RSS

Hidden Costs of the RCS Bottle Blitz

19 Jul

Warning: If you are a student or a minor, please leave this blog NOW!

RCS Bottle Blitz
Ill-Conceived, Ignorant, and Destructive!

RAVENA-COEYMANS-SELKIRK — Kathy DeLuca and Lorraine Misuraca (left to right) next to the countless bottles donated last Thursday at the RCS High School cafeteria. Photo by Tom Tucker (Source: News Herald 138/22, July 19, 2012)

When asked several times on the RCS Friends and More Facebook site, Cathy Deluca refused to respond to the question, “How much money did the Bottle Blitz make?” Her response was, “Just ignore him.” Apparently it’s a big secret (like so much else surrounding her activities. See our article, Asskissers: No Answers, Just Censorship.). She wasn’t asked what the cost of the RCS Bottle Blitz might be. So we’re providing an estimate of the devastating cost of Deluca’s RCS Bottle Blitz.

In a recent CNN report Soft drinks: Public enemy No.1 in obesity fight? (CNN Fri April 27, 2012) Caleb Helleman writes:”Meanwhile, about 1 in 4 Americans gets at least 200 calories a day from sugary drinks. These numbers, along with work like Stanhope’s, gives ammunition to doctors and public health officials who say soda should be treated as public health enemy No. 1.”

Of course, CocaCola, the world’s largest soft-drink manufacturer takes a different view, saying: “There is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity,” says Katie Bayne, Coca-Cola’s president of sparkling beverages in North America, in an exclusive interview.” While Samantha Levine, spokesperson for New York mayor Bloomberg, says “Coke’s numbers have more fizz than fact. “The fact remains,” she says, “sugary beverages are a key driver of the obesity crisis that is killing 5,800 New Yorkers and costing the city $4 billion annually.”

According to an article published in the New York Times, “Soda: A Sin We Sip Instead of Smoke?” (Mark Bittman, February 13, 2012): “The problem is that at roughly 50 gallons per person per year, our consumption of soda, not to mention other sugar-sweetened beverages, is far from moderate, and appears to be an important factor in the rise in childhood obesity.

Fat in a Can!

This increase is at least partly responsible for a rise in what can no longer be called “adult onset” diabetes — because more and more children are now developing it.” The article continues, “Last week, the Obama administration announced a plan to ban candy and sweetened beverages from schools. A campaign against childhood obesity will be led by the first lady, Michelle Obama. And a growing number of public health advocates are pushing for even more aggressive actions, urging that soda be treated like tobacco: with taxes, warning labels and a massive public health marketing campaign, all to discourage consumption.”

Agendas like the RCS Bottle Blitz are in direct contravention and opposition to the White House, especially First Lady Michelle Obama’s focused campaign on health and nutrition, the National Institutes of Health, and public health efforts to stem the epidemic of obesity and related  health problems, and alcohol related morbidity and mortality, especially in young persons!

What about beer cans and bottles? Alcohol consumption can affect the individual, family, community in many ways, ranging from relatively minor consequences to incapacitation and even death, and the consumption doesn’t have to be extreme nor does it have to be “alcoholism.” The disease potentially affects everything in a person’s life, as the consequences of drinking snowball into bigger and bigger problems. There is a definite sense of progression with the effects that alcoholism has on an individual. Over the long run, things always get worse….never better.

Brewing for Trouble!
Potential Corpses in a Can!

To get some idea of the cost of alcohol abuse, the National Institutes of Health NIH released a report “Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Estimated at $246 Billion in The United States,”  which states that: “The new study reports that alcohol abuse and alcoholism generated about 60 percent of the estimated costs ($148 billion), while drug abuse and dependence accounted for the remaining 40 percent ($98 billion).” Here’s the real sock-it-to-me: Those figures were for 1998! Imagine what they in today’s figures! (Here’s a hint: The update calculations indicate that costs of alcohol abuse grew from $148 billion in 1992 to $185 billion in 1998, approximately a 25 percent increase, for an average annual increase of 3.8 percent. Source: Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (2002))

Alcohol abuse produces its evil effects mentally, physically, socially, spiritually. The overall cost to our society from alcoholism:

1) Lost time and money
2) Lost lives
3) Broken homes and families
4) Lost productivity (missed days of work, lost jobs, etc.)
5) Litigation and criminal costs

And don’t you wonder: How many of those cans and bottles were drained by underage kids? How much dangerous sex occurred after downing a couple of brews? How many jumped behind the wheel to drive?

About 5000 teenagers die every year due to alcohol use. In 2008, 11,773 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. (Source: SADD Underage Drinking).

Teens who are drinking are more likely to have unprotected sex, which can lead to potentially fatal sexually transmitted diseases, as well as unwanted pregnancies. (For more information on teenager alcohol related deaths see Teen Alcohol Abuse).

Headlines like the San Francisco Chronicle’s “Teenage Drinking a U.S. Epidemic” [2/26/02] and the New York Post’s “Boozed-Up Teens In Dangerous Liaisons,” [2/7/02] shout along with the advocates’ PR campaigns, often including hyped-up quotes from people like the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA)’s head Joe Califano, such as “Alcohol is the fatal attraction for many teens.”

So, for those of you who come up with the stock response, “personal,” “political,” “private vendetta,” or some similar stupidity to anything that anyone says against the idiotic and poorly planned projects some misguided adults in this community come up with to raise money for the district’s children, we’d like to point out that national and well-established statistics point to the fact that soft drinks and alcohol are time bombs.

This raises the question, then, of the appropriateness and the ethics of collecting empty containers that once contained the dangerous substances to raise money for programs for children! Here’s the logic: To get empty cans and bottles, the cans and bottles first have to be purchased. They then have to be transported. Then their contents are consumed by adults or by minors. Once they’re in the body, they work their evil magic: obesity, diabetes, drunkenness, death, etc.

BUT:

All those pretty cans and bottles are given positive value by the program organizers, especially in the children’s innocent eyes, because those emptied containers are associated with field trips, fun,  friends! You are, in fact, positively reinforcing a misinformed positive image for the causes of major public health problems!

In other words, the RCS Bottle Blitz is sending the WRONG MESSAGE! It’s providing negative education and working against all public health efforts to curb soft-drink and alcohol consumption based on solid scientific evidence! It’s teaching those innocent vulnerable minds that soft drinks and alcohol are good, and they should be purchased and consumed, because the empty containers make happy things happen. What are you people thinking!!!!

What are you morons thinking?

In the July 19th News Herald, a newspaper that provides information and, Yes! education, features a large color photograph of Ms Cathy Deluca, the “inspired” organizer of the RCS Bottle Blitz, together with Lorraine Misuraca (not to be confused with Jenafer “Jena”Misuraca, who has served as the VP on  one of the RCS school PTO’s. Jena had to shut down the PBC PTO’s FaceBook page because of the arguing), posing stupidly self-satisfied in front of what are described as “47 bags of bottles and cans and 74 cases.” You don’t need a magnifying glass to make out the beer labels and the soda cans. And the title reads, “Bottle Blitz is huge success.” Not for your children’s health, not for the mortality statistics, not for the public’s health. But maybe for the misguided public image of a couple of ignorant residents and the bottom line of the beer brewers and the soda manufacturers, the manufacturers of corn syrups, and retailers.

The RCS Bottle Blitz is irresponsible and misleading in many ways and does not represent good education nor the interests of the children it’s publicized to benefit!

Now, our scathing question is not what was going on in the editor’s pinhead, nor what Cathy Deluca was thinking (that’s scary in itself), but where are the educators, the teachers in all of this. Shouldn’t those highly paid, highly educated, highly paid morons have come out with some facts and figures, some options, some alternatives? Oh! Excuse me! They have the summer off, don’t they.

You Are Accidents
Looking for A Place to Happen!
The Editor

Challenge: Ms Cathy Deluca, Lorraine Misuraca, Superintendent Elizabeth Smith, Melanie Lekocevic we and our readers would like to hear your response to this article. Please send us your comments. Warning: And, given the atmosphere in the RCS school district, please don’t point a finger at the RCS board of education for not having stepped up to prevent this ill-conceived fiasco. You know as well as we do that if any BoE member, other than the teacher’s clique (by the way, where was Whalen, Engel, the teachers when this was being proposed? Teddy Reville, James Latter?)  lifted so much as a finger to point out the risks of the Bottle Blitz, he or she would have been lynched by the Coeymanazis. So don’t try to pull that one on us, Deluca and friends.

Special Notice: We make every effort to be truthful, complete, fair, and balanced on this blog; therefore, if you see anything that you know to be false or incorrect, or if you have additional information to clarify any issue, please let us know by e-mailing your information or by leaving a comment. It’s very important to us that we don’t fall into the same category as those whom this blog is intended to expose. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation and assistance!
 

14 responses to “Hidden Costs of the RCS Bottle Blitz

  1. Jenafer Misuraca

    July 26, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    Lorraine is posted in the picture above however she is not the PTO president. I think you may be confused with the last name. I have served on the PTO for the past 5 years (not as pres. though)
    and my name is Jena Misuraca. Please feel free to correct this error in this post and any of the others confusing the 2 of us.

    Like

     
    • Fides qua Creditur

      July 26, 2012 at 9:32 pm

      Thank you, Jenafer, for the correction. We shall ensure that it is corrected immediately. We are very grateful for your courtesy in bringing the confusion to our attention. Please accept our apologies for the error.

      We are also very pleased to know that you are serving so faithfully on the PTO, and we would like to assure you of our support of all conscientious and responsible community activities that in good faith seek to involve parents in their children’s education and school activities, while ensuring the quality of the social, educational, and psychological deelopmental processes as well as the quality of the role models to which these young people are exposed.

      Peace!

      Like

       
  2. Jane Doen't

    July 20, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Hey Fides —

    Water! Water! I need water! I’ve got about $5 worth of Poland Spring water bottles in my garage waiting for someone to care enough to return them. We don’t consume soda here. There is the random bottle that’s purchased for a gathering, but certainly nothing regular. Beer. NEVER. We’re a dry house. If you look a little closer, there is one bag near the foot of one woman that looks entirely full of good ole’ H2O. It’s not all bad.

    But I submit, even if it were, you can’t regulate sugar consumption, try as Mayor Bloomberg might. I’ve gotta say, it all comes back to personal accountability. If people feel as you do, they need to put their big girl panties on and not contribute.

    This one isn’t so bad.

    ~Jane

    P.S. Fides… Please don’t see this as a personal attack, but if you re-read your post to CommonSense, it appears that you’re a little on edge. His (or her) comments do not appear to me to be “harassment” albeit I am not privy to other posts which may not have been posted for our review but you’ve posted comments of a personal nature that were far more scathing.

    Like

     
    • Fides qua Creditur

      July 20, 2012 at 7:50 am

      Thank you, Jane for your comment. I agree that much revolves around and indeed centers on personal accountability. That’s one of the threads that runs quite consistently throughout this blog, and has been mentioned a number of times paired with power.

      Thank you for pointing out that there were water bottles in one of the bags. We stand corrected 😉

      Yes, you may be right. Some of our articles or the within statements are perhaps scathing and if they are, well “Guilty! As charged.” But one thing should also be obvious: we go to tremendous lengths to ensure that whether scathing or not, the statements are substantiated and documented by true facts. On that basis, the reader has the opportunity to either think, if he or she is so disposed, to respond with a patented answer from the official script, to respond ignorantly, or to remain silent. Those possibilities are, of course, non-limiting and not exhaustive. Some prefer to respond very inappropriately and when asked to stop or to conduct the business of responding more responsibly or more cogently, refuse, and continue their unwarranted abusiveness. That’s when we have to put our foot down.

      As you can see if you peruse these comments, we are not playing the role of censor, and we publish any and all comments, complimentary or not, and many that are downright ignorant, but if they respond on topic or are facially genuinely the thoughts of a reader who needs to express him or herself, this is an open forum. But if the comment is salacious, scandalous with no substantiation, profane or obscene, or outright threatening, then the warnings go out. If they don’t see the wisdom in re-evaluating unacceptable behavior, well, we’re not in law enforcement but we know who is.

      Othewise, thank you very much for your comment. And happy to hear that your wet your whistle with good ole H2O !

      In the article, the facts are the facts. We stand by them.

      Peace!

      P.s. If you have $5 in water bottles in your garage, why are you waiting for someone to return them? I hear Cathy Deluca and Lorraine Misuraca are collecting bottles.

      Like

       
  3. Simon

    July 20, 2012 at 7:22 am

    While I understand your point in the article, I don’t necessarily draw a direct line between a bottle drive and encouraging unhealthy drink consumption. The Boy Scouts have run bottle drives for at least 20 years, and this link is not drawn.

    Have you spoken to people who have said they went out and bought MORE drinks because they wanted to donate the bottles? I think that’s more a failure of the education system than anything else… if I see a bottle drive I want to support but don’t have bottles to give, I don’t go out and buy a 6-pack of beer so I can donate – – I just go up and give a dollar or 2.

    It should also be pointed out that today, water bottles can be returned for deposit.

    You’re right about the BoE not being involved… their only part in the process is to smile and say thank-you when the check is turned over.

    S

    Like

     
    • Fides qua Creditur

      July 20, 2012 at 7:59 am

      Just because the links and the connections are not drawn does not mean that the situation does not or has not existed, nor does it mean that the situation is benign. Just because the Boy Scouts have done it for 20 year does not make it good or ethical. The Boy Scouts, though a laudable group, are not infallible and do have their dark side, too. Hopefully, they have evolved or progressed in some ways over the past 20 years, even if it is not to reconsider the ethics and the message conveyed by bottle drives. Or do we forget ethics and the message simply to collect the deposits? That’s called prostitution, in my book.

      We are aware that in our fair state, water bottles are also burdened with a deposit. No one said or implied that taxation was fair nor that water bottles were not included in the drive. The point was made that it is conspicuoulsly obvious, without making minute inquiry or examination that the vast majority of the cans, bottles and cases are beer and soft drinks. We concede without further argument, that (1) a deposit is levied on water bottles and (2) that there may be water bottles in the bags. OK.

      If you disagree with the research, the statistics, the ethics, the demand for accountability, the expectation of some level of intelligence when creating programs, or assuming leadership in any scenario, that’s entirely up to you. We pointed out some valid facts, provided the opportunity to learn more, and made a statement on the message that is being sent. If people take that opportunity, they evolve, if not they stay exactly where they are.

      If you disagree with any of the fact, please be specific. If you disagree with the message, please be specific. If you do not feel that the associations between positively reenforcing negative education and the association that is drawn between cans and bottles and happy times, that is, the ethics of the project, that’s fine. Whether you agree with Michelle Obama, the NIH, Bloomberg, me, or with Cathy Deluca, that’s your choice. We provided facts; what you and the other readers do with them is entirely up to you.

      The facts and observations stand. They are correct as of the information available at the time the article was written. !Basta!

      Peace!

      Has anyone thought of Why? no statement has yet been made on how much was made in that initial collection effort? Or why questions were simply ignored in the first place? We’re talking about messages and ethics here, remember?

      Like

       
      • Simon

        July 20, 2012 at 10:07 am

        If you reread my comment, I never disputed that soda/sugar drinks or beer is unhealthy. My comment was specifically that I did not believe that a bottle drive encouraged people to purchase and consume these beverages who weren’t already consuming them.

        I felt I was rather specific in my comment. I did not dispute any of the other points in your post.

        S

        Like

         
      • Fides qua Creditur

        July 20, 2012 at 9:53 pm

        Duely noted. Thank you.

        Like

         
  4. CommonSense

    July 19, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Another desperate attempt to shoot down the bottle blitz, [redacted]? How sad. Shouldn’t you be trying to save yourself from hell? It’s not a shock that people drink alcohol or that people drink soda. You’ve accomplished nothing by writing this.

    Like

     
    • Fides qua Creditur

      July 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm

      Dear CommonSense or LilCountryGirl[a]xxxxx.com:

      You may feel that we’ve accomplished nothing by writing the article on the Bottle Blitz; that’s your opinion. But you have accomplished something by continuing your silly contacts: the potential for a criminal record, if you don’t have one already. Nice work. Join organizers of the Bottle Blitz!

      We have tracking from each of your visits and will be turning it over to the New York State Police who will have the resources to find and arrest you. In cases such as yours we have no interest in dealing with you nor with contacting you except to notify you that as a result of your continuing harassment, we are turning this matter over to law enforcement, which we feel is the most appropriate step to take.

      Since you have been the subject of at least two warnings to stop your contact activity, and because of the fact that We have afforded you the opportunity to heed reasonable warnings and you have refused to do so, you can deal with the police now.

      For your information we are providing the followi, while continuing to send annoying comments, we have been tracking information on your recent visits. The following information will be provided to the New York State Police for investigation and follow-up for charges.
      [Redacted]

      The Editor

      Like

       

Please share your thoughts about this post.. Leave a comment here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: