RSS Feed Menu“We all know the numbers,” Obama said in a recent interview. “One in three kids are overweight or obese, and we’re spending $150 billion a year treating obesity-related illnesses. So we know this is a problem, and there’s a lot at stake.”
With childhood obesity rates soaring, it’s good that the White House is taking the issue seriously. For the record, the Obama behind the initiative is Mrs. Obama. The First Lady has decided to make this her signature issue. In February, she announced her Let’s Move initiative, and this March, she’s out promoting the concept in speeches and meetings across America.
Obesity is a legitimate public-policy issue. Certainly, it affects the health of our children. Between 1999 and 2005, the number of hospitalizations attributable to childhood obesity doubled. But it’s more than simply a matter of health. It’s an issue for our armed services, which had to turn away brigades worth of willing volunteers for Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of their poor physical conditioning. It’s an issue for taxpayers, since obesity is a leading cause of health inflation in America.
So the First Lady picked the right target when she decided to attack childhood obesity. She’s emphasized several times that she’s interested in good ideas and has already reached out to Republicans, doing an interview with former Gov. Mike Huckabee on Fox News and joining Gov. Haley Barbour for an event. In Washington, the rumor is that next week she’ll announce that a prominent Republican will co-chair her taskforce. Her willingness to make this a bipartisan effort is not only an example of how her husband could be governing, it’s also an opportunity for conservatives to help shape an important debate.
First Lady Michelle Obama’s plan to fight childhood obesity is – so far – vague but focuses on some reasonable ideas: better food in schools and more physical education. And she’s careful to recognize the limitations of Washington. Asked about the role of the federal government in fighting childhood obesity, the First Lady is clear: it’s a “minor player in a very big approach.” Indeed, her approach seems federalist, reaching out to states for partnerships.
Let’s Move will likely expand national efforts to promote fitness, just as Republican programs did under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. But – good news here – Let’s Move doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all food policy, like New York’s strange food police campaign to micromanage the nation’s supper.
And Let’s Move doesn’t include a call for a soda tax – an idea that has gained support in New York and California. Nor should it. State experiments with the idea have been mixed; and, in terms of revenue, the easiest way to fund any costs in the First Lady’s plan is to save, not tax, by cutting subsidies for unhealthy ingredients like fructose. Let’s Move includes funding for better school meals, and partnerships to bring fresh local produce into food deserts in inner cities. One conservative labeled these measures “FoodCare,” but she ignored the fact that America already spends $20 billion a year subsidizing industrial food producers (and profitable ones at that). Cut those subsidies, and you could fund MichelleObamaCare, and have plenty of money left over to cut the deficit.
The First Lady can look to across the Atlantic for ideas. In the UK, obesity is now a preoccupation for celebrity chef – and working class hero – Jamie Oliver. He’s spent much of his time in the last decade on a crusade to educate working parents on the preparation of simple yet healthful meals, and emphasized fresh food and balanced diets. In a grassroots experiment, he pushed to reform British school-lunch programs to serve more nutritious meals and to do so at a minimal cost to taxpayers.
Oliver’s reforms paid off. In standardized tests, students in Oliver’s target schools scored measurably better in science, English and math. Teachers also reported improved discipline and a decline in absenteeism.
Whether it’s restless high school students or rejected Army recruits, America faces new challenges as the result of changing eating habits and declining activity levels. A country once admired for rugged individualism and everyday athleticism is now seen at home and abroad as a leading icon of obesity. It’s literally hitting us in the pocketbook: a paper published in Health Affairs pegged obesity and obesity-related illnesses as consuming almost one in every ten cents in health spending.
Mrs. Obama and her East Wing advisors have left the door open for bipartisan input. Conservatives should repay the favor with sincere suggestions to make Let’s Move more affordable, more specific, and more effective.
And here are some of my policy recommendations.
joemarier // Mar 12, 2010 at 6:57 am
Better food in schools? Perhaps we should look into doing in school cafeterias what they did in the House of Representatives’ commissary; namely, subcontracting to improve quality and choice.
franco 2 // Mar 12, 2010 at 7:35 am
I guess the “drug” problem has been solved by Nancy . I guess child literacy has experienced a marked turnaround by Laura’s heroic efforts. Hillary tackled bimbo eruptions after her misguided foray into real policy. Now it’s childhood obesity. All these things, save the HRC “I am woman” anomaly, have a common thread.
They believe government is responsible, and moreover, ABLE to change personal behaviors!
This is ineffective and dangerous at the same time. Ineffective – I need not elaborate, look at past initiatives. Dangerous, because it promotes the idea that government has a role in these areas and that in itself erodes the notion of personal responsibility and bolsters statism and the collective “we”.
This is where many on this site reveal their elitist and ultimately statist underpinnings. They join with the failed presumptions of the left. They are actually quite anti-libertarian, they just want to preside over people they consider unable to fend for themselves . They are right that they offer somewhat better solutions than most Democrats, but hopelessly wrong, along with Democrats, in seeing themselves as the answer.
Let me put it to you elites another way you might understand. In this age there is already too much hectoring from government to the point that government will need to call in Supernanny, because the kids aren’t listening. (We welcome our new totalitarian overlord Supernanny)
Government, like a good parent needs to pick and choose it’s battles. Then it needs to follow through. Government should make laws (not too many, now) and enforce them – fairly. That’s it. If it fails to do this, or does it badly, it should not be allowed to move into new territory until it resolves its failings. Capice?
If you nag your kids they will stop listening to you because it will become an unrecognizable din from which they will simply wish to escape. When children are given hundreds of rules and do’s and don’ts enforced unevenly and often unfairly, the children lose respect. Once respect is lost more nagging becomes counterproductive. The result is you get children who have no guidance, no sense of self and are unruly. We “children” out here in flyover country have lost nearly all respect. We say to government that already takes too much of our money time and freedom. STOP! SHUT UP! We don’t want new initiatives that will fall on deaf ears – while we have to listen to it over and over. Attend to what you are supposed to do and leave us alone.
franco 2 // Mar 12, 2010 at 7:50 am
“Mrs. Obama and her East Wing advisors have left the door open for bipartisan input. Conservatives should REPAY THE FAVOR with sincere suggestions to make Let’s Move more affordable, more specific, and more effective.”
Repay the favor of being bi-partisan? This is how TOTALLY wussified some Republicans have become. It’s Stockholm Syndrome.
Republicans are shut out of every real debate of 16% of the US economy, the Democrats are putting our offspring into eternal credit-card style debt, while Republicans and other opponents are treated with open contempt by Democrats and their media counterparts, and we are granted FAVORS according to Mr. Gratzer by being allowed to be included in a childhood obesity initiative?
franco 2 // Mar 12, 2010 at 8:31 am
“With childhood obesity rates soaring…”
With the definition of “obesity” quickly changing to include even mildly overweight kids, naturally the rate looks like it is soaring.
It’s not as bad as it looks folks.
Sure it’s a problem. We got lots of problems, drugs, smoking, diseases, crime, bullying, unsafe neighborhoods, underground economies, gang culture, teen pregnancy, illiteracy…I could go on.
So First Lady Michelle Obama picks obesity. Whoop de doo.
Once my 7 year-old girl was involved in a large ballet production that included hundreds of kids along with professionals. They had several dress rehearsals in a full sized theater, and there were hundreds of kids and their attendant parents. The parents were treated to long-winded generalized lectures on how the theater was a “sacred place” and they needed to be quiet, not take videos, talk on their cell phones, and pay attention at all times to the rehearsals taking place onstage.
The problem was that the very people who this was addressed to were the ones who weren’t listening. The end effect was that those who were following the rules were the ones who were forced to endure these lectures, while the folks for whom the lectures were intended were blissfully unaware they were being spoken to, chatting with their kids or otherwise oblivious.
This is quite the same situation we have here. The people whose children are obese are not listening. There kids are obese because they are obese – from genes and from habits and from ignorance. The root word of ignorance is ignore – and they WILL ignore these initiatives. They aren’t changing. It’s sad but there really isn’t much we can do about it.
Time to get a little more realistic and less “caring”. Caring, lecturing -even legislating, doesn’t work. We have more important things to worry about.
mlindroo // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:06 am
Franco2 wrote:
> They believe government is responsible, and moreover, ABLE to change personal behaviors!
> This is ineffective and dangerous at the same time. Ineffective – I need not elaborate, look at past
> initiatives.
Um, please do elaborate …
On a more general level, since the early 1930s we have seen massive growth of social programs, “nanny statism” and the public sector in the United States. There are additional workplace rules, environmental restrictions and limitations of all kinds that did not exist, all kinds of “womens rights”, “childrens rights”, minority rights, consumer rights etc. that did not exist before FDR and LBJ.
Now, would you say that Americans are less healthy, less literate, and generally worse off than they used to be before these reforms?
YES, I understand you are talking about somewhat symbolic “first lady efforts” here. But the claim that the modern Western welfare state does have a positive impact on public health is just, well, absurd. The U.S. used to have the same sort of social safety net as modern Third World countries do, and the average life expectancy etc. was about similar.
MARCU$
Independent // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:29 am
Rather than taking on childhood obesity, I’d like to see the First Lady take on adult smoking or illiteracy in the inner city or gang violence. How about unwed pregnancies in the African-American community?
Mrs Obama, as the first black First Lady, has a duty to society to help address problems unique to her experience. Aside from the flabby arms and wide thighs, obesity isn’t as big a problem in black youth as the resistance to moral conduct.
This is like having a PR wonk stand in the middle of daily chaos and despair for black youth and complain that inner city kids don’t have prom dresses and may never have the dream opportunity to ride in a limo like the suburban kids do.
Obesity isn’t the most important problem for the first black First Lady to tackle. Nor is gardening. She’s wasting a historic opportunity; shame on her.
sinz54 // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:33 am
franco 2: They believe government is responsible, and moreover, ABLE to change personal behaviors!
Wait a minute!
When a PUBLIC school chooses what kind of food is acceptable in its cafeterias, or decides whether to allow Coca-Cola or Pepsi or candy vending machines on its premises, that’s already “the government.”
When food stamps are issued for the poor, that’s already “the government.”
Whereas First Lady Michelle Obama is NOT a government official. There’s no official position of “First Lady.”
So “the government” is already involved, at least in part, in what school kids consume. We might as well get those policies right.
sinz54 // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:48 am
mlindroo: On a more general level, since the early 1930s we have seen massive growth of social programs, “nanny statism” and the public sector in the United States.
Now, would you say that Americans are less healthy, less literate, and generally worse off than they used to be before these reforms?
No, I would say that they are not.
Look at the average life expectancy: 65 in 1930; 79 in 2010.
By law, no one can be turned away from an Emergency Room. Meaning that the poor and unfortunate don’t have to die in the streets from lack of care. If they need a CT scan, they’ll get a CT scan. And the rest of us will pay for it.
During the early days of the Great Depression, families unable to pay the rent on their apartments were locked out of those apartments by the landlord, who literally threw their belongings and furniture into the street. They faced begging, hypothermia, and starvation. American law now provides for due process for families temporarily down on their luck.
Mandatory polio and diphtheria vaccinations have totally eliminated those diseases, which once killed or maimed thousands of children.
Inspections of food providers has eliminated lots of food-borne diseases.
Before Social Security and Medicare, old age retirement without an extended family to take care of you was a one-way trip to poverty and death. Now the elderly do quite well. Even if they were childless, they get all the medical care they need for the illnesses of old age–for as long as they live.
The price for all this has been heavy: Bureaucratic red tape; high taxes; possibly lower economic growth in the private sector. And with some laws and regulations, the price has been too heavy. But very few people want to go back to the “good old days” of the 1920s. Ronald Reagan knew this. In 1980, he promised that Social Security and Medicare would be preserved. And as President, he kept that promise, appointing a commission whose recommendations kept those systems solvent till today.
With any new proposed social program, the costs must be weighed against the benefits. And not just the costs of today, but the projected costs into the future.
The main problem with ObamaCare is that the projected costs are obviously fudged, depending on rosy assumptions about the willingness of Congress to make cuts in Medicare Advantage and raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars elsewhere.
sinz54 // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:52 am
One more thing.
Obesity couldn’t be such a big problem if starvation were a big problem. It was, 100 years ago.
The WIC program (part of Food Stamps) has ensured that every child, regardless of income, gets fed.
franco 2 // Mar 12, 2010 at 10:16 am
Milandroo,
The mistake is in the assumption that you can continue infinitely down the same road, and also no accounting for social and other unintended (I think..) consequences. My contention is that there is only so much the state can do effectively. At some point these “rights” collide, and then no one has rights. It becomes totally arbitray. Minority rights and womens rights for example. The left doesn’t seem to care what the RESULTS of all it’s crusading goodness brings.
The reason the black community is still languishing is due in large part to the womens movement.
Democrats in the 60’s and 70’s came up with the idea of “affirmative action” this coincided with an expanding child-welfare state. However dubious that idea was, it was sabotaged all the more by the womens’ movement.
Here you had the most oppressed group, black men, being muscled out by the least oppressed group in America at the time, white women. (They weren’t ALLOWED to work!)
Meanwhile black females counted twice in this insane method of central planning law. The result was black females did okay, white females did great and black males were effectively passed over. This was THE #1 group that afirmative action albeit a dubious notion shoud have targeted for best results.
But the black male had yet more problems in this scenario as it played out. The upperclass females in his community had jobs, and the lower class females in the community had to remain single married to Uncle Sam. Black men were now not only where they were before but their SOCIAL role was taken from them too, they were expendable and not needed by either working black females or non-working females. This led to all kinds of problems that have a LOT to do with the traditional family, gender roles etc. When males are not bound to females, when they are not interdependent, chaos ensues.
But the left has a perfect answer – racism. And Republicans. And racism.
This is just one example of where all these so-called reforms fall short and/or create new problems that the left can misdiagnose again to enhance their interests. Now the result of this 40 years later is Detroit Philadelphia etc. They create problems, blame their opponents and endeavor at every turn to keep the dependent (on them) class angry and ignorant and blaming their political opponents.
Next, UNIONS
franco 2 // Mar 12, 2010 at 10:26 am
Money and power corrupts. Corporations and companies (not all) exploited workers. The workers organized and won many concessions after hard fought battles. Then the nions became corrupt too. Union bosses lining their own pockets, extorting money from both sides, creating a perpetual and self-serving wedge between management and labor. Unions are no longer any better than any given company and should not be considered as needing empowerment. In fact the excesses UAW is singlehandedly responsible for the downfall of GM.
Now the taxpayers have to fund the generous pensions the autoworkers negotiated. It was the victory of the union that killed the goose that lays the eggs. The result. Joe Schmoe taxpaer working as a plumber with no benefits has to pay for the UAW worker’s pension and health care, yet has none of his own. Not fair my friends. Not fair.
franco 2 // Mar 12, 2010 at 10:39 am
“In fact the excesses UAW is singlehandedly responsible for the downfall of GM.” And the fecklessness and corruption of the management I should add.
The idea that everyone is entitled to more EVEN WHEN “MORE” DOESN” T EXIST. Is a real problem.
franco 2 // Mar 12, 2010 at 10:57 am
Sinz,
You make some good points but I think you have fallen for the liberal ideals a bit too much. Certainly a lot of things have improved because of new social programs, but a lot of things have gotten much worse. These things are not often directly linked to given programs, but if you look at other cultures that operate on a more “primitive” level you will find it difficult to make a declaration that modern Americans are happier or more personally fulfilled.
The rampant insanity of people who “should” be happy is my case. The columbine murderers, drugged up on modern psychotropics because they can’t express themselves. Suicides of teenagers all over the place. These are all people who have health care, money education, you name it.
These side effects are almost always ignored. They are difficult, or impossible to trace because there are so many variables, yet we know intuitively that it is something in our modern society because it only occurs in certain cultures and/or it occurs serially when cultures reach certain points or similarities.
The fact that people point to “guns” or “video games” or any one factor to explain these boys’ psychosis shows how clueless these folks are and how much they need to shield themselves from the truth.
How many lectures on obesity do kids who are not obese, and are not going to ever be obese have to sit through so people can pretend there are no larger issues and pretend we can control human behavior, while Rome is burning?
PracticalGirl // Mar 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I admire the First Lady for taking on this problem. Much better than her getting involved in direct Administration policy, yes? And I’m not sure this is a NannyState issue, like banning trans fats and directing adult choices. An attempt to educate children on how to eat healthy seems harmless.
I do, however, think it’s an uphill battle. Adults-not children-are usually in charge of the eating habits they promote in their homes.
Sinz makes a good point: An alarming percentage (I’ve lost the statistic) of US children eat more than one meal at school. If the government is already involved in the nutrition choices of kids so heavily (would that it weren’t so) , it’s not a bad idea to look at the health of those choices.
Independent:
“Mrs Obama, as the first black First Lady, has a duty to society to help address problems unique to her experience.”
I hear the adult smoking thing (she’ll have to first fix that one at home, yes?), but what makes you think (just because she is black) that illiteracy, teen pregnancy and gang activity is “part of her experience”? On the other hand, studies show that almost 36 percent of black children between the ages of six and eleven are overweight, and more than 19 percent are considered obese. Among twelve- to nineteen-year-olds, 40 percent are overweight and nearly 24 percent are obese. Given the little we know about Mrs. Obama’s background, it would seem to me that the effects of obesity are a little closer to her “experience”. If she were to please you and only tackle problems in the “black” community, the costs of obesity is an enormous issue. Of course, if she only tackled a percieved “black” issue, you’d rip into her for that, too.
mlindroo // Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Franco 2 wrote:
> The mistake is in the assumption that you can continue infinitely down the same road,
> and also no accounting for social and other unintended (I think..) consequences.
> My contention is that there is only so much the state can do effectively.
Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly! There is a reason why the COMECON/Warsaw Pact fell after all. But I don’t think careful government regulation of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and junk food crosses the line by any means. As Gratzer points out, taxpayers will pay a heavy price for individual irresponsibility anyway. Furthermore, the producers and providers receive vast government subsidies anyway so it makes sense to e.g. shift farm subsidies from meat production to vegetables even if it means the price of the former will go up.
> if you look at other cultures that operate on a more “primitive” level you will find it difficult to
> make a declaration that modern Americans are happier or more personally fulfilled.
Well, it’s true that some “developing” countries (the Philippines, Costa Rica) fare better than the West in this regard, but these are isolated exceptions. Overall there is a clear correlation between material wealth/health and personal happiness.
> The columbine murderers, drugged up on modern psychotropics because they can’t express
> themselves.
Homicide rates per capita were actually higher in 1910 than today.
> Money and power corrupts.
The rule of law is more important. The Scandinavian countries are, according to most international surveys, the least corrupt nations on Earth despite having very powerful unions and a huge public sector. The United States also fares comparatively well despite the growth of government during the past 50 years. Obviously, there was LOTS of corruption in the old USSR though. Most Third World nations offer weak worker protection and small government compared to the United States, yet corruption is a much bigger problem.
—
Would you say the United States circa 1910 was less violent and less corrupt since unions and civil government were much weaker back then?
MARCU$
Independent // Mar 12, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Practical Girl, thanks again for leaving the mudslinging and name calling and juvenile smears you’ve practiced here at FF aside from this thread.
You write: “If she were to please you and only tackle problems in the “black” community, the costs of obesity is an enormous issue. Of course, if she only tackled a percieved “black” issue, you’d rip into her for that, too.”
The costs of obesity isn’t just an enormous issue in the black community; it is everywhere. But then, she’s the first black First Lady and that ought to press upon her the unique, historic role she ought to play as the first black First Lady. Unwed pregnancies, gang violence, the peer standard for males to leave their families, the vile influence of rap on the black culture, the misogyny and debasement of women in the black youth culture… all sorts of historic, unique opportunities to speak to the black community as an unequivocal moral voice for which, except for maybe Bill Cosby, there are precious few.
No, Practical Girl, I wouldn’t rip Mrs Obama for using her position to address any of the long lingering problems in the black community that have been inculcated by the Welfare State.
But I would rip her if she took off and started pushing slave reparations. Or wasting the historic opportunity she has as the first black First Lady to use her voice to address specific problems on which she should have a unique moral authority.
Would they listen to her? Black men? Black female teens? Black grandparents? Black musicians? Black religious leaders who seem more into bashing America than in fixing their own subculture problems?
It’s a unique opportunity she has –and it’s different than all other First Ladies of this and the last century. The problems in the black community continue, unabated by any rising black middle class people who, it seems, are quick to run to suburbia and turn their backs on those less fortunate in their community.
Mrs Obama seems to be running right alongside those folk and DavidF’s point about conservatives ought to reach out and embrace her interest(s) is wrong-headed. We don’t need her doing this anymore than we need her gardening or seeing to it that black youth get new prom dresses and cell phones.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 12, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Independent wrote: “I wouldn’t rip Mrs Obama for using her position to address any of the long lingering problems in the black community that have been inculcated by the Welfare State.”
Why hold the first and only black First Lady responsible for fixing the “ills” inflicted on blacks by the “Welfare State,” but not hold all her white predecessors responsible for fixing the ills inflicted on whites by the Welfare State.
The federal government could save a lot more money by cutting off handouts to poor whites than it ever could by cutting off handouts to poor blacks.
DFL // Mar 12, 2010 at 4:27 pm
As far as Mrs. Obama’s crusade against childhood obesity goes, I support it. Yet she doesn’t go far enough. She doesn’t risk the ire of voters who are obese and need to be told that they are slovenly. A more pertinent problem is adult obesity and it’s stepsister diabetes. Go to your local supermarket on Saturday and look over the customers and the workforce. To steal the words of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman of “Full Metal Jacket”, we are a nation of worthless fatbodies. And these fatbodies will weigh down Medicare like an elephant sitting on a mouse.
Independent // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Sparty logs in: “Why hold the first and only black First Lady responsible for fixing the “ills” inflicted on blacks by the “Welfare State”….”
Ok, you weren’t comprehending simple words connected on a page? Here’s the Cliff Notes version for you.
Mrs Obama is the first black First Lady.
She has a historic and unique opportunity to advocate for the benefit of all society.
She should focus her efforts on issues unique to the black community.
There are precious few voices who can speak to those issues with authority, she can.
She could have the greatest efficacy in her position if focused on the black community.
How’s that?
franco 2 // Mar 13, 2010 at 8:28 am
.”..the producers and providers receive vast government subsidies anyway so it makes sense to e.g. shift farm subsidies from meat production to vegetables even if it means the price of the former will go up.”
But I’m against those. Two wrongs…
“Well, it’s true that some “developing” countries (the Philippines, Costa Rica) fare better than the West in this regard, but these are isolated exceptions”
I’m really talking about cultures not countries and I’m really not talking about things like “life expectancy” models of quality of life, I’m talking about happiness and having a fulfilled life ,as in pointing out our high teen suicide rate as an example of a unrecognized problem in our culture. On one hand I certainly agree there is a clear co-relation between material wealth and happiness, yet I believe the means of measuring this is biased. Something like “happiness” is very difficult to measure objectively and is certain to contain embedded cultural assumptions. Did American Indians live longer in the 17th century? No. They live longer now. But go to a US Indian Reservation today and ask yourself, are these people happy? Should a man sweep up cigarette butts from a casino floor listening to ungodly bells and mechanical whirrings all day, or would he better enjoy hunting buffalo on horseback and dancing around a fire at night? That is the kind of thing I’m talking about. I’ve lived in comfort and in some discomfort, yet the times I wasn’t comfortable didn’t affect my “happiness” level too much. Our modern culture helps us live longer and be somewhat safer and lots more comfortable, but there are things it takes away that somehow never are even measured.
“Would you say the United States circa 1910 was less violent and less corrupt since unions and civil government were much weaker back then?”
This is a difficult question because so much has changed. I would like to answer now but it will have to wait for some other time. In short – no it’s probably about the same, it’s just a different scale and a lot of the opression has been displaced to other countries. We still have child labor, just not in this country. And BTW child labor isn’t always that horrible a thing. Children working in their family restaurant otherwise apprenticing can be very good. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect every kid go to college, our economic model is naive and unrealistic.
kevin47 // Mar 13, 2010 at 9:06 am
Every time the government has been involved with nutrition, very bad things have happened. You can talk all you like about slashing subsidies, but the subsidies came about for a reason, and those interested in maintaining the status quo aren’t simply going to step aside.
Government spent decades telling parents to fatten their kids with milk. Why? Dairy farmers demanded it. So now we’re going to spend billions helping parents unlearn the previous lies and embrace new lies? Why not just save ourselves the expense and leave it to people like Jamie Oliver, who don’t have an agenda?
In reality, I think this will end in a soda tax, which will pay for the Let’s Move initiatives, as well as some healthy kickbacks for big corn to offset their losses. The big losers will be Coca-Cola (anathema to liberals) and wholesalers and distributors (a major Republican constituency). I’m not sure why Mr. Gratzer is so confident this will not come about. What do New York and California have in common?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 13, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Independent’s babysitter wrote: “She should focus her efforts on issues unique to the black community. There are precious few voices who can speak to those issues with authority, she can.
She could have the greatest efficacy in her position if focused on the black community.”
Why should she focus her efforts on issues unique to the black community? What is the evidence that she will be more effective with the black community than her white predecessors were with the white community?
kevin47 // Mar 13, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Obesity is a major problem in the black community. Minorities in general are disproportionately prone to obesity. There are different reasons for this, and the health impacts very between ethnic groups, but the impact on black communities is unequivocal. She should certainly tackle the issue.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 13, 2010 at 9:52 pm
No one is arguing blacks and other minorities aren’t disproportionately obese. The question is why conservatives think she has a special duty to address the problems of blacks. Whites are disproportionately represented among child molesters, serial killers and meth addicts, but no one argued that previous First Ladies had a special obligation to address these problems in the white community. Moreover, there’s no evidence she would be any more effective in addressing these problems among blacks than anyone else.
Look, I don’t take issue with the First Lady addressing black issues if that’s what she wants to do. I do, however, take issue with people holding her to a different standard than they held white predecessors to.
mlindroo // Mar 14, 2010 at 4:59 am
Franco2 wrote:
>> “Well, it’s true that some “developing” countries (the Philippines, Costa Rica)
>> fare better than the West in this regard, but these are isolated exceptions”
> I’m really talking about cultures not countries and I’m really not talking about things like “life
> expectancy” models of quality of life, I’m talking about happiness and having a fulfilled life
That’s what I am talking about too, i.e. the correlation between telling a pollster you are “happy” and your (material-) wealth. Life expectancy etc. has nothing to do with it.
International surveys consistently indicate people from the Third World are less happy than those living in industrialized countries. The Europeans least happy with their personal situation tend to live in the post-communist East where standards of living are lower than in western countries. There is a fairly clear correlation, although some moderately successful developing countries like the Philippines also report high levels of personal “happiness.”
>> .”..the producers and providers receive vast government subsidies anyway
>> so it makes sense to e.g. shift farm subsidies from meat production to vegetables
>> even if it means the price of the former will go up.”
> But I’m against those. Two wrongs…
Sorry, but this makes little sense.
I personally dislike farm subsidies very much but they are impossible to kill as long as the Senate strongly protects the interests of sparsely populated states. So there is always going to be “market distortion” due to lobbying by special interests no matter what you or I think. But at least the government could divert those subsidies to production of healthy food and away from meat producers.
MARCU$