Beck attacks Michelle Obama for trying to raise awareness of and combat childhood obesity
February 12, 2010 10:50 pm ET by Jeremy Holden
In his continued effort to attack anything related to the Obama administration, Glenn Beck ridiculed first lady Michelle Obama's initiative to combat the issues of childhood hunger and obesity. Seriously, despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the prevalence of childhood obesity is on the rise -- leading to greater incidence of cardiovascular disease, asthma, liver degeneration, diabetes, and psychosocial risks associated with social stigmatization -- Beck staked his position against the first lady's initiative to improve nutrition and exercise among children.
After complaining that too many children receive unearned trophies and drawing a connection from that to 20-year-old workers requesting vacation days, Beck turned his attention to Michelle Obama's "obesity campaign":
BECK: So now going all out to have government limit the food choices available at our kids' school, to make sure that grocery stores pop up in what they are calling -- and I'm not kidding you -- food deserts. There's no salad bars; it's a food desert. Then we are going to put the grocery stores instead of fast food businesses.
They'll limit what we can watch on TV, what ads we can run and how long we can watch. No doubt we'll start mandating certain kind of activities as part of this wonderful government campaign.
In reality, the Let's Move initiative aims to issue guidance for front-of-package nutritional labels, educate physicians on childhood obesity, and develop online tools to provide information about health and nutrition. In addition, grants will be available to construct grocery stores and bring farmers' markets to underserved communities -- known as food deserts.
Estimating that $150 billion is spent annually to treat obesity-related health issues, the administration is also calling for reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act -- which helps to provide lunch to 31 million students living at or near the poverty line every school day -- all while improving the nutritional standards for school meals.
Sound like the coming of fascist socialism to you? Here's Beck:
BECK: This is torn from the pages of the progressive playbook. You're too stupid. You need the government to fix your life, and they agree with you that government has no place in this business. But we're just going to help make things better.
Yes. They're coming and they are slowly but surely taking away your freedom under the guise of helping you.
Watch:
Anyways, I love how he calls people "too stupid" to figure out the correct diet for their kids, like it's an unnecessary step. But there IS a childhood obesity problem. I don't go as far as Beck in calling the parents "stupid", but I don't see the problem in a little education.
The other point it seems that the playgrounds are closing down because of lawsuits, the padding is there to prevent injury AND consequent Lawsuits. One good lawsuit can wipe out a budget for a playground, ask you friendly insurance agent.
Another point is really a laugh, but could Beck have misread the teleprompter or his writer lofted a typo? could he have meant food desserts as apposed to deserts?
ROFL. What causes obesity and how to prevent it? Are you kidding? I'm just some guy on the internet and I know what causes obesity and how to prevent it.
"Only the truly stupid think that education is stupid."
Here's looking at you.
It is not as cut and dry as saying people should just eat vegetables, fish and meat that they have prepared and cooked for themselves. The food supply has become "corrupted" from top to bottom. We have turned everything upside down and it's nearly impossible for anybody to know what to eat anymore. Even much of the "healthy foods" are not what they seem. No, I am not a radical tree hugger or anything but it doesn't take a genius to know that antibiotics, factory farming, biofuels, farm subsidies and the multitude of other bastardized things going on with our food supply is wreaking havoc on our bodies.
Just this week the report that came out stating that just TWO cans pop a WEEK vastly increases the risk of pancreatic cancer (due to high fructose corn syrup) is stunning. High fructose corn syrup and other corn additives are absolutely EVERYWHERE and it's just sad.
This is a perfect example of people livng in a microcosm of their own making. I'm not obese, therefore there is no need to educate people on obesity. I know smoking causes cancer, so therefore there is no need to educate people on the dangers of smoking. I'm not warm, so there is no global warming.
"I'm just some guy on the internet and I know what causes obesity and how to prevent it." Again, what's common sense to you may not be others and a statement that like thats just makes you arrogrant. This is another perfect example of how education is vilified. And no, I doubt you know everything about what causes obesity, even if you can look it up on the internet.
What a ridiculously asinine comment.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver.html
Limbaugh's FAT!
Hannity's FAT!
Savages's FAT!
Levins's FAT!
Bennett's FAT!
etc.
Ever notice that many of the wingnut "women' radio shockjocks are scrwany, emaciated, mannish, single and lonely.
Once you start the kid eating a lot of bad foods when their little, they want to eat that food all the time. They won't eat anything that's good for them unless its dripping in grease or has chocolate on it.
What progressive playbook? Where can I get a copy of that?
Progressive Insurance...I want none of that (wingnuts go to Geico)
Progresso soup...nope, not for me (wingnuts eat Campbell's)
It's almost hilarious that there are all these loaded words for them, yet they know only what they've been told about them, and not a shred of research for themselves.
True, but I wish she or someone would. They're destroying America's health for the sake of profit. Makes me sick how they use child psychologists to structure commercials to get little kids hooked on their fatty poison.
I tell you what, Beck should go on a strict diet regimen of skim milk served only in baby bottles to take care of both his weight and whining at the same time. Of course his physical health isn't nearly as messed up as his mental health. Get some therapy and pop some pills for that Paranoid schizophrenia, Beck.
BTW, when I was in school, we got Presidential fitness awards for completing fitness programs proscribed by the federal government. I had all the little patches on my PE uniforms. Was it un-Constitutional in the late 60s?
I remember those Presidential Fitness Awards and the gym classes that followed, sort of anticipating basic training, come to think of it I never saw a fat Viet Cong. I wonder if the Taliban/Al Quida have a fitness program . . .
There, now you don't have to worry about constitutionality, you are supporting the national defense!!!
The Founder's own words?Now you tell me how using federal funds for the Hoover dam was Constitutional. What power authorized its construction?
"No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
By the way, if you tried to turn in an English or History paper with this shoddy/ uncited research any high school teacher would funk your sorry backside!
"Arizona owns the part of the river bed that is east of the thread of the stream. Her jurisdiction in respect of the appropriation, use and distribution of an equitable share of the waters flowing therein is unaffected by the Compact or federal reclamation law. But the title of the State is held subject to the power granted to Congress by the commerce clause, and under that clause Congress has power to cause to be built a dam across the river in aid of navigation. The [Hoover Dam] is an example of the exertion of that power."
"...Estimating that $150 billion is spent annually to treat obesity-related health issues, the administration is also calling for reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act -- which helps to provide lunch to 31 million students living at or near the poverty line every school day -- all while improving the nutritional standards for school meals..."
People like you make me sick.
Heck, in Florida, supposed "moderate" Chuckie Crist pushed a boatload of tax cuts two years ago even though they would have affected localities' basic ability to provide police and fire protection. But hey, it was sure good for his credentials!
I love this alternate universe the GOP/the Tea Klux Klan lives in, where government services are paid for by magic fairies sprinkling dust from the heavens, not taxes.
You really have no clue, do you? You should be agreeing with the Tea Party movement. It's a bad thing anytime a government spends more than it makes. Period. Everybody on this site should be supporting the Tea Party movement purely for that reason.
BTW, states by law must balance their budget, unlike the feds. So any tea party person complaining about a state "spend[ing] more than it makes" is just blowing smoke. Not that I'm expecting any the Tea Klux Klan to actually educate themselves on facts.
Every single one of those things you just mentioned - apart from the Confederate flag - was also done when Bush was in office. Were those people ever denounced?
"states by law must balance their budget, unlike the feds. So any tea party person complaining about a state "spend[ing] more than it makes" is just blowing smoke"
The movement is about the federal government, not the state.
"Not that I'm expecting any the Tea Klux Klan to actually educate themselves on facts. "
Ad hominem attacks. That's all you have. There's no basis to formulate the opinion that the Tea Party movement is a racist movement.
Do you really want us to post photos of the teabaggers' signs yet again?
You may put your head back in the sand.
By the way I know what quote you're referring to and I don't endorse what he was saying. I'm just pointing out that he wasn't advocating for minorities not to vote.
I'm afraid that is very impossible as there are Tea Party protesters but no such thing as "teabaggers".
Even tho there are legitimate issues on spending etc.,the TeaParty supporters have little credibility since they only got riled up right after Obama was inaugurated.They also quote lots of inaccuracies about who's responsible for the current deficit.I've heard them quote Bush deficit numbers that are totally wrong.If its about BIG Governement then spread the attacks around accurately!!!Except for a part of the stimulus ,the remaining deficit is from Bush spending and continuation of Bush Programs.For what Bush programs did they want funding to stop?( the two wars? Tarp?,just ignore the dead economy and looming depression)They need to stop acting as if deficit spending is so new and just because of Obama...how many Bush signs do we see at Tea Party rallies??Very very few if any.Why is that??? Obama actually reduced the Bush proposed budget by eliminating wasteful military spending(so it increased military spending less than Bush had proposed and he was criticized of course).Who has had a tax increase in last 10 years??...Nobody!! ..but most got a tax cut last year as part of the stimulus plan from President Obama.So who has done all of this taxing that drives the Tea party people crazy?The only likely increase anytime soon will be on high earners ..What % of Tea Party "real Americans" fall into this category? Yes there is proposed spending that will drive up the deficit but its about reinvesting in our country and our people instead of just military and war spending which get no crticism as far as I can see from this group.The Iraq war is the biggest military blunder in history and we ignore how that happened.Why isn't the Teaparty angry about the loss of life and wasted money in Iraq? What is their solution to Health Care?The PROPOSED Obama healthcare plan will help drive down the deficit and is designed to pay for itself.All I hear is what they are against and their attacks on diversity and multiculturalism.These are supposed to be what the American dream is about..right?
BTW Since you are such a constitutional scholar, maybe you should take this to court and use the system to stop all these programs, etc that are unconstitutional. Just complaining about on the intertubes is not going to get anything done.
"I know you don't understand but; even a program targeted at one specific group of people can promote the welfare of all the people."
Tell me how that works exactly.
But; by your definition, "any program that targets only one group of people is unconstitutional" (paraphrased) that would mean that the educational benefits given to veterans would be unconstitutional. Studies have shown that for every $ spent on V.A. educational benefits has shown a $10 return to society at large. (increase in income and jobs, increased tax revenue, etc)
If you care to learn more, here is a good read that explains some of the good and bad behind the G.I Bill.
THE GI BILL: A New Deal for Veterans
By Glenn C. Altschuler and Stuart M. Blumin
As far as this article. I would think healthier kids would benefit society at large. Type two diabetes used to be less than 5% in young kids in 1994, now it is about 20%.
Just think, healthier citizens (starting with kids) makes a healthier nation.
Would you not agree?
As for your other point about healthier kids being more beneficial to society at large, I agree with that. But read my response to Ecotopian above for that.
From your perspective it is OK for the government to spend money for "specific" groups of people, as long as you agree they should spend the money for that group.
So are you saying the the Veterans Administration is unconstitutional?
BTW Anyone can "argue" that the earth is flat or is the center of the universe. All they have to do is deny any evidence that counters their argument.
Look, I know you normally disagree with me but this isn't a point even worth arguing as we both clearly agree. I was even clear in my last post:Then you come back claiming I'm saying it's unconstitutional? WTF?
BTW I don't disagree with you. I disagree with your specious arguments.
I believe the government is probably larger than it should be. I also believe Americans, in general, are fine with most of the programs, etc that benefit them but; are mostly unwilling to pay the price to support them.
I would like to see more than a two party system of government. The Tea Party does not appear to be the kind of party I would support though. there are probably a ton of these that we could agree on in general but; this blanket "if it doesn't benefit everyone it is unconstitutional" statement you use is bunk.
"this blanket "if it doesn't benefit everyone it is unconstitutional" statement you use is bunk. "
- It's not bunk. Programs that use federal tax money that are initiated to provide for the General Welfare must apply to the populace as a whole. It cannot be directed towards one specific group or locality. Alexander Hamilton said this himself.
That's why I've said in the past that universal health care and free college tuition would be Constitutional if it applied equally to everybody. It can't be just for the young or the old or the rich or the poor. It has to be everybody on an equal footing.
"this blanket "if it doesn't benefit everyone it is unconstitutional" statement you use is bunk. "
Sorry if my paraphrasing is too far off the mark but; I do believe that is the basic fact that you have support. From a previous post.
I am all for helping the needy but it must not be from the federal government. Programs like these do not serve the General Welfare they serve a specific group of people.
herefore, those who are unable to pay should not be made to. Those who are able to pay should pay. Those able to to pay for both themselves and those less fortunate should pay for both. To that end, we have government. It establishes the standards of who can and cannot pay, and collects taxes to fund the services it supports.
This argument applies equally well to things like the armed services. They protect us all, and so everyone capable of funding them out of their income is taxed, and rightly so. To argue that tax money must pay for the millionaire's college tuition as well as the tuition for the impoverished is not rational.
The quote says nothing about specific persons or anything about persons, but says it must be used thoughout the union which social programs are.
Tell me how that works exactly.
Bet you were for "tinkle down economics".
mega tax cuts to already rich people and hope, (but not really expect) maybe some of them might not put the money into their own pockets or stock market portfolios, and create jobs for others. Bet you were for that!
I am sure that is "different" or you will deny it. I have seen your posts.
"I"? I thought you were defending Beck's opinion here.
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."
-- William G. McAdoo
"You know there's somethin' happenin', but you don't know what it is; do you, Mr. Jones?" --Bob Dylan
Get a clue.
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."
-- William G. McAdoo
"You know there's somethin' happenin', but you don't know what it is; do you, Mr. Jones?" --Bob Dylan
Get a clue.
I read an interesting article which said that if US citizens ate food in accordance with the food pyramid supplied by the Department of Health, the country would run out of most produce within a few months. I don't support government subsidies in general, but it seems like the solution to the problem is to subsidizes healthy foods and not processed foods. Better yet, the government should stay out of food and our lives and get back to what it was designed to do - protect our civil liberties.
I'm serious.