America has the constant threat from the Middle East, the economy in a rut... but the government is armed and ready to combat your (or your child's) french fry fetish.
Michelle Obama's Obesity Crusade has led to legislation in Congress that would give the federal government the power to keep tabs on the BMI (that's body mass index) of all children ages 2 through 18... this info would be forwarded to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for analysis... the bill "would establish and fund a wide range of programs and regulations aimed at reducing obesity rates by such means as putting nutritional labels on the front of food products, subsidizing businesses that provide fresh fruits and vegetables, and collecting BMI measurements of patients and counseling those that are overweight or obese."
Uh yeah... I'm not kidding... here's the link... read for yourself!
Ok, I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. It all boils down to rugged individualism and personal responsibility, on the part of individuals and on the part of parents. If I want to stuff my fat face full of the delicacy of saturated and trans fats and the culinary masterpiece of McDonald's and similar fast food establishments, then I will do as I damn please with my french fries and milkshake, thank you very much. And I don't need the government to "counsel" me on my eating habits. That's my business.
And really, I believe that parents (for the most part) know how to raise their kids better than the federal government that has difficulty managing anything well these days. They don't need Michelle Obama and the U.S Department of Health and Human Services sitting at the dinner table, helping to count calories. Just another outlet for government intervention into private life.
Moving on... so how about that Supreme Court nominee of Obama's... Elena Kagan? Seems she to have a slight issue with the idea of Free Speech--which is part of the first amendment, which is a part of a little thing called the U.S Constitution (which, of course, justices of the Supreme Court uphold)... check out this article. It's a bit lengthy... but it's a bit disturbing that a woman who argued on behalf of "government’s right to restrict constitutional free speech during an election". And, just a brief excerpt that caught my eye, during the Clinton administration, Kagan was "a fierce advocate of homosexual rights, and the ACLU has credited her with shaping the administration’s hate crimes policy. Hate crime laws chill free speech rights by empowering government to accuse and prosecute people for “inciting” hate crimes by, for example, proclaiming the Biblical understanding that homosexuality is a sin" .
Wow. And just for fun, here's the First Amendment itself... I wonder if Kagan's ever read it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And lastly, kudos to Rand Paul for winning the Kentucky Senate primary! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/us/politics/20teaparty.html
Well those were just a few of the fun stuff I have heard on the news over the past few days... hope everyone is having a great week. I ask that you please keep our soldiers overseas and this great nation in your prayers... and as always, God Bless America. :)
I just want to comment on the BMI portion of this post...BMI does not account for muscle. So say you have a student who is a wrestler in the upper weight classes. The Body Mass Index scale would classify someone who is 190 lbs and 6 ft tall (not uncommon, especially with wrestlers) as "overweight," with a BMI of 25.766. This student is supposed to attend counseling and receive advice on good eating habits (as if a wrestler doesn't know...) while also feeling the strain of being classified as "overweight?" Anyone who has more muscle than fat is affected by this, and I don't see what good this does. First the government focuses on raising self-esteem, then they target it by profiling people based on a height/weight ratio? The solution to obesity problem in America is not through the government, but through the citizens who choose obesity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with putting nutrition labels on the front of foods and maybe even with supporting businesses that offer healthy food. But the monitoring of BMI sounds like overstepping bounds--it's just taking government in the wrong direction. Government should be promoting good stuff and maybe even taxing bad stuff, but not taking individual data points like that.
ReplyDeleteNote, however, that the only result to the wrestler would be to be given information on healthy eating. No compulsory counseling is mentioned.
Don't you think that government subsidies to corn and soybean farmers naturally pushes the available foods towards high-fructose corn syrup-filled, soybean-oil filled, highly processed foods? If the government is going to be spending money on the food system, it may as well be towards encouraging healthy eating.
ReplyDeleteKudos to Rand Paul? The guy who by his own admission would not have wanted desegregation? What?
ReplyDeleteYes, you read it right, kudos to Rand Paul. He won the GOP nomination for US Senate with the support of the Tea Party and obviously countless other Kentuckians...
ReplyDelete...read his response below. It's a bit of a stretch to say that he "would not have wanted desegregation." Rand Paul is all about private ownership. That's "what".
"I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation," Paul said in the statement. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about, to my mind.”
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-reacts-to-criticism/
I think you meant to use the word "admonition" rather than "admission", Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so by his own admission (no, not admonition) he would want mandated desegregation only in publicly funded institutions and not privately owned businesses. Does he figure that the private sphere would follow along eventually, and the free market would abolish segregation on its own? I must say that seems unlikely given that no such thing had happened in the century since the Emancipation Proclamation. And speaking of that, wouldn't the same logic also dictate that Lincoln grossly overstepped the bounds of government in issuing that proclamation? Maybe Paul would say he should have waited and let the free market abolish slavery on its own?
ReplyDeleteThe Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in those states that were in rebellion towards the Union at the time. The source provided below along with a copy of the Proclamation clearly states it was a "call to slaves in rebellious states (CSA) to rise up against their masters/owners and rebel themselves, and to come and fight in the Union army." (http://www.maitreg.com/politics/speeches/emancipation.asp)
ReplyDeleteLincoln himself stated in the Proclamation it was "sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity".
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in border states still in Union control. His words applied where they had no power.
Maybe Rand Paul would say that, maybe he wouldn't. I just provide the facts. :)
Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I meant the 13th Amendment...I was really asking for the libertarian view of the government-mandated abolition of slavery. Was it justified or was it another example of the government overstepping its bounds and disrupting private enterprise? If it was justified, how is that different from mandating desegregation?
ReplyDeleteSince you kudo-ed Rand Paul, I assume you share his views to some extent. I don't really care about Paul; I would like to know what you think. :)