Opinions on Michelle Obama's school lunch nutrition initiative

[Vox 870]

So thoughts?

In favor or against it?

Reasons?

[Yoshi89 5,293]

Long overdue. Now if they can stop calling pizza a vegetable...

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I think about it the same way I do most plans put into action by people in government. With unmitigated contempt.

 

She's not my mom, and when I do have kids, it will be up to my wife and myself what they should eat and how often. This is the inevitable cycle of a government that wants to be moral. Agency is whittled down to the point that the state takes it to raise children rather than the family. This is the same thing as government action against violent video games. They have rating boxes on the games for a reason and nutrition stats for the food!

 

Now, if Michelle was just a regular woman starting her own movement of nutrition for kids, well I still wouldn't agree with it but I wouldn't be so against it either. She's not though, she's the First Lady, even without the threat of legal action she still carries the aura of the office with her.

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

I think about it the same way I do most plans put into action by people in government. With unmitigated contempt.

 

She's not my mom, and when I do have kids, it will be up to my wife and myself what they should eat and how often. This is the inevitable cycle of a government that wants to be moral. Agency is whittled down to the point that the state takes it to raise children rather than the family. This is the same thing as government action against violent video games. They have rating boxes on the games for a reason and nutrition stats for the food!

 

Now, if Michelle was just a regular woman starting her own movement of nutrition for kids, well I still wouldn't agree with it but I wouldn't be so against it either. She's not though, she's the First Lady, even without the threat of legal action she still carries the aura of the office with her.

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis

 

Hold your horses, mate. It's not like that at all. Michelle Obama isn't trying to tell you what you can and can't feed your kids. You know that's practically impossible under the system we have in place.

 

All the program does is provide subsidies to school districts who meet the health requirements for their school lunches. It's completely optional for school districts to participate in this, and even if they do, it's completely up to you to decide how to feed your kids. Nobody is forcing you to buy a healthy school lunch.

 

Personally, I think it's great that someone's trying to take the initiative. Obesity is a huge problem in America (pun intended), and this is a good step in the right direction.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Hold your horses, mate. It's not like that at all. Michelle Obama isn't trying to tell you what you can and can't feed your kids. You know that's practically impossible under the system we have in place.

 

All the program does is provide subsidies to school districts who meet the health requirements for their school lunches. It's completely optional for school districts to participate in this, and even if they do, it's completely up to you to decide how to feed your kids. Nobody is forcing you to buy a healthy school lunch.

 

Personally, I think it's great that someone's trying to take the initiative. Obesity is a huge problem in America (pun intended), and this is a good step in the right direction.

 

I'm still suspicious. Any district that opts out would likely be met with scorn by the public. To the eyes of D.C. only the guilty say no to their outreaches.

 

Obesity may be a problem, but that's not anyone's job to fix aside from the person themselves and certainly not the government's! And I'd rather have obesity be a problem than starvation. Something that is not always viewed with mocking contempt by the rest of the world.

 

In one of his books. Dinesh D'Souza was talking to a friend in Bombay who wanted to move here. Dinesh asked him why and he said:

 

“I really want to move to a country where the poor people are fat.”

 

Is obesity something we should be "proud" of? I don't know. I certainly try to keep in shape. That's not the point though. This initiative isn't a huge deal and it's certainly not the worst thing this administration has done, but it's still a symptom of what I think is a far worse problem in the country than obesity. 

 

The reduction of agency and pride. A man walks into a doctor's office and says, 

 

"Doctor it hurts when I do this."

 

"Then stop doing that."

 

A joke that sadly illustrates the way many people think. Behaviors and actions must be mandated from above. 

 

"People are fat! Oh Lord President, save us from ourselves."

 

"Someone went on a shooting spree! Oh wise oligarchy, take these vile weapons and video games away from us."

 

The people always demand a government reaction to things that government has no business being in. To the point that the term "overreach" is almost darkly comedic in how poorly it conveys the extent that which federal influence is experienced.

 

So again, not the worst thing, but not something I support.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Steel Accord

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Obesity may be a problem, but that's not anyone's job to fix aside from the person themselves and certainly not the government's!

 

Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

 

I wholeheartedly, fundamentally disagree. The way I see it, the purpose of the government is to fix problems that we have collectively as a society. That's kinda what it's for. We have government to establish and maintain national security, a smooth flowing economy, environmental sustainability, systems of transportation, and the general well-being of the public. Obesity falls well within the boundaries of that category.

 

Without a governing body, we'd have total anarchy. Every problem we have would be like this:

 

 

And that's really... just not the right attitude to have. That's not how we move forward as a society.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Regulus

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

 

I wholeheartedly, fundamentally disagree. The purpose of the government is to fix problems that we have collectively as a society. That's kinda what it's for. We have government to establish and maintain national security, a smooth flowing economy, environmental sustainability, systems of transportation, and the general well-being of the public.

 

Something we're going to have to agree to wholeheartedly, fundamentally disagree on. Government is best when it's as distant from the affairs of people as possible.

 

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

-George Washington

 

Not trying to derail the thread, I will simply reiterate. My opinion on this initiative is that it's a minor symptom to a much larger problem.

[Shanks 10,816]

Hold your horses, mate. It's not like that at all. Michelle Obama isn't trying to tell you what you can and can't feed your kids. You know that's practically impossible under the system we have in place.

I beg to differ on that, the government has been telling us what we can and cannot put in our mouths more and more and not just the federal government. You can't sell raw (unpasteurized) milk or transport it across state lines, the FDA is trying to classify walnuts as a drug (I am not even joking) and of course there are all these nanny state local ordinances heavily restricting or even banning things like trans fats. And New York City made this pointless and stupid move that is such an obvious pander by banning the sale of all sodas above I think it was 16 ounces if I remember correctly when anyone who wants more soda badly enough to just buy another fraggin soda.

 

All of this supposedly for our own good when these same nanny state hypocrites are stayed deafly silence about crops being sprayed with pesticides that they need to play god by genetically modifying them in order to survive. There have been insects whose stomachs have literally exploded from this stuff, workers have to wear hazmat suits and gas masks while spraying this stuff and we are eating it.

 

Because of all this nanny state garbage and blatant hypocrisy I have a real hard time trusting any authority figuring including the first lady whenever they go on a campaign like this. I agree that school lunches need some improvement but even if this was on the up and up the federal government under the 10th amendment has no jurisdiction in public education, state and local governments do but not uncle sam.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

As long as public schools are providing the option to buy lunches at school, then they might as well be serving nutritious food.

 

This should not in any way be controversial. Yet I guess since the name "Obama" is attached to it then it's commufascism or whatever.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

As long as public schools are providing the option to buy lunches at school, then they might as well be serving nutritious food.

 

This should not in any way be controversial. Yet I guess since the name "Obama" is attached to it then it's commufascism or whatever.

 

That's kind of unfair to brand all those critical of this idea together like that. I mean, I have nothing against Michelle personally or even her husband, much as I dislike his policies. There are so many motivations in the world that even a simple, good idea can have bad consequences.

 

As I've said, I don't have that big a problem with this particular initiative. My problem is just the way the message is being presented.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

That's kind of unfair to brand all those critical of this idea together like that. I mean, I have nothing against Michelle personally or even her husband, much as I dislike his policies. There are so many motivations in the world that even a simple, good idea can have bad consequences.

 

As I've said, I don't have that big a problem with this particular initiative. My problem is just the way the message is being presented.

Well how are they supposed to present it? Change all the school menus in secret so -God forbid- the government isn't trying to tell us to eat healthy? Or should schools just continue to serve unhealthy food that they don't actually intend for you to eat because you're supposed to educate yourself and find out that they're serving unhealthy crap and pack your own lunches and this can be a big learning experience for us all?

 

You seem to just be starting with the base assumption that "if the Federal government is doing it, then it must be bad" and then just sort of wingin' it from there and throwing in some quotes about tyranny. Maybe you could try to argue that schools should not have a lunch program at all, but let's face it, as long as there is school lunch, this is how it works:

 

Your kid brings money to school or else brings their own lunch. If you opt to not pack a lunch, then your kid eats whatever the hell some bureaucrat decided they should be having for lunch this day of the week.

 

By changing the policies for what the bureaucrat chooses it's not like you're interfering with the free market or something. This is just a government initiative to change some other already existing government initiative.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Well how are they supposed to present it? Change all the school menus in secret so -God forbid- the government isn't trying to tell us to eat healthy? Or should schools just continue to serve unhealthy food that they don't actually intend for you to eat because you're supposed to educate yourself and find out that they're serving unhealthy crap and pack your own lunches and this can be a big learning experience for us all?

 

You seem to just be starting with the base assumption that "if the Federal government is doing it, then it must be bad" and then just sort of wingin' it from there and throwing in some quotes about tyranny. Maybe you could try to argue that schools should not have a lunch program at all, but let's face it, as long as there is school lunch, this is how it works:

 

Your kid brings money to school or else brings their own lunch. If you opt to not pack a lunch, then your kid eats whatever the hell some bureaucrat decided they should be having for lunch this day of the week.

 

By changing the policies for what the bureaucrat chooses it's not like you're interfering with the free market or something. This is just a government initiative to change some other already existing government initiative.

 

Okay, I'll be specific in my criticism.

 

Again, I don't think this initiative is a bad idea and as long as it's trying to benefit public schools specifically, and holds to that obligation alone; I would not have a problem with it. Michelle is just acting in her own capacity, no government attaché at least in intention. 

 

What you say in derision I actually hold in sincerity, yes one should educate themselves of their own initiative. Through my own resources, I found out that just cutting bread from my eating habits would help me loose weight, and lo and behold it has. It didn't have to be mandated to me, I chose to limit my bread consumption.

 

If Michelle is trying to get public schools to offer more healthy food options and programs that educate the kids on the choices and their consequences when it comes to food, I might actually be in support of it and therefore be in agreement with you.

 

(There, no quotes.)

Edited November 8, 2014 by Steel Accord

[Hovershy 3,814]

I think she has good intentions but it honestly pisses me off.

 

At my school, we are forced to take a "healthy choice" with our lunch. If you don't take one you can't buy lunch. Good idea right? WRONG

No one eats them, so much food is thrown away and wasted because of this. The amount of baby carrots that get thrown in the trash would blow your mind.

 

Our schools vending machines have been stripped of all the delicious drinks that once were there and replaced with water. WTF?! Why would I pay $1.00 to buy water when I can just go to the bubbler that is literally right next to it. 

I can understand why they would take away the soda but why the ice tea and lemonade? 

[iceestarz 5,764]

Don't really care. I haven't ate school lunch in 3 years. I bring my own food. It's never anything unhealthy though, well usually.

 

I'll take my peanut butter sandwich, fruit snacks and water over crappy school food anyday.

[Nulln 755]

i have no idea what it really is, but i've gathered a bit from this thread.  i guess it's offering to pay for healthy lunches if a school chooses to do that over sticking with whatever junk food company currently supplies them?

I think it's good.  my son's preschool doesn't have crap foods, the people who work there make everything from scratch and put together a balanced meal (and omg, even sometimes they'll throw a cupcake in there!)

 

I don't see why anyone would be against a healthy lunch.  It's not like they're going to force you to eat broccoli everyday.  If you don't like what they're serving, just bring a lunch.

 

And i see some of you are confusing healthy for not fat.  Being healthy is not just about losing weight.  It's not about cutting out food groups.  It's about getting the proper nutrients your body needs.  Our country spends a LOT of money on problems that would not even be an issue if people would just eat right in the first place. Being obese is not better than starving.  They're both potentially deadly if not fixed, and each have their own health issues associated with them.  Obese people usually are not overeating nutritious foods.  They're probably buying what they can afford, which is junk food or fast food.  They provide little to no nutrition and contain so much stuff that is bad for you.  Dying from a heart attack from clogged arteries caused by being too poor to afford healthy food is not better than just not eating at all.  We can prevent both of those scenarios if people have access to good food.

[NotoriousSMALL 1,984]

Long overdue. Now if they can stop calling pizza a vegetable...

This. It's somewhat like calling a pie a fruit.

[Nulln 755]

Long overdue. Now if they can stop calling pizza a vegetable...

 

 

The part about that that really grinds my gears is that it's considered a vegetable because the tomato sauce.  tomatoes are a fruit.

[skbl17 199]

I'm not an administrator or moderator, but isn't there already a subforum for threads like these? A thread like this will lead sooner or later to some kind of political debate over obesity, federal authority, or something about taxes.

 

(And I see it already has.)

[SilverStarApple 849]

Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

 

I wholeheartedly, fundamentally disagree. The way I see it, the purpose of the government is to fix problems that we have collectively as a society. That's kinda what it's for. We have government to establish and maintain national security, a smooth flowing economy, environmental sustainability, systems of transportation, and the general well-being of the public. Obesity falls well within the boundaries of that category.

 

Without a governing body, we'd have total anarchy. Every problem we have would be like this:

 

 

And that's really... just not the right attitude to have. That's not how we move forward as a society.

The government is supposed to help its people, govern them, and rule them.

 

They are not supposed to happily and flagrantly violate the rules their founding fathers set in place while claiming it's "For the greater good", when they're really doing it to hunt for objectionable content, further their "Good guy" appearance and political agen- no, personal agendas, and generally act far worse than an England-Ruled America would ever be.

 

Run around outside in America, spouting phrases your Lincoln/Lincolin/Linkin and The Other Guys used when founding America. See how quickly you're branded a terrorist.

 

Remember your high taxes on everything? Wasn't a two/ten percent levy(Tax) on baked goods the final straw that broke the camel's back and kicked off the American Revolution? I'm not claiming to know exactly what happened, but I read that was a pretty big factor.

 

I'll admit, we don't have it perfect here in the UK. Our politicians compromise when they shouldn't, join and team up and merge when they're not supposed to, and debate among themselves behind closed doors which bills are put into place to generate the most profit and good PR for them when the whole reason they are separate and opposed is because they are supposed to personify different ideas and viewpoints, they are supposed to have different ideas and beliefs, they are supposed to want different things and have different goals. They shouldn't be so disgustingly casual and powerhungry that they'd allow "The other idiots who believe the wrong thing and would doom the UK to fit their beliefs and appear good" to take power, even in a compromise. This should not happen.

 

Imagine a villain, clad in black and red with clouds of plague and a thousand corrupted ponies with purple and black patterns running down their darkly-coloured bodies and a million evil monsters of vilest darkness following him, stalks into Equestria. He's powerful, and evil, and the Alicorn Amulet was probably made from his nail clippings or something. He could probably beat Celestia, if a fight happened. But then, Clestia might win, instead. So... Instead of fighting him, Princess Celestia and Lord Evilestopheles Vilehate The Doommurderer meet, talk, and team up, and start debating behind closed doors over which parts of Equestria stay Equestrian, which parts he gets to destroy and ruin, and which parts are impeded by following each other's rules and codes at the same time.

 

Boom, there's our politics.

 

Wait, I can't say boom, that offends the suicide bombers. Even though they hate us for stupid reasons, and nothing we say or do will change that.

 

Kapow, there's our politics.

 

Hmm...

 

Zap, there's our politics.

 

(Note: Of course, I do not believe that one of the UK's political parties is Celestia and one is Evilestopheles. The only people who see the world in black and white are Kings and Pawns. That was a chess reference. My earlier metaphor was a way to show how some viewpoints just aren't compatible, and compromising so you can both share power doesn't work all the time. Don't be the moron in the corner who follows the Golden Mean Fallacy like it's sacred. Also, the boom joke was a jab at easily-offended idiots, not at actual suicide bombers. Although, those are bad, too.)

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

Okay, I'll be specific in my criticism.

 

Again, I don't think this initiative is a bad idea and as long as it's trying to benefit public schools specifically, and holds to that obligation alone; I would not have a problem with it. Michelle is just acting in her own capacity, no government attaché at least in intention. 

 

What you say in derision I actually hold in sincerity, yes one should educate themselves of their own initiative. Through my own resources, I found out that just cutting bread from my eating habits would help me loose weight, and lo and behold it has. It didn't have to be mandated to me, I chose to limit my bread consumption.

 

If Michelle is trying to get public schools to offer more healthy food options and programs that educate the kids on the choices and their consequences when it comes to food, I might actually be in support of it and therefore be in agreement with you.

 

(There, no quotes.)

Okay, there are two things to consider here when we're talking about the idea of educating yourself and personal responsibility:

 

1. As I said before, it's not like we're dealing with the free market. The cafeteria serves whatever they're serving and that's what you get.

 

2. We're talking about kids here. If you give them lunch money and they can get the healthy option or the unhealthy option, they're going to take the unhealthy option. Kids are irresponsible, that's why legally they don't have all the rights an adult has. If I'm a parent and I'm giving my kid lunch money, I'm going to want them to get good food from the school. If I know the food is crap, and am thus forced to pack my kid a lunch, then the whole purpose of the school lunch  program is completely undermined.

I think she has good intentions but it honestly pisses me off.

 

At my school, we are forced to take a "healthy choice" with our lunch. If you don't take one you can't buy lunch. Good idea right? WRONG

No one eats them, so much food is thrown away and wasted because of this. The amount of baby carrots that get thrown in the trash would blow your mind.

 

Our schools vending machines have been stripped of all the delicious drinks that once were there and replaced with water. WTF?! Why would I pay $1.00 to buy water when I can just go to the bubbler that is literally right next to it. 

I can understand why they would take away the soda but why the ice tea and lemonade? 

Then they've implemented this horribly at your school. There shouldn't be a "healthy choice" that you're obligated to take. All the food should be healthy to begin with.

 

As to the vending machines, they probably should have just gotten rid of them entirely but it sounds like there is some sort of competing interest that wants the machines to be there so you're left with the dumb compromise of vending machines that just serve water.

 

As to the ice tea and lemonade, if we're talking about like Nestea and the kinds of juices you can get bottled from a machine here, then it isn't any more healthy than the sodas. It's all just a bunch of corn syrup like the soda. It's just less fizzy and with different flavorings.

[verycreativeusername 1,800]

I think she has good intentions but it honestly pisses me off.

 

At my school, we are forced to take a "healthy choice" with our lunch. If you don't take one you can't buy lunch. Good idea right? WRONG

No one eats them, so much food is thrown away and wasted because of this. The amount of baby carrots that get thrown in the trash would blow your mind.

 

Our schools vending machines have been stripped of all the delicious drinks that once were there and replaced with water. WTF?! Why would I pay $1.00 to buy water when I can just go to the bubbler that is literally right next to it. 

I can understand why they would take away the soda but why the ice tea and lemonade? 

This. At my school, similar things are happening because of all this Michelle Obama lunch program stuff. Students at my school have to get a fruit or vegetable that they most likely won't eat. Lots of food go to waste because of this (I'm guilty of this too, unfortunately) and it isn't helping or solving anything. I want to be able to choose what foods I can or can not get at the cafeteria. If I don't want to get something, I shouldn't have to get it anyway and throw it away afterwards.

 

I understand if schools want to make school lunches healthier, but students shouldn't be forced to get something if they want to get lunch. As well, foods and drinks that aren't really that bad for students (iced tea and lemonade are fine by me) shouldn't be removed.

 

But overall, I find Michelle Obama's school lunch program to be complete and utter bullshit and is doing more harm than it is doing good. I don't want a nanny state telling me what I should get for lunch if I want to get some from the cafeteria.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

But overall, I find Michelle Obama's school lunch program to be complete and utter bullshit and is doing more harm than it is doing good. I don't want a nanny state telling me what I should get for lunch if I want to get some from the cafeteria.

But that isn't Michelle Obama's new initiative. That's just whatever dumb policy your school already had.

[verycreativeusername 1,800]

But that isn't Michelle Obama's new initiative. That's just whatever dumb policy your school already had.

I beg to differ. Look at these links:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/18/Michelle-Obama-s-School-Lunch-Program-Wastes-Millions

http://www.newsmax.com/US/school-lunch-michelle-obama-expensive/2014/03/07/id/556621/

[Hive King 2,001]

So much bitching in this thread. Because replacing lunches with another lunch apparently equals the beginning of the end, the Illuminati showing up, Napoleon playing cards with Obama, Anti-Spiral manipulating Obama, 9/11 was an inside job, time warping to 1984 and 2012(at the same time), and the Soviets winning

 

Aside from my rant on how overdramatic people are being, I don't care. I bring my own lunch because school lunch is vile either way. And to those complaining about the replacement of soda with water, deal with it. Water is tasteless, just drink it and bring your own soda if you're that desperate

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

1. As I said before, it's not like we're dealing with the free market. The cafeteria serves whatever they're serving and that's what you get.   2. We're talking about kids here. If you give them lunch money and they can get the healthy option or the unhealthy option, they're going to take the unhealthy option. Kids are irresponsible, that's why legally they don't have all the rights an adult has. If I'm a parent and I'm giving my kid lunch money, I'm going to want them to get good food from the school. If I know the food is crap, and am thus forced to pack my kid a lunch, then the whole purpose of the school lunch  program is completely undermined.

 

1. That's where we agree. If we're talking specifically public schools, then of course the First Lady is more or less performing the function that those schools are meant to fulfill. 

 

2. This is where we disagree. Every child is different and should be treated as such. When I was young, I didn't like candy. Yeah I went trick or treating, but that was pretty much my candy consumption for the year. One of my brothers ate practically nothing but fruits and vegetables, while the other indulged his sweet tooth a bit more but was also an athlete in multiple sports simultaneously. This, however, is just the problem I have with the public sector in general and it's approach to treat people and children especially. This show, for instance, does not look down on it's target audience, that's why we like it. It is simple, but it's not lacking for intelligence. The same could be said for cartoons such as Hey Arnold, Avatar, Batman: the Animated Series, and Gravity Falls. There's a difference between recognizing children are inexperienced, and denying that some can learn faster or in different ways.

So much bitching in this thread. Because replacing lunches with another lunch apparently equals the beginning of the end, the Illuminati showing up, Napoleon playing cards with Obama, Anti-Spiral manipulating Obama, 9/11 was an inside job, time warping to 1984 and 2012(at the same time), and the Soviets winning

 

Aside from my rant on how overdramatic people are being, I don't care. I bring my own lunch because school lunch is vile either way. And to those complaining about the replacement of soda with water, deal with it. Water is tasteless, just drink it and bring your own soda if you're that desperate

 

Why is it, the people who say we are being overdramatic are themselves over-dramatizing? Can someone not be critical of the government without being seen as a loon? I have mentioned the President exactly once thus far, in reference to his wife. My criticism of this action is not the initiative itself, nor it's goals, and especially not the first lady's intent or sincerity therein. In fact, I think I've made it pretty clear that I find it noble as long as it remains within the public sector from which it was intended.

 

My criticism is on the attitude this movement is a product of; the nanny state. Nothing more, nothing less.