
No, d. That is what you seem to believe, not me.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. The results of our latest cigarette tax increase conclusively prove that people are perfectly willing to shop in MD or VA to buy a commodity that's taxed more heavily here.
There are two possibilities to account for a $7 million revenue drop when we raised the cig tax. One - 25% of DC smokers suddenly quit. Two - they started buying them in MD or VA. I'm putting my money on #2, but that's just me.
There are two possibilities to account for a $7 million revenue drop when we raised the cig tax. One - 25% of DC smokers suddenly quit. Two - they started buying them in MD or VA. I'm putting my money on #2, but that's just me.
While we're engaging in pure speculation I'd suggest you may have missed a third possibility, which is: 3) Some combination of 1) and 2).
But to your larger point: so what? I'm sure we could find all sorts of ways to maximize revenue by making our residents chronically ill and hastening their death. Heck, we might even qualify for more Federal dollars.
You miss the point of the cigarette tax, which was to get people to stop smoking. A reduction in cigarette tax revenue is an accurate measure of an overall reduction in cigarette sales, and a reasonable measure of a reduction in cigarette use. As it is, I don't know of other data to back up your hunch?
Then, I get to wait in a huge line for my monthly rations.
More expensive food- yay!
one day, regular foods will be as expensive as Whole Foods.
Awesome! Everyone has been screaming out for higher grocery bills, right?
Please. I'm all in favor of taxing the hell out of bad stuff (particularly cigarettes and liquor) but targeting soda is no better than targeting ding-dongs, cookies, spearmint gum, beef, butter, and a loaf of bread. Perhaps you were unaware, that there is much research that shows carbohydrates are almost as bad as any kind of sugars for heart health?
On the other hand, I'm completely opposed to taxing things that are just stuff we eat that have no inherent health risks. Sugar is sugar. It's a necessity of life. You can consume to much sugar, salt, and anything else.
Likewise, if you have an extremely active lifestyle, you could consume a twelve pack of soda a day and have zero health risks from it. Calories in, calories out. But I guess the more I exercise, the more taxes I shall pay.
Anyway, I am not at all in favor of corn syrup subsidies. Who said that? This is about the District of Columbia taxing a particular product because it can spin it in a politically popular way.
On Mary Cheh's web site it says that kids get 11% of their calories from sugar. How come you don't care about the other 89%? What about the fat and carbs, which are probably what's really making them obese? Oh, sorry, too unpopular to tax bread.
"Somehow the idea that poor folks' quality of life will be adversely impacted unless they're able to pour torrents of cheap sugary sodas down their children's necks isn't very compelling to me. "
This is the most arrogant thing you have said yet. Why don't you just propose a menu that we will mandate every DC resident consume? I assume it will be particularly heavy in quinoa and beets.
Obviously you're exaggerating to make a point. But it's clear we've got a fundamental disagreement: you think it's illegitimate for the state to impose "sin taxes" on things like cigarettes, alcohol, and other types of very unhealthy consumables--especially those that are targeted towards young people. I, and obviously most of the elected representatives on the Council, disagree. I doubt we're going to come to some sort of common-sensical middle-ground position.
But anyway this is obviously all about what you think is best for people, beacaus Mama Mary knows best.
Well, of course I would say scientists, public health officials, and concerned parents know best, but there y'go. If you find it comforting to think of me as the Avatar of the Nanny State, delivering this legislation to Cheh on a stone tablet, knock yourself out.
I can't wait until I have all my money and choice taken away from me, and the "Approved Diet" comes out.
Then, I get to wait in a huge line for my monthly rations.
You laugh (because it's funny) but there's approximately 30% of the US population that are stupid enough to believe in "death panels."
I'm giving up on this.
The "Save the Babies" message behind this tax is too cuddly and sweet. It might as well be 'Save the Puppies"
And puppies are way too cute to argue over.
"I guess the more I exercise, the more taxes I shall pay."
I think the city council shot down the health club/yoga tax last week so you're all good there.
Not at all. We disagree that soda is an inherently unhealthy product. I also disagree that soda is 10 times as unhealthy as beer. Don't you think there should be some degree of consistency in terms of the amount we tax something compared to it's risk and cost to society?
What about all the other things we eat that are unhealthy? Why single out soda? Why not doritos? Beef? Butter? Salt? Bleached flour?
FWIW I wouldn't care at all about this tax if it was 1.5% or even 6% like MD or VA. I might not vote for it in a referendum (what's that?) but I wouldn't be here complaining about it.
It is a common trope of any anti public health legislation to suggest that it will if course lead to totalitarian control over your life. Of course nobody admits that the opposite is just as unlikely to be true: namely the removal of all public health legislation would improve public health. So I ask you people-who-keep-making-slippery-slope-arguments, why not just remove all public health laws? Inspections drive out cheap businesses and prevent people from getting inexpensive and only slightly rancid meat. Lots of kids wouldn't get measles even without a vaccine.
Is it always better to remove public health laws or not? And if there is some happy medium, who's to say we're on one side of it instead of the other?
2. How many of the posters in these comments are getting paid by the beverage industry PR machine?
3. My real coment is where does the $16 million revenue estimate come from? Seems way too low. Americans average 216 liters of soda a year (reference below) that's 7300 ounces a year, or at the new tax rate $73 per person. Multiplied by 600,000 residents gives us $43.8 million in taxes. But DC residents earn a lot more than average citizens so they can afford more soda than average, plus a whole bunch of people spend most of their waking hours working and recreating in DC where they buy a lot of soda.
On the other hand I'm guessing the soda consumption numbers include diet soda which is not taxed (although they exclude some other beverages that would be taxed) and presumably the tax would lower cnsumption and encourage people to buy soda outside DC.
In any case, $16 million seems way low to me. But that's a good thing since we need the tax revenue.
Leaving aside the notion of factory farmed corn and wheat being "healthy foods," why not shift the existing subsidy dollars to farming operations that grow healthy fruits and vegetables? Ok, I'll tell you why: because those operations don't lend themselves to the large agribusiness model. In other words, the rural Senators from ADM wouldn't allow it.
[I know I shouldn't follow you off-topic, but I can't help it: The only folks who think Whole Foods is more expensive than, say, Safeway are folks who've never bothered to do the research. WF is actually at or below prices on most comparable items. Generally speaking, the "fact" that WF is expensive is one of those "common sense" things that "everybody knows" because I saw some expensive line-caught wild salmon that was $24/lb one time. Fortunately, since all Safeway has to offer is slightly past-its-prime factory-farmed pre-cut, shrink-wrapped filets, you never have to worry about accidentally buying a big-ticket item like that.]
Do I think there should be? Of course. Do I think there's any chance--in a representative democracy--there will be? Not on your life. Do I think that's a major problem worth getting excited over? Not particularly.
You do what you can, hopefully it makes things marginally better, and you come back and do it again the next day. Maybe in three years, folks start saying, "It's ridiculous that alcohol taxes are so low! Look at soda taxes!" Then we raise the alcohol taxes. Then maybe we lower the soda tax. Rinse. Repeat.
2)Not all fats are the same. Big diff between trans fat and omega-3.
3) USDA subsidies are known to be disproportionately distributed among production of food that is least in quality (lowest in fiber, highest in glycemic index, highest in "bad" fats).
Sorry if it came off as nasty- not meant at all
Just being facetious facetious and exaggerating.
Will be serious for a sec...
Taxing of sugar and sugar products OR removal of farm subsidies will hit family budgets hard.
Regressive taxes are just that- regressive. I don't like them...and more taxes during a recession?-- come on..
And the message? We all saw that list of potentially taxable things out of the council.
and the anti-government stuff was exaggerated on purpose, but, heck, this tax is exaggerated- at 63 cents per 2 liter!
Are they soft?
Washington Consumer Checkbook rates local grocery stores
"The report shows that for the same amount of groceries and for comparatively similar items, Wegmans charges $88, followed closely by Shoppers Food Warehouse ($95), Giant/Safeway ($100), Harris Teeter ($101), and Whole Food ($145)."
Then there's this one that compares specific stores where the only WF on the list was 25% higher than it's next closest competitor.
Now I understand why you think the soda tax won't drive people to shop outside DC...
Still haven't explained why removing subsidies for wheat, corn, and corn syrup products but redeploying them to actual foods like fruits and vegetables would necessarily "hit family budgets hard."
"Leaving aside the notion of factory farmed corn and wheat being "healthy foods," why not shift the existing subsidy dollars to farming operations that grow healthy fruits and vegetables? "
Wait- I thought we were talking about subsidy removal??
People have survived on corn, rice and wheat. Some of us don't have the luxury of super healthy diets. I wish we all did. Seriously.
So, I am just imagining that Whole Foods is expensive!? Next thing you know, you will be telling me that organic vegetables don't cost more than regular vegetables...
I thought we wanted to raise the price of sugar, and those darn 'unhealthy' grains?
higher food prices = higher grocery bills
higher grocery bills hit poorer families harder than regular families.
How is my logic, everyone? ;-)
No, it is. It's all coming together now.
The people who love this tax are the same people who not only shop at Whole Foods, but don't even realize that it's actually much more expensive than Giant.
If you didn't think that $1.00 for a single lemon was insane, why would you think a 65 cent tax on a 2-liter bottle of soda was insane?
Likewise, if the prices at Whole Foods didn't have you running for the nearest Giant store, why would you think that adding $2.88 in tax on a case of Giant brand soda (retail price - $5.00) would have some people running for Maryland or Virginia?
We simply aren't coming from the same place.
Whole Foods is the same price as Safeway and Giant?
Uh oh. Now you've given me a project for the weekend:
Your Washington Consumer Checkbook link is the first non-anecdotal study that shows any non-trivial difference. I still think this is highly dependent on what you're buying. Will have to do some shopping this weekend. (I usually go to the Harris Teeter, which also has a reputation among die-hard Safeway goers as "very expensive". Presumably based on the fact that HT's produce isn't rotten before you get it home.)
The other thing that's important to note (especially about some products, like O.J.) is that Safeway and Giant have a much greater selection that WF for most common items.
Maybe he picked Florida's Natural (which by the way I love) because they both sell it.
But any given day, Giant/Safeway will have one brand of premium (e.g. not from concentrate) orange juice on sale for $2.50 to $3.00 per half gallon.
Eric's "survey" should automatically not be trusted, because he set out to prove a premise: "My claim: That's BS! Their prices should be exactly the same." He chose products to make his point.
This whole argument has put the song "Common People" in my head
"I want to live like common people,
Well what else could I do -
I said "I'll see what I can do."
I took her to a supermarket,
I don't know why but I had to start it somewhere,
so it started there.
I said pretend you've got no money,
she just laughed and said,
"Oh you're so funny."
I said "yeah?
Well I can't see anyone else smiling in here.
Are you sure you want to live like common people,
you want to see whatever common people see,
you want to sleep with common people,
you want to sleep with common people,
like me."
The other thing that's important to note (especially about some products, like O.J.) is that Safeway and Giant have a much greater selection that WF for most common items.
Gonna have to take issue with you here. I know what you're saying, but I'd argue that "greater selection [of] common items" is a bit of an oxymoron. I'd much rather have the option of a dozen different types of fruits than a half dozen different brands of OJ?
Regarding your opinion that pop consumption among kids in current quantities does not increase health risks- I would appeal to your open intelligence to find out more on the subject.
one citation among hundreds:Adults who drink soda occasionally (not every day) are 15% more likely to be overweight or obese, and adults who drink one or more sodas per day are 27% more likely to be overweight or obese than adults who do not drink soda, even when adjusting for poverty status and race/ethnicity. Babey, et al
Rates of alcoholism hhave remained relatively stable over decades and even drunk driving has decreased while obesity across age groups, income groups and ethnicites has increased dramatically, from 3-5% of the population in 1970 to 33% today. Thats why obesity is considered epidemic and a major public health concern whereas alcoholism is not considered epidemic, though of course it is always a public health concern.
but alcoholism doesn't loom on the horizon as a health problem that will bankrupt the country in the same way that obesity does if rates are not slowed down and decreased. DC has the distinction of the highest childhood obesity rates in the nation. The quality of life for kids with obesity is equivalent to that of kids with cancer. If we can prevent this condition it is the humane and kind thing to do.
The Undercover Economist wrote about this phenomenon in his book by the same name, pointing out that an identical basket of goods actually cost less at Whole Foods than it did at his local Safeway, but that a typical basket of goods cost more at Whole Foods. The reason is that the average shopper at a Safeway is more likely to opt for cheapo value brands and other inferior products, whereas shoppers at Whole Foods are more likely to go for premium stuff. In which case, it's really not so much about the store as it is about the shopper.
"tax and/or farm subsidy removal = higher food prices
higher food prices = higher grocery bills
higher grocery bills hit poorer families harder than regular families.
How is my logic, everyone? ;-)"
Not so great. Removing subsidies would also lower taxes for everyone.
But the idea is to remove subsidies for junk and HFCS, and provide them for fruits and vegetables which currently don't get anything.
More expensive junk + cheaper fruit and veg = healthier food for poorer families.
(Oh, and on the Whole Food front, my experience is that produce is WAY more expensive at WF, but prices on everything else - pasta, milk, processed foods, etc. - are comparable to those at Giant, with the caveat that there are some cheaper items WF doesn't carry but Giant does.)
ANd please explain to me why gatorade isn't bad for you.....
WAIT, no one said we would automatically have lower taxes!
AND you've Added the fruit/ veggie subsidy too!?
you've shifted the argument!
Darn shifty folks!
gotta keep my eyes on y'all!
I don't know what that book you reference is or what his methodologies are, so I can't speak to it. However I have no reason to believe that the WCC survey isn't about as objective as one could ask for. They are a non-profit organization, they are well respected, and have no commercial ties or interests. They do not accept advertising and are entirely member supported. As such I think that makes their survey about the best objective comparison available.
The idea that "economies" should dictate similar prices does not make sense to me in this case. Whole Foods and Safeway/Giant do not target the same kind of consumer. People are willing to pay more for a better-looking store that offers premium products. You can't buy a thousand different kinds of imported cheese at Giant, or have a whole aisle of bulk grains. It doesn't violate any economic principles that they would charge more on average for similar items. Their customers are wealthier, and, while there is some overlap in the products they buy, don't buy the same things as Giant customers.
Let me put it as simply as possible. They don't sell Hellman's mayonnaise at Whole Foods.
"The people who love this tax are the same people who not only shop at Whole Foods, but don't even realize that it's actually much more expensive than Giant."
Let me set your mind at ease: when I buy fancy cheese at Whole Foods instead of cheapo Giant brand cheddar, I am fully aware that it is more expensive and that I have, alas, expensive tastes. BUT, I have also shopped at Whole Foods at the end of the month when I didn't have much money, and by sticking to basic items and taking full advantage of the bulk section, I was able to eat well for the same price I would have spent at Safeway while still avoiding growth hormones in my milk.
Just because they sell expensive things doesn't mean everyone who shops there is compelled to buy them. At Whole Foods, their marketing experts will push aged Gruyere. At Giant or Safeway, other marketing experts will push name brand cereal instead of store brand and Lunchables instead of making your kid a sandwich. I have seen a lot of high-priced items at Giant. The difference is that people are paying for the "convenience" factor rather than the organic factor.
Marketing is everywhere. The key to shopping on a budget is making a list and buying only what you need, at any store.
I personally do not think a healthy diet should be out of reach or unobtainable for any American who strives for a healthy lifestyle. Unfortunately our current structure creates that reality. It can be changed just like it was in the 30's to meet a national problem. Where, when, how and what food we can purchase is highly regulated including that some are subsidized. These structures can be changed to make healthy diets achieveable for people that want to eat that way.
People with limited incomes don't buy unhealthy food because they're stupid. They make personal economic decisions that are right for them. Unfortunately choices are very restricted due to current federal, state, local policies affecting everything from artificially increased and decreased food item prices to zoning/tax codes that prevent or limit stores that sell good quality food from locating in certain areas. The whole system needs revamped.
But many people do not shop for those products, and the non-premium alternative is not available at Whole Foods. As many common brand-name products also are not.
The fact that you say you shop on a tight budget by "sticking to the bulk section" reinforces how different a consumer you are than the vast majority of consumers, particularly lower income ones. Most people do not buy bulk grains, or even know what to do with them.
I am making absolutely no argument about whether or not is might be possible for people who don't shop at WF to get better health and value from the products they sell there, by shopping as you do. But this is simply not reality right now.
Reality is, most people buy the chicken that's on sale at Safeway for $1.59 a pound, the orange juice that's on sale for $1.50 a half gallon, and the canned soup that's on sale for 5/$4.00.
Sure, these products are not as high quality as what you can get at WF. But by shopping for bargains, and not caring about organic, you can get out of the store and feed your family for half the price. Buying organic is, unfortunately, a luxury that has a very real price. You have to realize that some people just don't have that in their budget.
As I said, they don't even sell Hellman's mayo at WF.
Is simply saying "it's for the children" really sufficient to be able to do an end-run around the legislative process where the public gets to have its say on a brand new tax that would have a direct impact on their lives?
Good grief!
Were a Councilmember using the exact same route to propose a new mandatory tax on bikes, the commentariat here would be apoplectic with rage about such a blatant violation of the normal legislative process.
Yet, because it makes us feel good to do something "for the children," all those pesky concepts about legislative process and due process go out the window.
Simply amazing.
After they realize that DC schoolchildren simply won't eat steamed kale and cauliflower, though, I suspect the revenue will be diverted to another use like the bag tax revenue.
Nothing like a good old fashioned bait and switch! But anyhoo, Mary knows best.
When arguing on behalf of families that honestly cannot choose anything better than about to expire chicken at Safeway, remember that this country has a safety net and those families are likely, or should likely be, taking advantage of WIC. When I was in that situation a few years ago I was still able to feed my family home cooked meals with limited amounts of processed ingredients, it took time, but hey I had that and not money.
Not sure which part of the "legislative process" is where "the public gets to have its say on a brand new tax". You know we live in a representative democracy, right? Not ancient Athens?
These are less money problems than they are education problems. Which brings us full circle to the idea that the Council wants to use the soda tax revenue to educate children on healthy choices. Hopefully this would include teaching children to COOK again in public schools (when did home ec disappear?)
Although again - I do think this particular proposal is poorly designed.
Regardless of how the food at the grocery checkout is paid for we have a structure in our country that makes the least healthy choices the least expensive. That's the problem.
Can you show me how, under the Rules of the Council of the District of Columbia, a new tax can be implemented without it being introduced as a separate bill or it having a hearing?
If Ms. Cheh were proposing a $100 registration tax on bicycles to fund a program "for the children" and she were using the budget to implement that tax, without a single hearing on that tax, are you - or anyone else here - seriously arguing that the commentariat wouldn't be in an uproar?
Sounds nice, doesn't it?
(sing some Marvin Gaye if you're realy moved "When I look at the world, it fills me with sorrow. Children today really gonna suffer tomorrow...")
If it weren't the DC government (insert bag tax money diversion reference, government corruption, Marion Barry reference or two here...) and I felt that the money would be spent well.
and it didn't take away money from households and very potentially divert business from the district
it wasn't so huge and highly regressive
and we weren't in a recession
I would be ALL FOR IT.
In fact, can they buy me some fresh organic fruits and vegetables?? Please! I can't afford them, or organic anything... I buy rice, frozen bagged mixed veggies, coffee, milk, and sugar most of the time.
Can't they move down that potential tax list and try something else?
OR...Tax really cool hats-- That would stick it to Fenty!
He's so gosh darn dapper!
Anyway, I wouldn't mind a $100 DC registration tax, since bicycle registration is no longer mandatory in DC. But I might pay it anyway, if it was for healthy school lunches, cause I'm a softy like that.
Tax soda and redistribute the money to DC's poorest residents in the form of Whole Foods coupons, along with an instruction book for soaking beans and making whole wheat bread from flour and yeast.
Problem solved!
I predict a big increase in beer sales at Whole Foods.
Seriously. I am all in favor of education. But how again does this tax educate anyone? All it does is educate them that it's less expensive to buy soda in Maryland and Virginia.
Having an ideal about how the world should work is one thing. That's just great. But you can't talk about life in DC like a couple college students playing Sim City.
The reality is that most poor people DO NOT have the first idea what to do with the grain aisle at WF. They probably haven't set foot in one before, because there isn't one within two miles of their home. Spend some time in someone else's shoes. See how regular people shop.
Stop thinking that just because your way is better for you, it' better for everyone. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but you can't wave your magic wand and change their way. Work to help people, great. But it's still their choice you know.
But back to the soda tax, what does that have to do with buying dried beans at Whole Foods?
I think it had to do with you saying that it was the Whole Foods crowd that was supporting the soda tax.
I dunno, you tell us - I was just responding to the sub-thread debate about the price of Whole Foods vs. Giant that you helped get going!
After the tax is instituted, all of DC will stop buying Rock Creek Pineapple Soda, and replace it with Vitamin Water. I assume that the next logical step is that sales of Doritos and ding-dongs will plummet, as bulk quinoa sales boom, through magic.
Yes it is their choice. You are the one saying that adding 1 cent per ounce to the cost of a soft drink eliminates the option of drinking a soft drink. Everyone else says they have the choice to buy the soft drink, but that society will collect more than just the production cost of the drink because society will have to deal with the long term effects of people making that choice.
This policy, like many policies proposed by liberals, attempts to recapture some of the external costs of a good that can't be properly priced or collected by the seller. It is essentially the same concept as pricing carbon as put forth by Obama.
The thing about sugar, is that it's not inherently dangerous. Someone who is very active could consume massive amounts of it with very little risk, compared so someone who's inactive.
Anyway, I guess you don't believe in health insurance.
Or more succinctly, "in your ideal world, everyone would pick up their own trash."
Diet and health is not as simple as calories in and calories out. And further, I made no absolute assertions about "exact cost". But in this case there is no collection of any costs right now. Any collection would be a move in the right direction and likely far below "the exact costs that are potentially associated with" drinking soda.
Can you not acknowledge that our society is getting more obese each year? Sure, soda is not the only source, soda has been targeted because it's the quickest lift and would have the greatest impact. It is because I am such an advocate of universal health care coverage that I see the debate this way. The more we can do to decrease, or at least decelerate the trend in obesity the lower the future costs will be.
No, more like taxing carbon emitted from, say, coal burning, but not all other fossil fuels. And then using the tax revenues to fund rainbows and unicorns in Canada.
The tax is targeted at one aspect of a much larger problem, and the revenues aren't being used to address the alleged costs of that problem, they're instead being directed towards something else. And that assumes that you could, in fact, actually address the problem with these revenues, which seems fairly unlikely given that the health effects are down the road and likely to be borne by someone other than the DC government in large part anyway (federal government, Florida, Arizona, pretty much anywhere else).
Even if we don't have universal health coverage reducing obesity will save everyone money 5, 10, 20 years from now. Included in the economics are not just health care costs but labor lost and all that encompasses including earning power and taxes paid out.
Our industry is making a difference when it comes to healthy lifestyles. With the Clear on Calories initiative, America's leading beverage companies have committed to clearly display the calories in all our beverages on the front of the can or bottle as well as on our vending and fountain machines – putting calorie information at your fingertips. And our School Beverage Guidelines have reduced beverage calories in schools by a dramatic 88 percent.
Taxes don't teach healthy lifestyles – education, exercise and balanced diets do that. For more information, visit www.ameribev.org.
The average 10 year old requires ~2000 calories/day. 5% of that=100 calories. That translates to ~one serving of pop/day. This level of pop consumption increases odds for obesity in children by 1.6%
One reason for the increased odds is because when extra calories are consumed as a liquid there is little to no compensation by consuming fewer calories at the next meal as happens when solid food is eaten. Thus drinking pop adds to extra calorie consumption in a way that eating little debbie cakes doesn't.
Soft drinks constitute the leading source of added sugar in kids' diets.
It screams Pittsburgh.
Bring back Home Ec.
Thank god back in the day they taxed soda like crazy so I didn't drink it.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have it. The opposition in a nutshell: funding a marginal increase in school breakfasts and lunches so they're not absolutely killing our kids is the equivalent of "rainbows and unicorns."
Meanwhile, here's what we're feeding our kids: http://fedupwithschoollunch.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-05-14T21:00:00-05:00&max-results=7
Jesus, what a nation of numbskulls we have become.
If you drink soda, water, beer, wine whatever else its your decision.
And you know the outcome of the situation weight gain, death, drunkenness etc
The government should not be regulating what people deem fit by taxes It is a person choice.
If a parent says their children can have soda so be it.
If a adult wants to have a soda they should not be taxed because of someones fat kid.
Obesity is caused by
1 people eating crap they should not be
2 people eating to damn much
both of which are your own decision
the public should not be effected for some persons decicion to eat some fat food.
If this is truly about keeping people healthy than
Everything in Safeway, Wholefoods, Giant should be taxed except organic products which are the offspring or a organ of a plant and is used for eating.
All medicines & hair products that have high percent of synthetic or genetically engineered material
Anything that has petroleum in it ( vaseline, any medicine with a plastic coating, plastic)
Any thing that has ever been in contact with a Monsanto seed or is made by a Monsanto company.
Because in a democracy, having an educated voting populace provides a public benefit via more informed decisions. In a system where most people participate in a health insurance plan, having a healthier populace also provides a public benefit.
The marginal cost of providing better school lunches pales in comparison to the cost of funding lifelong diabetes treatment. Unless you live on a fortress island, you're going to end up paying one way or another.
Where not a democracy no country is they don't work out very well : see Rome, we are a republic
There ore the tax is twofold in application; to reduce consumption and thereby act as an intervention and to fund the larger intervention integrated within the school system.
Very informative. Also, we don't know if Erica *can* go to the bathroom, but she *may* go to the bathroom. Also, she doesn't do "good". Superman does good. She does "well."
Now that the day's exercise in middle-school pedantry is over, the larger point stands: we've made the decision to educate our young citizens because we've found that an uneducated population makes for a crappy republic when the republic is constituted via representative democracy.
And we provide these students with a decent meal because we found that many of these students were too hungry and malnourished to learn anything, subverting the previous goal.
You and Lance (and others) can disagree with those decisions--decisions that were made a long time ago, and for most Americans are relatively non-controversial--but let's drop the pretense of not understanding it.
If DC wants to stimulate eating well, it should target (and define) all bad food (why soda, and not chips?). And if DC needs more money, it needs to raise taxes across the board, and not single out one single item.
And if DC really wants to make a point, it would ban all food with HFCS. NY banned trans-fats and that worked out ok, despite heavy opposition from industry. Industry will adapt as long as there's money to be made. And you wanna bet that if DC is HFCS-free, suddenly supermarkets in Arlington and Bethesda will notice that their HFCS products will be sold less?
Right, but why? is this an aesthetic concern, or is there some larger objection?
Let Government's focus stay where it should be: on roads & public safety.
by LeeHinAlexandria on May 22, 2010 6:25 am • link • report
by Mike Licht on May 24, 2010 10:08 am • link • report
Add a Comment
- Proponents of term limits in Montgomery hope they'd mean more Republicans and less development. Both are unlikely.
- We're building apartments to be far smaller than we used to
- We know where most of DC's population lives. Does Metro run through those places?
- Why is there no Metro line on Columbia Pike?
- Prince George's County leaders join the chorus to keep late-night rail service
- A record number of people petitioned for a dog park at the Takoma Rec Center, but it's still not happening
- The shutdown is coming! The shutdown is coming! (On the Red Line)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
GURLEY, AL -- Two people are dead following a head-on collision on U.S. 72 near Rock Cut Road. The accident happened about 9:30 p.m. Tuesday when, according to witnesses at the scene, an eastbound vehicle crossed the median and collided with a westbound vehicle.
One of the vehicles came to rest on its side in the road.
Both drivers were pronounced dead at the scene. U.S. 72 West was completely blocked for several hours by the accident.


text:
Black Bean Chili
Black Bean Chili
Serve with Joseph Phelps Vineyards Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon
1 lb.
|Ground beef
|½ ea.
|Spanish onion, diced
|1 ea.
|Garlic clove, whole
|1 Tbsp.
|Dried jalapeño
|Red chili flakes
|2 ea.
|California chilies, 1 ground, 1 whole
|1 Tbsp.
|New Mexico chilies, ground
|1 can
|Beef broth
|1 can
|Chicken broth
|12 oz.
|Negra Modelo beer
|1 Tbsp.
|Mexican oregano
|¼ cup
|Masa harina
|¼ cup
|1 can
|Black Beans
|1 can
|Tomatoes, peeled & diced
|Salt and Pepper to taste
Heat a 2 qt. saucepot over high heat. Add the ground beef, season, cook out any water and allow to brown well. Note: Most grocery stores include ice when grinding their meats to add weight.
Add the onion and cook until translucent. Add the garlic clove and cook until it develops aroma.
Add all remaining ingredients except the masa harina and water. Bring to a boil and lower to a slow simmer. Allow to simmer about 30 minutes, stirring occasionally.
When the whole chili begins to break up while being stirred, it is done. It not only provides flavor, but also functions as a timer.
Combine the masa harina and water. Stir into the chili, bring to a boil, lower the heat and simmer about 20 minutes. You will likely need to adjust the seasoning with salt after adding the masa "slurry." Adjust the consistency if needed. It should be a rather thick stew-like consistency.
Note: Any slow-cooking dish like chili will always taste better if allowed to develop flavor for a day or two in the refrigerator. The chili will become thicker if allowed to develop for a few days.


text:
Originally Posted by WiiGamer24
Thanks for the tips!
as you can see they were posted several minutes apart whats wrong with that?
I was working and submitted then did some more work and submitted
Zelda: Twighlight Princess should come with a life time supply of AA Batteries for the Wii Remote !


text:
24123 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
#1 Fabrizio61 (1738)
#2 dcapo324 (1221)
#2 AnanKays (1505)
lets play
Welcome to
Why is gregorysteven playing in this tournament? He does this with under 1100 and 1200 tournaments all the time. Please remove this bully.
random tourney
Home |
Why Join | Chess Topics |
About |
FAQs |
Help & Support |
Site Map
Privacy Policy |
Legal |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!


text:
LANSING - The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is offering free basic archery instructor (BAI) courses.
Teachers attending the sessions can receive .7 SB-CEUs from the Michigan Department of Education. Each eight-hour session is for physical education teachers who wish to join the DNR's Archery in the Schools program.
Archery in the Schools introduces international-style target archery to students in 4th through 12th grade physical education classes. The in-school curriculum's core content covers archery history, safety, technique, equipment, mental concentration and self-improvement. To date, more than 345 schools across Michigan have implemented the program.
"Target archery is a safe sport, in which students of all skill levels can be successful regardless of age, size or physical ability," said Mary Emmons, coordinator for the Archery in the Schools program. "Incorporating archery as a school sport choice in the physical education curriculum creates an opportunity to engage students who otherwise may not participate in traditional athletics, and it is an individual sport they can enjoy throughout their lifetime."
For more information on Archery in the Schools, contact Emmons at (517) 241-9477 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.com. Information also is available at www.michigan.gov/dnrarchery.
The DNR is offering archery equipment grants to schools, both public and private, that enroll in the Archery in the Schools program.
In the Upper Peninsula, an archery instructor course will be offered Saturday, Dec. 19, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern time) at the Escanaba Civic Center.
For more information contact Erick and Karen Kestila at (989) 786-0957.


text:
Results 1 to 2 of 2
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9
- +1
- 2
a PWC that does not meet the 2006 emission standards set by EPA
This is from the National Park Service website for Lake Powell/Glen Canyon. nps.gov
Regarding the Personal Watercraft 2-stroke, 4-stroke engine issue:This rule only applies to PWCs. Regular boats do not apply.According to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 36, 7.70(e)(3): After December 31, 2012, no one may operate a PWC that does not meet the 2006 emission standards set by EPA for the manufacturing of two-stroke engines. A person operating a PWC that meets the EPA 2006 emission standards through the use of direct injection two-stroke or four-stroke engines, or the equivalent thereof, is not subject to this prohibition and will be allowed to operate as described in this section.
I looked for this a few years back, here it is. Maybe I'm late to the party
That's BS! This is like the EPA saying that you can't drive your pre-73 muscle cars because they didn't have emissions controls..
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


text:
Northwest Bancshares Inc. releases Q1 earnings
WARREN – Northwest Bancshares, Inc. announced net income of $14.6 million for the quarter ended March 31 of $14.6 million, or 16 cents per diluted share.
This represents a decrease of $658,000, or 4.3 percent, over the same quarter last year and a decrease of $5.8 million, or 28.1 percent, compared to the quarter ended Dec. 31. The annualized returns on average shareholders' equity and average assets for the current quarter were 5.16 percent and .75 percent compared to 5.45 percent and 0.78 percent for the same quarter last year and 7.06 percent and 1.02 percent for the quarter ended Dec. 31.
The company also announced that its board of directors declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of 13 cents per share in addition to the $1 special dividend announced on April 14. Both dividends are payable on May 15 to shareholders of record as of May 1, with an ex-dividend date as established by Nasdaq of April 29.
Northwest's President and CEO William J. Wagner attributed the decrease to the deterioration of two commercial loans. He noted that the net interest margin remained the same, and income from fees increased. Operating expenses increased as well, Wagner said.
Wagner said Northwest was named to Forbes list of America's 50 most trustworthy financial companies.
Net interest income decreased by $3.1 million, or 4.8 percent, to $60.9 million for the quarter ended March 31 from $64 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, as decreases in interest income on loans and investment securities of $3.6 million and $881,000 respectively were partially offset by a $1.3 million decrease in interest paid on deposit accounts. These changes from the previous year were due primarily to the continued low level of market interest rates.
The provision for loan losses increased by $327,000, or 4.6 percent, to $7.5 million for the quarter ended March 31, from $7.2 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, and increased by $6.5 million compared to the quarter ended Dec. 31. This increase is due primarily to two commercial loans requiring reserves of $4.9 million and $1.2 million, respectively. Asset quality has improved, with loans 90 days or more delinquent decreasing $21.2 million, or 29.2 percent, from a year ago. At March 31, the allowance for loan losses was $76.2 million, or 1.3 percent of total loans, compared to $72 million, or 1.28 percent of total loans, at March 31, 2013. Net charge-offs were $2.6 million, or .18 percent of average loans for the quarter ended March 31 compared to $8.4 million, or 0.59 percent, for the same quarter last year.
Noninterest income increased by $3.3 million, or 20 percent, to $19.7 million for the quarter ended March 31, from $16.4 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. This increase is due primarily to a $3.2 million increase in the gain on sale of investments. Additionally, trust and other financial services income increased by $843,000, due primarily to the acquisition of Evans Capital Management Inc. as of January 1. Partially offsetting these increases was a decrease in mortgage banking income of $707,000, due primarily to the retention of the residential mortgage loans that we originated during the current quarter.
Noninterest expense increased by $1.7 million, or 3.3 percent, to $53.2 million for the quarter ended March 31, from $51.5 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. This increase was due primarily to a $736,000 increase in processing expense as the result of software upgrades. Additionally, office operations increased by $489,000, due primarily to increased collections costs. Partially offsetting these increases was a decrease in marketing expense of $263,000, which was due to the timing of various campaigns in the current and prior year.
The effective tax rate of 26.5 percent during the quarter ended March 31 is reflective of the expected lower annual tax rate due primarily to the deductibility of dividends paid on the Company's stock held in our Employee Stock Ownership Plan and 401(k) plan.
Headquartered in Warren, Northwest Bancshares Inc. is the holding company of Northwest Savings Bank. Founded in 1896, Northwest Savings Bank is a full-service financial institution. Northwest operates 165 community banking offices in Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and Maryland and 50 consumer finance offices in Pennsylvania through its subsidiary, Northwest Consumer Discount Company. Northwest Bancshares Inc.'s common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol NWBI.


text:
Please describe. Do you mean Yard Sign panels, lightweight poly directional signs, other?
In the Twin Cities, see Continental Great Sign in Ramsey or Dahlen Sign in Shako ... more
Me and my brother we manage a 30 unit apartment in Excelsior, ... more
The types of projects that you are list are very weather dependent. I would keep an eye on hail storms in the area and do some good old fashioned door knocking. Getting to th ... more


text:
We'll be staying dry and relatively mild through the afternoon, but a cold front is marching in our direction from the Great Lakes. Clouds will keep overnight lows in the upper 50s, and showers should move into our neck of the woods after midnight. As for Wednesday, it will be a gray and wet first day of October. Expect scattered showers, and even a few locally heavy downpours as we head through the day.
The end of the week looks to feature a definite feel of fall, with a gusty WNW wind and cool temperatures. Many towns will stay in the 50s Thursday and Friday! Fall is certainly here. A few pop-up showers are possible both Thursday and Friday, but nothing too substantial.
Eric Fisher


text:
TEWKSBURY TWP. — Kathryn Steffanelli, 37, of Mill Street, Stockton, was traveling north on Oldwick Road, failed to stop, and struck a vehicle driven by Norman Emmons, 48, of Nazareth, Pa., on Jan. 4 at 8:30 a.m.
The Whitehouse Rescue Squad along with county paramedics transported Kathryn Steffanelli to Hunterdon Medical Center. She was charged with careless driving.


text:
New Orleans police are on the scene of a murder in Central City. A man was stabbed to death Monday in the 2600 block of Third St. about 8:30 p.m., according to officer Frank Robertson, a department spokesman.
The man was stabbed multiple times, and found lying on the sidewalk between a storage container and a business. He died at the scene, Robertson said.
No further information was immediately available. Check back with NOLA.com for more information as it becomes available.


text:
Two Air Force planes will spray chemicals to help break up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Pentagon officials said Friday as they considered what more the military could do to assist.
The two C-130 Hercules cargo planes were staging for their flights at Lake Charles, after getting their orders Friday, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. The planes were sent from the Youngstown Air Reserve Station in Ohio on Thursday.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates also was considering a request from Gov. Bobby Jindal for the federal government to pay for 6,000 National Guard soldiers and airmen who were preparing Friday to help with security, medical needs, engineering and other tasks.
Asked if he was confident the military was doing all it could to help, Morrell said: "We are confident that we are providing what has been asked of us and what is required of us at this point."
But he noted the situation continued to evolve as oil seeped into Louisiana's wetlands and threatened to push deeper inland.
"This is a dynamic, changing situation," Morrell said, and the military will help as needed.
The Navy said Thursday that it was sending booms, skimmers and contractors to of its bases in Mississippi and Florida that it is opening as staging areas.
The help was provided under existing agreements the two services have with the Coast Guard for such efforts. U.S. Northern Command has officers on the coast working with the Department of Homeland Security to figure out what more may be needed, Morrell said.


text:
Recent Posts
Monthly Archives: March 2011
Tsunami blog from Year 6
This week I worked with the Year 6 blog group on a blog about the Japanese Tsunami. Their Unit of Inquiry is tourism so we found facts via Google about the Tsunami that they thought would affect tourism in Japan. … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized Leave a comment
Borough staff are leaving and I am not happy
It is March which means in a couple of weeks time the borough will have very few staff left. Now many of those staff leaving I have never had any involvement with but it is still a shame for them … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized 2 Comments
Oh Friday my dear old friend
Oh what a week! We had Ofsted this week. The call came Monday morning at 9am. A staff meeting was called for 10am. I then spent the next two days (til about 2am each night) updating the Ofsted Room on … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized Leave a comment
It's all data data data
This week I have been mostly analysing data. It has something to do with a very special phone call. I won't say who called. They may wish to remain anonymous for a couple more days – we shall see… Anyway … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized 1 Comment
Paris and Podcasting
Well it's been a very tiring week. I accompanied a school trip to Paris. 20 children from Years 5 and 6 Monday to Friday. We were linking with a school in Paris as part of a film making project and … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized 3 Comments


text:
How far have women come?
The head of a review into the role of women in the Jewish community is to take a fresh look at the subject to see what progress has been made — 14 years later.
Rosalind Preston, former vice-president of the Board of Deputies and ex-chairman of Nightingale, is putting together a team for a 2008 study.
Rosalind Preston
"People I have spoken to feel that it is timely and necessary," she said. "I want to rediscover whether there was any value to what we did, to look at what progress has been made, and if not, why not, and whether we need to do anything about it."
The original review in 1994 was commissioned by Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks as one of his first major projects in office. It produced a 120-page report and a survey of women's attitudes.
Recommendations ranged from being more attentive to the needs of single women or providing a family mediation service, to publishing new prayers for Orthodox women on the loss of a child, guidelines on the recitation of Kaddish or encouraging naming ceremonies for daughters.
"Some recommendations have been well advanced, such as on women who suffer abuse," Mrs Preston said. "Jewish Women's Aid is well established and they are doing a grand job. It has got much more recognition.
"On practically every front there has been progress, with the exception of get and agunah," a reference to the plight of a woman unable to remarry in an Orthodox synagogue because her husband denies her a religious divorce.
Among other things, Mrs Preston wants to investigate the effectiveness of pre-nuptial agreements — which were designed to prevent agunot in the event of marital breakdown. Changing circumstances may have also affected the position of women, she said, citing the explosion of Jewish day-school education, the expansion of the Charedi community or more couples choosing to live together rather than marry.
Some of the original team have agreed to take part in the follow-up review, including Judge Dawn Freedman and demographic expert Marlena Schmool. This time it will be conducted under the umbrella of the Board of Deputies.
Mrs Preston said: "One can't be complacent and think that because it was done before, that's it.
"You have to go back to it every generation, perhaps every decade."
A few things women want to change
Prominent women have welcomed the new study. Lilian Brodie, former chair of the women's Zionist movement Emunah, said that the original review had failed to help singles as much as had been hoped.
The review urged "a nationwide, independent, self-financing, data-based introduction agency, offering an affordable and professional service to all Jewish singles".
But Mrs Brodie does not feel this has happened. "Traditionally, we are a couple-based community. We need to be more thoughtful in synagogue.
"For instance, a single mum wanting to take her son to synagogue might need a 'shul-buddy', if it is not appropriate for her to take him with her, and the same for a father with a daughter."
June Jacobs, former president of the International Council of Jewish Women, saw the recommendations in relation to get and agunah as out of date. The review states: "The Chief Rabbi should issue guidelines on what is judged to be acceptable to grant a get."
Mrs Jacobs said: "Rabbis should completely change the interpretation of a get so that it doesn't exist any more. It is nonsense that men have the power to give it. Not enough has changed and the Chief Rabbi sending out guidelines doesn't help."
Conservative peer Baroness Miller said: "There are more things that need to be looked at, such as conversion.
"We need to do things to make it easier for people to be Jewish and bring up their children Jewish."


text:
HOLYOKE– Police charged a 21-year-old Wilbraham man with operating under the influence of drugs following accident Tuesday night that left a pedestrian with serious injuries.
The accident was reported shortly before 9:20 p.m. near the Golden Horse Cafe at 447 Main St., according to police records.
Michael Frantiska, of 19 Herrick Place, Wilbraham, was charged with operating under the influence of drugs and serious injury, police documents state. Additional information, including the nature of the pedestrian's injuries, was not immediately available.


text:
5 posts tagged with roommates and money.
Displaying 1 through 5 of 5. Subscribe:
How to pay for cable TV when only one person wants it?
Moving in with roommate problems! [more inside]
How to exit gracefully from an unworkable & unaffordable living situation?
Back in May I cosigned a lease for an apartment with a friend of a friend running from July to July. Thanks to changing circumstances since then, I can't afford it and I have no choice but to get out of the whole arrangement by September, before university starts back up again. The province I'm in has extremely pro-tenant rental laws, so transferring the lease will not be a problem. What concerns me is dropping this bomb on the cosigner, who is 4000 km away until, well, just when I'd have to leave. Since we were introduced in April for the purposes of being roommates, he's also shown himself to be far more naive than he appears when it comes to stuff like this. But I've also committed a huge error in judgement by signing for this place, and I feel guilty for helping to convince him. I've accepted I'll have to burn more than one bridge. But I'm way too overwhelmed by the hundreds of responsibilities have piled up on my shoulders, and need to tell him very soon. How do I make this as quick, painless and guilt-free as is possible? More on the "changing circumstances" inside: read just the bold bits if you're short on time. [more inside]
Too much sharing=resenment
How can my roommate and I share food fairly? [more inside]
Either he spontaneously combusted or has become allergic to money.
I have my former roommate's security deposit. I don't know his new address. How do I get him the money slash how long do I have to keep trying to contact him before I'm allowed to give up and keep it for myself? [more inside]
Roommate owes me money. What do I do?
My roommate owes me $500 in bills and will likely owe twice as much until our lease is up. I need the money. What do I do? [more inside]
Page: 1


text:
I never dreamed we would need to explain to U.S. Sen. David Vitter that people in Louisiana have a right to know when our air quality is so poor it is dangerous to breathe. Yet, it seems we do.
Our senator is holding three hearings this month, but he appears more interested in casting doubt about the well-established dangers of ozone smog pollution rather than working toward a solution that will protect us from its harmful effects.
Clear evidence shows that the levels of ozone smog that we had considered safe are, in fact, not safe at all. As a clinician and researcher who has worked with children with asthma and other chronic illnesses for more than 30 years, I know that research shows that many Louisiana counties where the air is labeled "safe" actually have dangerously polluted air. In fact, we have ozone levels here in Louisiana that can worsen children's asthma and make it hard for them to breathe -- or even shorten their lives.
Louisianans have the right to know the truth about our air quality and we expect our U.S. senators to fight to protect children, seniors and other vulnerable people from air pollution.
Yvonne Sterling
New Orleans


text:
Please be aware...
All data reflects entry of opinions & names by users. All surveys, including
ours, include sources of errors which bias results.
Be sure to read the Favorable Bias Warning. In some parts of the site we show
only relatively favorable opinions. For a broader sampling please sign up as a
As you read the information we provide be sure to consider the cautions and
other information at the bottom of each page and in our user agreement.
Click BACK to return to the previous page


text:
This section provides information about MySQL Cluster software and table file compatibility between different MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2 releases with regard to performing upgrades and downgrades as well as compatibility matrices and notes. You are expected already to be familiar with installing and configuring a MySQL Cluster prior to attempting an upgrade or downgrade. See Section 18.3, "Configuration of MySQL Cluster".
For information regarding the rolling restart procedure used to perform an online upgrade, see Section 18.5.5, "Performing a Rolling Restart of a MySQL Cluster".
Only compatibility between MySQL versions with regard to
NDBCLUSTER is taken into account in
this section, and there are likely other issues to be
considered. As with any other MySQL software upgrade
or downgrade, you are strongly encouraged to review the relevant
portions of the MySQL Manual for the MySQL versions from which
and to which you intend to migrate, before attempting an upgrade
or downgrade of the MySQL Cluster software. This is
especially true when planning a migration from MySQL Cluster NDB
7.1 (or earlier) to MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2, since the version of
the underlying MySQL Server also changes from MySQL 5.1 to MySQL
5.5. See Section 2.11.1, "Upgrading MySQL".
The table shown here provides information on MySQL Cluster upgrade and downgrade compatibility among different releases of MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2. Additional notes about upgrades and downgrades to, from, or within the MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2 release series can be found immediately following the table.
Notes: MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2
Versions supported. The following versions of MySQL Cluster are supported for upgrades to MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2 (7.2.4 and later):
MySQL Cluster NDB 7.1 GA releases (7.1.3 and later)
MySQL Cluster NDB 7.0 GA releases (7.0.5 and later)
MySQL Cluster NDB 6.3 GA releases (6.3.8 and later) that can be upgraded to MySQL Cluster NDB 7.1
For information about upgrades to and downgrades from MySQl Cluster NDB 7.3, see Upgrading and Downgrading MySQL Cluster. For information about upgrades and downgrades in previous MySQL Cluster release series, see the MySQL 5.1 Reference Manual.
NDB API, ClusterJ, and other applications used with recent releases of MySQL Cluster NDB 6.3 and later should continue to work with MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.4 and later without rewriting or recompiling.
In MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2, the default values for a number of node configuration parameters have changed. See Improved default values for data node configuration parameters, for a listing of these.
Other known issues include the following:
In MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.7 and later, the size of the hash map is 3840 LDM threads, an increase from 240 in previous versions. When upgrading a MySQL Cluster from MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.6 and earlier to MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.9 or later, you can modify existing tables online to take advantage of the new size: following the upgrade, increase the number of fragments by (for example) adding new data nodes to the cluster, and then execute
ALTER ONLINE TABLE ... REORGANIZE PARTITIONon any tables that were created in the older version. Following this, these tables can use the larger hash map size. (Bug #14645319)
Due to this change, it was not possible to downgrade online to MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.6 or earlier. This issue was resolved in MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.11, where the size is made configurable using the
DefaultHashMapSizeparameter. (Bug #14800539) See the description of this parameter for more information.
It is not possible to downgrade online to MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.13 or earlier from MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.14 or later. Online upgrades from MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2.13 to later MySQL Cluster NDB 7.2 releases are supported.


text:
When Tulane's women's basketball team jumped out to an early 12-point lead against Mississippi Valley State in its first-round WNIT matchup, it might have seemed as if it were preordained for a trip to the second round.
However the Devilettes had a more sinister plan in mind: 40 minutes of hell for the Green Wave.
At the conclusion of the physical game, Tulane was able to resist the Devilettes' charge and pull out a 68-61 victory Thursday at Fogelman Arena.
"We started to relax and we got careless with the ball, and we started making some bad decisions," Tulane senior center Brett Benzio said. "It kind of happens when you think you have the game won. They are a good team, and I think we had to experience them getting the lead for us to really in our minds think, 'OK, we really need to take them serious.' "
Tulane (23-10) was clearly excited to kick off its postseason for the third consecutive year. However, the Green Wave was unable to sustain its initial intensity.
"I thought we came out with really great energy, and I guess we dropped a little bit too much so they caught up," said Tulane's Danielle Blagg, Conference USA's Freshman of the Year. "It has been a long season, so maybe that's it. It was exciting since it's our first postseason game."
The Green Wave trailed for most of the first 10 minutes of the second half and were down by two points with 9:36 to play after Mississippi Valley's Lenise Stallings hit a 3-pointer. On the next two possessions, freshman Tiffany Dale and Blagg each scored to give the Green Wave a 49-47 lead, and it held the advantage the rest of the way.
"To have the lead and lose it due to the run, and then be able to hold them off, that's really important with the young team, because they've never really had to outlast something like that." Benzio said about the freshman's response to trailing for much of the second half.
Tulane controlled the boards, outrebounding Mississippi Valley 43-34.
Benzio and Grayson each had double-doubles. Grayson had 13 points and 10 rebounds, and Benzio had 12 and 10.
The two upperclassman were instrumental in keeping their team poised when the Devilettes (18-14) made their push.
"Those two have been good for us, and when we really needed to lock (Mississippi Valley) down at the end we gave them one shot and out, and those two came up with the rebounds," Stockton said. "I thought overall, a good performance."
Stockton made an effort to use her bench, which outscored Mississippi Valley's 15-7.
"We're a little beat up and have some injuries, so I'm really trying to use them as much as I can," Stockton said. "We did that in the (C-USA) tournament, and I think we're going to have to continue it in this tournament. We are going to have to continue to get good play from the bench."
Blagg made four of eight from 3-point range and finished 7-of-13 from the floor for 18 points.
"I was really happy that I can come out and actually make some in the second half," Blagg said. "I tell myself (to keep shooting) and not to get down (on myself) on missed shots."
Tulane next travels to Lubbock, Texas where it will face Texas Tech at 2 p.m. Sunday in the second round of the WNIT.


text:
Click to enlarge
(Bluffton News Banner)
WELLS COUNTY, Ind. (21Alive) -- A 28-year-old is facing several charges after police say he intentionally drove his SUV into the Wabash River.
It happened around 4 p.m. Thursday at River Rd. and CR 450 East near the White Bridge. Seth Gehring has been charged with OWI, battery to a police officer, resisting arrest and assault with bodily waste.
Gehring was rescued from the river by fire and law enforcement personnel and then taken to the hospital. He has since been released from the hospital and is incarcerated at the Wells County Sheriff's Department.
According to the Bluffton News Banner, a bag was placed over his head to keep him from spitting on officers.
What are your thoughts CLICK HERE to leave us a "QUESTION OF THE DAY" comment.
© Copyright 2016, A Quincy Media broadcasting station. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
Our daily look at what coach Kyle Flood said and what happened at Rutgers football training camp:
Opening Remarks
"Great day out here today on F3, full pads. I know the players were looking forward to it and the coaches were certainly looking forward to it. I thought the players did a good job transitioning from the different tempos of practice, where we were live and tackling and then other periods where we weren't. So I was pleased, even when they weren't doing it perfectly, they were trying to do it right. I think that's the most important thing. We'll get better at it hopefully.
On Desmon Peoples' injury from Monday
"Desmon's got a hamstring and he's probably going to be another day or two. I think he'll be back no later than the first scrimmage. But it's just a little hamstring stain."
On if would normally practice on the grass field, given the sub-par condition
"The first five practices -- because they're only one a day and they're in the afternoon -- we've got more than enough room on the turf. And the technology these days, the turf is pretty good to practice on. When we start two-a-days tomorrow, you'll see us up on the grass a little bit. As long as it's not too slick, it'll be in the morning. But no later than the afternoon. We'll certainly be on it in the afternoon.
On if he's disappointed with the condition of the grass field
"We've used it a little bit more in the offseason than we have in the past, but it's OK. It's more than good enough to practice on. We'll be okay."
On what stood out during the first day of full pads
"I tell you one player who stood out -- Steven Longa. He continues to flash as you watch it live. It's really tough with the naked eye to see everything that you want to see, but he continues to make progress at that middle linebacker spot and that's critical for us. I'm interested to see some of these lesser experienced guys on the back end and see how they perform."
On if Longa is making all the right calls
"Absolutely, yes."
On having stability at center
"I think that's where it begins and for the offensive line coach, the center is always the most important guy, because he's the one who assures that everybody is on the same page. And Betim has really done a good job of that this summer in training camp. I'm pleased with his progress. He's done a good job. Now we've got to continue to evaluate that group on film as we go. It was good to not notice Chris Muller today. I'm anxious to get the film on him and see how well he played. But has not stood out as somebody who has not played well."
On if he's seeing some of the true freshman starting to assert themselves
"Not so much the freshmen really, more the redshirt freshmen more than anything. There's the one's coming on a little bit. Guys like Steven Longa, Quanzell Lambert, Chris Muller. They're the ones to me that are showing up right now. But they may not be the only ones. It's still a little early, we've got to give them time."
On if he's happy the way Quanzell Lambert is fitting in DE
"I was looking over at indy (individual drills) today and he's starting to look like one of them as he goes through drills. And I think that's the first part. You've got to be able to do it in the drills and then you've got to be able to do it in the fragmented periods, like inside-run and then ultimately team and in the games."
On his confidence with his crop of over-the-middle WRs
"I never felt like it was missing (last year). We don't have a lack of toughness there. We have good, tough players at that receiver position. Even in the limited things that Brandon (Coleman) has done, I see what coach (Ron) Prince is doing with him. He's running routes on every part of the field. And I think that's important. To take advantage of him in every situation. But whether it's Brandon or (Quron) Pratt or Ruhann Peele -- even some of these younger players who have flashed, like Miles Shuler, who I thought had a great day in the afternoon. It wasn't only his catching the ball, I thought he did an excellent job of blocking in the run game and did some great things in special teams. We've got a lot of players over there who can help contribute. I certainly don't think there's a lack of toughness.
On how he will break up double-sessions on Wednesday
"It'll be a little under two hours for each practice. Morning practice is at 8:30 and the afternoon practice is at 4:30."
On what he looks for during the first double session
"We'll be a little bit more physical and run-oriented in the first one. And in the afternoon practice, it'll be a little bit more pass-oriented. Full pads in the morning and they'll be in shells in the afternoon."
On if Savon Huggins looks different than the spring
"I think Savon -- all of his cuts are smoother. I think his reactions are more consistent. And these are the things that happen as you get reps. Coach Prince is utilizing different aspects of the run game. This offense is so inclusive that there are very few things you can't do in this offense. Every coordinator I've worked with accentuates different parts of it. It's a little bit technical when you describe it that way, but I think Savon's done a great job of working hard through the offseason and working hard through these first five practices. And I think it's paying off."
On what he likes about backup RB Paul James
"I want to see PJ do what we ask him to do. Right now, he's getting a chance to operate against the second defense and he's having success. And the more success he has, the more opportunity he'll have to maybe play against the No. 1 defense a little bit."
On what will differentiate the No. 1 punt returner from the competition
"Well, the first thing will be the guy we have the most confidence in catching the ball -- that's critical when you put that person back there. And then I think we've got to decide, as we get closer to the game, what are the individual roles of people. You don't want a person to do everything, unless you don't have an option. But I don't think that's the case where we're at. I've seen Quron Pratt go back there and really look good. I've seen Miles go back there and look good. I've seen Janarion Grant go back there and look good. And some other guys, for sure. But those three guys have really gone back there and really looked natural catching it. So now we'll have to see where they fit with all the other pieces of the puzzle and make that decision.
On what he means by "do everything"
"Well, if you didn't have enough talent, you might have to have the No. 1 receiver be the punt returner, be the kick returner. I don't think that's the case. I think Jeremy Deering will be an excellent kick returner for us. I think Miles will be back there with him the way it stands now. We'll have to see where they fit in in the offense to see who the punt returner will be."
On how Gareef Glashen has looked so far
"I think Gareef has been very consistent so far. He's got excellent feet and he's got the advantage of experience. And that's always a good thing when you're playing any position in football. But at corner, it'll help you read that quarterback a little bit faster. And if there is three-step in the other team's game plan, it'll help you read that a little bit and really have a chance to get some interceptions."
Wide receiver Brandon Coleman continues to see time on the practice field sparingly as he recovers from offseason knee surgery. Coleman was wearing a red no-hit jersey during practice and did some light work on cutting routes on the sidelines while the receiving corps did drills.
Saturday is the first scrimmage of the 2013 training camp, but it also the annual Rutgers FanFest, where fans can come and meet and get autographs from the players. The festivities begin at 6 p.m. at High Point Solutions Stadium.
Five things that stood out during practice
During the "Thud" period — hitting but no tackling to the ground — true freshman defensive lineman Sebastian Joseph from Stroudsburg, Pa., had a nice burst through the offensive line to get to Chas Dodd in the second-team portion.
There was a botched snap attempt from center Betim Bujari to Gary Nova during the "Live" period — full tackling — where Nova couldn't pick up the ball and let the play die. Offensive coordinator Ron Prince was no pleased, yelling at the QB: "Why would you stop?"
While he's down on the depth chart, true freshman QB Chris Laviano had a couple of nice passes during team drills later in practice. His best pass was mainly the work of Quron Pratt, who made a sliding catch away from his body near the sideline.
Redshirt freshman DE Quanzell Lambert from Timber Creek -- who is making the transition from linebacker to defensive end -- got a series with the first-team defense during 11-on-11s, but got a penalty for not getting off the field in time.
In the second-team drills during the "Live" portion, backup RB Paul James had a pair of nice runs, including one where he made a double-cut back move to gain an extra few yards.
Weather: Mid 80s, partly cloudy/overcast, slight breeze
Opening Song: "Put On" by Young Jeezy feat. Kanye West


text:
New bands that sell 5,000 albums a week are declared Next Big Things. These dusty, old discs keep on selling as many or more than that -- decades after being released:
"Dark Side of the Moon," Pink Floyd: A mainstay on Billboard charts since its release in 1973, the disc remains a must-have for classic-rockers of all ages.
"Back in Black," AC/DC: The Aussie rockers just concluded one of the year's bigger U.S. tours. When they're back home they're still counting royalties from this 1980 disc, which has sold more than 45 million copies worldwide.
"Appetite for Destruction," Guns N' Roses: The hard-rock band's 1987 debut has sold more than 28 million copies worldwide. It remains popular in part for its appearance on Guitar Hero, which features the band's ex-guitarist Slash in its "Legends of Rock" game (as an avatar, of course).