Michelle Obama has taken it upon herself to decide not only what children in the country will eat but what they can sell in fund raisers:
At Chapman School in Nebraska, resourceful students hawk pizza and cookie dough to raise money for school supplies, field trips and an eighth-grade excursion to Washington. They peddle chocolate bars to help fund the yearbook.
But the sales won’t be so sweet starting this fall. Campus bake sales—a mainstay of school fundraisers—are going on a diet. A federal law that aims to curb childhood obesity means that, in dozens of states, bake sales must adhere to nutrition requirements that could replace cupcakes and brownies with fruit cups and granola bars.
Jeff Ellsworth, principal of the kindergarten through eighth-grade school in Chapman, Neb., isn’t quite sure how to break the news to the kids. “The chocolate bars are a big seller,” said Mr. Ellsworth.
The restrictions that took effect in July stem from the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by first lady Michelle Obama and her “Let’s Move!” campaign. The law overhauled nutrition standards affecting more than 30 million children. Among the changes: fatty french fries were out, while baked sweet potato fries were deemed to be fine.
The law also required the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set standards for all food and beverages sold during the school day, which includes vending machines, snack carts and daytime fundraisers. It allowed for “infrequent” fundraisers, and states were allowed to decide how many bake sales they would have that didn’t meet nutrition standards.
Without state-approved exemptions, any treats sold would have to meet calorie, sodium, fat and other requirements. The law permits states to fine schools that don’t comply.
People aren’t happy with the Food Nazi:
According to a report from the National Resources Defense Council, close to 40 percent of food in the U.S. is never eaten, which is approximately $165 billion in waste. Liberals should be outraged, but Mrs. Obama and the administration’s mandates are adding to the problem of more food being thrown away at the schools.
In her recent New York Times editorial, Mrs. Obama even picked a fight with the beloved potato (my daughter’s favorite vegetable). She argues that “many women and children already consume enough potatoes.” Really? Are mashed potatoes that bad for you? Speak for yourself, Mrs. Obama. It is stressful enough for families these days, especially single moms who are working, raising children and figuring out what to make for dinner every night for their children. Women do not need the first lady or the Obama administration to tell them what and how to eat. The Republicans simply want to provide flexibility to low-income women who receive WIC benefits so that they are in charge of making food choices for their families.
Obama’s Diktat is costly and wasteful
As students flood Twitter with images of inedible slop, it’s clear that Michelle Obama’s government school lunch revamp is a costly failure. It’s time to get the feds out of kids’ lunch boxes.
The $12 billion federal student lunch program, which serves 30.7 million kids, is losing participants fast — more than a million just last year, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. The reason: the first lady’s Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act, an act that has accomplished exactly the opposite of what it claimed it would — leaving hungry, angry, disgusted kids and dumpsters full of wasted food.
Kids have taken to Twitter to post photographs of the wretched results of the new federal guidelines that any school participating in the National School Lunch Program must follow to comply with the government-knows-best program for nutrition.
Meager burgers on soggy buns and sorry little skim milk cartons amid otherwise bare lunch trays, mystery meat, tiny little teaspoons of taco meat amid a few straggly cheese shreds on a massive tortilla, and tiny pebble-like chicken nuggets a cat wouldn’t eat are pretty much the result of calorie-limiting, one-size-fits-all, anything-but-buy-local, lunch programs.
I was in Newport Rhode Island recently and saw this in the lobby of our hotel:
ALL proceeds donated to ovarian cancer. Can’t have that. Not healthy. Michelle needs to squash it immediately.
Liberals want to control every aspect of your life. Under the Obama dictator partnership you might be a little more healthy and a little more physically fit, but you will not be free.
Next up: the ban on birthday cakes.
image courtesy of rightpunditry
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
I will be so glad when these 2 fools are out of office.
What kid will eat sweet potato fries, let alone a sweet potato? Certainly not me when I was one a gazillion years ago. Kids can be quite picky when it comes to eating. Give them fries, hamburgers, hot dogs, pizza and corn, they’re happy. The only ones with the real problem are MO and the food police.
Speaking of food Nazi’s, my LIBERAL daughter in law, who drinks sodas got PISSED when I let my 11 yo Grandson have a 7UP at my house…with out her permission. But to the point, as Mooch dines on Wagu beef and Lobster our kids can’t have a friggin’ cup cake to raise money for a worthy cause.
@old guy: What makes your think they are going to leave?
Potatoes are so wonderful, no wonder Michelle doesn’t want to share them with other people.
Feb 2014 OBAMA’s:
Thanksgiving
Christmas Obama’s menu
So, I guess it’s A-OK for the Obama’s to do potatoes, just not us rubes.
My favorite GRILLED potato recipe:
BBQ Grilled New Potatoes
Do Share your favorite POTATO RECIPES.
Piss that witch off!
You don’t see the Obama’s forcing tofu and fruit cups on those big fat slobs like Michael Moore when they beg them for money. This is just more of the typical liberal meme… good for thee, not for me.
@Nanny G (#5) –
Not too inventive, it’s “double” garlic mashed potatoes. It’s your standard garlic mashed potatoes, but double the amount of garlic. If it manages to become a leftover, fry it the next morning for breakfast. Absolute perfect with eggs and sausage.
@old guy: May we assume that you mean the Persian princess ‘defacto’ IMPOTUS and the rest of the female Muslim executive branch.
@Upchuck.liberals: The only issue now is to work with the PTO/PTA to stage the delicious bake sale items across the street or in the adjacent parks to my elementary school. For every stupid, a$inine rule the unintended consequence is we the people will just immediately move on to a work around.
@David I loved sweet potatoes as a kid, but sweet potato fries? That’s stomach turning.
Is this so-called law even constitutional?
What next, federally legislated sleep time for kids?
Vote Out #4: I never thought of them staying. I guess by Executive Order BHO can rule forever. Scary.
Marine72 #8: Now that you mention it, the Persian Princess is the most frightening person in the WH. Puppet BHO is just there as a face.
@John (#10) –
Don’t mind sweet potatoes now. Sweet potato fries, that’s hard to get done right.
When nearly $170 B worth of school lunches being tossed in the trash, you know something is very wrong. MO should have these school lunches for a while instead of a lobster bisque or lobster roll. Perhaps until they leave the WH.
Girl Scout cookies are next on the list.
You need a masher or moulin, but mash boiled potatoes with boiled celery root. I add butter, but some like adding cream cheese. Top with fresh dill weed. Some work, but worth it IMHO.
@Randy: War on women!!
Do ANY of you “gazillion-” year-old folks REMEMBER when you were young? Do you REMEMBER seeing children looking like the Michelin tire man, with rolls upon rolls of fat stacked on top of each other from foot to head? Have any of you been to a mall recently? They are FULL of young little lard-buckets dressed up like hookers, as if they have a future besides a brief appearance on a Jerry Springer show. This is what the generation that will be responsible for paying YOUR Social Security has become. They’re looking at medical disabilities by age thirty (you don’t need to be told why, now do you?) and will be dead by fifty. Pardon Michelle Obama for trying to help these butterballs where their parents have failed them. This rising generation of “I’m SPECIAL” porkers won’t get beyond carpal-tunnel syndrome in their gaming fingers until their suet-clogged hearts explode, no thanks to you arm-chair constitutionalists. When a nation abdicates its responsibility to equip the next generation for REAL life, it is doomed, and you helped. Thanks a ton!
@George Wells: Yeah, I remember. Kids used to play outside. Now, however, particularly in the inner cities where liberals control the landscape, it is too dangerous for anyone without a kevlar vest to be outdoors. Kids used to play sports, but now competition is mean and unfair and only allowed if everyone “wins” just for participating; not many go through work-outs and drills just to get the same green ribbon as everyone else. We now have a flood of illegal immigrant children; guess what many of them consist on? Corn, beans and lard. In addition to dragging down the educational system, they also impact the general level of healthiness; and just wait until the current batch of carriers Obama has lured over our borders for distribution get assimilated into the population.
All Michelle is doing is getting her nut being in control. It serves no useful purpose. There is no excuse for her.
@George Wells: #16
Where in the USA do you live? The vast majority if young people that I know are healthy, motivated, hard working, and not at all self-centered. On the rare occasion that I go to the mall, I see a few that are grossly overweight, but they are a tiny minority.
On line, worldwide, I see youths that are physically and psychologically healthy, intelligent, articulate, and artistic.
They may not look or dress the way that you would prefer, but most kids today are pretty sharp.
For you to endorse the government telling everyone what they can and can not eat because a few eat unhealthy diets is to endorse tyranny and mass punishment, punishing all youths because a few of them don’t behave in the way that you think that they should.
And, allow me to point out that many of the kids that I know and form my opinions of are the discarded ones- the alternates- the Goths, Punks, Emos and the like. Once you get past their appearance they are good people with healthy attitudes.
@George Wells: #16
I might as well add,
“When a nation abdicates its responsibility to equip the next generation for REAL life, it is doomed, and you helped. Thanks a ton!”
I would suggest that the biggest offender on this facet would be our educational system. Kids are not being taught about civic responsibilities, and far more important, they are not being allowed to fail, thus not learning how to deal with failure.
They are quite shocked when they enter the working world and discover that the individual who signs their paycheck is not in any way concerned for their self-esteem.
If they do leave school with a self-centered attitude, it is because that is the attitude that they have been taught to have.
You can thank the Liberals for that.
@Petercat #18 & 19:
Apparently, you have your head buried… somewhere… to have missed the fact that obesity is epidemic in this nation, and that childhood obesity has more than doubled since the 1970’s. Look it up. No, I suppose you won’t see these porcine rug rats competing in the Summer Olympics, but they’re out there, packing on the pounds like there will be no tomorrow – for many of them a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I will give you that kids aren’t being taught how to fail – I alluded to that with my everyone’s “special” remark – with the consequences that you refer to. But in a “limited government” sense, I’d pin the duty of teaching such sense to a child on the family, not the state. Personal health issues should be taught at home… beginning with potty training, etc., such stuff isn’t the duty of the education system, and it can’t wait until the third grade.
Yet if this problem is a result of liberal thinking – and I believe that it is – AND if it is the product of a family’s failure to teach a proper lesson, then what is the remedy? If a family feeds a baby cotton candy whenever it wants it, and that baby floats in the bathtub as a result, the family is criminally negligent. We have in this country a wholesale failure of the family in this regard, and correcting the problem isn’t tyranny.
For that matter, aren’t you coddling children by giving them whatever they want to eat, whenever they want to eat it? Doesn’t that run counter to the lessons you WANT them to learn? We currently reward them for EVERYTHING! Wouldn’t it make more sense to reward them only when they do what they are taught to do? (Hint: Teach them how to eat responsibly.)
@Bill #17:
So that’s it, Bill? Just concede failure and defeat?
Blame the problem away as the fault of the Democrats, or the fault of the Democratic president’s wife, or the fault of illegal immigrants who came here during Democratic administrations – as opposed to the ones who came here during Republican administrations.
Good job linking childhood obesity to the opposition party! That’ll guarantee that the problem of childhood obesity will never be solved.
@George Wells:
No, George, actually I have a better idea. Read what I wrote, then do the exact opposite. Support sports. Support competition. Teach children how to lose, as well as win. Stop pretending that oppressive regulations on the law abiding is going to have the desired effect on the criminals. Stop excusing, encouraging and enabling illegal immigration. Clean up decadent, liberal cities so kids can go outside and play instead of hunkering down in a bunker with bars on the windows.
Continuing with the liberal agenda, with the long history of failure and misery, and expecting a different outcome is conceding defeat.
@Bill #22:
You have a few “nice” ideas there, although the cheap shot at illegal immigration isn’t appreciated. It is true that childhood obesity is marginally worse in the illegal immigrant demographic than in our legal strata, but lard-cooked tortillas aren’t what’s plumping up our own home-grown piglets.
Your prescription to “Clean up decadent, liberal cities…” is an impossible one to fill and you know it. Those cities won’t be fixed from within because they are dominated by stupid – and fat – liberal wards of the state that have no money and no motivation to move themselves and their children off of the heart attack bulls-eye. And they won’t be fixed from outside, either, because government is shrinking and hasn’t the stomach or the wallet to fix hopelessly screwed up cities. Yeah, I’d like world peace, too, but giving Miss Universe contestant answers won’t make it happen.
Finally, parting with another cheap shot at the so-called “liberal agenda” guarantees that your desire (if real) to actually fix any problems will be forever buried under the weight of your own partisan pandering. I hate the fact that the so-called social safety nets have been so egregiously over-used and abused that they have created an entire class of dependents, but such problems are not remedied by simply pointing them out, and they’re not remedied by cutting them off cold-turkey. Effective correction (the type that DOESN’T start riots and cause exploding crime rates) requires finesse and cooperation across the political isle.
@George Wells: “Cheap shot at illegal immigration”? While really do t care what you consider a cheap shot, it is a FACT that the influx of illegal immigrants has stressed our emergency medical facilities. It is also a FACT that most of these illegal immigrants subsist on a traditional (not cheap shot) diet of lots of corn, lard, beef, cheese and beans. Are not these the very substances those liberals that know so much more than ourselves decry as fattening and unhealthy?
To you, banging you over the head with a substantial fact is a “cheap shot”. To me it is simply the truth.
Marginally worse???
Have you even been in an Hispanic neighborhood?
Those children are butterballs!
The neighborhood we moved out of in Long Beach was over 50% Hispanic (and some news article called their children Hispamics because of all the problems they had in school for being so heavy they couldn’t do Phys Ed.)
One of the things that stood out in contrast (after moving to Utah) was how in shape the population is.
I guess I had gotten used to seeing hugely fat people so much in LB that I forgot they are a minority.
And LARD is a BIG seller in LB supermarkets!
YUCK!
You don’t even see it for sale in Utah!
@ Bill and Nanny G:
Hey, FELLOW NORTH AMERICANS! I get it that Hispanics have bad eating habits! I said so, remember? The POINT I was trying to make was that the eating habits of legal citizens of foreign countries is NOT my concern. Their suet is irrelevant. That Mexican kids are too plump doesn’t concern me. It’s OUR children that I am worried about. Now I will give you that Mexican children eat about as badly as poor black children in this country eat. To a significant degree, eating habits reflect relative socio-economic status, with poorer families eating less healthy diets. So if you want to pick a target to attack, go after the poor legal families that you cannot deport, and leave the illegal immigrant issue for resolution elsewhere. Illegal immigrants are criminals, and for all I care, you can make it lawful to shoot them on sight as threats to our national security. That would stop the flood of illegal immigration, but we would still be left with the SAME childhood obesity problem that we have here now. THAT is the problem I’m concerned with, because it is OUR children getting fat, not somebody else’s.
@George Wells: What made you think I was writing about ILLEGAL Hispanic children?
These kids were born here.
And, when you go to the supermarket do you see the sodium content and fat content in the shopping carts of black people?
I was astonished!
Beef short ribs, piles of them.
Processed foods full of salt.
Cookies.
Sweet cereals.
Not one fresh thing at all.
YIKES!
And then blacks wonder why they have high blood pressure.
Gee, let me think.
@George Wells:
Ah, but George… it IS your concern. First, when we are seeing data about “obesity” (in quotes because it has been redefined and re-redefined to encompass more and more people who are NOT obese) it is not of “citizens” but always “residents”. Second, you support a regime that does everything it can to swing the door open wide, dangle the lures and entice as many illegal immigrants into our country as they possibly can. Further, the intent is to make the citizens (the ultimate goal being their dependency and vote). So, count them now, count them later, but you’ll be counting them and they make a difference to the statistics. Just as this flood of the foreign needy makes our health care, education and economic conditions worse, so does it affect the overall outlook of healthiness and it is disingenuous to blend the statistics of illegal immigrants in with those who pay taxes and actually belong here. They are used as ringers.
So, on the one hand, the left pretends to care about the health and diet of those who appear to need someone to tell them what to and not to eat yet on the other hand, the left wants as many people as they can round up, with the antithesis of what they consider healthy eating habits to join us, simply for votes. I suspect the concern is not really healthy eating. It is about control and making people comfortable with being controlled.
@Bill #28:
No, Bill, it really ISN’T my concern. I’m 65, and never fathered a child. I don’t have future generations to worry about. I try my best to be responsible, but pure altruism only gets me so far.
I can tell you this much: Fifty years ago, morbidly obese people were extraordinarily rare, no matter the age, gender or nationality. I simply didn’t see them then, and today the place is lousy with fat people. VERY fat people. Fat children and the rest. Every type, gender, age, race… fat, fat and more fat. Sorry, fat is NOT beautiful. It’s life-threatening. That’s why they call it “morbid obesity”.
Blame it on Democrats? That is your default answer for every problem, isn’t it? Conveniently simple partisan obstructionism. A great way to govern a country. I shut Retire05 down with the suggestion that we should make illegal immigration a mortal crime, shoot a handful, and just WATCH how fast 20 million illegals self-deport. It would work like magic. But it would require AGREEMENT from both political parties, and they would MUCH rather disagree on every last thing than actually fix a real problem, so I’m afraid that we’re both stuck with those illegal immigrants, and you’ll be able to continue blaming Democrats for them and for all of the other problems that they bring with them. And in the mean time, you can dance around all of the fat white children and make pretend that they have really good parents, but that they all have thyroid problems or have otherwise been brainwashed by liberals. Why Republicans make such a big stink about protecting unwanted fetuses from abortion but then abandon them to irresponsible parents once they are born is beyond me. If you want less government, get out of the bedroom and get out of family planning, and then when the kids rot, it isn’t on you. If you WANT to be in the bedroom and be in on that family planning, be prepared to step in and take over from irresponsible parents, and that gets you to very big government. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
@George Wells:
You shut no one down, George, and certainly not me. Just because I did not respond to you in a time frame you deem acceptable, doesn’t mean that I did not respond. I did. You ignored it.
So only white children are fat? Guess you haven’t been to a barrio lately. Or a ghetto. Obesity in children is not race selective.
Because a child is yours, not the governments. Unfortunately, you subscribe to the tyranny of government. So why you should complain that government involves itself in the raising of children is simply hypocrisy on your part.
And 50 years ago schools still had PE classes. Kids were made to work out, especially in high school. But now, we can’t have the little darlings running the track. Takes time away from “queer” studies or being taught how to put a condom on a banana. 50 years ago, if you didn’t work, you didn’t eat. It was that simply. But then came along LBJ who thought the government could replace not only a work ethic, but fathers, as well. That, Mr. Sodomite, we CAN blame on Democrats and the liberal thinking cancer that has invaded our public school system.
@retire05 #30:
“So only white children are fat? Guess you haven’t been to a barrio lately. Or a ghetto. Obesity in children is not race selective.”
If you had been FOLLOWING this conversation, you MIGHT have noticed that we already made the point – AD NAUSEUM – that childhood obesity IS socio-economically correlated, and that the problem is indeed worse in Hispanic and black communities. Do try to keep up.
“That we CAN blame on Democrats.”
Unfortunately, “blaming” is something you do when you want to start a fight. It isn’t what you do when you want to fix a problem. When you signal your intention to start a fight, you are also signaling your desire to NOT fix a problem. So go right on with your blaming thing and be happy with the sorry state of education in this country that you have no intention of improving. Our economic enemies will thank you for it.
@George Wells:
You have no idea what my intentions are to improve the educational system in my state/district, or what I have already done. As usual, you just run your mouth (figuratively) showing what little you really know.
@retire05#32:
“You have no idea what my intentions are”
You are absolutely right. The only evidence of your deeds I have to go on are the mountains of insult and blame that you regularly dish out around here. If you embellish your conduct elsewhere with the same trash-talk, you must be a joy to be around.
@George Wells:
You said:
You made a declarative statement for which you had no basis for, since you have no idea what my intentions may, or may not be, or what I have done in the past. When called on it, you admitted:
Meaning I was right that you did not have any information on which to base your original claim, that was clearly meant to be an insult against me.
You then go on to speak of my “deeds” based on my posts here at FA. Perhaps you could share with all of us where you located that crystal ball that allows you to see a person’s “deeds” by what they write on a blog.
My “trash-talk” as you like to call it, is simply debunking the rhetoric of the left, and the falsehoods that left wingers like you love to post on blogs, especially blogs that would be of the conservative bent. And like all leftists, when you are caught in a trap of your own making, you a) misrepresent what someone said and b) lie about what you said and then you toddle on to another thread, never admitting you were wrong or that you misrepresented the words of others, not acknowledging the response you get and making comments like this
assuming you have counted coup and will get by with such statements. You won’t.
@retire05 #34:
I will agree to the old refrain that “actions speak louder than words,” but while I have provided links to my professional accomplishments when challenged (as you Republicans seem to believe that everything a Democrat says is a lie) I have not challenged you on the hints that you have offered concerning your deeds, and I am consequently left with nothing but your rants here upon which to judge your character. Based entirely upon your constant nasty insults, I can only conclude that you are someone who is bitter, angry and hateful. This is an entirely rational conclusion supported by your repeated failure to conduct conversations here with civility. No, I have no direct knowledge of your “intentions,” but in the absence of revelatory “actions,” I am left with nothing but your words, and they paint an ugly picture.
“your blaming thing and be happy with the sorry state of education in this country that you have no intention of improving”
“You made a declarative statement for which you had no basis for, since you have no idea what my intentions may, or may not be, or what I have done in the past.”
Evidently you cannot see the inference I attempted there, so I will spell it out as to a first grader:
The problem I was addressing is a very big problem. Too big for a couple of rich dudes to write a few checks and fix, and too big for an executive order-happy president to fix on his own either. In fact, it is SO big that it will take bipartisan consensus to even BEGIN to fix. Maybe you don’t see it that way, but it looks clear as a bell from where I sit. So I am looking to reach across the isle, and eager to find answers to difficult questions, and while I am hoping that this nation can somehow WORK TOGETHER to fix this mess, you are slinging insult and blame. From my perspective, the only reason someone would be flicking matches at gasoline is that they want to start a fire. Throwing insults and blame pretty much guarantees that what follows is a fight, not a solution to a problem, and armed with this OBVIOUS fact, I rationally concluded that you have no real intention of working toward a solution. I’ll go one step further and suggest that either you haven’t given a practical solution any significant thought or you would have discussed your ideas, or else you DID have some ideas but you’d much rather just blame and insult because to you it’s more fun. That still leaves me with the bitter-angry-hateful assessment that your “Mr. Sodomite – I’ll-quit-the-Republican-Party-if-it-welcomes-you” crap does nothing to dispel. YOU CAN’T FIX THINGS BY YOURSELF! Much as it sickens you, we’re in this together, and it will take all of us to fix it. I’m looking for solutions, and you’re busy explaining how I’m not welcome. It’s that attitude that is ruining the Republican Party, and this country cannot afford to become a one-party country any more than it can afford to have two parties that refuse to work together. A pox on BOTH houses until they grow up and stop fighting. We are not the enemy.
@George Wells:
This should come as no surprise since the condition of “morbidly obese” has been being redefined repeatedly over the past few years, the threshold being lowered more and more so that practically anyone upwards of Lance Armstrong is obese. The term barely has any meaning (kind of like the accusation of “racist” since being overused by the left).
But, the point is, if the left is so concerned about the general health of the citizenry, why do they keep luring in more problems to be dealt with by our health care facilities?
Excellent point, Bill.
Cameron Watson, a 10-year-old, active North Andover boy, was written up as ”obese.”
Go to the 50 second mark of this video.
He’s NOT obese, he’s muscular.
Maybe more muscular than most 10-year-olds, but not fat.
The schools use BMI.
But BMI is flawed.
BMI also can’t distinguish between excess fat, muscle or bone mass.
As a result, athletes, muscular people and racial and ethnic minorities with different body compositions can have a high BMI.
About half of children whose BMI labels them as overweight (but not obese) are healthy and have no increased risk of diabetes or other conditions, said Kristine Madsen, an assistant professor at the University of California at Berkeley. (NOT exactly a conservative university!) http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-17/health/ct-met-bmi-backlash-20130517_1_bmi-childhood-obesity-rates-muscular-people
@George Wells:
While you seem to think engaging in braggadocio, including describing your sexual activities, lends credibility to anything you have to say, you are mistaken.
That is your error. I insult YOU, because, as I have told you before, I don’t like you. It is no more complicated than that.
I am quite sure you are used to talking to first graders. Adults, not so much.
The problem is too many liberals in education. So the resolution becomes simple; get the liberals out of our educational systems. No more Noam Chomsky, no more queer studies, feminist studies, Nigerian women’s basket weaving degrees. No more of the garbage that you liberals consider “education.” Teach kids how to actually do something beside protest for more free stuff while living off their parents. Teach kids how to exercise in schools, not the stupid crap that liberals think is useful. That solves two problems: they learn to be active physically and they learn something that will allow them to get a job.
As to the rest of your blathering, it does not warrant a response.
@Nanny G:
I have a friend whose oldest son is a gymnast. He works out at least 6 hours a day. He is thin, with about 2% body fat. He hated school lunches so she packed one for him. When she was in the hospital, she asked her brother to take her son a lunch. He did. He took the kids a Happy Meal from McDonald’s. The school refused to let the boy have the lunch because it didn’t fit with the “program” (seems it was better for the kid to not eat than to eat a hamburger). It took an appeal to the school board to get that rule changed. The problem is the “educators” treat all kids as if they are all the same. Some kids need to increase their caloric count due to heredity or activities.
@retire05 #38:
Your refusal to acknowledge the enormity of the problems at hand and the certain inability of either political party to correct them without bipartisan consensus is symptomatic of the malaise this country is presently stricken with. Your “blame-and-insult” approach to every issue would be comical if it were not for the fact that it is a prime cause of our current political paralysis.
I’ve told you before that my politics lean largely toward Republican ideals, and that if it were not for the Republican Party’s continued opposition to gay rights, you would have me solidly in your corner. I would think that my attitudes toward illegal immigration would have convinced you that I am not a liberal mantra drone. Instead of being an idealist, however, I am a pragmatist. I UNDERSTAND that we cannot afford to round up and deport 20 million illegals, but that we CAN provide them with sufficient incentive to self-deport. I UNDERSTAND that our population is choked with tens of millions of free-loaders who have neither the inclination nor the capacity to throw off the yoke of dependency that liberal social policies have placed upon them, but I also know that we CANNOT simply throw them under the bus. Perhaps you are considering the construction of a few thousand new penitentiaries? No matter which issue you tackle, the fact that millions of people are involved pretty much guarantees the failure of any party that attempts to go it alone. Yet you ignore the wisdom of the old adage: “United we stand, divided we fall” and continue to blame and insult those who would work with you. And you think I’m insane. (Laughing)
“The problem is too many liberals in education.”
And how, exactly, did they get there? They didn’t just show up when Obama was elected. Republicans have held both houses of congress and the White House before, and what came of it? If you couldn’t get the liberals out of education then, how will you now? And now that you’ve BLAMED them instead of enlisting their help to fix the problems that WE have, do you honestly think that you have ANY better chance of fixing education than you have of fixing illegal immigration? The answer is NO.
To be honest, I have little hope that the United States will ever get over its Civil War. When we aren’t fighting side-by-side against a common foe (like in a World War) we revert to fighting among ourselves. Slavery, abortion, gay marriage – I’m not sure that the issue actually matters. Everyone just seems to live for the fight rather than find ways to work together. I think it’s sad that compromise has become such a dirty word in Washington. Without compromise, governance degenerates into nothing more than a series of disputes that ultimately end up being decided by the Supreme Court. Like the gay marriage thing. The entire issue could have been settled with more generous accommodations for the various opposing interests had compromise been sought by both sides. A national right to gay civil union could have standardized coupling rights for gay people without terrorizing the people who are offended by the term “gay marriage,” and everyone’s religious sensitivities could have been spared. But now, since we failed to compromise, we will either be stuck with a SCOTUS-mandated national gay marriage that will irritate conservatives at least as long as losing the Civil War did, or else we will remain stuck with a patchwork of state laws that change the legal status of gay families every time they cross state lines. Compromise would have been so much better of the nation.
But you keep fighting your fellow Americans – keep us all weak. And look surprised when our enemies, seeing our weakness, attack again. Then, blame that too on liberals – it’s what works for you.
@George Wells:
What problem, George? You wind up giving us such a meandering post that I doubt anyone is sure of what exactly it is you are talking about anymore.
You’re a one issue voter. All that proves is a narrowness of thought. Gee, if the hateful Republicans would only reject the religious values they have, you might vote for them. Yeah, right.
Why would liberals want to fix a problem they created and don’t see as a problem? And you’re asking me how liberals took over our educational system? Really? Are you that ill informed?
Oh, and how you love to throw around that word compromise, when the gay lobby is anything but compromising. Yes, George, there is a gay lobby, and a radical gay movement. You know it, and I know it. And while you may think that in the end you will win, public opinion never stays the same. So while you have made some gain in public opinion, I would refer you to the abortion issue. The number of people who now support abortion is getting smaller as science advances and can show that an unborn child not only feels pain, but also is undeniably a human being. The tide could turn (on a dime, I may add) against same sex marriage.
You seem to attribute power to me that I don’t hold. I doubt that the enemies of this nation are interested in my opinion. More than likely, they are interested in what they consider the decadence of the United States and homosexuality. They would be more than happy to hang you from the nearest construction crane in front of a throng of people who cheered the hangman on.
@retire05 #41:
“What problem, George?”
Well, we WERE talking about what to do about illegal immigration, and then we touched on the problems with education in the context of obese children, remember? These problems are too large to be dealt with by a single party, no matter how determined its members are. Do you believe otherwise?
“You’re a one issue voter.”
That’s right. When there is significant interest in one party to criminalize ME – that argues for states’ rights to incarcerate ME if they so choose as Scalia has argued – I’m not about to be distracted by issues that have a decidedly lesser impact on my life. I am not without a measure of political altruism, but self-preservation comes first. Once the insanity over gay rights has passed, if it ever does, I’m Republican.
“ Why would liberals want to fix a problem they created and don’t see as a problem?”
EXACTLY! And exactly why you cannot hope to fix that problem if you first point your finger at liberals and blame them for the problems that they have exacerbated. Have you no sense of finesse? Ever hear of attracting more flies with honey than with vinegar? Ever think to congratulate a liberal for doing something that you could then build on? Of course not! You’d rather revile them all and then wonder “Why would liberals want to fix a problem they created and don’t see as a problem? Tell me again who is insane?
“Yes, George, there is a gay lobby, and a radical gay movement. You know it, and I know it.”
And where, Dear Heart, did I say otherwise? I only said that I was not connected to such “lobbies” and “movements” and that I did not share their agendas except in such incidents as happen by accident.
Here is an example of where I would differ from them and which demonstrates my commitment to compromise:
Much has been made of the benefits of marriage and of society’s “interest” in promoting procreation. I can see an opportunity to extend at least SOME of the benefits of marriage to gay people – again through a national civil union vehicle – while at the same time making procreation IN WEDLOCK more attractive. This could be accomplished by massively increasing the deduction for dependent children but requiring the parents to be married – or united in civil union. This would discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies but encourage adoption in addition to married childbirth. Pay for the lost tax revenues by increasing the marriage penalty. This would have the effect of reducing the marriage rate among all groups not busy raising children, which, according to at least some of the states opposing gay marriage, is the principle reason for marriage in the first place and the sole state interest in the institution.
This proposal flies in the face of the gay lobby agenda, does it not? Yet it preserves the “institution” of marriage for heterosexuals, gives gay couples legal rights, promotes married procreation and is revenue-neutral. Why can’t either side in this so-called cultural war see the value of striking a reasonable compromise in which both sides gain considerably from where they currently stand. Both sides otherwise risk everything in their all-or-nothing approach. And who is insane?
@George Wells:
While you preach to me about all the problems in our nation, you are fixated on only one. That says a lot about you, and your willingness to “compromise.” Sodomy has been legal since Lawrence, so no one is trying to criminalize you. That is just more of your gay lobby rhetoric that you have become so expert in spouting.
You accuse me of doing nothing to improve our educational system (although you had no proof of that and your statement was meant as a slam) yet, I see you doing nothing to oppose the gay lobby/radical gay movement that you claim you disagree with. Perhaps you can tell us all what you have done to oppose their actions and their intolerance?
It is clear that the most intolerant people in the same-sex marriage disagreement is your gang. If a straight person doesn’t want to do business with a gay company, they quietly go about finding another company that can provide them the services they need. If a queer doesn’t agree with a person’s religious beliefs, they go out of their way to destroy that person’s business. Reputations, jobs, means of earning a living are all being sacrificed on the alter of the queer movement. Law suits, harassment, protests, et al, all actions of the most intolerant bunch in the nation, yet you have shown that you do nothing to discourage that type of behavior. Any means to an end, right, George?
Eventually, those kind of Pink Gestapo tactics will backfire on you and your kind. And when it does, and you are shouting “tolerance, tolerance”, you will have no one to blame but yourself.
@George Wells:
How absolutely narrow and selfish. First, precisely what “rights” do Republicans oppose, regarding gays? The “right” to call the civil unions which they already have, and the accompanying rights, “marriage”? Because that is all there is.
If, for this one power-play (because that is all the gay “marriage” controversy is about; the power to force everyone to accept a redefinition of an age-old institution rather than having the same union (between same sex) and calling it anything else), you support the utter destruction of our economy, society, military, security and nation, you are to be condemned.
@Bill:
The truth of the matter is that almost all things accorded to opposite gender marriages can be achieved legally with one simple trip to an attorney. Inheritance, joint property, power of attorney, et al, can be achieved through legal documents. Even as in many states, specific inheritance must be done through a will.
That is not the goal, and never has been. The goal has always been to demand not just tolerance, but full acceptance of homosexuality as a normal condition of the human species.
@Bill & retire05:
Virginia’s Marshall-Neuman Amendment states:
“Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”
The last sentence voids any document which creates a legal relationship or benefit that would automatically obtain upon the consummation of a heterosexual marriage. In other words, a straight married couple would automatically share powers of attorney without actually constructing such a document, but a gay couple that had such a document drawn up would find the State of Virginia unwilling to honor it. You are sadly mistaken in your naïve belief that gays are treated equally under the law. And no, Bill, we don’t have civil unions already. I offered that as a possible compromise, but most states – including those that allow gay marriage – do not allow “civil unions.”
Retire05: I never accused you of doing nothing to improve our educational system. I accused you of using tactics that insured the failure of efforts to improve it. Your blame-and-insult approach insures that Democrats won’t help you, and as they are the larger part of that problem that is too big for Republicans to fix alone, well, there you have it.
“Sodomy has been legal since Lawrence.”
True, but the issue is not settled law. There are still efforts to turn back this clock, and although public opinion has been trending toward the acceptance that Bill decries, the arguments against gays are still loud and clear.
Here is some of the logic that has been used by the anti-gay-rights people, and that has the potential of landing gays in jail, or worse:
First examine Scalia’s dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case. This exceptionally gifted jurist argued that Texas was within its constitutional rights to criminalize gay sexual activity, even when conducted in private, and that is precisely what Texas (and other states) had done, and which had previously been upheld by the SCOTUS in the Bowers v. Hardwick case.
Then examine the logic used by the military during its routine “gay witch-hunts” prior to 2011, the ones that it liked to use to expel gay servicemen and women from its ranks. The presumption was that personnel who had homosexual inclinations would be incapable of refraining from engaging in sodomy during their enlistments. The admittance of homosexual tendency (or the accusation of such from someone else) was therefore taken as prima facie evidence that the CRIME of sodomy was indeed being committed. The courts upheld the application of this logic.
If you combine Scalia’s logic with the military’s, you arrive at a rational justification for punishing gay people in any manner a state sees fit.
Eleven years have gone by since the Lawrence case was decided, but the issue of gay rights in the United States is hardly settled. A grand total of two jurists made the difference in 2003, and the issue had been settled differently in Bowers v. Hardwick just a handful of years prior. The battle over gay marriage is currently being waged, and as you so correctly point out, public opinion can turn on a dime. I honestly don’t think that it will in this case, as gay people have pretty much crawled out of a closet they will never fit back into, and the states where gay marriage has been legalized have not experienced the sky-is-falling calamities that the opponents predicted. On the other hand, the opinions of the opponents remain largely unchanged, and gay people would be foolish to drop their guard, lest they find themselves right back in the afore-mentioned predicament where criminal activity is presumed and incarceration or worse (Uganda) is at the state’s pleasure.
But on a more conciliatory note, I offered a compromise that would seem to satisfy at least some of the concerns of both extreme positions on this issue. The suggested compromise isn’t a demand and it isn’t even a final draft. It is simply an offer to begin discussing realistically the differences between the two extremes and the reality of the political progress made thus far by the gay rights movement, and to make an effort to find a solution that incorporates some give and take from both sides that will secure something of value for each. That is compromise. Agreeing to NOT kill all gay people if they would just disappear isn’t enough.
@retire05 #43:
“If a straight person doesn’t want to do business with a gay company, they quietly go about finding another company”
And the parallel would be:
“If a gay person doesn’t want to do business with a straight company, he should quietly go about finding another company.”
Pretty stupid, right? I mean, this scenario isn’t being contested either way that I am aware of.
I think that you MEANT to say :
“If a gay company doesn’t want to serve a straight customer, then that customer should quietly go about finding another company.”
(The implication being that if a straight company doesn’t want to serve a gay customer, that customer should quietly go about looking for another company.)
Well, the same argument was used against black customers that were refused service, and I think that the Supreme Court has said that such discrimination is illegal. It has NOT yet said that discrimination against gay people is similarly illegal, but I believe that it will, now that this issue has been raised.
@George Wells:
I said what I meant. I always do.
You see, unlike you, I believe in the free market. If I don’t want to eat in a restaurant that hires illegals, that is my right. But on the other hand, if the restaurant only wants to serve blacks, and not Hispanics or whites, that should be their choice. I don’t own their business and am not going to make, or object to, their business decisions.
I remember going to an East St. Louis bar where Ike and Tina Tuner were playing. When we got there and started to go in, we were denied entry. It was a exclusively black bar. Was I upset about that? No, it was the bar owner’s choice who to allow into his establishment.
I am not like you in the respect that I support when people don’t get their way, or they get their widdle feelings hurt, they run to the nearest court house to sue. It’s your group that supports that. Your freedom to be you doesn’t trump my freedom to be free from you.
@George Wells: So, a platform plank in Virginia is “Republicans”? Civil unions with all the bells and whistles exist in numerous locations, including here in Texas. Yet, to my point, this is not the goal. The goal is the power to destroy those who think differently, i.e. Eich. If you want to be gay (or have no choice, or whatever) and you want your unions, fine… go right ahead. However, I don’t favor it, don’t support it and don’t approve of it, so don’t try to force my embracing of your lifestyle.
While your weak example of your “justification” for opposing Republicans, I wonder how you feel about the Democrats using gay issues as a political football? Obama opposed gay marriage before (with sagging popularity and polls) he suddenly became for it. Bill and Hillary opposed gay marriage (Bill signed legislation to forbid it, not the business of the federal government) until it was a bit more fashionable and vote-yielding to favor it.
Republicans don’t feel it’s their business to mandate it one way or another. Democrats will support a mandate as long as it favors them politically. Your choice should be pretty clear between a party that wants to leave you alone and one that wants to use you as a prop. If, that is, this IS your issue. I actually don’t think it is.
@retire05#48:
“But on the other hand, if the restaurant only wants to serve blacks, and not Hispanics or whites, that should be their choice.”
Perhaps that SHOULD be their choice, but the Supreme Court says it isn’t. I defer to their wisdom.