Saturday, February 6, 2010

Michelle Obama: Mapping Obesity Strategy

The last post I made on this topic was one of the most emotional reactions I've had to a dialectical piece in a while. It touched me on a very personal level and I made it very personal. This war on obesity goes straight to the core of everything I stand for, which is no government has the right to monitor and correct anyone's behaviors unless it's criminal. The US government has absolutely ZERO authority to tell Americans what they can, cannot or should do in their own homes. That communitarians target children in the early stages of all their new building healthy citizens and communities initiatives is even more repulsive to me. Of all the people I've known and loved in my life, it is the largest people who've already suffered the most. To target such a vulnerable segment of the population shows me what cowards the communitarians really are.

Although it sucks to hear how prevalent this new way of thinking is in Germany and beyond, it was comforting to see how many readers agree with me that it's disgustingly wrong to target people for any reason. It does matter to me that so many others experience the same repulsion for these behavior modificators.

There's so much more to this story than meets the eye.
"First Lady Michelle Obama revealed the broad contours of the Obama administration's childhood obesity drive..."http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/02/michelle-obama-mapping-obesity-strategy/
Michelle Obama is using childhood obesity to mark her entry into actual lawmaking.
"Miller said in a statement, "As we work to rewrite our child nutrition laws this year, we must focus on eliminating any barriers to these programs, so that all eligible children have access to healthier foods and nutrition education whether in school, child care, or at home.""
Using the UN LA21 recommendations for changing nations, "Mrs. Obama has said she will forge partnerships with foundations, nonprofits and governmental units."

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another angle to this: In my area there is a group of scammers who call themselves THE CHILDREN'S HUNGER ALLIANCE. They get lots of publicity and money. They have a board made up of people from area government and businesses. They give the false impression that they are about feeding hungry children. But would you believe their HUNGER ALLIANCE is concerned with childhood obesity? At least that's what I was told when I spoke to one of their scammers. It's just another bunch of people living off lies and corruption. Helped along by government and venal business people.

Stop Common Purpose said...

First they go for the smokers. Then they go for the obese. Who's next?

Anonymous said...

Fun People!!!

the tent lady said...

The whole scam around "health" just keeps growing too. Local Indian corporations are a slick avenue to opening the doors to community health strategies.. innovative strategies that overlap with other rebuilding community ideas. Living off government grants is what the neo Indians mean by "subsistance."

It was the gangs who were initially targeted back in the 80s and it looked to me, when I was studying Weed&Seed, like they purposely chose the segments of our population nobody wants to defend.

Quite often these communitarian bills and resolutions will include a warning from one of the participants that this new law violates portions of the US Bill of Rights, and the general expectation is that there will be a certain number of lawsuits in reaction to it. But if they "test" the new laws on people who are already fringe/feared, they can expect little to no opposition. If the laws are tested in poor neighborhoods it's also unlikely anyone can scrape up legal funds to sue the government.

They DO target people who cannot defend themselves against accusations of immoral behavior. They define what's immoral based on how much it costs the taxpaying public... smoking and obestity both follow this model. But they never seem to use that same model for wars... and that's because the term moral is, to them, just a useful tool and nothing else.

"Bad" people are on the front lines. Regardless of the fact that our legal system was not established to only protect the "good" people from bad government, the comms tells us that it's been re-interpreted and our laws only protect the good people, who never need protection because they're not bad.

This is why Susan Coble, our liasion to the Seattle Mayor's office blurted out, "Only guilty people will get these tickets!" in response to my question about where and how we would appeal the revised noise ordinance tickets.

Under communitarian justice, the burden of proof is no longer on the state. Once you're labled a bad/sick person (or a bad/sick parent) you lose your rights to due process, because the community has rights to mainitan its health too. This is what the comms mean by "balancing"... and it's how they've whittled down our legal standards.

Quiet fun people may escape the clutches of the local comms, but loud fun people, the ones who impusively burst into song, bust out laughing, yell across the room in public venues, or dance too enthusiastically, they are already under attack by community police who now monitor the bars.

The comms already tell us how many drinks we can have in one night, that we cannot smoke cigs or any other leaf (or bud), and, in England, the community police have already forced patrons of "bad" pubs to undergo strip searches for controlled substances and weapons.

The WAR ON FUN has already begun.