Obese Children a National Security Threat?

By the way, one and one half million members of the armed forces can hardly be termed an onerous burden on the nation. By the end of the Civil War, the Federal government was maintaining armed forces of one and one half million, from a population about one tenth of the population today. The British military historian and retired Major General J. F. C. Fuller, in the Encyclopedia Britannica article on conscription notes: " . . . "the majority of the people are naturally adverse to risking their skins."

I think I already addressed the point made in this and the previous post here:

The biggest problem I have with Michelle Obama's statement isn't that it's factually dubious, but that it represents yet another example of characterizing some problem as a threat to national security. Granted, it's not the most absurd attempt to link some issue to our national security, but it's close. She might as well have said: "if your kid eats that Twinkie, the terrorists have won." Frankly, I'd expect that kind of fearmongering from a Republican, not from the wife of a Democratic president.

I do get what you're saying there. To me though, it's saying "Childhood obesity is not trivial and that's why this bill aimed at helping to solve the problem is important. Some of the ways it's not trivial are this, this, and this."

She should have said it that way.

clearly understood might have been better

Whatever one thinks about the content of that talking point, it's not just Michelle Obama's talking point. It's been a generic public-health talking point for decades. James Fixx quotes it in The Complete Book of Running, published in 1977.

If a third of all high school graduates were autistic or had Down's syndrome, how would it be absurd to say that that's a threat to national security?

Are you serious?

I'm beginning there's something to the talk of kool-aid.

The problems associated with childhood obesity are not trivial but the First Lady doesn't have to invoke concerns for national security to make that point. I'm sure she want's her signature cause to address as many of America's problems as possible but there's such a thing as gilding the lily.

Why not make a case for ecological security?

The more food that is produced to feed these kids, the more garbage there is to dispose. The more they eat the more waste they produce. They're probably more gaseous than thin kids and so they are releasing more methane and contributing to global warming. Not to mention how many more chickens have to be raised in squalid and inhumane environments!

How about psychological security?

Not only does obesity lead to loss of self esteem in fat children it feeds the production of bullies in our society. Fat kids have to be the number one target of playground bullies. It's just like the African plains, the greater the population of herding animals, the greater the population of predators. By allowing kids to become obsese are we not forcing more kids to become bullies?

In one of the cited articles about military concerns for obesity I was struck by the comment made concerning how many recruits were discharged because of obesity.

If the army can't keep young men and women from getting fat, who possibly can?

Puffery is pretty common in DC, and there's no reason to believe Michelle Obama is immune to it.

What troubles me about the War on Obesity is not exaggeration about the scope of the problem, but the scope of the solution. What can a national program to combat obesity realslitically expect to accomplish without, at some point, relying on coercion?

Education must be the #1 weapon in the war for Michelle's forces. Not that anyone needs to be taught that obese kids are are less healthy (mentally and physically) than children of normal weight, or what the likely consequence of carrying around an extra 50% to 100% of your normal body weight through out your life, but education around nutrition is important.

A lot of otherwise educated people are even now (in these weight concious days) surprised when they find out the calories or fat content in certain foods.
A better understanding of of nutrition and the bodies metabolism won't solve the problem, but it will help.

Beyond that, what can reasonably be done?

It's become somewhat fashionable to rage against school lunches, but if kids were eating standard cafeteria fare instead of loading up on all the treats that are available in lieu of a "healthy" lunch, they wouldn't be picking up pounds at school.

A radical overhaul in public school lunch menus is not necessary, but let's say it is. How large an impact will that have on childhood obesity in general? Sure there are kids whose only daily meals are obtained at school, but this demographic isn't driving childhood obesity in America.

Provide education - only works on the people who want it.
Improve the nutritional value of school lunches - will have no impact if kids are allowed to purchase candy, snack cakes, and other assorted junk to supplement their heathy meals. So right here we introduce a measure of coercion. It's public schools though so let's say we go for it.

Now what?

Forbid and mandate.

Forbid selling fast food meals that come with toys?
Forbid selling fast food?
Mandate exercise?
Outlaw scooters for the obese?

Sozobe didn't say "such a thing" merely because she disagreed with you. Let me try to break down for you why she said it.


Source


Source


Source


Source

This is not an opinion of Sozobe's we're talking about. It's a plain point of fact that she got right and you got wrong. If you don't believe me, see the Obama quote in this post. You chastized Michelle Obama because she should have said something when that's exactly what she said. That's a dumbfounding lack of critical thinking, and Sozobe is absolutely right to find it scary.

I'm serious about the underlying point: You can't compare a problem that affects one out of three American children (obesity) with problems that affect less than one out of a hundred American children (autism and Down's syndrome).

I am not denying I said obese children and it was childhood obesity. That is not the point. The point is she said I lack critical thinking on this issue. Why? Because I see it differently than she does? Do I think she lacks critical thinking because she does not see it my way? No, I do not. I have my opinion and she has hers. I still find it an over the top statement to say childhood obesity is a national security threat. That is my opinion and you or anyone else does not have to agree with me but it doesn't mean I lack in critical thinking. It merely means I see a different side to it.

While I like ya and am not looking to fight, I'm afraid to say that her opinion is a more correct interpretation of what Obama said than yours was. For the reasons I laid out earlier.

Thomas is right; It's not really an issue of opinion.

Cycloptichorn

I cannot speak for Sozobe, so this will be my last response on this particular sub-thread:

1) Sozobe didn't say you lack critical thinking on the question if childhood obesity problems should be framed in terms of national security. I'm not even sure she disagrees with you on that.

2) Sozobe did say you lack critical thinking when you chastise Mrs. Obama for saying one thing and not another, when that other thing is precisely what Mrs. Obama had said. That's a fair point on Sozobe's part.

Is this what it's about? Someone HAS to be right? Why can't it be you have your opinion and I have mine and be both just respect that?

Heh, it's nice to see that you got my thinking on this. Yes, that's about how it went.

That said, a while back now I said that I cede ground on this. I'm willing to say that while I understand what Michelle meant to say and don't object to it, there's an element of hyperbole that could've been left out. Especially since it lends itself to the sort of summary that Arella Mae started with (her link didn't work, but I cleaned it up and checked it out right at the beginning, and that's where "children" comes from, not Michelle):



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/michelle-obama-child-obesity-a-national-security-threat/

I was typing when you posted this -- yes, you're correct on both counts.

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. You mis-stated the facts of what Mrs. Obama had said.

Some things aren't a question of opinion. For example, if you told me that Gore won in 2000 over Bush, you would be wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. And the title of this thread, in reference to what Obama said, is just not correct.

Please don't think I'm angry with ya or anything b/c I love reading your posts here and have no personal interest in arguing.

Cycloptichorn