Michelle Obama: Obesity is a National Security Threat

[n_huffhines]

Have we not needed to find more recruits?

Isn't the number of times our men and women has been deployed the last 10 years absurd?



Obesity is a major problem in the US.
I have no problem with the first lady bringing attention to it.

That's not her end-game. I'd guess she wants to be Bloomberg.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Have we not needed to find more recruits?

Isn't the number of times our men and women has been deployed the last 10 years absurd?



Obesity is a major problem in the US.
I have no problem with the first lady bringing attention to it.

I have a problem with her giving the nanny state carte blanche to tell kids what they can and cannot eat at school. Why are there even soft drink machines at schools.....oh yeah, the MONEY. Why can a school confiscate a lunch packed by a parent and make that kid eat the school crap and then send the bill home? Obesity is a problem, but Moochelle is not the one to fix it.

 

[n_huffhines]

I have a problem with her giving the nanny state carte blanche to tell kids what they can and cannot eat at school. Why are there even soft drink machines at schools.....oh yeah, the MONEY. Why can a school confiscate a lunch packed by a parent and make that kid eat the school crap and then send the bill home? Obesity is a problem, but Moochelle is not the one to fix it.

This is my friend's facebook status from Friday:

So- my step-son's teacher says that since he has turned in all his work this week (As per usual), his reward is he gets to bring a dollar to school today and buy a coke. Hmm...what is wrong with this picture?

 

[Gramps]

I have a problem with her giving the nanny state carte blanche to tell kids what they can and cannot eat at school. Why are there even soft drink machines at schools.....oh yeah, the MONEY. Why can a school confiscate a lunch packed by a parent and make that kid eat the school crap and then send the bill home? Obesity is a problem, but Moochelle is not the one to fix it.

She is not the one to fix it but she is in a position to bring the problem to national attention and help sponsor some programs to help teach the dumb ass mothers and fathers that think chicken nuggets and hamburgers are healthy.

When did schools start going through a kids lunch packed by parent and not allow them to eat it?

 

[n_huffhines]

She is not the one to fix it but she is in a position to bring the problem to national attention and help sponsor some programs to help teach the dumb ass mothers and fathers that think chicken nuggets and hamburgers are healthy.

When did schools start going through a kids lunch packed by parent and not allow them to eat it?

I don't know when the first instance occurred, but it seems I see that headline once a month.

 

[YorkVol]

Have we not needed to find more recruits?

Isn't the number of times our men and women has been deployed the last 10 years absurd?



Obesity is a major problem in the US.
I have no problem with the first lady bringing attention to it.

Sure, but its a different issue. That is a debate between a small standing Army backed up by a reserve force that can be built up in times of crisis (i.e. through a conscription or draft system) and a standing Army large enough to meet 2 simultaneous wars.

 

[Gramps]

I don't know when the first instance occurred, but it seems I see that headline once a month.

If true that is bs.

Some parents have to pack a lunch due to their children having some type of food allergies.


edit: I worded that first line wrong. You have been solid in your postings. i am sure it is true, i wasn't aware of it.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

You know what solves the obesity problem? Not having a job

 

[Gramps]

You know what solves the obesity problem? Not having a job

Not having a job gives them foodstamps.

Have you ever checked out behind someone paying with foodstamps ?

 

[BigPapaVol]

but, I thought the medical stats being trotted out by those touting Obamacare were all about delivery?

 

[therealUT]

Is obesity a problem?

 

[n_huffhines]

Is obesity a problem?

Well obviously it is a problem to some degree, but you mean a relevant problem, right?

 

[n_huffhines]

If true that is bs.

Some parents have to pack a lunch due to their children having some type of food allergies.


edit: I worded that first line wrong. You have been solid in your postings. i am sure it is true, i wasn't aware of it.

North Carolina Food Inspector Rejects Little Girl's Home-Packed Lunch in Favor of Chicken Nuggets - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[Gramps]

North Carolina Food Inspector Rejects Little Girl's Home-Packed Lunch in Favor of Chicken Nuggets - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Did you not see my edit line at bottom of post?

 

[therealUT]

Well obviously it is a problem to some degree, but you mean a relevant problem, right?

I think the first proposition can be questioned. Is it obvious that obesity is objectively and inherently a problem? And, what do we mean by problem?

The second proposition, how relevant is this problem compared to other problems both contemporary and historical, is an entirely separate can of worms; but, one that cannot be addressed without first identifying that obesity is, objectively and inherently, a problem.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think the first proposition can be questioned. Is it obvious that obesity is objectively and inherently a problem? And, what do we mean by problem?

The second proposition, how relevant is this problem compared to other problems both contemporary and historical, is an entirely separate can of worms; but, one that cannot be addressed without first identifying that obesity is, objectively and inherently, a problem.

Not in an of itself. But combined with other premises found in society, it certainly is.

Hence:

Obesity is an social epidemic. Obesity leads to all sorts of health problems. This driving up the cost of healthcare. People nowadays feel healthcare is a right. Healthcare is exploding in cost. If a person can afford health insurance, it eats a big portion of their income on average. If they can't afford it, the government is forced to pay for it. Hence, Medicare and Medicaid.

The biggest national security threat is the growing deficit. The biggest and fastest growing part of the deficit is healthcare related. Come full circle now, our health problems (obesity) is thus driving our most dire national security threat.

 

[therealUT]

Not in an of itself. But combined with other premises found in society, it certainly is.

Hence:

Easy solution: stop handing out free (and/or government subsidized) healthcare of any sort.

If one can solve "a problem" without ever addressing what it is that was identified as the "problem", then what was thought to be a problem is merely a correlated symptom.

Thus, if obesity is thought to be a problem because of the financial burdens it places on the system; yet, those financial burdens can be unloaded without fixing the problem of obesity, then obesity is not the problem. The system is the problem.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Easy solution: stop handing out free (and/or government subsidized) healthcare of any sort.

Playing devils advocate:

What happens to grandma when she can't pay her bills? Just die? What happens to a poor child when they are sick...just die?

If one can solve "a problem" without ever addressing what it is that was identified as the "problem", then what was thought to be a problem is merely a correlated symptom.

Yes. But that begs the question, what is the real problem?

Thus, if obesity is thought to be a problem because of the financial burdens it places on the system; yet, those financial burdens can be unloaded without fixing the problem of obesity, then obesity is not the problem. The system is the problem.

Yes and no.

Obesity isn't a problem in and of itself, well, not a social one anyways. It is certainly a personal problem for an individual given they have certain intrinsic values.

However, given the conditions of the current social contract, obesity is very much a problem. A very pressing problem actually. One can certainly argue, as I do, that our current social contract must either be amended or overthrown completely for our survival as we know it. Unfortunately, that is a different question/assertion completely. Right now, we have a social contract and obesity is causing a major problem given that contract. Now, you can certainly make a case that obesity isn't the "problem" just a symptom of the "problem" being the social contract.

 

[therealUT]

Playing devils advocate:

What happens to grandma when she can't pay her bills? Just die? What happens to a poor child when they are sick...just die?

Re: Grandma: categorical "yes".

Re: Child: Provide enough health care to preserve life and limbs; any care that is focused more on quality of life than simple preservation should not be paid for with my tax dollars. If charities want to pay, they can (and, I would encourage them to do so).

Yes. But that begs the question, what is the real problem?

The real problem is that individuals are being allowed to ride for free in the system. No one is inherently entitled to healthcare. It is and should be a "pay-to-play" system. If you do not want to pay into the system, then you must really on charity.

Yes and no.

Obesity isn't a problem in and of itself, well, not a social one anyways. It is certainly a personal problem for an individual given they have certain intrinsic values.

However, given the conditions of the current social contract, obesity is very much a problem. A very pressing problem actually. One can certainly argue, as I do, that our current social contract must either be amended or overthrown completely for our survival as we know it. Unfortunately, that is a different question/assertion completely. Right now, we have a social contract and obesity is causing a major problem given that contract. Now, you can certainly make a case that obesity isn't the "problem" just a symptom of the "problem" being the social contract.

There is no such thing as a social contract. As beautiful as I think Rousseau writes, he abandons logic even more so than Hume in order to arrive at his predetermined conclusions. I recommend you read John Simmons's works to see he very directly and skillfully deconstructs any and all notions of political obligation, to include Rousseu's social contract.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Re: Grandma: categorical "yes".

Re: Child: Provide enough health care to preserve life and limbs; any care that is focused more on quality of life than simple preservation should not be paid for with my tax dollars. If charities want to pay, they can (and, I would encourage them to do so).

We agree. Although the grandma situation makes us appear heartless.

The real problem is that individuals are being allowed to ride for free in the system. No one is inherently entitled to healthcare. It is and should be a "pay-to-play" system. If you do not want to pay into the system, then you must really on charity.

Yep. Agreed here.

Do you support the notion that only net income tax payers should be allowed to vote?

There is no such thing as a social contract. As beautiful as I think Rousseau writes, he abandons logic even more so than Hume in order to arrive at his predetermined conclusions. I recommend you read John Simmons's works to see he very directly and skillfully deconstructs any and all notions of political obligation, to include Rousseu's social contract.

I have big problems here. You care to explain his position? You seem to share it with him.

 

[therealUT]

We agree. Although the grandma situation makes us appear heartless.

Heartless is not such an insult, once you think about it.

Yep. Agreed here.

Do you support the notion that only net income tax payers should be allowed to vote?

No. I think that the entire citizenship process should be reformed, though.

I have big problems here. You care to explain his position? You seem to share it with him.

He holds two basic premises:
1. There is no state of nature. So, nobody ever contracted in to any society. They were just already there. This position does not defeat the social contract, just presents an alternative view.

2. The social contract, at its very roots, is contradictory (particularly as Rousseau explains its). If the state of nature is a state in which there is "war of every man against every man" (Hobbes), and individuals enter into societies/collectives for defense, then any further sacrificing of the actual self (which Rousseau must hold; he even states in Book II, 5 that if the state demands that the citizen must die, the citizen must simply accept, since the social contract entails the citizen forfeiting his right to life to the state) directly contradicts the original motivation for joining the collective. Since a social contract stands or falls on whether or not its members forfeit their natural rights (which Rousseau is a natural rights theorist) to the state, then you have the following:

A wants to preserve A's life.
A joins a collective to preserve A's life.
The collective demands the entitlement to A's life.
The collective can kill A at any time.

It seems as though there would be better ways to preserve one's life than to "lie with the pole cats to avoid the lions" (Locke).

Moreover, seeing as how nobody has actually ever signed this supposed "social contract" it appears to be merely a chimera that is used to both persuade individuals to be obedient and to convince them to put the common good ahead of their own personal good.

Simmons is great through; he offers nothing positive, but he is a deconstructionist that is probably as good as Nietzsche (not as poetic, though).

 

[YorkVol]

If I can wedge myself in between the resident philosophers, my view is the real problem is a tyranny of riches. We have too many choices and it is too easy to make the wrong choices in our society. There are no social norms against over indulging in anything, in fact you may say our norms encourage over indulgence in whatever you choose. Some choose to over eat, some choose a chemical to abuse, others park themselves in front of American Idol or Vol Nation for hours on end. Obesity is simply a very obvious result of an American culture that has elevated the fruits of labor over the labor itself and has forgotten how we earned those fruits in the first place.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Heartless is not such an insult, once you think about it.

I understand what your getting at but it depends on your values. Most people do not share our values.

No. I think that the entire citizenship process should be reformed, though.

Interesting, given your previous statement.

He holds two basic premises:
1. There is no state of nature. So, nobody ever contracted in to any society. They were just already there. This position does not defeat the social contract, just presents an alternative view.

Debatable. It sounds like Jean-Paul Sartre's "existence precedes essence."

Being that I have a background in science and we are learning that roughly 50% of behavior is genetically based, I do not buy such a notion fully. I certainly buy the notion for the other 50% though.

2. The social contract, at its very roots, is contradictory (particularly as Rousseau explains its). If the state of nature is a state in which there is "war of every man against every man" (Hobbes), and individuals enter into societies/collectives for defense, then any further sacrificing of the actual self (which Rousseau must hold; he even states in Book II, 5 that if the state demands that the citizen must die, the citizen must simply accept, since the social contract entails the citizen forfeiting his right to life to the state) directly contradicts the original motivation for joining the collective. Since a social contract stands or falls on whether or not its members forfeit their natural rights (which Rousseau is a natural rights theorist) to the state, then you have the following:

A wants to preserve A's life.
A joins a collective to preserve A's life.
The collective demands the entitlement to A's life.
The collective can kill A at any time.

It seems as though there would be better ways to preserve one's life than to "lie with the pole cats to avoid the lions" (Locke).

1) The state of nature is not a uniform concept.
2) Not necessarily. You throw family emotions and utilitarianism into the equation, it would not necessarily be the case (given you go the route you did in the argument).

Moreover, seeing as how nobody has actually ever signed this supposed "social contract" it appears to be merely a chimera that is used to both persuade individuals to be obedient and to convince them to put the common good ahead of their own personal good.

Ah, this is what gets most people. By God, I did not sign that contract!

The contract is obviously implicit. Society has the ability to change it. The individual has the option to leave it if he or she so wishes. Although you do not explicitly sign a piece of paper, your actions implicitly imply your consent or dissent.

Simmons is great through; he offers nothing positive, but he is a deconstructionist that is probably as good as Nietzsche (not as poetic, though).

I'll have to put him on the reading list. I am glad he's not like Nietzsche. I hate his writing style. Sometimes it is enough to make you damn head spin.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If I can wedge myself in between the resident philosophers, my view is the real problem is a tyranny of riches. We have too many choices and it is too easy to make the wrong choices in our society. There are no social norms against over indulging in anything, in fact you may say our norms encourage over indulgence in whatever you choose. Some choose to over eat, some choose a chemical to abuse, others park themselves in front of American Idol or Vol Nation for hours on end. Obesity is simply a very obvious result of an American culture that has elevated the fruits of labor over the labor itself and has forgotten how we earned those fruits in the first place.

Your post reminds me of two quotes.

"Man is condemned to be free" ~ Jean-Paul Sartre

"You know its funny how freedom can make us feel contained"

"Waste" by Foster the People