Sarah Palin’s efforts to draw attention to, and poke fun at, Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity are a little late. Not only is Palin late in the game, she’s fighting something that should not even be questioned. Who doesn’t want to be healthier?
Health is an important aspect of every life. A campaign against the common problem of obesity is not only necessary — but also a huge step in the right direction.
Perhaps it’s only me, but I’m pretty sure our society is based on appearances — and eventually, personality. That’s not going to change, and why should it? Maintaining your appearance is the same as practicing your introduction; your body is the first thing someone sees, and the care you take for yourself and your body is a part of that.
For Palin to bring this issue into question, labeling America as the “Nanny State,” is frightening. Why should we be hesitant about limiting sugary and unhealthy foods from schools? Not only do school districts already regulate the meals served, some even limit sugar intake. Why not take it nationwide?
Why deprive the youth of America of the one thing most adults struggle to keep? Health. Life. That old cliche of a better future, perhaps it should be real for once.
Starting off with a healthy diet — whether you are aware of it or not — imbues you with a preference for a healthy diet. Even if the healthy foods don’t stick, a change in diet would be noticeable after a few weeks.
So what’s the problem? Why can’t we try to solve America’s obesity problem before it is too late? And by too late I mean more prevalent than it is now — and it is all too common already. Is it impossible to believe, for once, restricting something would make things better?
Limitations are a reality, and while I do not think a nationwide, all-age, all-encompassing diet restriction is necessary, possible or at all appropriate for this country (it is still a democratic nation, after all), it could change the future of America’s health for the youth that have yet to give up.
While Palin argues against the government having a say in children’s diets, I have to wonder how else things will change. What would cause schools across the nation to cut back on sugary snacks for students? Nothing has already, so why not involve the government?
Stipulating that schools should not offer sugar-based food would harm nothing. The only thing being threatened is the everyday choice made about packing a lunch — veggies versus pudding, etc. I know, I know, it’s wrong to assume every child has parents who cut corners while packing lunches. But the presence of obese and overweight children is growing; what else am I supposed to think?
While Palin wants to bring cookies to every school that will open its doors to her, realists want to cut that back, bringing health back into schools. It’s not just a class.
Again, concern over the rights of parents is an issue, but when schools regulate food already, what difference does regulating another aspect of food make? Sacrifices are made when children attend school. Parents are not present, rules are enforced and decisions made by teachers and faculty are usually final. Realistically, banning sweets would make no difference.
Giving children a chance to get a step ahead healthwise should be applauded, not argued against. If Palin thinks it would be better to continue the current downward trend in this country’s health, I worry what she thinks about everything else.
Obama’s campaign against obesity has been running for a little less than a year. Not only is it something this country needs, it’s finally something being addressed by someone who has the ability to make a difference. It is a difference, to put a foot down on the unhealthy aspects of school meals and snacks, and it is necessary.
Questioning the involvement of the government in parenting matters is one thing, but feeding the fire with cookies? We don’t need this.
A version of this article appeared in the Nov 30 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 27 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Its the parents reponsability to feed the children and decide what they will eat. I wouldnt of been suprised if Obama made our children live on fried chicken and watermelons.
Reply to this Top
child health programs are to encourage parents as well. Plus, when children are at school and picking which lunch line to go through, the parents aren't there to instruct. your comment just sounds ignorant and racist.
and it's "I wouldn't HAVE been surprised..." Way to set an example.
Reply to this Top
How about this for an answer. The constitution doesn't enumerate the Federal Government the authority to be "Fat Police" - what else do you need? Who can deny the constitution? Who can deny that the personal freedoms it guarantees is the most important thing, whether that personal freedom makes you fat or not? Why isn't our own constitution good enough for you? If I want to send my kid to school with a cookie, it's nobody's business but mine - not yours. Tell me, do you really think Michelle Obama ever grew a garden until she was in the Whitehouse with TV cameras on her? Give me a break, what an ignorant article.
Top
I pay for health insurance and have for quite some time now. I take good care of myself, but my premiums have increased notably every year for the last five years. Some of this has to do with our sue-happy society, some has to do with the fact that most in the US do not take care of themselves and develop health problems as a result. Everyone pays the price, including me.
So if Michelle Obama wants to get out there and lobby for healthier foods being served by school cafeterias, so what? They're public schools. If you feel like you're experiencing a "Nanny State" condition, pack your kid a lunch or send your kid to private school. Nobody is making your kid eat the food provided by the school. If it means my healthcare costs will be lower 20 years from now, great.
I'd love to see a private organization step up to the plate and have the influence that Mrs. Obama has. Unfortunately, I can only name one - NFL Play 60 maybe?
Top
It's not the government's job to lower your insurance premiums and it's non of their business if we raise obese kids. Your insurance premiums are high because illegal aliens get free health care that insurance owners ultimately pay for. If you want to slash your premiums you'd be better of helping the government round up illegals. You and anyone else concerned can start by calling 1-866-347-2423 whenever you see someone that's here illegally. That number is the immigration tip line together we can make a difference in stopping illegal immigration.
Top
You're right, it's not the government's job to lower premiums. But if the government institutes policies to make school lunch healthier, and that will arguably help healthcare long-term, how is that infringing on any of your rights? Nobody is forcing you or your kids to eat it.
If you want to throw "Illegals" into the pot, fine. Sounds like you're more than willing to take action on that front. Good for you. Diet and exercise are both huge issues as well.
Top
I assure you that illegal aliens are indeed criminals there is no need to put quotation marks around the term. If you think that they aren't criminals I find it odd that would demand the government be fat police but not regular police.
Top
that you clearly do not understand the use of quotation marks. Use of quotes means you are citing someone. That person above you looked to be citing you. How did "Illegals" enter this discussion? Do you have an agenda? Why don't you just submit a piece to the paper if you do, rather than bring it up in this forum. Not that I disagree with what appears to be your opinion, but their relevance to this column is a huge stretch. Moron.
Top
Hey genius if that was a quote than what was being quoted? Not once did I use the term "Illegals". You see quotation marks also indicate sarcasm and in this instance indicates that he does not view Misdemeanor offenders as criminals. The reason that they are in this discussion is because he was complaining about insurance premiums. I was bringing up the fact that he wants the government to raise our children for us to save him money but they could also cut costs by enforcing immigration laws. Illegal aliens are a major reason medical costs are so high. So you see it is relevant you're just a pillack.
Top
I would think that if the government wants to help your kids perform better in school and be more healthy you would be happy! But may be you are more interested in making the sugar, corn-starch, vegetable oil, and cancer-causing corporations rich! While paying with the health of your kids! Boy is this nation in trouble!!!
Reply to this Top
It's about personal freedoms, those corporations aren't evil they're selling products that people want. The government doesn't need to take care of us.
Top
Nice racist reply -- figures I guess. BTW, this obviosuly isn't a program to make anybody eat anything. Of course, that's the standard reply to anything the Obama's do. It's a program to encourage better habits. Nothing wrong with that -- particulary when my insurance rates are being affected by your fat kids.
Reply to this Top
The standard reply huh, so anyone that has a problem with Obama is a racist. No one has a legitimate problem with Obama he's perfect and we're all racists. These claims are baseless, you liberals like to throw around that racist claim whenever you disagree with someone's position. What's next a Hitler comparison.
Top
"I wouldnt of been suprised if Obama made our children live on fried chicken and watermelons."
Seriously, you obviously didn't read the first comment. Explain to me how that is not racist.
Top
correction on the Anon...
Top
I read the first comment my problem was with you stating that people object to Obama primarily with racism.
Top
That is such an ignorant statement.....
Reply to this Top
I am all for people being healthy and making kids eat better. I dislike Sarah Palin, but she has a point. The federal government has no business being up in our business like that. Point to the part of the constitution that could be seen as allowing the policing of our student's food? If you pull out the Commerce Clause I will be greatly disappointed.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the people want their children's meals healthier then that is a STATE issue, not FEDERAL. So saying that people that are against Obama's agenda are not always against WHAT he is trying to accomplish, but HOW.
Reply to this Top
Well,personally I fail to see that Sarah has done anything wrong...politically incorrect,maybe....but most people simply aren't going to listen to dietary advice from someone like Ms Obama...not until she gets control of that fat ghetto skank ass she hauls around...it looks like a caboose on the Illinois Central RR
Reply to this Top
Michelle Obama's work with community involvement is serving her well here for this very important program. I applaud the effort from Mrs. O. The epidemic is so huge however. I totally agree that this needs to be a national campaign with strong bipartisan support.
Reply to this Top
The problem with all of the liberals in this country is that they see no issues with the government telling everyone what to eat. That is not their job and believe it or not, it's not in the Constitution either. "First they came for the smokers and I didn't speak up because I didn't smoke. Next they came for the fat people and I didn't speak up because I wasn't fat. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me." Give me liberty or give me death-Patrick Henry
Reply to this Top
You should know you're wrong when you have to blow something so incredibly out of proportion just to begin to make a case.
The government is not forcing you to do anything. They offer you a service which you can willingly refuse. Feed your child all the crap you want, but if you expect the government to feed them they should provide what is best for the child and society in general. If you don't agree with it, pack your own lunch.
It really doesn't get much more difficult than that.
Reply to this Top
How very sad that so many people are willing to let the government take over the care and feeding of not only their children but themselves as well. I'm not fat, my children are not fat and neither are their children. Holy gee, however did we do it without the government? I'm so sick of paying for irresponsible people who can't or will not take care of themselves! If you or your children are fat quit eating so much and get out and exercise!
Reply to this Top
I think if we throw out the Constitution and establish a dictatorship we'll be grateful because a benevolent government will look out for us and make sure we are okay. Like North Korea - no obesity because the government has so kindly taken away all choice - not only what food to eat, but even WHETHER to eat at all. Also, their carbon footprint per person is low now that they've denuded their forests and have no more wood to burn and no livestock to use animal dung as fuel.
This government intervention is a great idea for all of these reasons.
Reply to this Top
But, if the government succeeds in its anti-obesity campaign, how will I hide the shoplifted items in my rolls of fat, as I now do? What kind of social justice is that???
Reply to this Top
Man, sport is the solution, not pills...
http://healthybeauty2.blogspot.com/
Reply to this Top
Sean,
Lighten up, Sparky. While you're at it, read the Constitution.
Reply to this Top