Another study has come out that attempts explain bad behavior in children.
As an added benefit, if used properly, the study can also be utilized to further control Americans, as well as add credibility to Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” initiative.
Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?
This time, inattentiveness and “physically hurtful or damaging behavior” in children is being blamed on soft drinks.
The new revelation is based on a joint study between researchers at Columbia University and Harvard University, two schools coincidentally attended by Michelle Obama’s husband, Barack, and the University of Vermont, which is located in an über liberal state that was one behind Obama’s home state of Hawaii when voting for him in 2008.
It would be fool hardy to disagree that children do better with fewer sugar-sweetened beverages. But the federal government, in conjunction with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), attempting to control what children drink is laughable, especially because they’ve made it their mission to accommodate the sex lives of adolescents.
These are the same people who hand out condoms to kiddies because they claim it’s impossible to prevent children from having sex.
So, maybe these geniuses can explain how is it that removing easy access to sugary drinks will stop children from drinking soda? And if making soda harder to access helps children make better choices, then wouldn’t ceasing to hand out free condoms discourage underage sex?
If it is true that the study shows that a “significant relation with soda consumption with the overall measure of aggression and with the three specific behaviors we felt were most indicative of aggression: destroying things belonging to others, getting into fights and physically attacking people,” then why not a liberal study that reveals the emotional damage done when 12-year-olds become sexually active.
Rest assured, that ain’t gonna happen because in Liberal Land it’s fine to have sex at in 7th grade because everybody’s doing it. What disturbs the left more than sexually active teens is when teens quench post-coital thirst with sugar-laden soda pop!
Instead of worrying about Pepsi and Sprite, why doesn’t Harvard, Columbia, and the hippie-dippy University of Vermont volunteer to track the sexual “habits and behaviors…[of]…3,000 children from 20 major cities throughout the United States” to find out whether premature physical contact with the opposite, or now the same sex, causes emotional turmoil and developmental issues?
Then, in the interim, if liberals can figure out how to stop children from drinking soda pop, after the study is done they can change the direction of their sex-obsessed policies by finding a way to deter emotionally and physically underdeveloped kids from indulging in sex.
Sounds like a win-win.