Ho, boy. Doesn’t this one just sum up everything this band of statists believe in.
President Obama signed the First Lady’s child nutrition bill into law on Monday morning and Michelle Obama took to the microphone to say a few words about childhood obesity and, of course, the state of the socialist state.
“When our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it’s clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well. We can’t just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.”
They’re putting salad bars in the schools. They’re restricting vending machines on campus. And they’re controlling what can be sold at school bake sales.
Johnny can’t read, but he’s a svelte little son of a bitch, isn’t he.
This post was last modified on December 14, 2010
View Comments (15)
Look, I go to high school, and I think this probably needs to be done. My school has so many fatasses who buy 2-3 lunches every day. A typical lunch consists of a pizza slice, chocolate milk, fries, and pudding, but people can also buy chips, pop tarts, burgers, chicken fingers, and more lunches. To top it off, we have a 'sweet shop', that sells ice cream every day, and vending machines for instant gratification. We even have breakfast lines open in the morning, which adds strudels and cinnabuns to the mix. Parents can't control what their kids get at school, and I honestly think the government needs to step in and help. I don't want the future of America to be 500 pounds and waddling to McDonalds.
To be fair... she did say that it is ultimately the parents who will make the final choices on how their kids eat and what not... however when she made the comment above she was kind of contradicting herself OR ELSE she was making the wrong assumptions or she was positioning people to assume incorrectly about the parents' roles in their kids eating habits. If she was contradicting herself she was stating that it is not then ultimately the parents responsibility because schools and the govt are expected to make sure that the proper eating habits are established... however I think that there is a lot of assuming here.
She is assuming that parents WANT their children to eat the healthy stuff that she wants them to eat in the schools and she is also assuming that the parents are into a healthy lifestyle and implementing that at home. Now it is true for many families but not to all so that is an erroneous assumption at least to make on a majority of people. Or else she is setting it up for people to hear that most if not all families are resposible in their eating lifestyles and the goverment and schools are just MERELY there for ASSISTING the parents in prolonging and continuing outside the homes the lifestyle started and reinforced in the home. The comment then comes out as well we are helping not necessarily that we want to take over the parent's role in the children's lives.
There are so many was to read that and I have a problem with that because it tells me that I cannot read her intentions clearly and if I cannot read her intentions clearly then obviously I can make inferences that her intentions are not necessarily all together benign.
You know, the whole school lunch program is a joke. It was started as a national security measure -- Ike had too many malnourished kids drafted into the army, and this was the plan to keep the army healthy.
It has now turned into a dumping ground for agricultural subsidy items and back-door welfare handouts. (You have no idea how many illegals qualify for free or reduced lunches. While I can empathize with a person who wants to feed their kid, THEY'RE the ones endangering them. Not me. So, why should I have to pay for it? If I endangered my kids, some snotty twit from the CPS would show up to take them away.)
it takes a village to raise a child - when the parents refuse to do it
Yeah, and just remember what I said to Hillary fans -- "The same 'wonderful' villagers she holds up as a shining example also holds down their children and hack off large portions of their genitals, so I don't think they're so damn smart. I certainly wouldn't be using their example as a model, unless you're into genitalia hacking. In that case, do yours first."
This doesn't have any relevance in modern America at all.
While I hate the idea of government in my life and think Obama is the worst president we have ever had, You have taken the quote out of context. "I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway" I agree with this statement especially when liberal teachers undermine parents everyday with the biased curriculum that is taught in most public schools. To bad the government still chooses what to teach and undermines our teachings at home
The problem is that the quote "you can't just leave it up to the parents", in or out of context is disturbing and offensive. At the very least, her wonderful education has left her without a more intelligent way of saying "We shouldn't allow parents' efforts to raise healthy children to be undermined through neglect or inattention."
It's just too bad that there is no way to say that. All that education, and no way to avoid socialist language. Makes you think that that's the way she thinks. You know, just like allowing cursing in the house, and then finding yourself cursing outside the house after it becomes a habit.
Then again, what the hell would I know, because I missed the part of the Constitution that gives the First Yeti legislative powers.
Michelle Obama says, “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.” Earth to Michelle: YES WE CAN!
Sure we can, but MObama wants you to leave it up to the village idiots.
The problem with this is the "knowledge" behind what constitutes "healthy" food. Feeding the kids skim milk and whole wheat pizzas is not going to solve the problem of obesity.
I think you're grasping at straws here. The concept of a public school system is inherently socialist in the first place. Since the public school system isn't going to be abolished, I don't see anything wrong with providing healthier food at least. The problem is that the parents don't have a say in it, but that is a flaw of public institutions in general.
I will agree that the idea "we as a nation" taking responsibility for something is indeed socialist/nationalist, but this isn't any more devious than previous government interventions.
Public schools were not "socialist" when they were funded, built and controlled by local citizens and school boards. Today, however, they are controlled by state and federal governements and teacher unions; citizen involvement has been discouraged and reduced to worthless PTAs.
Ah, you're totally right. I've gotten so used to federal intervention that I sincerely forgot that schools are supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government! Embarrassing for me, but I'm glad you reminded me. In that case, this is indeed a big overstep. This should be up to the states and communities, not Big Sis.
That is correct. However, I would like to add that the Fed Gov should have no say in public schools since they are run by the state and municipal governments.
If this clip isn't a great argument for federalism or school vouchers I don't know what is.