Pepsi Pulls Rank At Oregon High School
	found on KATU.com written by Acefantastik, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Mon 4 Nov 10:58am
		"West Salem High cheerleader Andrea Boyes was just looking for a way to raise money for her squad. She hit upon the idea of selling bottled water at sports game, with label bearing her school logo. But her plan ran into trouble when soft drink giant Pepsi got wind of it. The company's exclusive, ten-million dollar contract with the school district allows only its Aquafina brand water to be sold on school grounds. "The debate over corporate funding for public schools is not new . There have been notorious moments where corporate interest and public education seemed to clash. And an entire industry exists to profit from your public tax dollars.So, is it time for school authorities to reassess the influence of corporate sponsors, when it affects their own students' fundraising efforts? (I should notify you that Oregon's extremely rainy climate negates the need for certain traditionally profitable fundraising options for cheerleaders.)"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 41 commentsbest: 11 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  29th Ammendment: Freedom to Sell Bottled Water   by MiceHead       at Mon 4 Nov 11:12am score of 2 funny     Why does a Google Image Search of Andrea Boyes turn up three photos of dogs and a cougar? Is there something West Salem High isn't telling us? So, is it time for school authorities to reassess the influence of corporate sponsors, when it affects their own students' fundraising efforts? This fits in nicely with the recent Plastic article on the battle for school funding. Is the ability for a student to sell bottled water so important that it means the school should give up $10 million for teachers' salaries and expansion of its facilities? =MiceHead =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: 29th Ammendment: Freedom to Sell Bottled Water   by Thalia       at Mon 4 Nov 1:59pm score of 1 succinct   in reply to comment 1     Why not sell the branded water with a special label on it? This isn't particularly evil or egregious in my opinion either. But I think both sides could be happy if they just bothered thinking about it for 30 seconds. Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: 29th Ammendment: Freedom to Sell Bottled Water   by MiceHead       at Mon 4 Nov 6:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     rating: 1 interesting (-obnoxious / +underrated / -disingenuous / +interesting) D'oh! I guess I should follow the serious comment up with a joke, rather than the other way around. =MiceHead =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: 29th Ammendment: Freedom to Sell Bottled Water   by spartyms2       at Mon 4 Nov 7:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Why does a Google Image Search of Andrea Boyes turn up three photos of dogs and a cougar? A better question would be: Why are you looking for pictures of a teenager on the internet?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: 29th Ammendment: Freedom to Sell Bottled Water   by MiceHead       at Mon 4 Nov 8:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     A better question would be: Why are you looking for pictures of a teenager on the internet? Sir, you make me feel so dirty inside! =MiceHead =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  daria episode!   by lopati       at Mon 4 Nov 11:12am score of 2.5 brilliant     this was explored in great depth and detail by the daria episode "fizz ed" :D   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Here's the plan   by deeluxx       at Mon 4 Nov 12:19pm score of 2.5 helpful     it may take a little time, it may be tedious work, but being the jerk that I am here's what I would do... 1.)Give in to Pepsi. 2.)Get the Aquafina for the sale. 3.)Replace every single Aquafina label with the labels from the other bottled water. Okay, PepsiCo, we're selling your fucking water, hope you're happy. Another option, of course, would be to sell the Aquafina (labels intact) at the sporting events while simultaneously giving away the other water for free (along with requests for donations). Aquafina sales probably wouldn't go very well. And how about printing up t-shirts that say "West Salem High" on the front, and "sucks the corporate teat" on the back. Good times for everyone!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Typical left-wing attack on corporate America!   by David Flores       at Mon 4 Nov 12:29pm score of 5 funny     I think the extremely biased writeup misleadingly fails to mention the extensive efforts and generous offers that Pepsi officials have made to aid the cheerleaders in their fundraising efforts: ...Meanwhile, officials at the soft-drink company [Pepsi] suggested that there might be alternate ways in which Pespico could assist the cheerleaders in raising money for their squad. "They could, for instance, whore themselves to a few of our corporate exectutives" company spokesman Phillip Winters explained, noting that several mid-level executives would soon be attending a bottling conference in nearby Portland. "After all, the school district is whoring itself to Pepsico for funds that large corporations once provided as part of corporate philanthrophy efforts, why should the W.S.H. cheerleading squad be any different?" Mr. Winters explained that in the normal course of business Pepsico subcontracts the prostitutes it provides for executives on business trips anyway. "Otherwise we'd have to provide medical and dental benefits, as well as vacation pay." When our reporter noted that the Cheerleaders in question were likely under-age, Winters suggested that "in that case, a note from their parents might not be out of order," but that on their end, previous experiences with conferences in the Phillipines and Thailand had shown that Pepsico executives are not particularly choosy with respect to the age, or even gender of their hired, evening companions. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Just Wondering...   by pico       at Mon 4 Nov 1:23pm score of 2 informative     What did Pepsi donate to the school to secure the contract? I guarantee you that West Salem didn't just sign a contract giving Pepsi $10 million in sales because they thought it was a good deal. A school district near where I live signed a $20 million deal that stipulated that the school would receive $250,000 to set up a robotics lab, a Cisco training center, and improvements to the Stadium. I assume that West Salem had a similar deal and if they want to break their contract and repay Pepsi, I'm sure they would be free to do so. Or maybe the cheerleaders could find some other fundraising activity and not screw over the rest of the school. Lord loves a workin' man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: Just Wondering...   by furryape       at Mon 4 Nov 2:06pm score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 12     What did Pepsi donate to the school to secure the contract? Read the story. ten-million dollar contract with the school district It's more than probable that the school got nothing at all out of the deal.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Just Wondering...   by pico       at Mon 4 Nov 2:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Ten million is what the contract was worth. In order to secure the contract, Pepsi usually donates something to the school district. I've never heard of a school system signing such a large contract without getting something in return. When bidding on these contracts, price usually isn't the deciding factor, the donations are. The school district I went to signed a three year deal with Coke in exchange for a $40,000 scoreboard. Lord loves a workin' man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Just Wondering...   by Decadent Sundae       at Mon 4 Nov 4:04pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 16     Based on previous contracts here in Oregon, I suspect that ten million is what the school district is getting out of the deal - Pepsi would offer some incentives like scoreboards, etc., but then would also offer (for example) a $.40 kickback on every case of soda sold in the schools. (See depressing details on how cheaply we sell out for details of similar contracts.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Just Wondering...   by waldeaux       at Tue 5 Nov 7:08am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 16     The school district I went to signed a three year deal with Coke in exchange for a $40,000 scoreboard. Ooooooooh, and do they - like - use it as a blackboard in an outdoor classroom? School is more than games. Why can we learn this? --- Me fail English? That's un-possible! Ralph Wiggum Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  My School's Drink Contracts allow fund raising.   by WiteShadow       at Tue 5 Nov 1:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     My college seems to change cola venders every few years. The school "contracts" with a variety of firms, each selling an exclusing product. As a commuter campus, we don't have the same number of students as larger ones (only 10k), nor do we have student housing. For food, we have a Pizza Hut Express and two Subways. This year starts our exclusive deal with Coke for all the vending machines on campus. Agreements with each company stipulates that student groups will still be allowed to sell food, drinks et al regardless of the wishes of the vendors. Each Wednesday one group sells Papa Johns pizza and cans of Pepsi and Mountain Dew. This seems like a pretty fair deal to me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  I dunno   by tlon_uqbar       at Mon 4 Nov 2:22pm score of 1 disingenuous     I don't really see what the big deal is. Pepsi has a contract with the school whereby it has the rights to be the sole vendor of water products on school ground. It provided some consideration (presumably money) for those rights. As far as I can tell, Pepsi's not demanding anything it didn't pay for. It's not like the case where the kid got suspended for wearing a Pepsi shirt on "Coke day" or the school is censoring an opinion article in the school paper criticizing Pepsi corporate policy. It's simply asking that the contract to be upheld. Yeah, it seems kinda shady for Pepsi to be coming down on some poor student fundraiser and it's probably doubtful that this fundraiser is going to have any noticeable effect on Pepsi's bottom line. But it does send a message to the school (which, I assume, okayed the fundraiser) that "if we're going to pay you money so we can sell our product, don't let other people sell other products in violation of the contract." It could be argued that by entering into this agreement, the school has limited fundraising opportunities of its students and clubs...but I doubt anybody could make the straight-faced argument that there aren't literally hundreds of other ways the cheerleaders (or any other club) could raise money. Perhaps if the school has so many vendor contracts that it's virtually impossible for a club to have any sort of fundraising event (since most do involve selling some sort of food on school grounds), then yeah, I'd see a problem. Perhaps the school should have sought some clause allowing students to engage in fundraising activities selling products which might conflict with the contract; but in that case you'd probably need to be very specific about the length of time/number of units/etc... that the fundraiser could go through, otherwise the vending contract would become pretty much meaningless. Based on what I read, it sounds to me like some school administrator should have told Ms. Boyes that she'd need to come up with something else to sell. I think all the discussion about "corporate whores dictating student behavior" might be a bit overblown in this case. -- gh   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Re: I dunno   by StofCircumstance       at Mon 4 Nov 10:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     You make an excellent point. I think you stopped short, though. That is to say, I think you failed to consider the full implications of a deal with PepsiCo, and what they might claim as a breach of contract. PepsiCo, as we're all aware (at least, we should reasonably be aware,) produces and sells a lot more than soda and water. They own FritoLay, Taco Bell, KFC, Mug Rootbeer, and have their fingers in just about every food-concession pie there is. That is, unless Coca-Cola got there first. I think the contract with PepsiCo could present some severe limitations upon the "normal" highschool fundraisers. PepsiCo owns stock in FritoLay, makers of many different snack products. Therefore, selling chips and the like is probably a violation of the contract. (It's even possible that selling products PepsiCo owns would be out, too. Although, I do not believe that PepsiCo could sustain such an argument.) What is more suprising to me is that the school sells soda in the first place. My highschool had 2 beverage-vending machines. They sold exclusively Snapple iced teas and Minute Maid fruit drinks, respectively. The administration would not sell soda, or even snacks that were deemed "unhealthy." The cafeteria sold institutional food only. Then again, our football field is now known to be a former radium dumping site, and the school is probably ranked among the lowest in the state. It certainly was on its way when I was there ten years ago. Maybe the School Board should've gotten in bed with a multi-national conglomerate... Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: I dunno   by Adipic Acid       at Tue 5 Nov 8:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Actually, Pepsico has divested itself of the fast food joints, which is why you might find a Coca-Cola fountain at your local Taco Bell now. From what I can tell, Pepisco did not retain an ownership interest in Yum Brands after spinning it off, although they do have all sorts of long-term lease deals with them. The SEC reports I've found on the net are intentionally confusing though, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Pepsi still has a significant interest in the restaurants. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  This is Nothing   by keta       at Mon 4 Nov 2:54pm score of 2 funny     Cheerleaders can fundraise in many ways. The submitter should have focused on those fucknozzle goons from Pepsi who guard every fucking water fountain in the school. I swear, if my kid comes home dehydrated from one more gym class because of those assclowns... own your words...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Dehydration?   by michaelfnord       at Mon 4 Nov 4:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Pardon me for asking... but you're implying that Pepsi "goons" prevent students from drinking from water fountains. Is that true? If so, that's utterly appalling and must surely be illegal. If not, just pretend this post doesn't exist. Cheers, Michael (Australian schools aren't - yet - dependent on corporate sponsorship. Not that the food chains aren't starting to try it on.) 'What would life be if we had no courage to attempt anything?' - Van Gogh   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Dehydration?   by barnesdr       at Wed 6 Nov 9:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Would somebody answer this please? I'm sitting here in England, stunned. And I thought the US was the World's moral guardian...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Dehydration?   by cichlisuite       at Fri 8 Nov 4:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Would somebody answer this please? I'm sitting here in England, stunned. And I thought the US was the World's moral guardian... Hey, I'm an American and I'm stunned too! But at least we're not sending paedophiles into space with 8-year-old boys, like you guys...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: This is Nothing   by slutmonkey       at Mon 4 Nov 9:04pm score of 1 modappeal   in reply to comment 17     +1 for using fucknozzle and assclowns in one post. apostrophes are for wimps   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  shut your yap and suck the tit   by wetzel       at Mon 4 Nov 2:56pm score of 1     Corporations salivate over these kids. Junior high is a huge captive market consisting of individuals with undefined soft-drink preferences! Pepsi waves the cash and school administrators have a hard time arguing against taking the money. They want to put books in the library and hire more teachers, and the old farts in the suburbs won't pay the taxes necessary for an adequate school system. Here is the food pyramid in the classroom and the coke machine in the hallway. Educators ought to aim higher than this. They need to make sacrifices to protect the character of their institutions.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Re: shut your yap and suck the tit   by mad_clown       at Mon 4 Nov 6:01pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 18     Sacrifices like aging text books that still talk about the threat of the Soviet Union? Frankly, I'd rather have a Pepsi machine out in the hallway than have out of date textbooks and a decaying library. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Spare us your silly logic   by Anonymous Idiot       at Mon 4 Nov 9:51pm score of 0.5 astute   in reply to comment 21     Poor resources in education does not indicate the need for corporate deals. You can't imply only one choice: pepsi machines and current textbooks, or no pepsi machines and no books. Obviously the story indicates the evident failings of the worlds "richest" society when it cannot even properly fund its educational institutions. That they need to individually make suspect deals with corporations to gain funding indicates a problem that requires a little more thought than you give it. Stop polluting the discussion with these type of glib comments.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: shut your yap and suck the tit   by waldeaux       at Tue 5 Nov 7:32am score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 21     Heck - at least with an ageing social studies textbook, you can put it in perspective. What about science labs that haven't been upgraded since the 1950's? Libraries who's latest acquisition of books was in the 1970's? And let's not even go into the arts. The #1 - #10 problem with schools is sports. Sports suck $$$ out of the budget obscenely. When layoffs come, math and science teacheres are let go first[*], phys ed last (usually because phys ed is a requirement at every grade level whereas math and science curricula aren't always necessary[**]). In terms of large-scale budget, it usually doesn't take much effort to "sell" the construction of a new sports facility[***], but getting an existing science lab, library, or art studio upgraded is almost impossible. Computer labs are slightly easier to upgrade because of sponsorship (although M$ puts a weird spin on this implying that it's illegal to donate Windows licenses to schools - it's not, BTW). AV equipment is nearly always scarce, becoming more scarce over the course of the year because repairs to equipment isn't in the budget. The #11-#20 problems have to do with funding being syphoned off to generally needless administration. Does the principal's assistant's assistant really need an assistant too? I'm just so tired of people whining about education funding when they spend so much of it on things that have extremely little to do with "education". [*] I know WAY too many people who tried being teachers in math and science only to have their career ended early-on because they couldn't keep jobs - at the end of every year they get let go because of budget cuts and would have to scramble state-wide for a new job. Now in many cases there would be a subsequent short-fall of teachers come Fall and many would get re-hired but usually FAR away from home. This would also get complicated because several districts had policies requiring that employees live within the district, so taking the job meant moving, every year, for several years in a row. Of course with every job change you're back at the bottom of the ladder tenure-wise and so are most likely to be let go again. My brother (after three schools) ended up teaching in the prison system because at least it was a stable job (no one else wanted it), although he almost got hired several times, not because of his experience teaching math, but because he had coached girl's basketball! [**] Do I know what I'm talking about? Well, one of my current responsibilities is to review and cross-correlate the entire science content standards for K-12 in every state and territory of the US. So, I've done a LOT of comparisons between the states. I'm absolutely amazed at the range of requirements involved from none (Iowa) to having specific standards at every grade from PreK to 12 (about 10 states). [***] ... often skipping the option of renovation because that comes across as being too "cheap". And the consequences of spending the $$$ can be interesting: in the town next to me, the hockey team "needed" a new skating facility which was pushed through at some expense. As a result in order to justify it for the rest of the school, a new course was added to the curriculum called "Ice" which students could take as an elective. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Spare us your silly logic   by StofCircumstance       at Mon 4 Nov 10:15pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 33     I always love it when an AI makes a decent point...then ruins it by being a fucknozzle. It was going so well, too. Was it really necessary to tell people to stop posting because you disagree with where their argument originated, AI? Not to mention the fact that the story does not "obviously indicate the evident failings of the worlds [sic] richest society..." In point of fact, the story is about how a "heartless" multi-national conglomerate, PepsiCo, is putting the thumbscrews to a bunch of pom-pom waving teens. I agree that the state of public education in America is just plain sad. However, I'll go out on a limb and say it's actually not PepsiCo's fault. Rather, it is the fault of bureaucrats and politicians at every level of government. It is the fault of parents who do not take an active role in their children's education. It is the fault of schools that do not motivate their teachers, let alone the students. It is endemic of our society's penchant for ease over work; the shiny bauble over quality construction. Perhaps PepsiCo is involved in there somewhere; certainly it advances the ideas of consumerism over anything else. But, then again, at least PepsiCo is giving money to schools. It may be a bargained for exchange, but their $10 million is more than the government doles out. If there is an indictment to be made here, indict the government; it's their lack of funding that necessitates these deals. Do not shoot the messenger. However, if you must shoot the messenger, the least you could do is take the five minutes and get your own account... Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: shut your yap and suck the tit   by StofCircumstance       at Sun 17 Nov 9:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     Waldeux; WOW. I spent my highschool years going to schoolboard meetings trying to get them to take some of the $$$ out of the math/science budgets and put it back into the arts/humanities budgets. Never in my wildest dreams did I suspect that math & science were getting the same shaft as the drama and music departments. I'd go so far as to say most people are unaware of the problem you point out. After all, most often we hear of school's cutting funding for the arts before the "hard sciences." Advertisements on TV, celebrity spokespeople, etc, all get into the game; we do not want to deprive children of the opportunity for exposure to music, theater, and other artistic endeavors. But now, I see that it's not just the humanities that are suffering in public schools in this country. Apparently, everything but sports are suffering, budget-wise. In my own experience, my highschool had a sports program that could best be described as shitty. With the exception of swimming and girls tennis, I don't think any of our teams seriously competed for anything. Interestingly enough, my school had no swimming pool, or tennis courts... SO I have to wonder, where did all the money go? Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: shut your yap and suck the tit   by nyekulturniy       at Tue 5 Nov 5:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     "Educators ought to aim higher than this. They need to make sacrifices to protect the character of their institutions," wrote Wetzel. What sacrifices are they expected to make? No more basketball--a major morale builder--because we have no more nets because of budgets? No substitute teachers? No new library books? No art supplies? Most school districts are funded from property taxes, and homeowners REALLY hate to have those increase. I remember hearing a campaign ad complaining a New York suburb has a 2.5% annual property tax. In my own county, we've been short on money for a long time, with a property tax freeze incorporated into the county charter. The little things that make school worthwhile--the things that get the students motivated to come to school and learn language arts and math--cost money and the counties don't give their schools money. So you go to outside funding and pay the Devil's due. It's not what we want, but it's what we have to do. Now, you may sneer at Pepsi and Coke, but they're a lot less sleazy than some of the fundraising companies I've seen. They pay large amounts, enable administrators to get those extras the County won't pay for, and they don't usually get in the way. On the otherhand, you get vending machines in the school, and kids who don't eat proper meals and get hyper/sleepy in the afternoon. If you don't want Pepsi telling the kids what to do, then vote for increased school funding and take the kick in your wallet. Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: shut your yap and suck the tit   by waldeaux       at Tue 5 Nov 7:36am score of 2 helpful   in reply to comment 36     How many books could be bought by cancelling the basketball program entirely, aside from intramurals in which any interested student could actively participate? If the school is short on cash, then non-education programs should be cut first. Instead, the tendency is to cut academics to "show" everyone that "cuts are bad" rather than being responsible, while maintaining spending sinkholes under the ridiculous notion that they're necessary to promote "morale". Position: Most Ivy League schools have lackluster sports teams. However, most Ivy League schools do not lack morale because it's based on their academic standings. Is this a better situation? Discuss. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Somewhere out there   by chiptooth2k       at Mon 4 Nov 6:15pm score of 1     there is an entire profession dedicated to marketing corporate products to schools and school districts. I think it is time we find out who these people are, look at their sales tactics. I'm not sure how any kind of exclusive marketing contracts can be valid at a public institution, and I would think the districts could have their lawyers draw up a boilerplate document preventing this kind of nonsense in the first place.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Re: Somewhere out there   by MAYORBOB       at Mon 4 Nov 6:23pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 23     What kind of nonsense are you referring to? The nonsense that allows school districts to hire additional teachers? Or the nonsense that allows them to buy new books the kids will use during the school year? Or would you prefer the nonsense of having to wring property tax increases out of taxpayers who either don't have kids in the public schools or have seen their progeny graduate and move away from the district? Sure have the lawyers draw up that boilerplate and watch how willing that Pepsi or some other third party is willing to fork over the long green that the schools need to operate with. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Somewhere out there   by chiptooth2k       at Mon 4 Nov 6:52pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 24     Hey, if you can find one actual, living teacher whose salary is paid for by a Pepsico sales contract, if you can find a single textbook that was purchased by Pepsico dollars, then maybe you are justified in your sycophantic defense of Pepsi. Aw gee, your tax dollars are going to public schools so that future generations can benefit from an education. I'm so sorry that you don't feel any obligation towards those around you. School districts don't need this money, because there isn't really any money in the first place, it is an illusion and a con job. Remember, YOU have to show ME how any actual money from Pepsi is going into the schools and paying for teachers and textbooks.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Somewhere out there   by dasc       at Mon 4 Nov 8:05pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 24     to wring property tax increases out of taxpayers who... don't have kids in the public schools A well educated young adult benefits the community as a whole. Schooling isn't a zero sum game where the childless are getting ripped off for school services paid for but unused. Some day the childless may need some services that the functional illiterate are ill prepared to perform. You pooped in the refrigerator and you ate a whole wheel of cheese How'd you do that I'm not even mad Thats amazing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Somewhere out there   by chiptooth2k       at Mon 4 Nov 8:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     You stated this much better than I.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  Fatal flaw   by danila       at Tue 5 Nov 8:21am score of 1     There is one fatal flaw in the idea of corporate sponsorship - it makes no economic sense. If we pull out all the stops - the winner will be determined not by quality of its products and services, but by the efficiency of its marketing, PR and legal departments. While Pepsi sponsorship money can be spent on something good, such as computers, salaries or books, the economy as a whole loses because the market equilibrium is forced from the desired position. There will be too much consumption of Pepsi drinks in particular and too much consumption of softdrinks in general. The ideal world for Pepsi (or Coca-Cola, or any other corporate monster) will be the one where the parents sell the souls of their newborns to the highest bidder. This doesn't sound like a right thing to do, because this effectively destroys the free market economy, as there will be no independent rational players, except for a few (5-10) giant corporations. The only Right Thing (tm) to do is to prohibit or seriously limit any sponsorship deals and limitations they impose on the receiver. Or next thing you know some giant cookies manufacturer that should remain unnamed will sue girlscouts... :-(   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  Call me old fashioned   by chatsubo       at Tue 5 Nov 8:59am score of 1     but I always though public services should be funded by public money. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  Re: Call me old fashioned   by Adipic Acid       at Tue 5 Nov 11:21am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 42     Silly chatsubo, how would we ever pay for our precious tax cuts if we followed your suggestion? No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Water, Water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink!   by Rankin Fyle       at Tue 5 Nov 1:17pm score of 1     Hey, I see no problem with Pepsico trying to force brand loyalty on a captive audience, if the scenario is one nutritionless, sugary, carbonated can of liquid crap versus another can of similar dreck. What surprises me is that few folks are outraged that Pepsi is trying to restrain a teenager from selling WATER. It's WATER. You do NOTHING to make it. It just IS! My question is: does Pepsi sell WATER in their vending machines (Aquafina or whatever)? Even if they did, it is beyond scumbagable to shut down someone trying to raise money by selling one of life's basic needs. Does Pepsi demand that water fountains be removed from all public structures under contract? What next, exclusive contract for Morton's salt?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

48.  They have considered, fought, and lost   by confused spectator11       at Tue 5 Nov 9:35pm score of 1     The time has passed when schools should have reacted to corporate tampering. They should have freed themselves from the grasp of corporate America at the first impression of deceit. Unfortunately, they didn't. And now they can't. So many schools are under contracts that last a long time and resistance to these multi billion dollar companies is futile. If corporations can now sue whole countries (under NAFTA) and win, what chance do you think schools have? The fact is, many schools have reconsidered the deals that brought them computers and textbooks, have fought, have lost, and are waiting for that contract to be up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]