National Review Online has a good editorial up today on what seems to be First Lady Michelle Obama’s primary pet cause, which is combating childhood obesity through extensive federal regulation.
As the editorial points out, Our Betters’ involvement in school lunches to this point has done just wonderful things for childhood obesity, such as heavily subsidizing the very sorts of foods that contribute to the problem. But, as Dr. Thomas Sowell has noted in other contexts, these nanny-state programs are invariably judged on their stated goals, as opposed to their demonstrated efficacy.
Finally, after New York University obesity-policy scholar Rogan Kersh is cited saying that obesity “has proved impervious to clinical treatment or public-health exhortation,” the piece continues:
For an administration prone to smug castigation of its predecessors for their allegedly insufficient deference to scientific expertise, the Obama team is here shockingly cavalier about a scientific question of substantial depth and complexity. If Mrs. Obama, between her undergraduate major in sociology, her minor in African-American studies, and her law degree somehow managed also to acquire a great deal of expertise regarding a medical issue that has proved remarkably difficult for actual scholars and learned authorities, she has not seen fit to share how and where she acquired it.
(Of course, you could also just say “where does a woman with such an enormous ass get off lecturing me about obesity?”)
You might also like:
- President Obama to criminalize apathy
Michelle Obama is a babe. She’d be, unambiguously, the hottest First Lady ever. She’s really creepin… - Barack Obama, spendthrift
From 1789 to 2008, the United States government borrowed a total of $5.8 trillion. (That’s every adm… - Well, I guess we have to be nice to each other now
Barack Obama says we have to. I don’t mean just nodding and grunting passing each other on the stree… - Jason Lee Steorts: No respect for Confederate “service” or “sacrifice”
“…the Confederacy’s primary reason for being was to preserve racial slavery — that is, to violate… - Jimmah’s legacy begins to rise from the mat
This morning Holman Jenkins has a marvelous piece on the Obama presidency vs. the Carter presidency,…
But it’s for the cheeeeeeldrennn.
That’s IT! She has CHILDREN. Therefore, she is an authority on all things CHILDREN, including obesity affecting CHILDREN.
We’ve all been in job hiring situations where practical experience outweighs formal education, no? Well, then….
Have you seen what our kids eat at school? It’s pretty bad. I know that schools only have x number of dollars to spend per lunches, but I think the president’s plan increased that amount by somewhere in the range of 6 cents per meal so one would think that improved things substantially. Right?
Seriously, it’s unfortunate that most schools went from having cooks preparing fresh food to hiring anyone who could operate a can opener. They can do better but more government intervention isn’t the answer to the obesity issue. Each school (or district, whatever) needs to take it on themselves to improve. There are now schools that have actual chefs again, that grow some of their own food, that compost the wasted food, etc.
But more importantly, each family needs to take responsibility for what their kids eat. When they are 5, 7, 10 years old, those kids are not driving themselves through the drive thru ordering Big Macs. They don’t buy the soda, candy & cookies that are in the house. They will eat what we serve them. Most kids won’t starve themselves just because we don’t feed them a steady diet of crap.
OK, let me climb down off my soapbox before I fall off it 🙂
Also, almost choked on my coffee on your last line. Awesome.
Going to eat lunch at school with your kid is a real eye opener. ALL the kids eat their dessert first. The skinny kids don’t eat anything else at all. period. That’s why they are skinny. It is not that they are eating better…they aren’t eating at all. The other kids may eat the rest of their lunch but I promise I saw at least 75% of the kids throw away the “healthy” item that they are required to put on the tray. What they deem as healthy is questionable, too. For example, if they’re eating Mexican type food then a scoop of shredded lettuce on the side qualifies as the healthy item. How many kids do you know that are going to eat a scoop of raw lettuce with nothing on it? What’s the point of even serving that? If there is no one monitering your kid at lunch and actively encouraging them to pick and eat something good for them then they don’t.
Here’s the thing I find perplexing. As a kid, I drank lots more soft drinks and had as many burgers as my kids get (occasionally). Plus, we ate lots of red meat and had desserts in the house all the time. I was never involved in organized sports. Yet, I was super skinny as a child and adolescent and didn’t have real weight problems until after I was married. So, it makes me wonder if the problem has to do with activitiy level of the children during times of free play or if what is in the food (i.e. more corn syrup vs. raw sugar) is more of a culprit then we think.
No matter what, I don’t think the governmnet dictating food options is going to help.
Lea, I just read an article about a (Alabama) scientist’s findings that we humans aren’t the only species getting heavier. It’s interesting and makes me wonder what food additives or environmental factors might be contributing to the weight increase. Here’s a link to the article:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/10/what-fat-animals-tell-us-about-human-obesity.html