If you are my Facebook friend, you may remember my oh-so-controversial Facebook posting/thread a few months back regarding Michelle Obama’s visit to North Point Community Church to promote her “Let’s Move!” initiative against childhood obesity. (Did you know that during her ‘lunch break’ at this event she had Jim&Nicks BBQ catered in? Healthy choice, Lady O.) Well, here we go again…
The Atlantic Wire recently published an article by Adam Clark Estes, “Signs America is Losing the War on Childhood Obesity”, discussing Michelle Obama’s recent initiatives:
- recruiting chefs to speak about healthy eating
- teaching school children ‘fun’ exercise routines
- advocating for new regulations to keep junk food off of kid’s minds (We will get to this in a momemnt, but parents will do WHAT THEY WANT in their home. If they want to serve their child icecream for dinner on a Friday night, then they certainly can and ‘advocating for new regulations’ serves a purpose for a different agenda than that of ‘keeping junk food off kid’s minds’.
Michelle Obama’s small program hardly bothered me like the proactivity taking place across the nation:
- Texas: 5 San Antonio elementary schools will photograph lunch trays before and after the students eat. They will track intake and how much each student is eating. (Can you say Big Brother?? Sure, the information will only be disclosed to parents and researchers, but at what point does photographing a child and their food choices PREVENT childhood obesity?? Photographs are only recording ‘evidence’.
- Illinois: a state Senator suggested parents of obese children lose their $2000 deduction for children. (Ok, ok, I am probably the biggest critic of this entire program and now you’re going to tell me that children who are deemed obese BY THE GOVERNMENT will be TAXED-or not taxed- differently??)
- Georgia: The Stop Childhood Obesity organization is using slogans to talk to children in their own environments. Their most favorite motto, If you continue eating junk food and overeating, “you will die before your parents’. (This entire program is spearheaded by liberals, the same group of people who come up with a mental health disorder for every issue and as an excuse for every action. If they’re so concerned about mental health, they may want to consider the fact that statements like this will encourage eating disorders down the road.)
- Michigan: A little less than 1/3 of parents stated that they were open to child gastric bypasses. Low-income and minorities were more open to them than anyone. (So now were going to fight childhood obesity through the EASY WAY OUT, a.k.a invasive surgical procedures. Ahh, I get it.)
- D.C.: Michelle Obama visited different schools to dance to Beyonce. (I actually think this may be the most effective means of fighting childhood obesity. The sight of this alone will make anyone never want to eat again.)
Let us not forget the position of Michelle Obama and her own image. Michelle Obama claims to be a size 10 and quite fit for here 5’11 figure, however, studies have shown that her declared measurements are not possible. She is more like a 16 with a hip measurement of 46′. Sure, her arms are cut which is why she chooses to wear sleeveless dress and tops all the time, but in all actually, Mrs. Obama ain’t that fit. (See below.) 5’11 or not, she is not a figure I would like to mimic.
All fat that aside, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If that happiness is being overweight, than so be it. Whether it is healthy or it is not, it is a CHOICE that we can make and it isn’t something that should be monitored, recorded or taxed! It is a CHOICE that parents make for their children and it isn’t a place for any figurehead or government leader.
Besides, if we weren’t offering to pay for everyone’s healthcare, it wouldn’t really matter what diseases people developed because the government wouldn’t be footing the bill. People would be held accountable for their own decisions and if they suffered complications from being obese, they would pay for it.
The Perspicacious Conservative 
I’ve read your blog a couple times because you have an interesting (and different) point of view than mine. But seriously, this is just silly.
1. With regards to the picture, Limbaugh pulled that 1500 calorie number straight out of his ass. The restaurant owner has already reported that it is a much lower 600 calorie meal (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-22/news/29441889_1_short-ribs-first-lady-michelle-obama-kale). Not perfectly healthy, but within the acceptable range for someone on a normal diet. Secondly, making assertions about someone’s diet from one meal, on a vacation no less, is like claiming we’re in an ice age cause it was cold yesterday.
2. The new regulations Let’s Move is advocating are primarily directed at schools, not the home (see Michelle Obama’s Washington Post Op-Ed on the subject, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103291.html). “Keep junk food off kid’s minds” exists only in Adam Clark Estes article, so if the phrase bothers you, take it up with him.
3. As to the Texas program, no one involved argues that the program, by itself, will stop childhood obesity – that isn’t the point. The goal is twofold – gather information on how children consume school lunches so that school lunches can be better designed to encourage healthy food choices, and to inform parents so that they can help change their child’s eating habits if they want to. This program intentionally leaves the obesity fight up to the parents, as you advocate, but it also makes sure they have the information to be effective.
4. The Illinois Lawmaker quoted here revoked his statement and said it was made in jest. This was stated in both the article you’re quoting from Estes and the article Estes was quoting from. It’s not an actual program that will be happening.
5. Good points on the Georgia campaign, it’s over the top.
6. The Michigan survey shows that less than a third of respondents were in favor of childhood bariatric surgery. That is substantially less than a majority, and as the study confirms, the majority of respondents felt it should be delayed until the patient is an adult. Getting outraged about this is just silly, considering no one is advocating childhood bariatric surgery – they’re actually overwhelmingly against it.
7. Potshots about dancing to Beyonce aside, if you’re going to reference “studies,” cite them. The only thing I can find on the web referencing Michelle Obama having a 46″ waist is a blog post by someone called “newsbird” (http://newsbird.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/michelle-hip-size-46-looks-better-in-sleeves-dresses/). His/her methodology is flawed (you cannot use facial features as a reference point, nor can you do so while the person is not standing in perfect profile, nor can you make the assumption that the human body is a rhombus), his/her sample is limited (a mighty 2 photos, along with a couple others where he/she drew some lines and circles but did no actual analysis), and he/she lists no qualifications (though, when I showed the analysis to a pair of graphic designer friends, they laughed. A Lot.).
This isn’t a study in the loosest sense of the word. It’s “a blog post,” and citing it otherwise makes it look like you don’t understand what an actual study is. You’re smarter than that, give yourself some credit.
8. And finally, the idea that obesity is a choice. We pay for the emergency room visits of the uninsured in either case, so yes, obesity does incur more than just personal costs, even without universal healthcare. The costs are less, sure, but claiming it’s not a problem without universal healthcare is not correct.
What is more important here is that we aren’t just talking about obesity, but childhood obesity in particular, as that is what Let’s Move aims to fight. You assert that obesity is a direct result of choices we make, such as diet and exercise. We are not born with the knowledge that sweets are bad and exercise is good – sweets taste good, running makes you tired. educational programs, such as Let’s Move, can help inform children so that those choices they make lengthen their lives and reduce social costs by giving us more productive workers.
Which connects to the other idea, that it is a parent’s responsibility or choice to educate their kids, not the government. You can’t accept that obesity has medical ramifications and still say parents are ok to give their kids an ice cream diet. When a parent makes choices that put a kid’s life in jeopardy, that is called child endangerment. Yes, raising a kid with type 2 diabetes is nowhere near as direct or heinous as beating them, but it is putting that child’s health in danger. At that point, how can we stand by and just say it’s a choice to allow parents to shorten their children’s lives and incur more costs on everyone else? Freedom to make poor choices is all well and good, but you should be the one to pay for those choices – not your kids.
Look, I know this comes across as me just ripping on you, but I find this blog interesting most of the time and want it to stay high quality. It bugs me to see you stoop to sloppy analysis, not checking sources, and arguing contradictory points.
Jon, thanks for reading my blog and for your comments. I find your criticism funny because you were the Editor of our 3rd grade newspaper in Mr. Sparks’ class, and here you are again. With that being said, I wanted to address some of your points.
1. The picture of Michelle Obama consuming that ‘high calorie’ meal was not meant to accurately portray her daily eating habits. I believe the caption in the bottom even cited the website and without looking you could note that it wasn’t “scholarly”. This post was a bit different than some of my others and I was definitely trying to make a mockery of Mrs. Obama. While the message and some of the points were direct, I, more than anything, wanted to criticize her assertion that she is a size 10. Whether she is or not really isn’t the issue, but rather that she isn’t being truthful about herself yet she is promoting healthy eating and healthy weight.
2. I understand that the “Let’s Move” campaign is targeted primarily at schools and not at homes, and I believe I have repeatedly discussed my displeasure with that approach, however, I do believe things from school and home often bleed together.
3. I, personally, do not care whther the program will be effective or not. I feel that the program is invasive and inappropriate.
4. I am aware that the lawmaker revoked his statement and I appreciate the fact that he did so, as it was completely ludacris. However, my point was to raise awareness of the ridiculous chatter the First Lady’s program is provoking across the nation for a program that I don’t see benefiting anyone in the long run.
5. Thanks.
6. I wasn’t trying to pportray the idea of 1/3 of the people being close to the majority, or anything of the sort. I was merely claiming that there are parents out there that are willing to take the easy way out, whether it be now or on in adulthood.
Time and time again I have said that parents can and will do what they please in regards to this. Children are not wards of the state and if the people behind a program like this want it to be effective, they should look on educating the parents of these at-risk children. I (as well as many, many Americans) do not agree with a program that reaches out to children in such a fashion.
7. Again, mockery. Please see #1.
I understand your analogy about child endangerment and the link between their life longevity and the nasty food thats they eat, but I believe that is a much deeper seeded issue. To be frank, the foods we ingest are processed with specific items like paritally hydrogenated oils, maltodextrins, lechitins, the list could go on for, literally, hours….but there is an organization that has approved these things: the FDA, a government entity. They allow these chemicals and what not to be put in our foods, they’re everywhere. So yes, there are a lot of unhealthy foods out there (and let’s not lie, unless you’re growing your own produce and grazing your own cows, your food is tainted) but there is nothing that can be done about it. They aren’t going away and I really think that the government should stay out of it –in any form.
Again, I appreciate your comments and hope you’ll continue reading.
So, basically your argument is that we should all have the freedom to be lardasses, even though the reality is that obesity costs all of us in terms of increased health insurance rates (and by the way, this isn’t a new thing – it was the case even BEFORE Obamacare was passed into law). Do you really think – I mean really – that obese people aren’t less healthy than the rest of us, and that when we healthy folk get our bills from Blue Cross or Cigna, we’re not subsidizing some morbidly obese slob who’s in and out of the doctor’s office on a weekly basis being treated for diabetes, heart disease, etc., and getting me to pay for a fricken mobility scooter because he can’t be bothered to eat or exercise properly?
If so, maybe you’re one of the fat entitled deadbeats who is laughing all the way to his doctor’s office at the thought of getting me to pay for his next liposuction. This is a conservative issue, but you’re on the wrong side of it. This is about lazy entitled lardasses making those of us who are healthy to pay for their abuse. If you think everyone in America only pays for their own health care, you’ve got another think coming.
Obesity is not a virtue, nor is it a personal choice that impacts no one else. Obesity is a sickness that turns people into healthcare-parasites who then feed off the health and out of the wallets of others in their healthcare plan. Conservatives everywhere should be disgusted by this abuse.