Quotes of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on December 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

“The obesity epidemic is a genuine public health emergency, with vast implications for the nation’s well-being, economy and even national security. And yet, could anyone really be against children eating healthier food and getting more exercise? 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…

“Insinuations from her critics notwithstanding, Obama has not endorsed nanny-state or controversial remedies such as ending sugar subsidies, imposing soda-pop taxes or zoning McDonald’s out of certain neighborhoods. Instead, she is pushing for positive, voluntary change: more recess and physical activity, more playgrounds, more vegetable gardens, fresher food in schools and grocery stores, better education on the issue for parents and children.

“All of this makes total sense, and historians will marvel (much as they will at climate-change deniers) that anyone could doubt it.”

***
“In an editorial, the Journal pointed out that the first lady’s efforts to date are in keeping with what Palin herself has supported in the past.

“‘Health-care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money and a lot of grief by making smarter choices,’ Palin said in her 2009 State of the State address, according to the Journal. ‘It starts by ending destructive habits and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise.

“‘Mrs. Obama’s campaign is grounded in similar sentiments, and in that sense is unusual for this White House in emphasizing personal responsibility,’ the editorial continues. ‘Mrs. Palin would be more effective if she made some distinctions among the Obama policies that really are worth opposing.’”

***
“America’s national perspective on obesity is marred by two principal misunderstandings – one evident in Palin’s flippant treatment of the epidemic, and the other apparent in Obama’s misdirected policy agenda.

“First, and cardinally, obesity is a slow epidemic, and therefore does not elicit the same sense of urgency as less deadly, but more rapid-acting epidemics, such as the H1N1 flu epidemic (which only killed 4% as many Americans as obesity did in 2009). Second, while exposure to other diseases seems independent of individual choices, obesity appears to be completely dependent on individual lifestyle choices. This is untrue. Convincing epidemiological research demonstrates that factors beyond individual behaviour – factors such as race, poverty, neighbourhood, national region and even personal contacts – can influence obesity risk by influencing access to healthy foods and opportunities for physical activity, and cultures of diet and exercise. So, obesity is more complex than the simple choice to go for a walk or to ‘eat dessert’…

“To her credit, Obama has attempted to tackle the issue in a non-partisan manner – in fact, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, legislation endorsed by the first lady, passed in the Senate by unanimous assent. However, a major flaw of the “Let’s Move” agenda is that it primarily addresses individual behaviours, largely neglecting the structural factors that are so important in shaping them.”

***
“[G]iven how much sugary drinks contribute to obesity and, therefore, impose costs on society that their prices don’t reflect, modest soda taxes aren’t a bad idea, either. Something like a cent and ounce, which a group of doctors, researchers and policy advocates proposed last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every time I write something like this, one of my colleagues pulls me aside and reminds me, “But McDonalds fries are delicious. Every now and then, I need a few.’ True. So don’t ban them, or dessert or sugary drinks. But don’t expect everyone else to help you pay for them.

“You may not feel it, but if you pay taxes, you’re subsidizing others’ unhealthy lifestyles every day, either through direct subsidy of their ingredients or through higher medical bills, the costs of which are often socialized. These policies aren’t about making bad-for-you foods unnaturally expensive. Sugary drink taxes and other such things are about not making pancreas-busting foods deceptively cheap.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

If Michelle Obama wants to regulate food purchases, she has more than enough power to do so.

Let her apply her theories to welfare and food stamps, and see how long she lasts.

I have zero problem with the government mandating what you eat as long as the government is paying for it. Wonder how it would go over with the Obama Party base if their gubmint debit cards stopped working for anything except lean meats, fruits, and vegetables?

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2010 at 2:19 AM

It’s amazing to me how little emphasis protein gets in the government advice on nutrition. Not only is it one of the 3 biggest building blocks of nutrition, but it also has a positive effect on the rest of the diet.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 28, 2010 at 1:56 AM

That’s because, like Global Warming, the so called experts, are not experts at all.

They are academia pariahs that live in the constructs of theory and probability, and less of scientific study.

That are quick to form absolute hypothesis as facts, and as undeniable truths. To challenge the depths of their wisdom, is like either denying the holocaust or believing in a flat earth.

Fear is their ally, ridicule is their propaganda, and ignorance is their salvation.

Kini on December 28, 2010 at 2:19 AM

As long as I’m in better shape than MObama (and I am), I’ll continue to shove whatever I desire down my expansive gullet.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 28, 2010 at 2:23 AM

Again, you’re comparing activities whose social impact differs by orders of magnitude. Would you get real?

ernesto on December 28, 2010 at 12:04 AM

That’s a nice way of avoiding the question, coward.

Answer it. Shouldn’t gays have to pay more if the fatties do? How about an excessive sin tax on KY Jelly?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 28, 2010 at 2:29 AM

KAPPLAH…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on December 28, 2010 at 2:32 AM

KAPPLAH…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on December 28, 2010 at 2:32 AM

There nothing like a bowl of Gagh to get the old bowels moving.

Kini on December 28, 2010 at 2:42 AM

“Michelle and Skinny went to bed…

… Michelle rolled over,

…………. and Skinny was dead!”

Seven Percent Solution on December 28, 2010 at 2:42 AM

Barack Sprat could eat no fat.
His wife Michelle, could eat no lean.
And so between them both, you see,
They licked the platter clean

Kini on December 28, 2010 at 2:53 AM

It’s amazing to me how little emphasis protein gets in the government advice on nutrition.
There Goes The Neighborhood on December 28, 2010 at 1:56 AM

It is also the most expensive food. Which if you take that fact into the equation it really isn’t that hard to understand why the government who is paying for all these programs would not advance protien as a core function of a healthy diet….

unseen on December 28, 2010 at 3:09 AM

Kini on December 28, 2010 at 2:19 AM

Which has been my point throughout this discussion. In the late 60′s early 70′s liberals across the land decided fat was bad. that it caused heart disease etc. They put in place policies and programs which the RINOs duely followed when elected (who could be against heart health!) to change our entire way of eating. the end result is an obesity epidemic.

the obesity problem in this country is a great example of liberal policies effects on the population. the problem of course as it is with all liberal programs be it FDIC, Welfare, or food polices is it takes a generation or two to fill and understand the major ramifications of their polices and by then most people “forget” where and why the problem is there to begin with.

If you want to get rid of the obesity problem change the diet back to the way it was before. Protien,carbs and fat. the heart “problems” we had in the 60;s and 70;s are still around. we solved nothing and created a bigger mess then we had before.

The do-gooders strike again.

unseen on December 28, 2010 at 3:20 AM

That’s because, like Global Warming, the so called experts, are not experts at all.

They are academia pariahs that live in the constructs of theory and probability, and less of scientific study.

That are quick to form absolute hypothesis as facts, and as undeniable truths. To challenge the depths of their wisdom, is like either denying the holocaust or believing in a flat earth.

Fear is their ally, ridicule is their propaganda, and ignorance is their salvation.

Kini on December 28, 2010 at 2:19 AM

Science serves the same purpose to leftists that elections serve to dictators. They claim to love it, but they really just subvert it so they can claim it justifies their policies.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 28, 2010 at 3:39 AM

The do-gooders strike again.

unseen on December 28, 2010 at 3:20 AM

Heh! The Dudley Do-Right’s.

I agree with you, and I would add among those sins are smoking, alcohol and the salt content of Ragu Spaghetti sauce.

If I wanted to rid the obesity problem…., I have to look at another trend in history, and that’s the lifespan of Western people. I won’t bundle in people of the world, because of my following reasons:

The average lifespan of Western society has increased, not decreased. We are living longer, despite heart disease, obesity, alcoholism, lung cancer, and all the other indulgences liberals hate to enjoy, but secretly engage.

We have more time off, we have longer vacations, we have a greater a standard of living. We [did] have better health care.

The wistful good old days, weren’t all that good. We had diseases like polio and leprosy, that were cured through our innovation and free-market enterprises. We’ve developed into the only nation on the planet where heads of state come to get the best health care. Or used to.

And now, we are adopting Obamacare? Krauthammer thinks we should not defund a financial Frankenstein that will reduce our standard of living to that of Brazil?

If there is an Obesity problem, then it between the ears.

We are better because off because of our excesses, not worse off.

Kini on December 28, 2010 at 3:51 AM

Science serves the same purpose to leftists that elections serve to dictators. They claim to love it, but they really just subvert it so they can claim it justifies their policies.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 28, 2010 at 3:39 AM

Both you and unseen have had some great comments tonight, and I’ve really enjoyed the discussion.

Your point is equally important, because that’s how a make believe crisis, get propagated into a pseudo religion, where unbelievers are attacked by fascist tactics to shut-you-down and shut-you-up.

Even today, Global Alarmists are claiming that all this colder than usual weather, with glacier’s approaching, is the planet warming because of … humans.

At what point do you ask; when does voodoo science get…. refudiated. [I so love Palinisms]

Kini on December 28, 2010 at 4:02 AM

I love it. It’s everyone else’s fault, except for obese people themselves or the obese children’s parents. Oh no, they live in a food desert! So we need to have government make sure there’s a fresh fruit market near their home (though the person still has to go to that store, buy food, and actually eat it). It’s ridiculous. All it will do is waste money. The bottom line is that you cannot change peoples’ behavior; they have to change it themselves. The sooner these people realize that, the better. Don’t count on it.

drewwerd on December 28, 2010 at 4:06 AM

Wonder how it would go over with the Obama Party base if their gubmint debit cards stopped working for anything except lean meats, fruits, and vegetables?

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2010 at 2:19 AM

We’d go right back to the days of castles and roaming bands of barbarians, that’s what would happen. If the feds truly found a way to block the leeches from buying booze and Twinkies with their welfare money…I’d give it maybe a day before the riots started.

Dark-Star on December 28, 2010 at 5:28 AM

If Michelle Obama wants to regulate food purchases, she has more than enough power to do so.

Let her apply her theories to welfare and food stamps, and see how long she lasts.

I have zero problem with the government mandating what you eat as long as the government is paying for it. Wonder how it would go over with the Obama Party base if their gubmint debit cards stopped working for anything except lean meats, fruits, and vegetables?

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2010 at 2:19 AM

Can’t have that. If they have to spend their own money on sugary drinks and snacks, it’ll cut into the Newports and Natty Ice.

tpitman on December 28, 2010 at 6:13 AM

When Michelle can show that her backside has dropped from a 5-man-tent size dress to a something lots smaller then she can have some credibility in all this.

And Obama? Well, I have heard that smoking cigs keeps the pounds off….

albill on December 28, 2010 at 6:44 AM

“The obesity epidemic is a genuine public health emergency, with vast implications for the nation’s well-being, economy and even national security. And yet, could anyone really be against children eating healthier food and getting more exercise?

The ever ever expanding intrusive government which attempts to control by force of law the tiniest details of our lives is an epidemic. It is a genuine public health emergency, with vast implications for the nation’s well-being, economy and even national security. And yet, could anyone really be against those who opposes a government so powerful it can force children, under penalty of law, into eating state approved healthier food and mandating more state approved exercise?

Well, yes. If Michelle Obama is for it, the army of useful idiots in the media will embrace it too. And when decent Americans begin to protest socialist expansive government they will be branded as hating carrot sticks and fearing they’ll lose out on dessert!

JellyToast on December 28, 2010 at 6:46 AM

Obama has not endorsed nanny-state or controversial remedies

maybe so, but her lemmings are certainly doing their best to do just that…just look at California…

cmsinaz on December 28, 2010 at 6:50 AM

Let her apply her theories to welfare and food stamps, and see how long she lasts.
… Wonder how it would go over with the Obama Party base if their gubmint debit cards stopped working for anything except lean meats, fruits, and vegetables?

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2010 at 2:19 AM

Ding! Ding! Ding! Great point! (But no meats. Meats would not be allowed. Only fruits and veggies.)

petefrt on December 28, 2010 at 7:09 AM

And yet Palin is trim, and Obama is bottom-heavy. What are we to make of that?

disa on December 28, 2010 at 7:15 AM

FACEBOOK (computers, et al)
and VIDEO GAMES

are the MAIN causes of childhood 0besity.

When will Michelle tackle those?

stenwin77 on December 28, 2010 at 7:35 AM

Kids don’t get enough exercise because they’re not allowed to go outside. Why? Because their parents fear they’ll be abducted and killed like Adam Walsh.

If you really want to fix that problem, make kidnapping a child who is not your biological child a capital crime and enforce it with a vengeance.

Kafir on December 28, 2010 at 7:42 AM

Most of these lib/progs are nothing more than spoiled brats. When they use for an argument we should just try it because it might work and will be good for us, you know they don’t really have a clue whether it be warming or food, they just want their way.

Kissmygrits on December 28, 2010 at 8:27 AM

“Insinuations from her critics notwithstanding, Obama has not endorsed nanny-state or controversial remedies…”

Uh, the last time I checked, I do believe OBAMACARE falls rather neatly into either of these catagories.

pilamaye on December 28, 2010 at 8:28 AM

American Liberty
July 4, 1776 – January 20, 2009
RIP

Wander on December 28, 2010 at 8:36 AM

How long before the Obama’s hit on the FDR solution of burning crops in the field, dumping milk into the ditch and burying slaughtered animals so as to ‘manage’ the American diet?

It wasn’t beyond FDR then and isn’t beyond these lunatics now.

ajacksonian on December 28, 2010 at 8:47 AM

If Michelle Obama wants to regulate food purchases, she has more than enough power to do so.

She’s not. You should try reading, it’s very enlightening.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that Palin supporters are just plain idiots. Sorry, but it has to be said. Anyone defending Palin here and attacking the first lady is just a flat-out stupid person.

I usually don’t like to name call, but it’s some times warranted. This is one of them.

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Maybe one of you leftist Democrat pieces of trash out there, that actually read the Washington Post for everything you know, can name a “climate change denier” and (Wikileaks Task Force) that has to do with the Mrs. having a fat @$$.

I ask again. What is the difference between a fraud, such as Fred Hiatt, just making things up, and Jayson Blair? Other than one is a White J-Tard and one is Black.

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 8:51 AM

So the real point of this posting is:

Sarah Palin is just as big of a food nanny as Michelle.

I didn’t even have to look to know AP wrote this.

Lothar on December 28, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Hmmm. Maybe Sarah Palin would be that stupid, as to equate something mythical like being a “climate change denier” to Michelle Obama having a fat @$$?

Ya think?

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 8:56 AM

So the real point of this posting is:

Sarah Palin is just as big of a food nanny as Michelle.

No, it’s that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite who will change her position at the drop of a hat in the name of political opportunism.

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:57 AM

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Exhibit A.

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:58 AM

And yet, could anyone really be against children eating healthier food and getting more exercise?


“Senator Blowhard voted against the Zillion dollar education bill, proving he hates students and education.”

Akzed on December 28, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Exhibit A.

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:58 AM

I take that as a no, child? Just a simple question, little one. You’re the one that turned this thread towards the object of your obsession.

Maybe you can tell us how Sarah Palin changed her views about forcing Americans to eat certain healty foods?

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 9:04 AM

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 9:04 AM

My New Year’s resolution (I know it’s 2010, but I’ll get a head start) is not to engage with obvious idiots (you’ll be seeing a lot less of me on HotAir as a result). It’s a fruitless effort. But(!), I have resolved to make fun of dumb people in an attempt to mock some sense into them.

So, forgive me if I let the let the should-have-been Time person of the year speak for me:

“You are so dumb, you are really dumb. Fo’ real.”

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM

I usually don’t like to name call, but it’s some times warranted. This is one of them.

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM

You may not like to name call but I think you do it on a regular basis. In fact you do it so often, that I believe you do like it. Do you think it makes you correct?

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Aw, come on, child. Daddy George expects more of his little b!tches. Maybe you can turn away from the object of your obsession to focus on what evil Glenn Beck said?

This is torn from the pages of the progressive playbook. You’re too stupid. You need the government to fix your life, and they agree with you that government has no place in this business. But we’re just going to help make things better.

Well, Tommy, are you too stupid to decide what and when to eat? Michelle thinks you are. Media Matters and Daddy George (who are the ones really fanning the flames on Palin and Beck’s mocking of Michelle) thinks you are. Don’t go running away like a typical leftist piece of trash, now. This is just getting to the good parts!

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Brilliant satire!

Keep on accusing, Stalinist!

Inanemergencydial on December 28, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Maybe Sarah Palin called for spending $400 million to place healthy food grocery stores in the hood, and has now changed her position?

Do come back, Tommy, and explain this us dumb Palin supporters. We’re just so lost without you Poly Sci retard types telling us how to do things, such as eating and wiping our @$$es.

And after you come back, can you explain to us what climate-change deniers, such as Michael Mann denying the Little Ice Age, has to do with this?

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Probably thumbing furiously through the dictionary for more names not to call you.

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Heh.

You’re all stupid! No, I’m not going to say why, you’re just all stupid! No, I said I’m not going to say why. In fact, I’m just going to leave because you’re all so stupid! And Palin is really double super secret stupid!

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 9:47 AM

I just have to say that every time Palin makes a smart aleck remark or a jab at Mr. President or the First Lady she does herself no favors and it certainly doesn’t increase her popularity…she makes herself look petty and small. And when someone has a criticism of her, calling them “hoity toity” shows a level of childishness IMHO. I also think that this reality show of hers, while mildly entertaining, is not the work of a serious presidential contender. Which is it? Does she want to be a leader or a joke?

scalleywag on December 28, 2010 at 9:52 AM

I say release his transcipts and her BMI.

teacherman on December 28, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Does she want to be a leader or a joke?

scalleywag on December 28, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Probably neither. Everyone likes an erudite and witty politician but what has it gotten us? Sometimes the truth just can’t be made pretty.

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 9:58 AM

I frankly don’t think that Sarah Palin wants to be President. I think that she quite enjoys her life as a media celebrity who makes millions of $$$s per year.

Illinidiva on December 28, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Would Sarah Palin be a “serious presidential contender” if her supporters started making up things her opponents said? Would it increase her popularity if her supporters made up things like “I can see Russia from my house” or saying that she called her opponents “hoity toity?”

To me it’s not even mildly entertaining watching those unhealthily obsessed with Sarah Palin having to make up things, to counter her.

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 10:01 AM

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 10:01 AM

I think the “hoity toity” inference came from a clip of her on O’Reilly repeated last night. Mr. O’Reilly asked her if she was acting “presidential” in her remarks and in her current career. Her reply was that she was sorry she is “hoity toity”. I don’t think she’s the least bit sorry.

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 10:07 AM

I say release his transcipts and her BMI.

teacherman on December 28, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Her BMI is the Event Horizon.

Don’t look at it, it will steal your soul.

Inanemergencydial on December 28, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Something tells me, that if there’s a last twinkie on the plate, Michelle will fight O and the kids to the death for it. LOL

All in all, there’s nothing to disagree with here. Healthy eating is a plus, and sugary items, desserts, and such, should be something enjoyed on occasion. Not a daily ritual. That being said though…I like the idea Michelle espouses, but not the regulations being perpetrated. It’s none of hers, or anyone’s business what anyone eats. How many people die from drug abuse every year? How many die from alcoholism? How many die from irresponsible driving habits? How many die from the stress of a job?

It starts with obesity, but where will it end?

BTW….I suspect there’s a reason O, and the girls enjoyed the beach, while Michelle tucked herself away answering calls from kids. No way was she gonna let the papparazzi catch her po-dunk-a-dunk in a bathing suit on the beach.

capejasmine on December 28, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 10:07 AM

I know where it came from. It’s like seeing Russia from Alaska turned into seeing Russia from Sarah’s house. Sarah saying she’s not hoity toity is turned into calling OTHERS names.

Those obsessed with Sarah Palin need to be proud, standing up for America, declaring Sarah Palin couldn’t possible be President, because she once said, “Oooh, I’m sorry I’m not so hoity-toity.”

No need to embellish.

Hey! I have an idea. Why doesn’t Sarah Palin act Presidential, and kick the @$$ of anybody who embellishes her statements! What do you think, Tommy?

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 10:28 AM

“You may not feel it, but if you pay taxes, you’re subsidizing others’ unhealthy lifestyles every day, either through direct subsidy of their ingredients or through higher medical bills, the costs of which are often socialized. These policies aren’t about making bad-for-you foods unnaturally expensive. Sugary drink taxes and other such things are about not making pancreas-busting foods deceptively cheap.”

Fine, if that’s the case, then forget legalizing pot. Let’s make alcohol significantly harder to consume and ban cigarettes outright. And let’s force everyone into daily exercises, fining the overweight $1 a pound per month until they have the proper BMI. Let’s up it to $5 for those who already have health problems due to their weight.

If you’re framing this as a problem I’m paying for, then let’s really get to the bottom of this. Eating junk is not the only way to get fat or to bring about health problems that supposedly the rest of us pay for.

I usually don’t like to name call, but it’s some times warranted. This is one of them.

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Usually don’t and yet, did you actually do anything else in this thread? No substance in your remarks, just elementary level name-calling. Clearly you don’t have a problem with it.

Esthier on December 28, 2010 at 10:30 AM

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I just heard it last night for the first time. Gov. Palin’s treatment is beyond a double standard.

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Does she want to be a leader or a joke?

scalleywag on December 28, 2010 at 9:52 AM

That’s a bit simplistic and overly dramatic. There’s nothing wrong with being a reality TV star. Most are crass, but from all accounts, hers is more documentary than voyeurism. And taking shots at the president and his wife is at least punching up, whereas Obama taking shots at people like Rush, is significantly punching down. I’m not sold necessarily on Palin as president, but not becoming president wouldn’t make her a joke. Arguably, it took becoming president for Obama to become a joke. Before then, people still took his messiah complex seriously.

Esthier on December 28, 2010 at 10:38 AM

The editors at the NRO weigh in.

S’more Please
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255983/s-more-please-editors

chief on December 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM

the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, legislation endorsed by the first lady

The White House to begin issuing Big Mac waivers for children of SEIU, AFL-CIO Union workers…

TN Mom on December 28, 2010 at 11:00 AM

you’ll be seeing a lot less of me on HotAir as a result
Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Thank God — and a belated Christmas gift to HA

I personally like that Palin responds to the media now…
McCain ran a terrible campaign and could have won the election if he (they) would have answered all of Obamas still hidden information (BC, transcripts, Ayers, Wright…the list in endless!)
Bush should have answered the critics as well. It’s time to push back the media lies…I guess Palin could have said b*tch instead of hoity toity :)

mnmom on December 28, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Heh, great article, chief.

The rather rotund Roland Martin apparently being who Michelle Obama is talking about when she stated, “We can’t just leave it up the parents.”

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 11:24 AM

No, it’s that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite who will change her position at the drop of a hat in the name of political opportunism.

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 8:57 AM

As will almost any politician. Obama comes to mind. So your point is????

capejasmine on December 28, 2010 at 11:26 AM

MNHawk,

buy a clue about things. an ad campaign about healthier eating habits isn’t forcing anyone to do anything.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 11:26 AM

My New Year’s resolution (I know it’s 2010, but I’ll get a head start) is not to engage with obvious idiots (you’ll be seeing a lot less of me on HotAir as a result). It’s a fruitless effort. But(!), I have resolved to make fun of dumb people in an attempt to mock some sense into them.

Tom_Shipley on December 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Obviously, mocking someone into accepting your point of view as the Gospel truth, isn’t your strong point, or God given talent. So…at the risk of sounding stupid, or cliche….go. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya. ;)

capejasmine on December 28, 2010 at 11:29 AM

MNHawk,

buy a clue about things. an ad campaign about healthier eating habits isn’t forcing anyone to do anything.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 11:26 AM

OK, I’ll bite. It’s not about thousands of salad bars in schools. It’s not about building grocery stores in the hood Food Deserts (not to be confused with deserts which are yummy ;-)).

Um, who are we aiming this “ad campaign about healthier eating habits” at? How will it make people eat healthier, with all the information already out there? Why will this particular “ad campaign about healthier eating habits” work, when all the other add campaigns, news, doctor alerts, ect. haven’t?

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 11:53 AM

The editors at the NRO weigh in.

S’more Please
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255983/s-more-please-editors

chief on December 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM

A good read. Thanks!

petefrt on December 28, 2010 at 11:59 AM

How will it make people eat healthier, with all the information already out there?

MNHawk

It won’t make kids eat healthier. and at best will only improve the eating habits of some, but most of all the information “out there” directed at kids, is bad information, directed at getting them to spend more and get junk food for the money.

This effort is swimming against the tide, but it’s a good exercise.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 12:08 PM

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I hope someone has the foresight to take pictures of the contents of the garbage cans in the cafeteria. I bet it will be enlightening.

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 12:11 PM

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Are you in favor of restrictions on food and/or restaurant advertisements?

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Cindy Munford, not particularly. not beyond the usual stuff about truth in advertising and not if the ads aren’t entirely on kids’ shows and targeted at teaching kids about how wonderfully magical it is to have a happy meal of crap.

when that’s whats going on, my first choice isn’t banning, it’s teaching kids that the ads are aimed at making the manufacturers happy, not the kids.

I’m real good with a free marketplace, just like to see a fair one.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Happy Meals are available with apple slices and milk. I don’t think your idea of fair and mine would agree.

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Whatever. I just want to be there the day MO tells food stamp mamas that pop tarts and cheetos are a no-no. Please let it be televised!!!!

di butler on December 28, 2010 at 12:53 PM

So I couldn’t possibly know that veggies are good for me, because of Ronald McDonald and the Hamburglar, not to mention Tony the Tiger!

How did my parents manage to feed me, without the guiding hands of Lady Bird Johnson and Pat Nixon? Especially when those two didn’t even think to tell me to stay off the elevator, at home!

But thank Gaia, we now have Michelle Obama, who will end obesity in a generation. I have full faith in that.

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Cindy Munford, apple slices and milk weren’t original options, Cindy.

Publicity to counter bad ads is surely part of a fair and free marketplace…and does a little good.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 1:21 PM

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 1:21 PM

French fries and sodas aren’t bad when eaten in moderation. Most children don’t go or purchase these things independently. Parents aren’t stupid, some may be gutless but all the ads in the world won’t change that. Pot isn’t advertised has little beneficial aspects (IMHO) but I think it’s doing just fine in its’ marketplace.

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Cindy, I agree completely. When the stuff is eaten in moderation, it’s fine.
But if kids get to do the choosing, it’s going to be everyday.
In school cafeterias, kids are going to eat burger, fries, and a soft drink 9 times out of 10 if they can.
An effort to get them to eat other stuff is good and simple common sense, just as getting MacDonalds to begin offering milk and apple slices instead of only soft drinks and cookies was sensible.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 1:46 PM

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I think the new law has probably taken care of those choices being offered in schools any longer. There is an old saying, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.” As someone who never entered the cafeteria my entire high school career I salute the attempt. But then I am 57 and I am sure everything has changed, who would have believed that bottled water would become such a huge industry and being rail thin would be considered the goal. I believe the majority of kids eat right and we are, as usual, turning the world upside down for the problems of the few. There is no silver bullet and there are many contributing factors to obesity.

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Y’know, some of us are fixated on that “enumerated powers” thing, and are wondering what people in Washington are thinking the Federal role in lunch should be.

cthulhu on December 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

cthulhu on December 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

As I said in another thread:

“…promote the general welfare,…”

Promote=cheerleader,
Promote, not provide, or order, or compel.

odat on December 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Above could be asid of Odumbocare, also.

odat on December 28, 2010 at 3:10 PM

asid=said. Sheesh

odat on December 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM

they’re probably fixated on that in loco parentus stuff and figure that if the taxpayers are providing the lunch and the lunchroom, it’s not a bad idea to provide a reasonably responsible lunch.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Great, now they should try that with the education part of the SCHOOL!

Cindy Munford on December 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM

So this multi-hundred million advertising campaign is because school lunch administrators are too stupid to provide balanced meals? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just fire the incompetent administrators?

MNHawk on December 28, 2010 at 3:26 PM

MNHawk,

it’s not entirely that they’re too stupid. The budgets and the regulations and the logistics of many or most school systems lunch programs all favor a diet of cardboard and carbs.

Milk is about the only wholesome constant in the deal, and too much of that gets tossed.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

it’s not entirely that they’re too stupid. The budgets and the regulations and the logistics of many or most school systems lunch programs all favor a diet of cardboard and carbs.

Milk is about the only wholesome constant in the deal, and too much of that gets tossed.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Then that’s the job of the local school board and local school bonds. THAT’S the main problem here. If Cali school boards want to spend their money on palatial new school buildings so can only afford cardboard and soda, I can’t vote them out so they shouldn’t get my money from the federal gov’t to supplement their bad choices.

The parents of the kids in the district vote for the local school board. It’s the same parents’ responsibility to make sure the board is appropriating funds to the things they find important. If the federal gov’t steps in, not only am I punished for their bad choices – they learn to be more irresponsible and get in the habit of blaming others for their own mistakes – which ultimately leads to people winning million dollar lawsuits for spilling coffee on themselves – YAY!

What the left needs is a political form of Al-anon. They are serial enablers whose “helping” only makes things worse.

miConsevative on December 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM

miConsevative , nicely ranted and only mildly delusional. school boards aren’t all spending money on “palatial new schools” and all the monies for schools aren’t gathered or allotted by local governments.

audiculous on December 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Instead, she is pushing for positive, voluntary change

Right, like the “Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act”.

“Gives USDA the authority to set nutritional standards for all foods regularly sold in schools during the school day, including vending machines, the “a la carte” lunch lines, and school stores.”

Copied from the Fact Sheet PDF at whitehouse.gov…

I guess I’ve got the wrong definitions for “voluntary” and “compulsory”… can someone get me a dictionary with the new definitions they’re using at the Washington Post?

gekkobear on December 29, 2010 at 7:20 AM

Actually “mildly delusional” would be someone changing what someone else said, because they don’t have it in them to take on what was actually said.

I guess the question still hangs out there. What’s an advertising campaign (you say this is what this is about) going to do to get the morons in California (<–key word Sparky) to quit building palatial schools and instead, spend the money on nutritious food? What's this going to do to get the morons in charge of schools, to remove vending machines?

My schools didn't have junk food vending machines. My schools had nutritious lunches. How do you think they managed to do that, without some sleazy Chicago machine politician's wife writing rules for them?

MNHawk on December 29, 2010 at 7:52 AM

MNHawk,

nope, it’s delusional even if it’s only California.

audiculous on December 29, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Tell me, Sparky, cardboard and carbs at the Robert F Kennedy (heh) Community School in LA?

MNHawk on December 29, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4