We love the way completely unrelated news items sometimes juxtapose to show the complete absurdity of Washington, DC.
On Wednesday afternoon, Michelle Obama and a group of unpaid child laborers harvested crops from the White House plantation. Michelle proudly posed with a big ass sweet potato (insert your own punch line here).
On Wednesday morning, just hours before the White House harvest, the government came out against potatoes.
The Associated Press has its eyes on the potato story:
“… the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture stop participants of the federal Women, Infants and Children program, known as WIC, from buying potatoes with federal dollars. The institute also called for the USDA-backed school lunch program to limit use of potatoes.
Under an interim rule, the USDA agreed to bar WIC participants from buying potatoes with their federal dollars. Potatoes are the only vegetable not allowed. Next year, the agency will roll out a final rule on the WIC program, which last year served 9.3 million children and pregnant and breast-feeding women considered at risk for malnutrition.
Michelle is in favor of sweet potatoes, but opposed to white potatoes.
Let’s all say it together:
Raaaaaacist.
Source: Associated Press
This post was last modified on June 17, 2021
View Comments (42)
Ok, they did use the appropriate terminology with the words big ass and Michelle in the same sentence, but I have to draw the line at having sweet in there, too.
"i've debated on this site several times and have numerously been called a name without provocation."
Maybe we're povoked by your condescention and smug assumption of superiority. Or maybe we just feel you're full of crap.
Hear Hear!!!
He speaketh much, but sayeth little...
Blowhard ignorant troll.
I am going with the full of crap diagnosis...
If one were to lighten up on the nighttime bedroom festivities, one would not be quite so full of crap.
Packing is not conducive to proper waste disposal....
Hope you did not make him cry, Elrond. No, I actually do wish it.
this site continually amazes me with its slant and ignorance.... create a story by associating two unrelated events that have absolutely no connection... profess to hate the media, when in fact you are guilty of the same lame dot-connecting and slanted ignorance that happens on both right and left sides... you're just as useless as msnbc or fox. now on to truth... the WIC program and the USDA have said they are limiting potatoes to diversify lunch programs with other vegetables. there is a substantial increase in both childhood obesity and child diabetes... any idiot knows that potatoes are dangerous for children with diabetes, or borderline diabetes and for children with obesity issues. editing out the reasons for the decision is deceptive... additionally, there is no link between michelle obama's sweet potato and the decision made by the USDA and WIC... they're not saying no potatoes, they're saying less potato and more vegetables that are healthier... aren't conservatives supposed to be all about the children?
Donavan you are ridiculously missing the point. The contradictions whether direct or draw from different segments within government are still contradictions. Like the DOE making policy to reduce fuel use while the EPA makes policies that increase fuel use. The left hand right hand...the fact is everything the government gets involved with turns to shit. They will tout good nutrition etc. etc. while serving frozen pizza breads and God knows what at school lunches. They'll subsidize corn and back corporations that put high fructose corn syrup in nearly every food item manufactured, then waive their figure in air to say don't eat too many potatoes. Meanwhile it's the high fructose corn syrup that CAUSED diabetes and obesity. It's all a constant pathetic comedy. The government loons (love that navyvet) are constantly finding ways to keep their paycheck coming in and it rarely is in anybodies best interest but their own.
HFCS is a concentrated form of simple sugar (not really like fructose, the fruit sugar, at all) that is added in almost anything anymore. It appears in food you would never imagine would have it. But it did not cause diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is more prevalent in part because it seems to have a genetic link, and more type 1's are making it to an age and reproducing, thus passing the gene. It is an autoimmune disease and has nothing to do with what the person has been eating. Type 2 is associated with increased weight (causing insulin resistence in the cells), and generally with age-the pancreas tires over time and can no longer supply adequate insulin to the body. What is concerning now is we are seeing type 2 in children. Young childen. That seems to be driven by a lifestyle that has become increasingly sedentary (exercise reduces the need for insulin), meals that have become increasingly fat and sugar loaded, and enormous portions. The McDonald's kid's meal is what used to be a basic hamburger and fries meal only with less veggies. And too many sodas (or the equivalent, like juice "drinks" that have little juice, and are mostly HFCS and water with some dye and artificial flavoring.) HCFS does not cause diabetes per se, but it can play into all the factors that DO cause type 2.
To add to your comments, the brain cannot distinguish the calorie difference between natural sugars and synthetic sugars, so when any sugar/sweetener hits the taste buds, the brain says, "Whoa! I gotta save some of this for when I might be starving" and the excess calories are stored as fat to be used when the body is 'starving' or when burning energy.
To quote Donavan, "any idiot knows that potatoes are dangerous for children with diabetes, or borderline diabetes and for children with obesity issues."
To quote the American Diabetes Association website:
Myth: If you have diabetes, you should only eat small amounts of starchy foods, such as bread, potatoes and pasta.
Fact: Starchy foods are part of a healthy meal plan. What is important is the portion size. Whole grain breads, cereals, pasta, rice and starchy vegetables like potatoes, yams, peas and corn can be included in your meals and snacks. The key is portions. For most people with diabetes, having 3-4 servings of carbohydrate-containing foods is about right. Whole grain starchy foods are also a good source of fiber, which helps keep your gut healthy.
You may want to re-consider your stone-throwing ways. Hard as it may be for you to accept, Donavan, you do not know everything, and others are entitled to their opinion. In any debate, each side uses the facts that support their argument, and leave out those that do not. Resorting to name-calling is, generally speaking, a sign that one has run out of arguments.
As far as I can see, this is a website for people of a more conservative bent. Generally speaking, it points out things that the left-leaning mainstream media downplays or ignores, as well as some of the anti-right bias that gets too much airplay. It goes a little overboard at times, sure, and some of the comments are cringe-worthy. But that's a small price to pay for freedom of speech.
You, likewise, are free to come here and point out everything that you disagree with, with the (presumed) goal of showing everyone here how wrong they are and how right you are. Which, to me, sounds like you enjoy beating your head against a wall. I do too, because it feels so good when I stop. I would prefer that you, and everyone here, cut down the name-calling, which has a way of taking the discussion away from the point.
huh? did you read the entire thread. i clearly state that they are suggesting a more diversified vegetable diet. they are not and have not stated that cutting potatoes out completely is advisable. which is what the usda, wic and michelle obama are saying and the american diabetes association ...thank you for the contribution.
sorry i offended your delicate sensitivities but, i called no one a name. folks like DeanH told me i was "full of crap"... based on what fact? and now you come along and tell me i'm name calling? give me a break. i've debated on this site several times and have numerously been called a name without any provocation. get off your soap box.
Called no one a name, but blanketed this site as ignorant and a great source for the guilty pleasure you otherwise avoid. Indicate that a group of people are idiots for saying things you don't agree with, yet didn't call anyone a name.
I'm not gonna dance with you about this or anything else. Your prevarication and changing the point to avoid addressing those which don't fit your desired path of control give me all I need to know to about you and your farkwad beliefs.
We all get to have our own opinions. We don't get to have our own facts.
I only pointed out that everything you say is merely fecal tissue flowing out of the sphincter you eat with. Your names are being called, punk.
I did read the entire thread, and I quoted you. Now, I quote the AP story this is about.
"Under an interim rule, the USDA agreed to bar WIC participants from buying potatoes with their federal dollars. Potatoes are the only vegetable not allowed."
Seems like a pretty straightforward paragraph. We can break it down into one-syllable words if that will help you.
As for my sensibilities, I'll take care of them myself. When you characterize people here as "idiots" and "ignorant," that counted as name-calling where I grew up. In your house, it may have been a badge of honor, I can't say.
You, too have trotted out your soapbox, proclaiming who is a bigot, and have also cited your membership in the media as, apparently, some sort of expert on what is good and bad. Well, I'm in the media too, over 30 years now, and I've met a number like yourself. But I haven't let that get me down.
We're happy you are enjoying the site so much that you keep coming back. We'll keep up the good work, especially for you.
"good work" is clearly subjective. however, this site is like a guilty pleasure for me. the contradiction and continued irony is like a bad reality show that i just can't stop watching.
When did potato consumption become something the federal goverment can regulate? How did the noble potato become a federal pariah? Potatoes are high in vitamin C and potassium (more potassium than bananas), they also offer some fiber as well as other minerals and vitamins. We've eaten potatoes all our lives (fried, boiled, baked, in soup) and I'm heathly as are my wife and children (and millions of other Americans). But it appears the fast food french fry has become the symbol of the "obesity epidemic" sweeping the nation, so the potato has to be as tightly regulated as tobacco or alcohol. For our own good,of course.
Under the rubrics of "preventative health care" and "saving federal tax dollars" the government is now going to tell what we can and can't eat.
There's no end to it.
Maybe french fries are another "guilty pleasure" for you.
So kind of you to delineate where you think you start telling the truth.
You are so full of crap it is astounding.
delineate... hardly. this entire post is trying to establish a contradiction between michelle obama's message and what the usda and wic are saying. there is no "there" there. it's "full of crap" as you would say... and if you actually read the recommendations made by both michelle obama and the usda and wic, you'll find that they are consistent. potatoes, fried or otherwise have an extremely high sugar content... the problem usually isn't the frying, because most fryers now use vegetable oil. this isn't about telling parents what to do... it's about establishing what our tax dollars will pay for and mitigating the need for more of our tax dollars later on in the form of health care... this isn't physics... it's common sense.
"potatoes, fried or otherwise have an extremely high sugar content… the problem usually isn’t the frying, because most fryers now use vegetable oil."
What's more important, is the Glycemic Index that determines how fast (or slow) food turns to sugar in the bloodstream. The GI has an index value of 100, with Low = less than 55, Medium = 56-69 and High = 70-100.
A sweet potato has a low GI value of 54. A baked potato is high at 85, boiled and also steamed is medium at 56, and mashed is high at 70. Surprisingly, carrots have a low GI of 39. There are a lot of factors determining the GI, most notably is the fiber content. The issue with potatoes is HOW they are prepared (and portion).
As to "...the problem usually isn’t the frying, because most fryers now use vegetable oil.", fat is fat and the calories are the same, be it lard, butter, margarine, soy, corn, whatever. One tablespoon of fat is equal to 100 calories.
In a nutshell, the weight issue has come down to:
People don't practice portion control or the numbers side of counting calories and grossly underestimate the number of calories needed in a day for their body type. Or, they just don't care.
Millions fall into the latter category, unfortunately.
michelle obama (not a real first lady in any sense of the word) is so full of feces it makes me chuckle.
never misses a chance to stuff her pie hole with fast food.
beeps when she backs up, wears a "wide load" sign on her backside, but has the nerve to lecture America about diet and exercise.
beating her pathetic husband down does not count as exercise.
I miss Laura Bush.
Excuse me, the article stated NO POTATOES will be ok (I am assuming they mean white potatoes, which frequently end up as french fries). Sweet potatoes are a starchy root veggie. That pretty much ends the similarites between the 2. Sweet potatoes have more fiber, spike blood sugar less, have abundant vitamins and trace minerals. White potatoes themselves are also high in fiber, and contain vitamins especially Vit C, but spike the blood sugar unless eaten with protein and a little fat. And even then they spike it more that sweet potatoes. Everything we eat becomes glucose, a simple sugar. Portion control, along with concurrent consumption of les starchy veggies, like green beans, broccoli, brussel sprouts, lettuces (all of them) just to name a few. It is all about the balance, my friend. Do your homework-don't talk out of your a$$.
and to add to this quickly.... when people who are on public service have health issues, we usually end up paying for it... so why would we not want to mitigate any health issues that might occur? especially when it's as easy as what WIC and the USDA are suggesting? it makes good financial sense. stop people from getting sick and we all pay less money. why can't conservatives seem to actually get finance?
What is this "we usually end up paying for it" ? You and the rest of the simpletons, beggars and pervs that make up the left as a rule, don't pay taxes, work, or contribute positively to society.
The left socialist agenda is what promotes and expands this entitlement mentality that so many in our country have embraced.
The working honest people of this country are saddled with supporting the lazy. Not in all cases, but many.
Hey, if potatoes work for Russia, North Korea, and other socialist shit holes, why do you despise them? Hypocrite.
One good reason to avoid having "people who are on public service", yet that is something our government has proven they wish to increase.
What the hell is wrong with potatoes??? It's getting so that everything the government loons are for, I am against without even bothering to think about it. Ahh, I know. Some PHd doorknob got a government grant to study potatoes and therefore..........
It all boils down (ahem) to what cheerless jerks control freaks are.
WIC can be a good program, but a lot of the need-based criteria is invalidated in order to use it as a stealth subsidy for agriculture/food processors. Simply put, if you're poor enough to deserve a government handout, you should be in need of carbs. If too many carbs are your problem, then you really aren't all that poor, and a bottle of multi-vitamins or more veg would get better results in terms of nutrition.
Again, we live in a country where poor people have a weight problem, societally speaking. That should tell you all you need to know about whether or not they are in dire need of nutritional assistance -- better nutritional information would probably be a better bet. Telling people that doesn't cost much at all, but ruins a handy way of sneaking the money around.
I know of several women who are on WIC -- they use it to supplement their income and free up money to spend on less nutritional items. Their cooking/eating habits were not changed all that much -- both of them have every single bag of dried beans they ever got from the program in the cupboard, and both buy chips, soda, and other non-food foods with the money they saved from not having to buy milk, 100% juice, cheese and the other items on the list. That tells me that the "better nutrition" aims of the program have failed.
The poor are frequently malcourished, rather than undernourished. They get enough (more than enough) calories, but it is in the form of nutritionally deficient foods. WIC recipients are at least supposed to be buying what is on the list (fruit and veggies have recently been vastly increased) and to have attended nutrition and cooking classes. So attempts are being made, but there is simply not enough staff or money to do adequate follow up with the families. And change in food is perhaps the most difficult change of all to achieve. Food is all tied in with culture, family, traditions, etc and you can't expect everyone to drop what they have always known. The changes have to be gradual. We also have Moms who are pregnant, and receive benefits, but give the food to their children, rather than eating it themselves. That puts their babies at risk from the get go.
Yeah -- I think it is a fairly decent program -- just that it could be better. In the great scheme of things, I understand why they want to not emphasize potatoes. I do so enjoy being contrary, and the "child laborer" bit just cracks me up.
Without looking it up a reasonable guess is French Fries. When all the kid wants to eat is from BagDonalds or otherwise pizza, fries are always acceptable to the discerning tastes of said munchkins. My granddaughter eats about 5 different things. She's 5. French fries are rarely not part of her daily intake.
But still. Potatoes saved nations in the past, literally. Easy to grow and thousands of ways to eat em. Anyway, to teach people how to eat shouldn't be a government issue, more of a parenting responsibility, IMO.
What a stupid ass policy to implement when there is a worldwide grain shortage that will drive up all food prices.
Its about time nanny government gets a punch in the ovaries.
Deep fried sweet potatoes are delicious. In a few other dishes they definitely make a great addition. Never been a big fan of them most of the time though, I don't know why.
But the other, more regular potato, the white variants and especially the golden ones are delicious knibblets. They are inexpensive, stay viable for a decent time without too much trouble and easy and quick recipes for them all abound. Hell, most microwaves have a potato button that works great! Of course the government doesn't want anyone to enjoy these easy staples. Government goood, potato baaad....
I was going to say "media props", but "unpaid child laborers" is an accurate description too...
Yeah, it is an excellent choice of words. My compliments to editor -- all that olive oil on the lumps on the back of the head must be doing some good.
There is a difference (nutritionally) between white and sweet potatoes, and sweet potatoes are supposed to be better for you. Like anything else though, there will be a report tomorrow on the superiority of one over the other. Or vice versa. Or whatever.
You say potato, and I say with butter please!
Sweet potatoes are more nutrient rich and dense than white potatoes which are mostly starch, and they are good for women overall as well (hormonal balance and so on...). With that said a good baked potato with sour cream and butter and chives (with a big fat juicy medium rare steak) yum yum... doing that with a sweet potato alas is just not the same...
Besides she shouldnt be mad at white potatoes, they have brown skins so you can say they are half white and half brown... uhm... just like her husband. So if I am not overreaching I have to wonder if she secretly hates her husband?
It all depends upon what you do with the sweet potato. While it does not really complement a steak all that well, try one baked, buttered, with cinnamon sugar.
Yes, I know, it just took good nutrition and threw it out of the window. Moooochelle can kiss my overweight ass, that's some tasty eatin'.
So far down the list I want to direct this to Perlcat - That is a tasty treat. I've also had a simple baked sweet potato handled in an Indian (subcontinental) chow stand that they greased up with oil and dredged in a curry laced concoction. It was great. I'll have to look that up - haven't thought of it for years!
Like I said, typically not a big fan of the sweet potato, then someone give you a plate full of very edible stuff that smell lika hebbin! You eat it and love it and name it something not suitable for the kids eyes.
Mmmmmmm. tasty.
I do almost anything possible with sweet potato but there are some things you can't do with it or like you said complement it with. Sweet Potato with apple pie spice is also a good thing.
You can also make sweet potato pie (tastes similar to pumpkin) or make a casserole with sweet potatoes, applesauce (unsweetened). and pecans with a touch of brown sugar and cinnamon. YUMMY!
I love sweet potatoes with my steak! I eat those things two to three times a week, normally, and have come up with a good way to do them in the microwave. And I usually put butter and sour cream on mine. Yum!!
Uhm... for some reason I cannot make it work for me taste wise it is just not the same for me. A steak tends to be so savory that the sweetness of the potato doesnt cut it right for me, oh well lol. I also like to have a dry glass of wine with steak and it doesnt really work with the sweet potato, but it works wonders with bake potato... uhm... *mouth is watering*
By the look on her, uh, front of her head I suspect she would like to mash him like a pot of boiled taters. I like potatoes in many ways. Portion control is always to be a consideration in ones modern diet.
But when the shit seriously hits the fan you'd be lucky to have a large load of potatoes if nothing else. Might not be as tasty as a nice can of Dinky Di, but it would do. Not to mention it is relatively easy to generate fermented and distilled fuel for a number of internal combustion engines with it. The adventurous sots might even go the extra step or two to refine it into an amazing base for vodka martinis.
Yes it is always important not to over do it no matter what you are eating.
Yes potatoes are awesome, they are very versatile and they will kill that hunger.