First lady Michelle Obama said this week that, “childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well.”
Hey, finally, a national security threat that an Obama actually wants to do something about.
CMR is putting forth a strategic plan to deal with this newly discovered national security threat. When Obama empties the prison at Guantanamo Bay and frees all the terrorists there, CMR is asking whether it would be possible to send fat kids to Guantanamo.
That’s right. Let’s make GITMO a new “Fat Camp.” Hey, it’s a national security issue.
The federal government could employ a roaming group of “chubby chasers” that spots and chases down fat kids in order to round them up to put them in GITMO. And even if the kids escape the authorities the act of running away might make them less fat and less of a security threat.
If a fat kid is seen ready to down a Yodel it can now be viewed as a “clear and present danger,” and any government official can act in a way to prevent this by fining the organization supplying Yodels to fat kids or perhaps re-educating the child’s parents.
If you have any additions to deal with this national security threat, please put it in the combox.
December 16, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Dutchman,
Sorry, but I disagree with your assessment. Thanks for the history lesson and all, but children's physical health isn't a national security issue until we run low on able-bodied individuals willing to serve in the military.
Until and unless that starts to happen, physical fitness is a concern, but not at a national security level. Worrying that fat kids today means we might not have enough soldiers (maybe) in 10 years, while ignoring real current national security threats (leaks, moles, double-agents, terrorists, etc.) is idiocy. That's like worrying about how I'll afford new tires for the car I'll own in 2025 while ignoring the rattle my current car is making.
In your initial post, you mentioned Laura Bush's efforts with regard to heart disease. She helped raise awareness, which was good. Likewise, Michelle Obama has helped to raise awareness about childhood obesity. However, the difference is that Mrs. Bush didn't try to dictate our lives to protect us from heart disease, while Mrs. Obama seems to be edging towards federal control of our lives to protect kids from getting fat. I would support Mrs. Obama if she were simply pushing for more awareness and better physical fitness of kids. But this is way beyond that.
With regards to the leaks, the democratically elected government has the authority to act on behalf of the public, and in certain cases information the government has requires secrecy. Or should the military start publishing planned troop movements in Afghanistan? That's a great way to lose a war. Should government agencies broadcast how much they're willing to spend on a project before getting quotes for work? That's a wonderful way to make sure government costs are maximized instead of minimized.
A position of absolutely no government secrecy is lunacy. If you disagree, I'd like you to share all of your private information, along with a digitized copy of your signature, with everyone in the world, including (and especially) identity thieves. And when you get new credit cards, release the updated information so they can do it again.
Certain information must be kept secret, and as long as there are checks in place to watch for abuse (oversight panels and whatnot), things will operate fairly well. Until we can trust everyone in the world (which will never happen), we have to trust our duly elected representatives…who we can kick out next election cycle if they prove untrustworthy (unless we can kick them out earlier).
December 16, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Carol:
There were no "muslim extremists" in Irak under Saddam Hussein because he ran a SECULAR dictatorship and al-Qaeda couldn't operate there. If we were really concerned about "muslim extremists" in Irak we would have left him in charge since he kept a much better lid on things that we ever could, just as we could have supported the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in their war against the Mujahideen in 1979.
Your last paragraph is rather opaque to me, but I'm taking it to mean that, as you don't support the political agenda of the Obama regime, you are reflexively opposed to everything they do — which is my point exactly.
December 16, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Jerome:
I don't think we need to re-examine the whole of WWII to conclude that fit solders are better soldiers. My point was not that France fell because her youth were gorged on chocolate bon-bons, but rather that an eye-witness of the event commented on how the overall fitness of German soldiers gave them a noticeable advantage. If you need another example, let me offer the performance of Canadian and Australian soldiers in the Great War, where the larger and better fed colonials consistently out-fought their British compatriots.
I'm afraid you have also misunderstood my point about the Nazi's. Matt criticized me for suggesting that "we should be more like Nazis" so I answered him IRONICALLY by dismissing several ideas of the Nazis that were perfectly valid. Remember, even a stopped clock is right two times a day.
As for the abortion comment, please note that I very carefully said "citizens." Gypsies and Jews lost their citizenship under Hitler. As for the mentally retarded and chronically ill, I am unaware of any Nazi policy about abortion directed towards them, but I am well aware of the barbaric program of euthanasia carried out against them.
As for your last statement, once again you are throwing out the baby with the Nazi bathwater. Nazi agricultural policies were among the best in the world, favoring modern forest management and organic farming, while on the other hand many top Nazis were heath-faddists and vegitarians.
December 16, 2010 at 9:03 pm
I could have sworn this was intended to be funny.
December 16, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Mr. Siekierski:
When America entered the Great War in 1917 Army doctors were shocked at how many enlistees and draftees had to be turned away because of ill health. Do we really want to wait until we are in a crisis to find out how poor our manpower pool is? And to you think that flabby, unhealthy people do the economy any good? They are less productive, require more social services, and have higher rates of morbidity and mortality. Over the last 100 years, public health measures (vaccines, food safety tests, health screenings, hygeine laws, quarantines) have demonstrably improved the quality of our lives, why stop now?
Why do you think Michell Obama is trying "dictate our lives?" Every news report I can find simply says she is making suggestions (suggesting that parents do more infant breastfeeding and curb their childrens time with digital media) and advocating changes in how Federal funds are spent (getting deep fryers out of schools, building more sidewalks). This just strikes me as good advice and commonsense measures.
Naturally, I understand the need to keep secrets in time of war. Please alert me next time Congress actually makes a declaration of war, something it hasn't done since 1941.
Frankly, your comments about troop movements and sealed bids deal with confidentiality (a necessary need for surprize, deception, or limited knowledge) not secrecy about aims and policies. What I am calling for is for Americans to be given the information they need to make informed decisions — exactly what Wikileaks shows that we are being denied!
Oh, and by the way, wouldn't it be better for our national security if we secured our borders at home instead of invading countries that would be no threat to us if we just minded our own business?
December 17, 2010 at 4:22 am
The reasons why it doesn't work out when you 'mind your own business' when tyrants are murdering and annihilating their own people and seizing their land and assets – is because tyrants keep on killing and gobbling up land until some day, they're at our front door. That's their shtick.
Listen, even Jack Kennedy looked into who was setting up missiles and got proactive about it before they shot them off in our direction.
The point is, when it comes to being humanitarian, Michelle and Barack Hussein and their fans are wigged out about who is fat and who is skinny but they want to mind their own business about mass murderers or women and children being raped and beheaded. Regimes that kill millions benefit mankind because there's value in their organic farming.
Tolerating opinions like this in the public square is political correctness gone haywire. Voting the regime into office was an error I highly doubt the people in this country are going to be making in 2012.
December 17, 2010 at 9:49 am
Carol:
Let's talk about Jack Kennedy. He objected to missiles in Cuba. But we had missiles in Turkey.
Once again the lesson is clear. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we threatened the Soviets with missiles, then they have every right to threaten us. Kennedy did the right thing in trading our missiles in Turkey for their missiles in Cuba, but he was too much of a wuss to admit it was a fair deal, and made it into some kind of macho "show down." Khrushchev was the real hero there: he cut the deal and allowed Kennedy to do a lot of sissy posturing.
Sorry, but your stuff about "mass murderers … women and children being raped and beheaded … Regimes that kill millions benefit mankind because there's value in their organic farming." is kind of incoherent. Please make specific accusations that can be responded to.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but he is better than Bush, who gave us two immoral wars and a financial crisis. Frankly, I would like a really pro-working-class president like Roosevelt or Johnson: their wives worked for anti-lynching legislation and the beautification of America.
December 17, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Sorry, but your stuff about "mass murderers … women and children being raped and beheaded … Regimes that kill millions benefit mankind because there's value in their organic farming." is kind of incoherent. Please make specific accusations that can be responded to.
Tell me Dutchman, what color is the sky in your world? Do you not know anything about Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern regimes? Are you seriously this obtuse or are you just being a jerk.
And really, your comments about Bush just demonstrate more of your invincible ignorance. If you believe that Bush is responsible for the financial crisis, I suggest you do some reading up on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
December 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Paul:
What exactly are you saying about "Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern regimes," and what does it have to do with kids being too fat in America? m I think you are the one being obtuse when you just fling words around that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
And let me get this straight, Bush was president (y'know, the "most powerful man in the world) in the eight year run-up to the financial crisis, many economists predicted a melt-down well in advance (I recall reading about the coming mortgage crisis in Harpers Magazine at least as early as 2005), and you don't think he has any responsibility for the financial crisis?
Quit reading right wing propaganda about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and study economic history. In 1933 Congress passed the Glass–Steagall Act which successfully regulated the financial sector for about fifty years. Gradually, beginning with 1980's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, these regulations were lifted because "free marketeers" like Reagan and the two Bushes (and to a lesser extent Carter and Clinton) told us that markets were self-regulating. Well, markets are not self-regulating, the bankers went on a spree, and now it is time to reinstate the Glass–Steagall Act. Unfortunately, it looks like Obama is too right wing to take on the bankers and it looks like this problem will continue.
December 17, 2010 at 9:13 pm
What exactly are you saying about "Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern regimes," and what does it have to do with kids being too fat in America
This is absolutely hysterical. You're the guy who went off on a tangent about foreign policy to begin with, and now you're complaining about people going off topic. You're a piece of work.
December 17, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Okay, yes I know something about Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern regimes. Now — what is your point?
And, how is foreign policy "off topic" when one of the principle objections to Michelle Obama was about "national security?"
December 20, 2010 at 4:29 pm
ABC News reported:
"Unhealthy school lunches pose a threat to national security, according to a group of retired military leaders. Leaving 27 percent of young adults "too fat to fight," childhood obesity is jeopardizing military recruitment, according to a report released Tuesday by the non-profit group Mission: Readiness. The 130-plus retired military leaders making up the organization is joining together to battle the obesity epidemic on the school front."