• I read Julie Gunlock’s post. It is nonsense. I can’t go piece by piece at why it is so absurd. But let’s get real. The First Lady has staked out an extremely low risk position: we have a childhood obesity problem. She is not saying every bite has to be a healthy bite or that companies that make food that are unhealthy are bad. She is saying parents need to be more aware.

    She says she is not complaining about what she does but what she fails to do. Really? She needs to remind parents that they have a duty to “provide breakfast lunch and dinner”? Really? That’s what will help? Parents who otherwise would do this don’t? Let’s get mad at her about not reminding people that they should not murder each other too while we are at it.

    She picked an important non-controversial issue. So did Laura Bush. She will help people just like Ms. Bush did.

    Can’t a cigar every just be a cigar?

  • Yeah, I’m going to have to go ahead and, uh, disagree with you there.


    This goes further than “parents please be more aware.” She is trying to be careful, but her somewhat restrained praise for Bloomberg betrays what she really thinks — to wit, we’ll try nudges, but when they don’t work as well as we’d like, well then we’ll just have to regulate your food intake. For your own good, of course.

    By all means, let’s geat real here: the left’s goal to regulate American diets has been apparent for all to see for some time now. Why pretend Michelle Obama isn’t a supporter of the very sort of top-down food mandates that are a test case in NYC?

  • This whole nanny-state food control debate is based on the assumption that the government should be in charge of health care and thus can mandate this stuff as a cost saving measure. Therefor we are debating the wrong issue. We automatically lose if we foolishly agree to their (possibly false) assumption before we start..