December 22, 2010

Huckabee takes sides in the Michelle v. Sarah food fight.

Sarah Palin took a very gentle shot at Michelle Obama... on the subject of dessert:
In her TLC show Sarah Palin's Alaska, the former GOP vice presidential nominee is seen opening cupboards in search of chocolate, marshmallows and graham crackers, asking "Where are the s'mores ingredients?"

"This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert," Palin said.
Mike Huckabee, famously once quite fat and actually pretty fat again, opined:
“With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin, I think she's misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do... Michelle Obama's not trying to tell people what to eat or not trying to force the government's desires on people... She’s stating the obvious, that we do have an obesity problem in this country."
Well, he's not running for President against Michelle Obama. He's running (potentially) against Sarah Palin. Ironically, Sarah Palin is the one who's thin.

Now... is it true that Michelle Obama isn't "trying to tell people what to eat" and "not trying to force the government's desires on people"? Is it true that she's only "stating the obvious, that we do have an obesity problem in this country"? I don't know why Michelle Obama looks better if she's simply "stating the obvious" fact that there are a lot of fat people in this country. If it's so obvious, why point it out? And it's rude to do nothing more that point out that people are fat.

Here's Michelle Obama looming over some little boy as Barack Obama signs the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Looming large. You decide what's obvious. Or ask Huck, the arbiter of obvious. I just want to note that this bill seems to be about telling people what to eat and forcing the government's desires on people. (Forcing the government's desires on people? That sounds weirdly rape-y.)
But as the school-nutrition bill evolved, the first lady became involved in the sometimes messy world of legislative sausage-making to help push it through. 
This government that forces its desires on us pushes through with a messy sausage. Yikes. The imagery. Avert your eyes.

Anyway, what's in that bill? It's not about telling us what to eat? The linked article says it "will set national nutritional standards for public schools, boost funding for low-income meal programs and advance [Barack Obama's] wife’s campaign against childhood obesity." And in those "national nutritional standards," do the kids get s'mores or not? I don't know, but I see that as Obama signed the bill, he said:
“Not only am I very proud of the bill... but had I not been able to get this passed, I would be sleeping on the couch.”
Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?

172 comments:

Scott M said...

Yay! More high-schoolesque drama.

Rialby said...

Obama to child: Smoke em if you've got em, stay thin...

Joan said...

Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?

No. Ick.

Huckabee doesn't know what he's talking about. FLOTUS's pet project is all about telling us what we (or our children) can and can't eat.

Rialby said...

Huckabee is Mike Bloomberg with an Arkansas drawl.

Oh, and a lap-band.

traditionalguy said...

Huckabee is the epitome of an intellectually inert brat. This crackpot needs to try frying moose meat instead of squirrel in his crock-pot.

Old Dad said...

The President thinks that he passes bills:

“Not only am I very proud of the bill... but had I not been able to get this passed, I would be sleeping on the couch.”

He should sleep on the couch, and personally pay us back for his wife's ego trip at tax payer expense.

Some kids are fat for complicated reasons. Most kids are fat because they're lazy, and their parents let them sit on their fat little asses. Solution--get outside and play--now. And stop shovelling the Big Macs.

AJ Lynch said...

Huckabee supposedly has run a marathon. When I heard that, I was much less impressed by that feat.

Lincolntf said...

This is, of course, about telling people what to eat. Do these people ever listen to themselves?
Do they know what "establishing guidelines" means in Govt-speak? It means dictating even the tiniest minutiae.

AllenS said...

Michelle also wanted some of that taxpayer money to provide people healthier food who don't have a grocery store close to them (because they were all burned down during the last riot). Spend your own money, Michelle. Maybe you could get your buddy Oprah to fund the program.

WV: billy

SteveR said...

Barack and Michelle, Mike and Sarah.. Four people I don't want trying to run my life or to be president

Comrade X said...

She’s stating the obvious, that we do have an obesity problem in this country

what's all this we business Huckabee?

donttread2010 said...

Mrs. Palin's swipe is a common reaction to anyone sticking their nose into what another person might or might not eat.

Huckabee was just being the obtuse representative of the Dept. of Redundancy Dept. by saying that MO was stating the obvious.

If the Blamer-in-Chief admits to being PW'd then we might conclude this is further evidence of his lack of judgment.

What I notice is all the Nanny-State Matrons and their co-Fawners/media hounds. The little boy has no clue that with the signing of this bill, he won't be able to eat as many chips and cookies as he may currently enjoy.

And thats the lesson about liberals. They are the hypocritical killjoys that have managed to gain power. Don't believe me? Anyone care to guess what dress size the First Lady is wearing???

Ron said...

"Prez PW'd by Palin Pudenda; "No Chocolate Mousse for you!" opines First Scold."

That would be the Variety way of saying it...

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'll just say that I'll vote for any presidential canidate whose wife won't pick up some pet cause just to be relevant for 4 years.

rhhardin said...

He's not posing as pussy-whipped; he's making a man joke about what you have to do to get laid.

Mr. Bingley said...

Why are you assuming he's posing?

rhhardin said...

I just had a flatbread with butter, walnuts and honey.

Little Debbie does Battle Creek.

rdkraus said...

Of course it's about telling people what their kids should eat AND growing government. Here's the fact sheet.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Child_Nutrition_Fact_Sheet_12_10_10.pdf

rdkraus said...

On Monday we had bacon and cheese sandwiches. On Tuesday, we used the leftover bacon to make garlic and cheese tortellini in a creamy cheese sause with bacon.

Can't find those on the gov't chart.

What should I do Michelle?

Rialby said...

donttread2010..

16?

Mark said...

The absolute best thing about Palin is she has all the right enemies.

Bruce Hayden said...

He's not posing as pussy-whipped; he's making a man joke about what you have to do to get laid.

I will respectfully disagree. At least from my point of view, he comes across as weak here.

The basic problem is that men have a problem admitting weakness, esp. in public. It shows them as vulnerable to other men. It is more acceptable for strong men, than for weak ones. And, BH Obama has shown himself fairly weak throughout his Presidency.

Compare this to Russia's Putin. He runs around showing off his pecs, apparently has a beautiful mistress, while keeping his wife in her place.

Which one of these men comes across as the tougher, stronger, one on the world stage, and, in particular, to the dictators and strong men of this world? The guy who passes legislation to get into his wife's bed? Or the one who gets away with flaunting a mistress in front of his wife?

Bruce Hayden said...

The absolute best thing about Palin is she has all the right enemies.

This can't help Huckleberry. He has been polling right with Palin recently in some polls. Which scares me a lot. He is a social conservative, but fiscal liberal. Which, in the realm of the Tea Party movement is just the opposite of what we need right now. I just worry that the fiscal conservatives will splinter, and he might get the nomination by default. Scary.

David said...

He does not have to pose as pussy whipped. He is pussy whipped. Or whipped pussy. Take your choice.

garage mahal said...

Vladimir. Mmmmmm. *fanning self*

So {{{hawt!}}}

avgourmet said...

Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?

Just more of the same guy who:

(1) Left his own press conference to get to the Christmas party
(2) Left a fundraiser dinner early to fly home to "scoop the poop". (The recent story about walking Bo at night wasn't the first time he used the phrase.)
(3) Always seems to have Michelle picking lint off his suit in public


By all accounts he is a good dad but as POTUS he diminishes the office to nothing more than a sitcom father- bumbling and good natured with his wife keeping him straight even as she rolls her eyes:

President Dad, coming this fall to NBC

Clyde said...

"Posing as pussy-whipped"? This is the guy who left Bill Clinton in charge of his own press conference so he could squire Michelle to a Christmas party.

BHO: "I've kept her waiting for half an hour, so I 've got to go."

WJC: "We don't want to make her angry, just go."

New "Hussein" Ham said...

What's ironic is that Michlle Obama is a fucking cow.

Just look at that spare tire in the linked photograph.

Oh, she's wearing a drapery to hide her obesity, but even wearing that mumu you can still see it.

Michelle Obama should shut the fuck up and quit ostracizing people. They aren't fat. They're people of girth and she should be ashamed of herself for being an avowed fascist fatist.

She should shove something into her pie hole and shut the fuck up.

Fucking hate-filled bully is all she is using her pulpit to demonize people not like her.

edutcher said...

Michelle is pictured by many as wanting to tell the country what to eat and Miss Sarah plays off that image (nice little riff on Uncle Saul, ironically).

Huckleberry is trying to prep the battlespace, but it's too late. He, like Romney, isn't going anywhere. Both have put themselves in the RINO camp for different reasons (Rialby restates what people were starting to say at the end of the '08 primaries).

Ann Althouse said...

Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?

Why not? Even McConnell's done it to him.

Drew said...

"Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?"

'Pussy-whipped' suggests that he's gettin' some.

Anyway, this is just another excuse. Sort of like "I've kept my wife waiting, Bill. You finish this press conference while we go party."

The president never takes a firm stand -- on anything. And here he once again wants to make his wife his excuse. He wants to continue voting present.

William said...

Gluttony, like lust, is a form of self indulgence. And look around: how many adulterers and gays do you know versus the number of overweight people. I think Michelle is quite right to publicize the issue. It is our defining flaw. There is so much hysteria over sexual failings and such wan acceptance of gluttony. Our social mores should encourage us to look upon a Big Mac with the same distaste that we look upon Eliot Spitzer in over the calf, black stockings. Michelle is doing God's work here.....It should be noted, however, that fat people seldom cheat on their spouses. Perhaps obesity is a small price to pay for a happy marriage.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Vladimir. Mmmmmm. *fanning self*

So {{{hawt!}}}


Well not really garage. I mean without him sporting his hammer and sickle lapel pin it just doesn't have the same magnetism that had your side of the aisle swooning with delight.

Geoff Matthews said...

If the government is going to pay for lunch, it gets to pick the menu.

If you don't like it, pack your own @#%! lunch.

New "Hussein" Ham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lincolntf said...

For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud to be a junk food eater.

Hoosier Daddy said...

“Not only am I very proud of the bill... but had I not been able to get this passed, I would be sleeping on the couch.”

What? Are the rest of the rooms in the White House occupied?

New "Hussein" Ham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
New "Hussein" Ham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

Well not really garage. I mean without him sporting his hammer and sickle lapel pin it just doesn't have the same magnetism that had your side of the aisle swooning with delight.

I don't know any liberal that has ever swooned for Putin, unlike so much of the right that has an honest-to-goodness Bromance with him. Nothing wrong with that at all.

AllenS said...

Barack, go get Bill Clinton a cup of coffee, would ya?

Hoosier Daddy said...

In seriousness, obesity, particularly in children has a lot more to do with lack of exercise than what they stuff down thier pie holes. When I was a kid I practically lived on McDonalds and Burger Chef (anyone remember those?) and I was thin as a rail. Something to do with running around a lot and riding a bike.

CatherineM said...

I can't stand the wife jokes. By anyone - "I (flew to the moon, became POTUS, broke a world record, something else extraordinary), but when I got home, the wife said, nice job, now take out the garbage." Yuck yuck yuck!

Smilin' Jack said...

Here's Michelle Obama looming over some little boy...Looming large....had I not been able to get this passed, I would be sleeping on the couch.

Looks to me like he's a lot safer on the couch. If that whale rolls over on him one night it's Hello, President Biden.

Lincolntf said...

Ever notice how much the Left builds up and eventually canonizes every culture or group of people on Earth, except one?
They save all of their bile, and their extra-condescending tones, for when they're describing the generic "American people". We're all fat, lazy, stupid, planet hogs who would do the Universe a favor by going extinct. Everyone else? Why, they're the very height of human achievement, kept shackled only by our greed and sloth.
Fuck off, Dems. You all might be useless sacks of shit, doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't know any liberal that has ever swooned for Putin,

You must have missed that in my comment. Of course liberals don't swoon for him. He's not a self avowed communist anymore so the bloom is off that rose. That's why you guys get so giddy over Chavez now. I mean with Castro ready to assume room temperature at any moment...

Must be something with the red banners and thuggery that makes liberals act like tweens at a Hannah Montana concert.

Larry J said...

Anyway, what's in that bill? It's not about telling us what to eat? The linked article says it "will set national nutritional standards for public schools, boost funding for low-income meal programs and advance [Barack Obama's] wife’s campaign against childhood obesity."

So, more food money to people who're already fighting obesity. A few years ago, my oldest son was a single father with custody of two toddlers. He got about $400 a month in food stamps and more from WIC. Those moneies could only be spent on food. Folks, my wife and I spend less than $200 a month on food for two adults, so $400+ a month for a man and two little kids seems a bit much to me.

Thrown in the fact that poor families with school aged kids not only get food stamps, they qualify for free or reduced price school breakfasts, lunches, and in some districts, dinner. Perhaps the obesity problem isn't that they're getting too little food assistance but rather too much.

Roman said...

"Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?"

I don't think he is posing.

flicka47 said...

Oh,William is so wrong! Our "defining flaw" is telling other folks what WE think they should do...

Michelle and the progs have just made it an art form.

Hoosier Daddy said...

A couple things she said stood out in that article:
1)...we can all agree that in the United States of America, no child should go to school hungry,” she said

2)The first lady called childhood obesity a national security issue that leaves one in four young people unfit for military service.

Since obesity in American is obviously a national security issue it stands to reason that kids aren’t going to school hungry.

Big Mike said...

Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?

Ans: No. This guy keeps trying to come across as having a self-deprecating sense of humor, but he can't really bring it off.

Now... is it true that Michelle Obama isn't "trying to tell people what to eat" and "not trying to force the government's desires on people"?

Ans: The Professor is precisely correct in asserting that Michelle Obama keeps coming across as wanting to force the hoi polloi to eat what she wants them to eat. If that isn't really her position, then she needs to sit down with someone who can explain to her the difference between caring and dictating.

do the kids get s'mores or not?

Ans: I'll bet not.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Folks, my wife and I spend less than $200 a month on food for two adults...

Really? I mean I know it can be done but I'm guessing a lot of grilled cheese and soup no?

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"'Pussy-whipped' suggests that he's gettin' some."

If he is, it's Vera Baker's.

My 2 cents: Michelle is Obama's beard.

Sissy Willis said...

That creepy photo op reminds me of the scene in Airplane! when the Hare Krishnas -- and everyone else aboard -- exchanged "awww" looks when the nun started playing guitar and singing to the little girl headed for life-saving surgery.

Ralph L said...

They made s'mores on the Gosselin non-camping trip. It must be a family favorite.

What % of school food is tossed?

traditionalguy said...

Sarah is reacting to Michelle's Food Rules as another one two punch infantalysing the former free American citizens. First Michelle has the Food Rulers provide free food money, with the provision that the Food Rules are obeyed, and a new Bureaucracy is formed to police us. This is the beginning of single payer nourishment.

Larry J said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
Folks, my wife and I spend less than $200 a month on food for two adults...

Really? I mean I know it can be done but I'm guessing a lot of grilled cheese and soup no?


Nope, we do a lot of our own cooking, don't buy a lot of processed foods and we shop around. We eat a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables but not from Whole Foods (AKA Whole Paycheck). I've brown bagged my lunch for decades at a cost of perhaps $10 a week. It isn't hard. With just the two of us, a $4.99 Costco rotisserie chicken can go for 2-3 dinner meals and then be used to make sandwiches.

As for Michelle Obama, she can kiss my ass.

Michael Haz said...

Who is more thin and healthy looking, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Obama, or Sarah Palin?

Scott M said...

This is the beginning of single payer nourishment.

Which is just the first step toward a wide array of new, government-subsidized soylent products. Obama's big on the green economy, remember?

HDHouse said...

"...ironically she is the one who is thin...."

mainly because she either has her foot in her mouth or she is bottom feeding for votes.

Ironically? Why is it even noticed?

Ankur said...

In California, my wife and I spend around $600 a month on groceries(not counting our once a week date night).

We eat diverse foods, and cook food from different cuisines. Most of what we eat is either organic or grown by local farmer/neighbours, who use organic methods even if they aren't 'certified organic'.

And yes, we eat a LOT of seasonal vegetables/salads/fruit - we find they add flavor and texture to our meals. Growing up in India, where you are worried about bacterial infections more than here, my experience with both meat and vegetables was mostly - VERY well done, and doused in spices. And I love Indian food - don't get me wrong, and we have a lot of excellent vegetarian dishes. But it is only in America that I started discovering the inherent tastes in vegetables and meats, where you can just steam a broccoli and its sublime. It took a little getting used to, but once the taste is acquired...WOW.

So anyway, I don't see how eating vegetables can be a part of the culture wars. I don't see how a balanced diet can be controversial. And I also don't see how PUBLIC schools providing healthy food to kids is a bad thing.

HDHouse said...

and to the rest of the blowhards on here who are afraid of something undefined...

tell me again please what is wrong with encouraging kids to have a healthy, well considered meal 180 days or so a year? do you hate kids? do you want them to be fat or unhealthy or both? will that make you happy?

what you are doing isn't working and it is only an idiot like Sarah the Dullard who thinks you can keep doing it with different results. Why do you want to ride in her canoe?

Scott M said...

And I also don't see how PUBLIC schools providing healthy food to kids is a bad thing.

Paternalistic comments like "we can't just leave it up to the parents" are part of the problem. The federal government having no jurisdiction or authority to have anything to do with local school menus is another.

Scott M said...

HD - my kids eat healthy, get plenty of exercise and enjoy sweets when appropriate and in moderation. I have four kids that are healthy in every way you can imagine.

No meddling from the federal government was necessary to achieve this goal. No additional federal tax revenue needed to be spent.

Your argument is a red herring.

Ankur said...

...this coming spring, I plan on putting in a few large rows of vegetable boxes. I estimate that that will bring down our monthly food costs to $300 to $400 a month. (Not counting the opportunity cost of buildingthe boxes, the one time cost of buying soil, the opportunity cost for composting, and the actual opportunity cost for the gardening itself - assuming one considers it a pleasure and not a burden)

Hoosier Daddy said...

We eat a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables but not from Whole Foods (AKA Whole Paycheck).

Well so do I and I shop at Kroger and don't do organic and I'll say that fruit ain't cheap. Again I'm not saying $200 a month is not doable but honestly, I don't think even I or my wife could stretch a Costco rotisserie chicken over 2-3 dinners and have leftovers for sandwiches unless you're talking really small portion sizes.

I'd say my food bill for three is around $450 a month (that's food, not counting non-food grocery items) but I will splurge too.

BJM said...

@rd

Of course it's about telling people what their kids should eat AND growing government. Here's the fact sheet.

This is at odds with the list of approved purchases in the SNAP program.

"-Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items

-Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items.

-Energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods."


Given that 49% of children are receiving food assistance through either WIC or SNAP (food stamps) one would think they would begin with defining healthier food stamp items as a much more effective means of addressing child obesity.

How does it make sense to spend taxpayer funds to ban soda and sweets at school when half the children have access to them at home?

It doesn't, especially given that they are taking funding from SNAP at a time of high unemployment to pay for the lunch nanny program, it's either sheer incompetency or about asserting more govt control.

Once the govt has access to our health records, weight and body fat ratio mandates will begin in earnest.

Back away from the Ho-Hos and lose weight Blubberbutt, or it's onto the Obamacare ice floe for you!

Scott M said...

One of us gets paid weekly and the other bi-weekly so our grocery budget looks like $100/$300/$100/$300. Granted, this is with three small kids and one in college that stops by to graze. It also includes all grocery-store items like laundry detergent, diapers/pullups, paper products, etc, not just food.

Hoosier Daddy said...

...tell me again please what is wrong with encouraging kids to have a healthy, well considered meal 180 days or so a year?

There is nothing wrong with encouraging them to eat healthy. I take exception to enacting Federal legislation to enforce it. If the parents aren't doing the job then why not just enact legislation that has the Federal government take over parenting? I mean that seems to be the goal.

And why is this a Federal issue anyway?

Ankur said...

A costco rotisserie chicken - for 2-3 dinners for 2 people. That is 4-6 meals - hmm. I can see four meals, thats two breast filets, two leg/drumsticks. I personally like to eat a little more than - but medical advice says your piece of meat should be the size of a pack of cards. Now, that would be hard for me to maintain on a consistent basis - unless I was supplementing with other small, well timed and healthy snacky meals.

So...if one was eating six small meals instead of three large meals...in that context, I can see one rotisserie chicken lasting for 4-6 meals.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And I also don't see how PUBLIC schools providing healthy food to kids is a bad thing.

In other words its a local matter. Fine. I shouldn't have to pay my local property taxes, state income tax and also Federal income tax to pay for some kid in Nebraska's school lunch.

Is there anything individuals should be responsible for or should we just leave everything in the hands of the Federal government? Serious question.

Sofa King said...

tell me again please what is wrong with encouraging kids to have a healthy, well considered meal 180 days or so a year?

What is wrong is that for liberals, "encouragement" means "do this or else."

Ankur said...

Yeah - my food cost estimates also included the other 'grocery store' items, so I am thinking my $600 estimate should be more like $500 or so.

Big Mike said...

do you hate kids?

No, I hate people who think that they know better than I do how to raise my kids and what to feed them.

Why do you want to ride in [Sarah Palin's] canoe?

If you're talking metaphorically, it's because I think she's right on this issue. If you're talking literally, it's because she actually knows how use a canoe, which Huckabee and Michelle Obama probably don't.

Larry J said...

Well so do I and I shop at Kroger and don't do organic and I'll say that fruit ain't cheap. Again I'm not saying $200 a month is not doable but honestly, I don't think even I or my wife could stretch a Costco rotisserie chicken over 2-3 dinners and have leftovers for sandwiches unless you're talking really small portion sizes.

My wife is a petite Filipina who can happy get by on a few ounces of meat or chicken, some rice*, and some vegatables. I'm neither petite nor a Filipina so my serving sizes are considerably larger, but in the case of the chicken, I'll typically eat maybe 6-8 ounces of the breast along with a little rice and vegatables. We're fortunate that we both like leftovers and don't mind eating the same meal a few days in a row.

*Years ago, my wife told me in no uncertain terms, "I can live without you but I can't live without rice." We buy it by the 25 pound bag size. Our first join purchase when we married 27 years ago was a rice cooker. I have my priorities and she has hers.

Scott M said...

We're fortunate that we both like leftovers and don't mind eating the same meal a few days in a row.

This is huge. If you don't mind this, as my wife and I don't, you can really cut into your budget. We don't call them leftovers, we call them office lunch.

jms said...

Typical Liberal. Michelle Obama can't control the size of her own ass so she needs to pass laws to control the size of everyone else's ass.

Ankur said...

I think the perfect solution to this would be: No food at schools. Let parents send lunchboxes with their kids.

For those kids whose parents cannot afford healthy food - have them get an exception, based on their income tax records. Voila - lower taxes and you can feel good knowing that your (lower) taxes are going towards feeding kids who are really needy.

Of course, I am probably oversimplifying and missing something important.

Granny Jan said...

So, Huckabee agrees with Michelle Obama that obesity is a national security issue and taking away parental rights is the way to solve it.

Not content with the passing of the bill, the Obamas are now going after the critics. . Huckabee shouldn't play into their hands.

My video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDDTIj8JB6M

Team Obama Food Police™ Just Eat It

has been the subject of a vicious attack by the Obama Foodorama blog and by her friend at Eater.com. Ms Kohan said my little, satirical video was the worst attack on the legislation to date.... really

Lincolntf said...

I cancel out whatever candy/snack foods I might eat by having a big, juicy steak every few days or so. Works like a charm.

Ralph L said...

$600 a month is a small price to pay for feeling virtuous.

My one experience with authentic Indian food--bring on the bacteria, please! How did their population grow when they're all eating poison all the time?

Scott M said...

Yes...there's no place for grift in that, Ankur. Or much in the way of bureaucratic job security

Ankur said...

I am coming at this issue from a different cultural perspective. In India, in many poor families - the kids also work, along with their parents, to bring food to the table. And thus, they cannot go to school.

To reduce this, the government started a needs based meals programs in impoverished areas where the kids are given 2-3 free meals for every day of school they attend.

Of course, the reality here is very different, so that might not work here. But it has worked well in certain parts of India where the kids can now actually go to school, and not feel like they have to 'contribute' to the family dinner table.

Ankur said...

Ralph - by doing exactly what I said above - cooking vegetables down until they are soft and almost soggy. Never eating rare or medium meats. And, in my family at least, by boiling the drinking water.

Big Mike said...

In fact, let me add that my younger son was a runner in high school (and made high school All American), and he regularly indulged in carb-loading. HDHouse and Michelle Obama would have stood there shaking their (metaphorical) fingers at him because he was eating too many sweets.

Lisa said...

School food is a crime. Most school districts have outsourced their food to Chartwell's and other firms. The quality of the food is terrible. Someone is profiting off the craptastic food we are serving in our schools... why do we allow this?

Instead of having profits going into the pocket of a few executives (often out of state), we could increase the quality of the food.

roesch-voltaire said...

This is thin gruel to make a meal of. The government, the US Dept of Agriculture has been promoting various food pyramids since the sixties,and many folks have ignored them as witnessed by our over-sized population. This is a cheap shot from Palin ignoring that these are only guidelines that can help schools set meal standards. Palin ignores the the importance of "healthy" role models and public pressure that caused many schools, for example, to remove soda from the vending machines. Now if you want to criticize rude, why not take on Jay Leno who makes jokes about our fat nation almost every night.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I am coming at this issue from a different cultural perspective. In India, in many poor families - the kids also work, along with their parents, to bring food to the table. And thus, they cannot go to school.

And that's nice but this isn't India where kids are having to work to bring home the proverbial bacon.

You want to know one of the reasons kids don't eat healthy? Kids, by and large, don't like "healthy" food. They like food that tastes good which, for most kid's un-evolved taste buds doesn't include things like tuna, or baked chicken, most veggies etc. The reason school lunches look the way they do is because that's the shit kids eat.

Again, it ain't the food as much as its the total lack of exercise. Its a good bet that chubby 7th grader you see whose half a biscuit short of 200lbs isn't on the school soccer team but I bet he has 9 level 80 charcters on World of Warcraft.

Rialby said...

Garage Mahal: I don't know any liberal that has ever swooned for Putin, unlike so much of the right that has an honest-to-goodness Bromance with him. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Umm - did you miss that fucking spectacle from 1 WEEK AGO? Where all of those liberals were standing and clapping for a man who routinely slaughters investigative journalists in his country?

Sixty Grit said...

Yet another lard ass scold - great, just what we need. Shut up, go away, quit wasting our money and leave us alone.

Ralph L said...

There's another big problem with "today's youth." Look where Katy keeps her candy dispenser.

WV boxima - new topical cleanser with botox.

Ankur said...

And I find it amusing that you think that my choices are to "feel good"...and yours aren't?

Isn't feeling good what choices are about? Yes..I do feel good. I love feeling good. I love the taste of the vegetables my neighbours grow and sell. I like the taste of wild salmon more than that of farmed salmon. And for some reason, you think that is an invalid reason?

Also, why would a simple statement of fact regarding MY family's choice raise your hackles? Is it because its different from your choices? Do you aspire for everyone to be a carbon copy of you?

Hoosier Daddy said...

In fact, let me add that my younger son was a runner in high school (and made high school All American), and he regularly indulged in carb-loading.

Ditto. I ran cross country/track in high school and I can testify that I was probably consuming anywhere from 3-4K calories a day and was 6'1 and a staggering 165 lbs. No kidding. I'd come home from a meet, eat a huge dinner and knock out a quart of ice cream for desert.

Lisa said...

Several ask why this is a federal issue. It is a federal issue because the federal government provides funding for free or reduced lunches for over 30 million children a year. It also provides breakfast as well.

Schools that receive this money must meet certain requirements for food quality. Those current requirements (perhaps the bill hcanged them) are pitiful. While no school district is required to participate, they must meet those guidelines if they want federal money.

Either the federal government pays for this food or the local school district will or you will have hungry kids in the classroom who can't learn... in which case the community will pay down the line.

Ankur said...

To address Lisa's point - I wonder if local school districts might better use their food dollars by encouraging formation of some sort of a parent run food co-op - for which they are paid. I bed that would be cheaper than paying an out of state company that doesn't necessarily have the same interest in the welfare of the local kids, whereas a parents run co-op would most certainly want to make sure their kids eat well.

And yes - local, small scale solutions to these problems appear to be infinitely better than federal solutions.

Ankur said...

As we say at work - align the incentives, and things will begin to magically work.

garage mahal said...

Umm - did you miss that fucking spectacle from 1 WEEK AGO? Where all of those liberals were standing and clapping for a man who routinely slaughters investigative journalists in his country?

I must have missed that one. Who would that be?

Scott M said...

Isn't feeling good what choices are about?

Sometimes. Most of the time in life the correct choice is the least "feel good".

f0xpawz said...

Mrs. O thinks the government is going to reduce obesity?

Ridiculous.
The government CAUSES obesity via their "food pyramid" scam to make big agribusinesses profit.
The government has been urging and imploring us to eat more whole wheat, high fiber, low fat, high carb for 40 years. And obesity, diabetes, and heart disease keep rising.
And the profits of subsidized crops of wheat, corn, and soy keep increasing.

The fact is many Americans are sensitive to gluten, have celiac disease, and develop autoimmune problems when eating lots of grain products.
Check out: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

The caribou Mrs. Palin is eating is much healthier than whatever high fiber whole wheat goodness Obama is pushing.

BJM said...

@Ankur

...this coming spring, I plan on putting in a few large rows of vegetable boxes. I estimate that that will bring down our monthly food costs to $300 to $400 a month.

You can expect about 6 weeks of edibles in staggered amounts from a handful per day to a bounty depending on your plant choices...that's assuming perfect cultivation and weather.

Here's the best boxes you can buy for container veggie gardening, they will produce at maximum if you follow their suggestions or you can make your own. Before we moved to this house I had to grow in containers and either of these really work.(don't forget to calculate the wet soil weight load on a deck or patio).

I'm not saying don't do it, because it's fun and very satisfying to grow some of your own food, but it won't make much of a dent in your food costs.

I keep a year round 40' x 60' garden and right now I'm buying supplemental produce because like you, we eat a wide variety of cuisines.

Since you're in food centric CA, you would do better to find a farm exchange where they deliver a box of fresh goodies weekly on a subscription basis. Best of both worlds, good fresh seasonal food while sustaining a local grower.

Lisa said...

Ankur,

When my parents were in school in a rural community in the 50's, everything served for lunch was made from scratch by local women employed by the school.

When I was in school in an 80's suburb, it was a mix. Some processed foods, some from scratch. The cooks were school employees who still needed mixers.

The food my students eat is entirely processed. It is frozen and reheated. Nothing is made from scratch. Nothing is fresh. Everything is frozen then baked or fried by workers employed by the catering services. Even the fresh vegetables were nearly frozen and are thin and watery. The meat is grey and wiry. It is oversalted, overfatty, and lacking nutrition.

No adult would willingly eat this food and I honestly believe that if parents saw how poor the quality of the food is, they would not allow their child to eat it if they had a choice.

Ralph L said...

Ankur, I said virtuous, not good. Your first post sounds like bragging, even if you weren't trying to.

It certainly depends on what you're used to. My mother never cooked with pepper, and for the last 20 years, anything with more than a trace of pepper has knocked me out for a day. That was why I said I'd sooner deal with bacteria.

Scott M said...

Since you're in food centric CA, you would do better to find a farm exchange where they deliver a box of fresh goodies weekly on a subscription basis. Best of both worlds, good fresh seasonal food while sustaining a local grower.

We have a woman in our office that does this and it seems to work out very well. In fact, she says half the fun is that you never know what you're going to get (no, it's not a box of chocalates) and coming up with or finding recipes for everything is fun and challenging.

Bruce Hayden said...

This is thin gruel to make a meal of. The government, the US Dept of Agriculture has been promoting various food pyramids since the sixties,and many folks have ignored them as witnessed by our over-sized population.

Except that the food pyramid as it was traditionally constituted was designed by the USDA to push specific foods, not so much from a health point of view, but rather to sell more of the products regulated and promoted by the agency.

Thus, the bottom tier was starches and breads. I think by now that a lot of people realize that so many fairly empty carbs are not good, esp. for one's weight. Now, the emphasis is moving towards the higher fiber, more complex carbs, like beans. Which I think is good. Those white bread carbs that were on the bottom of the food pyramid for so long are part of the problem.

Ankur said...

Thanks for the advice, BJM - yeah, our last frost is usually mid April, and our first is usually mid November. In between those two dates, we usually get a LOT of sunshine. Also, I am on well water, and we have a very high water table these past couple of years - so with some planning and hard work, I might be able to get something up and running.

But yeah - the farm exchange idea is probably a good one. One of my friends does that and is very happy with it.

BJM said...

@Ralph L

My one experience with authentic Indian food--bring on the bacteria, please! How did their population grow when they're all eating poison all the time?

Charming.

The problem with eating indigenous food in a foreign country is usually the lack of modern sanitation, not the food itself. It mostly doesn't affect locals as they have a natural resistance to local gut flora and fauna, visitors don't.

I have a friend who has lived in Mexico for years and he can eat anything, anywhere without a problem. Me? One poorly washed strawberry and I'm riding the porcelain range for a day or two.

Ralph L said...

you will have hungry kids in the classroom who can't learn
So now we have fat kids who won't learn.
Are parents just baby factories?

AllenS said...

Try throwing a scoop of rice and some steamed vegetables on a plate in the school cafeteria, and see what happens.

Ankur,

If you can get some large plastic containers usually used for plants, or better yet would be a third of a wooden barrel, trying growing tomatoes in them. It's very easy to weed and keep watered.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Only the right wing would think that someone who states that we have an obsesity problem in this country is somehow worse than the obesity problem.

Get a clue, folks. If you want to feed your kids twinkies, snicker bars and Pepsi feel free. No one is stopping you [or anyone] from buying all the crap you want to fill your kids with. But they are trying to alert you to the benefits of a good diet. Why exactly is that wrong? If someone in government didn't say anything you'd criticize them for not caring for their citizens.

Rialby said...

GM: I must have missed that one. Who would that be?

Seriously? Putin and his trained Hollywood Monkeys

Rialby said...

Matt - Only the right wing would think that someone who states that we have an obsesity problem in this country is somehow worse than the obesity problem.

Let me fix that for you: Only the left wing would think that someone who states that we have an Islamic terrorism problem in this country somehow worse than the Islamic terrorism problem.

BJM said...

@Lisa

Yeah..back in '06 when I was in grammar school we couldn't wait for lunch. The ladies were great cooks and served up a tasty menu made on the premises.

Nobody brown bagged. No. Body.

former law student said...

What Michelle actually said, re dessert: “As I tell my kids, dessert is not a right.”

So what is Palin's position? Is dessert the one government entitlement program she supports? Will her next TLC program feature her family spooning down Cool Whip covered with hot fudge sauce?

Scott M said...

If someone in government didn't say anything you'd criticize them for not caring for their citizens.

And thus Matt points out in startling clarity the crux of our problem. "Come and see the violence inherent in the system", etc, etc. Matt's problem is that some fiber of his being can't accept that there's actually an alternative where the government isn't involved and the people are just fine with that.

I'll reiterate...4 healthy kids...no government help. It's not rocket science and it's not expensive. It just takes common sense. Comments like FLOTUS' "we just can't leave this up to the parents" speaks volumes of a paternalistic facet that believes that nobody is capable on their own with their betters leading the way.

JorgXMcKie said...

This is just a really good example of the two kinds of people in the world: Those who know doggone well what you should do, you stupid, ignorant, possibly evil moron, and are willing to us government force to make you, and those who don't.

And HD and William, since we know the proximate course of a great deal of the HIV infections in the country and how expensive treatment is, may I presume you wouldn't object to the federal government enforcing a few 'rules' or 'suggestions' on our population? [This should be aimed, of course at the most 'vulnerable' demographics. I leave who those are to your research.]

Old Dad said...

Matt said:

"But they (Mistress Michelle et al) are trying to alert you to the benefits of a good diet. Why exactly is that wrong?"

Because "they" wouldn't know a good diet from a door knob, and neither does your doctor, and I don't want to pay for Michelle's "free" bullshit advice. Pay your doc if you want.

Comrade X said...

When my parents were in school in a rural community in the 50's, everything served for lunch was made from scratch by local women employed by the school.

Same for me in the 60's. It sucked. It's probably when I first became skeptical of government. The only good school food I ever had was at a private school.

former law student said...

obesity is a national security issue

According to the latest AP news, obesity, as well as K-12 education, is a national security issue, making a quarter of America's youth unfit for military service. From the article:

1. 23 percent of recent high school graduates don't get the minimum score needed on the enlistment test to join any branch of the military.

2. Pentagon data shows that 75 percent of those aged 17 to 24 don't even qualify to take the test because they are physically unfit, have a criminal record or didn't graduate high school.

3. A Department of Defense report notes the military must recruit about 15 percent of youth, but only one-third are eligible. About one-fourth are obese, making them medically ineligible.

In 1980, by comparison, just 5 percent of youth were obese.

Any health condition that increases fivefold in thirty years warrants attention.

Matt said...

Scott M

Not all parents are perfect, sir. I mean you are essentially saying you need no government, no corporations, no schools and no community because you can handle it alone. Good for you. However, the government actually IS us. It represents us. And so it has programs - some of which promote health for kids. Wow what a radical idea.

You seem to only be opposed to that because YOU take care of everything yourself. So, essentially, because everyone can't be you then to hell with any programs that try to promote healthy diets for kids?
Would you feel the same about cigarettes for kids? The same logic applies. You would simply tell us that you can control your kids’ cigarette smoking and that you don’t want any programs to prevent kids smoking.

Seriously, I have no idea why a simple message about healthy meals for kids is bad??

Comrade X said...

Just Say No
To Stuffing Your Piehole

Matt said...

Old Dad

Because "they" wouldn't know a good diet from a door knob...

Actually, they would. Door knobs are tough to swallow. There are basically two diets; good and bad. If you give kids an option they will choose the bad diet. If you only give them the bad diet they will naturally only choose that, which is becoming the norm in many schools.

I grew up at a time when public schools [at least mine] had full meals for lunch. Meat, vegetables, grains and the occassional dessert. Pretty simple but healthy. But these days due to budget cuts to school lunch programs many kids don't get this diversity.

Sending parents a message to promote a healthy diet is hardly radical.

former law student said...

Damn, now I want some Tater Tots.

As God is my witness: vw taterre

Lincolntf said...

"I have no idea why a simple message about healthy meals for kids is bad??"


Are you really going to keep pretending that that is what the opposition is all about? A "simple message" doesn't require a massive bureaucracy, doesn't cost billions of dollars and doesn't legislate changes in every public school in the nation.
If Michelle wants 2 minutes of PBS time on Saturday mornings to tell the rug-rats to eat their greens, so be it. This is not that.

Old Dad said...

I said: Because "they" wouldn't know a good diet from a door knob...

Matt said: Actually, they would.

Well hell, then, let's party--Dr. Moe, Dr. Larry, Dr. Howard, Dr. Atkins.

But you pay. I don't want to.

traditionalguy said...

Any caring person will now support the total removal of all food related advertisements from TV. Also caring people will support a government mandate requiring a warning label that, "food is harmful to your health". All of that evil food can be made into ethanol and sold to the Arabs, since we won't need fuel because we will be too weak to use heavy machinery.

Ann Althouse said...

"Either the federal government pays for this food or the local school district will or you will have hungry kids in the classroom who can't learn..."

How can those be the only 2 options?

It's disgusting that the federal government uses its spending power to intrude into all sorts of matters that should be left to state and local decisionmaking.

There's no reason at all to think that there needs to be a uniform standard for what kids eat for lunch. This is a place where decentralized choices could easily govern.

You can't make kids eat food. Let the people closest to the kids -- preferably the family, but also the community in the school district -- decide what should be put in front of the kids.

It would be interesting to see what approach to eating yields the healthiest, most productive citizens. Instead, we get one standard for all, proclaimed by people who do not really know. They want the credit for doing what is good, but they don't really know what will work, and they are raking the money out of the states to hand back to us with strings attached. It's perfectly awful.

Old Dad said...

What the Prof. said, and double for me.

Synova said...

"Gluttony, like lust, is a form of self indulgence. And look around: how many adulterers and gays do you know versus the number of overweight people. I think Michelle is quite right to publicize the issue. It is our defining flaw. There is so much hysteria over sexual failings and such wan acceptance of gluttony."

Gluttony and sloth. Gossip.

Instead of insisting that our last remaining sins aren't sins at all, maybe we should remember those that we've been ignoring.

But I don't think that Michelle is doing that at all. Not a bit. She's not reminding us that gluttony is a sin or that self-control and self-denial are *godly* virtues. All she's done is picked her "thing" just like Lady Di had "things" and William has "things". It keeps her busy doing some social-good that has the added benefit of putting her in the public eye from time to time in a positive way. Sure, she got to pick which cause she was going to be known for promoting, but it's busy-work and nothing but.

And she's not fat. She's not skinny either, but she's not fat, she's just a very big lady. Huge lady. And she can't help that any more than she could just decide to wear smaller shoes.

Lisa said...

Ann,

Either a district accepts Federal funding and the rules that go with it, or pays for meals (or finds a charity to do it) out of pocket, or you have hungry kids. We know empirically that undernourished kids do not learn well.

Certainly not everywhere and not all kids in poverty would go hungry but enough would. There is a reason why WIC goes up only until age five and that is because at five, kids can receive free and reduced lunch. It's part and partial of our welfare system.

Should their parents be able to provide for them properly? Absolutely. But not all can or do. It is hardly the child's fault if their parent is disabled, or stupid or drug adled or whatever. However, allowing these kids to grow up without support, without food, is going to only make things worse in the community down the road, not better.

dbp said...

Lisa said...
Ann,
Either a district accepts Federal funding and the rules that go with it, or pays for meals (or finds a charity to do it) out of pocket, or you have hungry kids.


Of course, the people of the district pay via their federal taxes either way. How about this: The feds let us keep our money and if our school district needs a nutrition program we fund it with local taxes?

I'll bet my district could put-together a program which works better in our unique situation than any federal one that needs to work throughout the country.

Jay said...

but had I not been able to get this passed, I would be sleeping on the couch.”

Wow is this guy a puss.

Ankur said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Either the federal government pays for this food or the local school district will or you will have hungry kids in the classroom who can't learn..

How can those be the only 2 options?"

There are actually THREE distinct, mutually exclusive options in that sentence. And between themselves, the three pretty much cover the gamut of choices realistic in the american scenario.

a) Federal Government pays for some of the food, and imposes strings.

b) The School district pays for all the food

c) The school district DOESN'T pay for all the food or pays for insufficient portions, leading to hungry kids.

Of course, within each of those options, there are lots of federalism friendly, and yet perfectly workable solutions, like the ones mentioned above, but as far as a framework is concerned, the three paths are fairly complete.

Jay said...

It's disgusting that the federal government uses its spending power to intrude into all sorts of matters that should be left to state and local decisionmaking.

That is the party you have voted for most of your adult life in action.

Synova said...

"Would you feel the same about cigarettes for kids? The same logic applies. You would simply tell us that you can control your kids’ cigarette smoking and that you don’t want any programs to prevent kids smoking."

Do programs to prevent kids from smoking have anything remotely resembling success rates?

It's not *just* that government shouldn't be trying to micromanage lives nor take over from parents, it's that what government does to do this is 100% invasive and near 0% effective. Somehow the ineffectiveness doesn't reduce the invasiveness at all.

We have programs in this country to discourage everyone from smoking and everyone knows that it is bad for you and the people who do smoke don't do so because they aren't well enough informed.

This is very like the food thing... first, as a couple of people mentioned, it now seems that what our government has been telling us for decades about healthy eating is a lie and actually actively bad for a whole lot of people who have metabolic reactions to grain, particularly to wheat. (A friend of mine lost almost 60 pounds in a year when she went gluten free, and for 50+ years she had not a single clue it was bad for her.) But now we're supposed to listen and because someone *tells* us that we should eat healthy and that it's better not to be fat people are going to do what? What are they going to do? Slap their foreheads and exclaim, "By Gove! I had no idea!"

Jay said...

..we can all agree that in the United States of America, no child should go to school hungry,” she said

Great idea. Worthwhile goal.

Not my problem.

Not the federal government's problem.

James said...

I grew up at a time when public schools [at least mine] had full meals for lunch. Meat, vegetables, grains and the occassional dessert. Pretty simple but healthy. But these days due to budget cuts to school lunch programs many kids don't get this diversity.

I call "bullshit."

Synova said...

Our school lunches were disgusting when I was a kid. I doubt they were particularly healthy. We didn't get fat because we only ate to stave off the hunger pains.

kcom said...

Old Dad: "What the Prof. said, and double for me."

What Old Dad said, and double for me.

One reason we're $14 trillion dollars in debt is because the Federal government takes on a whole lot of issues that are none of its responsibility and just adds to the overhead of dealing with them. Taking our money, adding a huge and wasteful (almost by definition) government bureaucracy, and then giving us back what's left over to "help" is hardly the path to efficient use of money or efficient solving of problems. How many more lunches could be paid for if the money didn't detour through Washington to provide salaries, rent, office supplies, expense account lunches (at Washington DC prices), cars, retirement accounts, lawyers, HR personnel, IT services, EOE officers, climate change consultants, etc., etc. on its way to actually addressing the problem? It's just a boondoggle.

AST said...

Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?

Maybe not, but it's the truth.

dbp said...

James,

I grew-up in Washington State and in grade school we had meals made from scratch in the school kitchen. I know it because that was a cheap and easy "field trip" we all took.

Now in MA, my kids report and school newsletters confirm that all the food served is pre-made and just heated up by the staff.

knox said...

Ugh. Huckabee. Obviously has no idea how obvious how green with envy and bitterness he is re: Palin.

Is any conservative going to run in '12 who I would actually want to win??

##

I am so over the anti-obesity trend. My pediatrician spends more time asking about my kids' diet, snacking, dessert, and, omigod, do you actually give them juice?? My kids aren't fat. My husband's not fat. I'm not fat. Yet the doctor feels the need to act like it's dangerous if my daughter drinks apple juice.

And the issue is not "availability of fresh fruit and vegetables" ... go to the grocery store, take a look at the carts, and it's easy to see how overweight people get that way.

knox said...

It's not *just* that government shouldn't be trying to micromanage lives nor take over from parents, it's that what government does to do this is 100% invasive and near 0% effective.

Yes! I dream of a world without PSAs.

Ann Althouse said...

"There are actually THREE distinct, mutually exclusive options in that sentence. And between themselves, the three pretty much cover the gamut of choices realistic in the american scenario."

You're right. I skipped right over the middle one. Sorry.

I just don't think this is the federal govt's business. It's a big power grab -- taxing and spending for things that belong at the local level, where there is no good argument for the value of national uniformity.

Ann Althouse said...

"Yet the doctor feels the need to act like it's dangerous if my daughter drinks apple juice."

I'm glad that there's recognition that fruit juice is one of the sugary drinks, just like soda. Empty calories, but some kids need some empty calories.

Big Mike said...

Oh, and while we're at it, Huckabee lost my vote permanently. He seems to think that mixing some social conservatism with the nanny state is how to win. Include him in the list of those who didn't learn the right lesson from the 2010 election.

Lisa said...

Ann,

Whose job is it then? If it is not the federal government's job to ensure that our children, future voters, are fed so that they can learn, whose job is it? And what happens when they don't fulfill that responsibility?

Big Mike said...

@Lisa, it is (or was, since they're grown now) my job, and I don't want you or Michelle Obama or anybody else telling me what to feed my children. Bluntly speaking, neither you nor she is smart enough.

Do you have kids? How about if I come over and start telling you how to raise them? Do you encourage them to play sports? Do you encourage them to exercise?

Don't worry, I'll find some area where you're falling short. Because in the end you're a worthless harridan.

Jay said...

If it is not the federal government's job to ensure that our children, future voters, are fed so that they can learn, whose job is it?


How about their parents?

Novel concept, isn't it...

Jay said...

By the way, when is Mooshelle going to get her husband to quit smoking?

jenlynch said...

The right wing has been reduced to complaining about the banality of First Lady causes. (How DID Nancy Reagan DARE to tell our children not to try drugs! Or Laura Bush say we HAD to learn TO READ! The gall!)

Have we really gone from trying to take done the liberal Pres for financial crimes (Whitewater) and sexual misdeeds (Monicagate), to taking down this President for being too much like Bill Cosby? C'mon?

"Guidelines" are just that... nutritional suggestions. There is no enforcement if not adhered to, they are simply guidelines. "We hope for the health of America's children, you'll do this, but if your school district can't or won't, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!"

Now how about something truly substantive and not just petty?

Smilin' Jack said...

Ann Althouse said...
It's disgusting that the federal government uses its spending power to intrude into all sorts of matters that should be left to state and local decisionmaking.


Absolutely. Federal bureaucrats shouldn't be telling us what to eat. State and local bureaucrats should be telling us what to eat. That will be much better. Viva federalism!

Lisa said...

Big Mike,

I do have children. I also teach. And as I understand it and I could be wrong, this bill mostly extends to controlling what is served in school cafeterias that receive federal money for free lunch programs.

You still have the option of packing your kids' lunches.

But the unfortunate reality is not all children have parents who are able or willing to provide healthy meals for their children. For some kids, they only really eat at school. Do we let them suffer because of their parents with all the consequences of that for their future or do we provide them two decent meals a day?

Jay said...

The right wing has been reduced to complaining about the banality of First Lady causes.

Um, the "cause" is in a terrible piece of legislation.

Your post is full of deliberate distortion and incoherence.

Jay said...

Do we let them suffer because of their parents with all the consequences of that for their future or do we provide them two decent meals a day?

This is absurd hyperbole.

William said...

Somewhere along the way lots of people started using seat belts and stopped smoking. When seat belts were first introduced many considered them restrictive, and high minded libertarians refused to wear them. All that has changed now. The change was incremental and slow, but it happened. I suppose boring PSA announcements and the native wish of most Americans to live forever played their part in this change.....I don't think Michelle's preaching will cause donut sales to plummet, but it's part of the zeitgeist and all for the good......Even a feud between Michelle and Sarah about food would be a good thing. It would tend to make people more self conscious about their diet choices.....We talk of the pain of people who have to live in substandard housing. Ponder, reader, the pain of those who live their only lives in substandard bodies. I'm not calling for a federal program or anything, but it's a damn shame to see all those poor souls who are imprisoned in their own wattles.

Joan said...

Do we let them suffer because of their parents with all the consequences of that for their future or do we provide them two decent meals a day?

This is absurd hyperbole.


No, sadly, it's not.
I work in a Title 1 school -- all the children are economically disadvantaged, and for some of them, the only time they get to eat is at school. On the last day of school before break (started Monday), one of my students came to hang out with me while I was cleaning up my room and getting it ready for the cleaning crew that comes in over break to polish the floors, etc. She quite clearly did not want to leave, and when I was finally ready to go, I had to tell her it was time for her to go, too. She said, "I hate it when we have breaks, and I have to stay home all the time."

There's nothing for her at home... and not a thing I could do about it, except reassure her that she would be back in 2 short weeks, complaining that the break went by too fast.

My student is far from unique. If you don't work in a school with similar demographics, you really can't speak to what's going on.

BTW, the food at my school is surprisingly decent, and it's impressive how many kids -- and teachers -- get the chicken ceasar salads for lunch. But then again, it's a charter.

Synova said...

At my daughter's charter school the social worker on staff and a bunch of the kids started handing out food at lunch time, PB&J sandwiches and fresh fruit, all of it donated and given away free.

They had to stop because of not having a food preparation license and inspections or something.

This is what happens when "if government doesn't do it, who will" is followed. If government doesn't make sure food is safe, who will?

Well, if government doesn't make sure students have food to eat, who will? Certainly not volunteers, because that's against the law.

And it builds on itself.

This is simply true.

It sounds callous to say that government should not be taking care of us like this, but there is always a cost and it's usually ignored.

knox said...

I'm glad that there's recognition that fruit juice is one of the sugary drinks, just like soda. Empty calories..."

Perhaps, but if my daughter isn't overweight or diabetic, and eats well otherwise...? It shouldn't be made to sound like such a critical health issue. It makes no sense.

former law student said...

Do we let them suffer because of their parents with all the consequences of that for their future or do we provide them two decent meals a day?


School lunch started back when farmers were dumping unsold milk in rivers, and piling up oranges to rot. The USDA stepped in to buy up their surplus, then fed it to schoolkids.

It's no wonder that grains and dairy are important parts of the "food pyramid." My inlaws used to line up with the rest of the "seniors" for free nonfat dry milk and government velveeta.

There are no price supports for fruits and vegetables, so there you are.

BJM said...

..we can all agree that in the United States of America, no child should go to school hungry,” she said

What the hell happened to the trillions we've spent on since LBJ declared "war on poverty"?

Were govt the solution we would not be talking about child hunger 50+ years and $5 trillion later.

JAL said...

If you don't like it, pack your own @#%! lunch

You still have the option of packing your kids' lunches.

I don't know where I saw it, but out there in cyberland within the last year I saw someone writing that the school did NOT like what they packed for their kids' lunch ...anyone else remember seeing it?

And I had to laugh a little at the sad story of the PB&J sandwiches which the volunteers were forbidden from handing out.

JELLY is BAD for you. [SUGAR!!11!!]

Peanut Butter is TOO HIGH in FAT!!11!!

There are different issues here.

Some kids simply have parents or "caretakers" who are unable to provide financially (though with food stamps ...?), irresponsible, or at best clueless. Those kids may be hungry. Or hungry and fat even.

Then there are the fat kids who are fat because they do not get outside and play.

SRSLY -- the life style changes the internet and video entertainment world has produced in the last 20 years is mind blowing.

NO kid sat at home doing nothing unless he/she were major geeks who read books all day and wore thick glasses.

Nowadays kids can't go unattended anywhere outside in much of America.

Sad sad sad sad.
Bad bad bad bad.

Anyone remember the book Where Did You Go? Out. What Did You Do? Nothing ?

Lisa said...

Many schools are nut free now so PBJ is not allowed.

However, if someone wanted to hand out individually wrapped cheese (like stick cheese) or yogurts or fruit, I dont see how that could be stopped as there would be no preparation. But keep in mind most schools have contracted out food service so their contract may have issue with that.

J said...

Be as fat as you like. Contract diabetes and wallow in it until you lose your legs but don't expect Medicare (i.e. "me") to pay for your medication or buy you that Lil' Rascal scooter. So Mr. & Mrs. Tea Party, I am all for not having the gov't try to influence behavior as long as you agree that we get to slash granny's medicare and take your medical scooters away. Everyone hates gov't until they need it to pick up the check.

The Musket said...

Huckabee is 'Compassionate Christian' -- which just means he wants to be the one that tells us how to behave.

Obama's frequent beta dog behavior shows he's not presidential material.

The problem with the government - or any entity - dictating 'healthy' food comes down to 2 things: 1. LIBERTY -- very important concept - one for which many people will, and already have, died for. (to clarify: die for liberty, not the food, food is the example but surely you all get that) and 2. who decides what is healthy??? we must all be vegetarian, we must all be atkins, we must eat the paleo diet, etc., etc. I'll figure it out myself, thank you.

The Musket said...

I hate the bully money the feds use to push an agenda and take control of our lives!

One of the reasons many of the parents that can't or won't take of their kids are like they are is because of government intervention!!

Before the 'Great Society' people cared for other people - now the government will help so people don't feel the need to care as much. Also, so many people went on the dole in the 60s and 70s because of the 'Great Society' that those on the dole quit taking care of themselves, quit teaching and learning HOW to take care of themselves. Instead, they learned how to fill out paperwork and ways to beat the system. That's hardly dignifying or helpful in the long run.

The Musket said...

The federal government wants to control something so they make regulations that ensure the federal government are the only ones able to do it. It's not just with food either -- start taking a look around. And as Lisa says -- the schools have contracts that limit choices and ability to hand out free food, hmmm, anybody want to take a guess as to what that's about?!? Somebodies palms are being greased somewhere. Healthcare, did I hear anybody say healthcare.

FYI - I remember eating school lunches, made by a neighbor at school, from scratch. The food was OK - not as good as home, but there isn't much you can do with canned veggies. We always had a protein, a veggie, a starch, a piece of bread and butter, and dessert. Rural Midwest in the 70s.

thechristianmessage.org said...

There was a time that I thought Huckabee would be a good pick for the 2012 GOP nomination. But the more I see and listen to him, the thought of "appeasement" comes to mind. The other day I turned on FOX only to see him host Charley Rangel on his program. I immediately turned to another network.

Following, is my "take" on who the GOP electorate needs to nominate in order to make Obama a one term president:

The GOP Electorate needs to nominate a candidate as far opposite of Obama, as is reasonably possible. The clear difference will spell "Victory," come the presidential election.

Those candidates who agree with Obama on certain issues, such as man-made global warming, stand a lesser chance of beating him out in the general election.

The American voting electorate, come 2012, will, (perhaps), be the most well informed of all presidential electorates. Therefore the GOP candidate most opposite of Obama, needs to clearly trumpet the clear and opposite stances on the issues. Better yet -- if that candidate can frame the issues before BHO and his lib media, the better......

Pastor (emeritus) Nathan Bickel

former law student said...

What the hell happened to the trillions we've spent on since LBJ declared "war on poverty"?

That money went to the political power structure and to the professional do-gooders. None of it went to help the poor help themselves.

Some contemporary comments on the WoP from a Harvard Crimson interview:

In discussing methods of community organization, Alinsky repeated an earlier statement that the federal government's War On Poverty is an example of "political pornography." He said that Sargent Shriver has a "zoo-keeper mentality," desiring not to help Negroes in ghettos, but to keep them quiet.

To completely free themselves from poverty, people need not only, money,but also power, Alinsky explained. And the War on Poverty is not designed to give Negroes power, he added.

former law student said...

Obama's frequent beta dog behavior shows he's not presidential material.

Obama is Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Trooper York said...

Everyone should have a couple of donuts today just to show Michelle where she should go.

The Musket said...

Trooper -- my kids and I are doing our part -- Christmas Cookies for breakfast!!

Craig Ranapia said...

Is it cool for the President to pose as pussy-whipped?

You talk to your students with that potty-mouth, Professor Althouse?