I get that Frappucino's, etc., are not health food. I get that there is an obesity problem out there. If you want to talk about obesity and causes, that's a great topic. What I'm really taking issue with here is the emphasis on one set of products that are not a significant portion of the nation's calories. Treating Starbucks as the problem, especially in such a sensationalist way, is a non-starter. It could be a small (very small) portion of the problem, but it has assets as well. More likely the obesity culprits are fast food, convenience foods and lack of activity (as many here have noted). These in turn stem from skilled advertising and a tremendous time crunch on the part of families, with a declining interest in everyday cooking, along with increased availablity of sedentary activities such as TV and computer use, and parents who don't feel comfortable throwing their kids outside until dinnertime (like mine did). I just don't see beating up on Starbucks under these circumstances.

Second thought: I also am convinced that overall obesity does have a public health cost, although not every obese person adds to it. However, this is important primarily for public health issues, such as obtaining support for restrictions on smoking or (I wish) a ban on fast-food advertising during Saturday morning cartoons. If we gang up on every obese person for increasing "our" health costs, I see a slippery slope ahead. I better not catch you hanging out in the same room with a smoker getting secondhand smoke! I better not catch you out in the sun without sufficient sunscreen, risking skin cancer! I better not find out you've been having sex without a condom unless you can show me two negative AIDS tests! I better not catch you drinking non-organic milk! Anyway, you get the idea...if you value your own privacy and freedom, it's best to respect that of others and yes you can do that while acknowledging that the other person is taking a risk.

(warning for the humor-impaired: satire ahead):

"Um, sure. Maybe there's a Starbucks McFarbucks clown and some bright-and-shiny Happy Deals boxes with toys in them that I overlooked? ;)"

Little do you know the true agenda of the coffee cartel! A couple of years ago my daughter put 50 cents (not the rapper) in a vending machine and got a little coffee cup with SpongeBob SquarePants on it. SpongeBob, the epitome of all that is innocent and good, on the delivery system of evil! I am sure Starbucks is behind this! OK, the cup is tiny and is useful only as a sandbox toy but I am certain it was meant as a gateway cup.

I don't need a bridge but I'll take that free coffee. But that was a pretty funny post so maybe I'll settle for buying my own.

Well, sure it would be better if kids drank water and water and maybe some more water but I just can't get too upset about kids drinking some Starbucks products. For one thing, caffeine technically is "addictive" but unlike most substances that fit that description, almost all caffeine users can quit if they need to (and I'm saying almost, but I suspect it's more like all). Using "addicted", "hooked" and "gateway drug" (to what? Espresso?) is needlessly alarmist. Having just read a story on WaPo about a teenager gunned down for no reason, it seems to me that having a safe, clean, and no-pressure place for adolescents to hang out should not be discounted just because the product isn't super-healthy. And if kids are feeling adult and sophisticated drinking Frappucinos, maybe they'll put off alcohol for a while longer. While caffeine may make them jittery, no one ever wrecked a car after one too many Frappucinos.

Seriously, I sense a little bit of control issue with this guy. He's calling the shots on how the sex takes place and isn't interested in trying something you want to do. Maybe that's OK now but it will eventually breed resentment and there are few things less erotic than resentment.

"Why should I have to feel bad about that because of some norms a bunch of over educated shrinks have placed on us?"

I'm not really a shrink but I say go for it, Mike! Have a field day! As long as no body parts fall off (falling over is OK) you have the blessing of every psychologist I know.

Rob: probably you've seen the note about the article but if not: I did read it before it was pulled and it wasn't about hysteria per se. It was about hysteria that limited jounalistic and scientific research on child porn, as such researchers would risk arrest and incarceration. Except that it turns out that there are provisions for journalism and research after all that would make such arrest unlikely. Since the whole article rested on a non-existent premise, Salon pulled it.

I found "Killing time" very interesting. I had never thought about a changing rationale across time for inner-city murder but had assumed that the reasons for murder now were similar to those 20 years ago. Even if "boredom" isn't a real cause for murder, the fact remains that change in causes for violent crimes should be telling us something.