I was emailed a link to this story from the far-right rubbish mill known as World Net Daily. A bastion of birthers, Obama-haters of all spread, evolution and climate-deniers, and just right-wing nutties in general, the column I was given a link to attacked Michelle Obama's Healthy-Eating Initiative, her attempt to encourage parents to make healthy choices in the foods that they feed their children.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=261065
Implied in the title is that, of course, the First Lady doesn't really care about children, her push for healthy eating is simply yet another "liberal do-gooder" attempt to control every aspect of all of our lives. It faults her for not tackling the, very real, problem of sex trafficking and sex slavery, instead using her position to "bully restaurants" into serving smaller portion sizes.
What, and no similar outcry that former First Lady Laura Bush didn't speak out against sex slavery, instead using her position to push for child literacy? The hypocrisy is stunning; let's face it, for many on the right there is nothing that either Barack or Michelle Obama could do that would make them happy. No matter what they did, they could find something to pick out as being "wrong" and yet another reason to dislike this liberal, socialist, Marxist, atheist who was born in Kenya (right).
First Ladies pick out easy topics to become advocates on. Who, after all, could oppose child literacy or encouraging healthy eating? Oh, that's right, the unhinged far Right in this country, who see any initiative by the government as advancing a creeping socialism.
Can we get past the politics for a minute, just one minute? This isn't about telling parents what to allow their kids to eat; I see nothing wrong with making good, helpful suggestions to that effect. Few can deny that obesity in this country is reaching epidemic proportions, especially among children, and something has to be done about it. What could be better towards that end than encouraging healthy eating from childhood on, making parents and children aware that what they put into their mouth has a definite effect on their overall health.
Where do we start in tacking the grossly overweight condition of our nation's children if not in promoting eating carrots instead of McDonald's fries? Please, leave the politics where they belong; let's agree that healthy eating is a good thing and that Mrs. Obama's initiative is something that we should all support.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=261065
Implied in the title is that, of course, the First Lady doesn't really care about children, her push for healthy eating is simply yet another "liberal do-gooder" attempt to control every aspect of all of our lives. It faults her for not tackling the, very real, problem of sex trafficking and sex slavery, instead using her position to "bully restaurants" into serving smaller portion sizes.
What, and no similar outcry that former First Lady Laura Bush didn't speak out against sex slavery, instead using her position to push for child literacy? The hypocrisy is stunning; let's face it, for many on the right there is nothing that either Barack or Michelle Obama could do that would make them happy. No matter what they did, they could find something to pick out as being "wrong" and yet another reason to dislike this liberal, socialist, Marxist, atheist who was born in Kenya (right).
First Ladies pick out easy topics to become advocates on. Who, after all, could oppose child literacy or encouraging healthy eating? Oh, that's right, the unhinged far Right in this country, who see any initiative by the government as advancing a creeping socialism.
Can we get past the politics for a minute, just one minute? This isn't about telling parents what to allow their kids to eat; I see nothing wrong with making good, helpful suggestions to that effect. Few can deny that obesity in this country is reaching epidemic proportions, especially among children, and something has to be done about it. What could be better towards that end than encouraging healthy eating from childhood on, making parents and children aware that what they put into their mouth has a definite effect on their overall health.
Where do we start in tacking the grossly overweight condition of our nation's children if not in promoting eating carrots instead of McDonald's fries? Please, leave the politics where they belong; let's agree that healthy eating is a good thing and that Mrs. Obama's initiative is something that we should all support.
There's nothing wrong with promoting healthier lifestyles and organic food. It's Mrs. Obama's advocacy for legal mandates that tell us what to eat. Her agenda is beyond promoting health; it promotes government intervention in our diets and personal lives.
ReplyDelete. . . Provided we, as individuals, care if we are fat or not. It would only truly matter if the healthcare to treat the myriad of negative effects of "our fatness" were subsidized by the taxpayers of this country. If that ended up being the case, then the way to controlling certain “fringe” aspects of our diets, whether through an extremely high "sin tax" or what have you -- which is technically already in existence in some forms --, would be "justifiable." It’s not unreasonable for people to see a politician/wife of politician and immediately put the B.S. filter on, annoying as that may seem in this instance. Many people have been or believe that they have been burned by the gov’t in the past, and they are afraid that they may effectively lose access to some of their favorite food and drink items as a result of this whole healthcare debate, and rightly so. There are many items which we regularly buy that are made almost too expensive by fucking “ungodly” taxes. For me, tobacco is a good example: I can only afford to smoke pipe tobacco now because of the high taxes on all the bloody rest (not to mention the nastiness of cigarettes, which I wouldn’t touch anyway). These people may be crazy, but there is a very real issue there which has been thrust into the forefront of everyone’s minds, provided they have been paying attention to politics for the past couple of years (decades, really). Would I love to see America lose a collective 50 million pounds? Sure would. Would I want to see that come about as a result of gov’t action? Hell no. Do I believe Mrs. Obama is attacking the subconscious of America with Liberal B.S.? No, not this time. In Short, I agree with you, but I want to be very clear that these people have a right to be suspicious. [If this doesn’t seem coherent, it’s because I’m really tired]
ReplyDelete. . . Let me just add this:
ReplyDeleteWhat if, as a result of an increased sin tax to "protect Americans from their unhealthy ways" resulted in things like coffee being $20 per 12 oz. cup? Would the gov't be "prohibiting" us from drinking it? No. Would they effectually be doing so? Yes. They already do this to a certain extent on certain items, and the fear is that taxpayer subsidized healthcare would mandate that this gradually be done in order to save money. This is action which I think, in any form -- to include some extant -- is freaking* bullshit and not, I think, justifiable for any bloody government to do. It's not unreasonable to be afraid of the gov't in these respects either, as they have a long track record of systematically making more decisions on behalf of the citizenry, ever encroaching on their/our personal lives as time goes by. Not that I want to should like a fear mongering dumbass, but it happens, and that shit gets expensive for us.
*Sorry I said "fucking" earlier. I'm trying not to do that.