WaPo Editor Shocked by Opposition to No Radish Left Behind
How could anyone oppose big government activism when both Michelle Obama and Elmo the Muppet favor it? It was unfathomable to Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt in his December 26 article 'How did obesity become a partisan fight?'
To a doctrinaire liberal like Hiatt, it's illegitimate to question whether government should be concerned with personal nutrition. Instead, he belittles opposing views with his snarky quips. "Could anyone really object to White House assistant chef Sam Kass trying to interest Elmo in a vegetable-laden burrito? Well, yes, if Michelle Obama is for it, someone will be against it. Someone like Glenn Beck, for example, who was moved to rail against carrot sticks, or Sarah Palin, who warned that Obama wants to deprive us all of dessert."
What Hiatt failed to realize is the real debate over excessive federal intervention where it doesn't belong. After listing some of the first lady's 'Let's Move' initiative, he said 'All of this makes total sense, and historians will marvel (much as they will at climate-change deniers) that anyone could doubt it.' And since global warming is the real cause of the winter blizzard according to the December 25 New York Times so it must be true, right?
To answer Hiatt's title question, it became a partisan issue when liberals decided it was the government's job to put 6,000 salad bars in schools and proceed to regulate how much of each vegetable a child must intake for it to count as a reimbursable meal. It was an achievement the first lady was crowing about just a couple of months ago. According to an Oct. 8 United States Department of Agriculture memo, a menu planner must make sure there is at least 1/8 cup of each fruit or vegetable but this varies depending on the item and age of the child. If the food is not painstakingly pre-portioned into perfect serving sizes, '…then the cashier must be trained to judge accurately the quantities of self-serve items on student trays.'
And what left-wing screed would be complete without dark allusions to big business? Hiatt identified those nefarious interests that 'feel threatened' by the program, including 'the fast-food industry, agribusiness, soft-drink manufacturers,' among others.
Hiatt offered the same old obesity statistics and scare words like 'epidemic' to argue for government food police. 'Obesity and its attendant ills already may add as much as $147 billion to health-care costs each year, one-tenth of the nation's medical bill,' he wrote. And, of course, since Mrs. Obama's husband took over the health care industry, it's now a federal problem. His government runs student loan operations, auto companies and banks. Why shouldn't it determine the number of carrot sticks on little Billy's plate?
- Iris Somberg's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Would you mind removing one of your hands
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:06am.
You've got one hand in my wallet and now another in my plate. I think not.
Give me a break
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:18am.
Cutting out fast food should be voluntary not forced by the government. Michelle Obama doesn't exactly have a small back yard either.she's trying to help us!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 12:19pm.
She's trying to help us avoid the fate that is her backyard!
Well, no, I don't buy that either.
-Jon
As Usual - A Typical Liberal Straw Arguement
Submitted by scottyusmc on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:21am.
It never ceases to amaze me how these idiot fabricate the utopian straw-man arguement, then defend it with obvious "big government" fallicies while also denigrating those who point out the fact that this is simply a government takeover verses a freedom of choice issue.
Years ago Dr. Thomas Sowell
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:35am.
Years ago Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote a book, The Vision of the Annoited, that dealt with how liberals created a problem and claimed to be the only ones to be able to solve it.
Typical liberal straw man argument
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:04pm.
As I understand it, you're not objecting to vegetables or beating the drum for rich desserts. You're saying kids' nutrition is the parents' responsibility, not the governments' responsibility.
But as long as the school is providing lunches, and the government subsidizing them -- somebody is going to decide what to offer in the meals. And that "somebody" will be working for the government.
The only solution I can think of is to stop the subsidies, and go back to parents' packing their kids' lunches.
The problem is the goverment.
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:18pm.
The problem is the goverment. Goverment should not be invloved in schools, lunches or anything else. And it was not untlll 1980 that it got its fingers into the mix. If you look at education and its decay, you can chart it to department intervention in education.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
The problem is the government
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 6:44pm.
Looks like it was 1946 when the National School Lunch Act was passed.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory.htm
Kids will dump the fruits and vegetables right into the garbage
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:23am.
If the goal is to waste food, this will be highly successful.
It will doubtless be even more successful at wasting money
Submitted by needle on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 2:27pm.
Does anybody know what this turkey is budgeted to cost?
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Once again, check out some of
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:24am.
Once again, check out some of the comments accompanying that article. There are way too many people that think it's the Feds job to put their grimey hands all over are lives.
I would think this alleged cost to health care caused by obesity would be easily covered, afterall, they told us that the exhorbitant taxes placed on the "sin" of smoking would go to healthcare over a decade ago. Surely they're using that money as they said they would. HA.
Having Elmo in their kitchen
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:43am.
while saying happy meals is bad because it attracts children is a bit duplicitous, yes?
Has everyone missed the brain washing being perpetrated?
Something's not right with that Muppet
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:53am.
I've always found that whole tickling schtick to be rather disturbing...I mean, at some point you've been tickled enough and say "No mas!", right?
Not Elmo.
Mzzzz Michelle's notion of
Submitted by celator on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:45am.
Mzzzz Michelle's notion of "fresh vegetables" is to create a children's garden in soil that contains the trace element lead. We remember that's exactly what she did when she decided there should be a White House vegetable garden. She revealed her basic clueless approach to normal life at that time, and she continues to this day.
Michelle detests the notion that parents still have the right and priviledge to raise their own children in the manner they chose. She can't sleep at night worrying that us slobs and conservatives and everyone else can actually teach values and principles that were taught to us when we were children. That must STOP right now.
So Michelle has declared war, with the support of WAPO and the other media racketeers, on parents, privacy, our eating habits, what we teach our children. She will only increase her maniacal efforts in the next two years. We will see more intrusion into the affairs of our lives--what our kids read, what they wear, what they think, what toys they play with, who they play with, what kind of mittens they wear, what kind of toilet paper we use, how we peel our carrots, where we buy our clothes, how we tie our shoes, what movies we watch, how much butter is in our popcorn, how much sugar we put in our coffee.
The only use Michelle has for us is that she is the visible prototype for what the radical left fascists currently in government want America to become, and how citizens should behave.
We aren't going down that road. Nope. This is where we get off that train.
here is an idea stop job
Submitted by Edhenry on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:53am.
here is an idea
stop job killing legislation so people can work and pay for food
have each person buy health insurance, if they so chose, based on that person's risk factors
let them decide for themselves what to eat
Individual freedom is inversely proportional to gubment control
A quote I think is relevant
Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:54am.
A quote I think is relevant to almost everything our leaders believe they are elected for, with the exception of wide load,who, despite what she thinks was not given permission by the people to spend 4.5 billion on salads or propagandize children ( a favorite ritual of the left).;
"of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppresive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his greed may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
-C S Lewis ("aren't those children's books?" Joyless Behar)
"to regulate how much of each
Submitted by Anneke9 on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:59am.
"to regulate how much of each vegetable a child must intake for it to count as a reimbursable meal."
Ok. The schools will put the veggies on the plates, and the kids will scrape them into the garbage can. What's next?
- A new position will be created at each school (paid for by the taxpayers). The "Nutrition Monitor" will sit on a platform and watch to see that everyone eats their veggies.
- The Community Police Officer at the school will be expected to enforce nutrition requirements. Perhaps handcuffing each student to their chairs until their plates are clean.
- The school PA system will play announcements during lunch about the importance of nutrition and guilt-tripping the the kids about the millions of starving children in the Third World.
Nice plot for a sci-fi movie.
Save the children
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:59am.
I'm still waiting for Michelle to ban Crisco and peanut oil in 'African-American' neighborhood supermarkets, for the sake of the children.
Barry and Mike
Submitted by iveseenitall on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 12:35pm.
Barry's getting into the act too. I understand that after congatulating Mike Vick and the owner of the Eagles, he shipped a note off to Korea asking them to stop eating dog.
BTW--Mike Vick's acts were disgusting, even if they were part of his "culture"
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" ( progressive)
Whether the initiative makes
Submitted by Snappy on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 12:45pm.
Whether the initiative makes sense or not is irelevant. What is relevant is whether or not it is governments role to raise and feed our childeren. The left wing moonbats for whatever reason have decieded to cede all our decision making and personal responsibility to government.
The Obama administration is a
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 12:55pm.
The Obama administration is a total failure because Barack & Michelle only see America through the eyes of a poor black person, to the detriment of white folks everywhere.
Everything they force us to do is based on poor ( black ) folks being dumber than a piece of wood.
I for one resent this racist ( toward me AND the Wood family ) agenda of the Ass Clown & Bubble Butt..... They need to mind their own business, he needs to run the country ( joke ), she needs to shut up and worry about her own kids.
Barack_Must_Go.....
The federal government is
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 12:55pm.
The federal government is out of control. This is just one more example of why we need to start trimming away government bureacracy. It is no longer enough to elect new congress people because the political enemies of the people are now unelected and unnaccountable bureacrats. Time for the new Republicans to start defunding these agencies.
If you think this is bad (and it is) just wait until they pass..
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 1:57pm.
...the "Food Safety" bill, which will have little to do with food safety and everything to do with a takeover of our food supply and production system by the federal government.
Once Obama pulls that off, he will pretty much have us all by the proverbial short hairs.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
A bigger question is: Who put Hitler in charge?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 7:16pm.
How did "obesity" become a political cause? There's nothing more personal, less political, than individual physique. Just when did some politicians decide that the actual form or structure of a person's own body is too important, to vital to society as a whole, to be left to, you know, the individual person to control or desire and that we need a "standard" form in which to equate healthfulness? And why do we let them make such arbitrary decisions as the "perfect" or "desirable," or "healthy" physical form anyways?
In line with the ideals of Eugenics, the BMI (body mass index) "guideline" is an idolized image of the "perfect" human form. Here we have various government officials promoting, and trying to legislate, the "perfect" human form, just as Hitler thought was necessary. Care to guess what this will lead to? That's right, euthanasia of those less than perfect humans, just as Hitler thought was necessary. So, who invited Hitler to the US? Who put Hitler in charge?
Not even Stalin or Mao was as bad as our own current government officials. Even during the worst of Stalin, or Mao's, rule did ether decide that the human form, that individual weight, needed to be government controlled, needed to be legislated. I NEVER thought I see my own government become worse than the governments under Mao or Stalin. But that is was is happening right before my very eyes.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 7:16pm.
I don't think obesity is a political cause. But in recent years, it's increasingly been considered a health risk. And of course, health care has become a political issue.
Are you suggesting that the health risks of obesity are exaggerated?
Yes, it is a cause, and a scam.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 7:31pm.
Yes, it IS a cause. It is a BIG political cause, one that has already lead to several laws, like how much "fat" or "salt" or several other "unhealthy" ingredients can be contained in children's food supplied by the schools. The cause is not to "help" people become healthier, the cause is to perfect the human form.
And YES, I DO believe that the "health risks" are exaggerated. Being 50 pounds "overweight" isn't going to kill you "sooner" than maintaining some arbitrary weight standard. If the claims of BMI being linked to longevity is true, then all babies, who's BMI is naturally several times higher than "recommend" limits as promoted by the "experts," would DIE before they reach adulthood.
So, please, tell me again how that ratio of muscle fiber to fat is linked to longevity when our very own children shows us that this is a FALSE claim?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 8:32pm.
Well, I believe that the health concerns involving fat and salt have to do with arterial health and blood pressure, rather than the question of obesity.
To the best of my knowledge, the "laws" regulating the content of school lunches are not really "laws." Rather, they are standards that the school districts must follow in order to get reimbursement, should they choose to participate in the school lunch program.
"If the claims of BMI being linked to longevity is true, then all babies, who's BMI is naturally several times higher than "recommend" limits as promoted by the "experts," would DIE before they reach adulthood."
I'm having trouble following this logic. Obviously, the recommended BMI is different for infants. Health needs change during the life span -- otherwise we'd all still be drinking mother's milk.
yutsnark
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 9:37pm.
"Rather, they are standards that the school districts must follow in order to get reimbursement, should they choose to participate in the school lunch program."
Well, since there is enforcement as to what policies and procedures, including which ingredients can be offered, as to when those "reimbursements" are allowed, and, in many cases , exactly what is legally allowed as an ingredient, (there is legislation, both at the federal level and the state level, along with the local level as to what can or can not be offered to those school kids, which should remind you that there's more to law than what the federal government produces) which sets those "standards," I would qualify that as a law. But I guess that's just semantics.
"Well, I believe that the health concerns involving fat and salt have to do with arterial health and blood pressure, rather than the question of obesity. "
But that's not how our lawmakers are portraying the "obesity endemic." They are claiming that weight itself direct linked to longevity and health. That's why they are complaining abut all those "unhealthy" foods, the ones "loaded" with fat. They claim that "obesity" is unhealthy, no if's and's or but's about it.
"Health needs change during the life span -- otherwise we'd all still be drinking mother's milk."
That's WHY the BMI index is a false indicator of "good" health, You, yourself, admit that that nutritional needs and indications vary wildly over your lifetime. Well, since those requirements and indications change of an individual's lifetime, and those varying requirements and indications are unique to each individual and unrelated to others, then it is foolish to suggest that there is a certain "healthy" rang for a given population.
Contrary to the claims of government, it's impossible to accurately determine just what IS a "healthy" range when the indicators which defines that "healthy" rage change continuously day by day, month by month, person by person. But isn't that what the "experts' are suggesting, that for every person in a given demographic, age, sex, race, whatever, there is a "healthy" range of BMI indexing and anyone whose "rating" is outside that generic rage is risking their own health? Let's be honest, that IS what they're saying. It's too bad, for everyone, that what they are saying isn't the truth. It's a false premise. It is a lie.
Well, here's the truth: What's "healthy" for you isn't necessary "healthy" for me and that the generic guidelines that are suggested by the "experts" are both unreliable and unrealistic for any given individual at any given time in their life. I, myself, am a living example as to the dangers of relying upon "official' generic guidelines. According to the AMA, as endorsed by the federal government, I should limit my salt intake as to their "expert' recommended daily levels in order to "prevent" heart disease, correct? Well, guess what? I have an arrhythmia problem which is treated by, you guess it, INCREASING my daily salt intake to several times the "recommend" values as stated by the "experts."
Contrary to what I've been told by the "experts," I wasn't getting enough salt in my diet, based upon my own physical needs and medical requirements. Instead of preventing heart disease, as they claimed, their guidelines, which I followed closely, actually CAUSED it! Had I ignored my doctor's advice and continued to rely upon the federal government for this kind of medical 'recommendation," I would be DEAD today!
So, why should I follow a "guideline" that I know is both unrealistic and unreliable? Should I do so simply because someone in government told me that I should? That's not very smart. You're actually risking your very health by relying upon generic standards as opposed to individual, personal, requirements.
By the way, thanks for including my name in the subject line, It's rather difficult to navigate this website since the redesign and I have a tendency to lose track of the comments and responses.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yutsmark, you're gonna have
Submitted by ant on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:47am.
Yutsmark, you're gonna have to admit Cobraman is right on many points. Think about it, just for a second disregard the ideas that 1) sure, a healthy diet is commendable 2) the fed has or hasn't a right to manipulate our lifestyle or 3) that obesity is a "major" health concern and "epidemic" cause of death. Like Cobraman stated, I have to protest in that, first of all, who gets to decide what is proper body shape and form and by what power granted by the Constitution does anyone in government have this "authority". Secondly, it isn't far-fetched to wonder at what point can they decide how long someone should live. In effect, just by determining diet as a major cause of death (death is inevitable by the way) they already presumed to know how long and by what quality someone was supposed to live. What I'm trying to say is, if Joe dies at 56 from diabetes, who's to say it was preventable and create laws accordingly. Maybe Joe was going to die at 56 no matter what or maybe Joe would live until 78 after 10 years of suffering from some other means even though he ate rabbit food courtesy of the salad Gestapo.
There are already many cases of negative unintended consequences. Most courtesy of a bureacracy that somehow presumes to know the future or foresee the health of future generations. Ridiculous! What it comes to foreseeing problems our government has a horrible track record.
Cobraman and Ant
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:05pm.
Yes, I agree that you both make some good points. 1. "One size fits all" is not a good way to establish health guidelines; 2. By setting weight and BMI standards, the government may be spreading misleading information; 3. Adults have a right to eat what they want; 4. Caring for a child's nutritional requirements is the responsibility of the parent.
But although some of the government's efforts in this area may be misguided, and all may be a waste of taxpayer dollars -- I think it's a stretch to see this as a new Nazi eugenics movement, designed to make us all conform to an "ideal" body type. I just don't see the evidence, nor do I see a motive behind such a conpiracy.
It is true that we are being inundated with photos of scrawny, botoxed models, and told that this is the American ideal. But isn't that image mainly being advanced by Hollywood, the fashion industry, and plastic surgeons, rather than government?
Whatever happened to the
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:01am.
Whatever happened to the liberal feminist rallying cry of "Keep your hands off my body!"? I guess this only applies to "reproductive rights" - everything else on the body is fair game for regulation.