OT: Obesity Threat to National Security
Nancy Rudins
Act should be funded by Homeland Security instead
of placing the burden of unfunded mandates on the
school districts, most of whom are already operating
on a shoe string budget. Will teachers be laid off?
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
By Penny Starr
First Lady Michelle Obama in her garden at
the White House. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – At a ceremony at the White House
on Tuesday, First Lady Michelle Obama announced
the launch of the ‘Let’s Move’ campaign to end
childhood obesity in the United States, an epidemic
she said is costly and a threat to national security.
“A recent study put the health care cost of
obesity-related diseases at $147 billion a year,”
Mrs. Obama said. “This epidemic also impacts the
nation’s security, as obesity is now one of the
most common disqualifiers for military service.”
--
Dear Jack,
Who's king of the world now?
Sincerely, the iceberg
Mick
I don't think that Homeland Security need regulate everything that has
any effect on security. If they do, then Homeland Security would have
a mandate mayn things. Fix our schools. Do away with the excessive
fuel consumption of large cars and SUVS, for example. Many, many
things.
I
Nancy Rudins
This was a moronic remark from the First Lady.
Mick
Moronic in what sense? It's true. Various folks, including generals,
have remarked on this before:
Michael Snyder
Mickie typo idiocy.
bella
"Mick" <mc...@pitt.edu> wrote in message
news:68c42698-ebd0-4c46...@37g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
-------------------
I too am curious as to the op's 'moronic' remark?
Lt. Gen. Norman Seip, who retired from the U.S. Air Force last fall.
The military angle on obesity has come full circle since World War II, when
recruits were rejected because of poor nutrition. In 1946, Congress passed
the National School Lunch Program to improve the health of young people and
to make sure that the military could find healthy recruits. Fast-forward six
decades and the problem now is that young people are too fat. "This not only
impacts national security," says Seip, "but the nation as a whole."
and,
Military weight standards are not especially demanding. Male recruits
younger than 27 must have a body-fat percentage below 26%. That's twice the
fat you'd expect in a young man in peak physical condition.
Yet even the relaxed 26% standard is too stringent for modern America. More
than 9 million young Americans -- about one in four -- are too overweight to
enlist, a recent report found.
The U.S. military reflects the society of which it is a part. Americans are
gaining weight, and the gain is steepest among the young.
Why? It's no mystery. The typical young person today spends twice as much
time watching television or playing video games than engaged in physical
activity. Cheap, appealing, high-calorie foods and drinks are constantly at
hand. Changes in family patterns have put an end to the expectation that
food be consumed at a table with people as a social event.
*******
It would seem to me the current First Lady's platform is far more
constructive than either Jackie Kennedy's redecorating the White House or
Nancy Reagan's 'just say no' campaign. I would rate it on par with Laura
Bush's focus on reading for children.
Mick
Indeed. Typical even.
Nancy Rudins
The same generals said homosexuals were not fit for military
service because they constituted a threat to national security.
People who are in debt are not fit for military service. Must
mean everyone who is in debt is a threat to national security.
People who did not graduate from high school are not fit for
military service. Therefore, all dropouts are a threat to
national security. People who exceed the standards of number
of dependents are not fit for military service. Single parents
are not allowed to enlist in the military. Therefore, single
parents are a threat to national security. People with questionable
moral character are not allowed to service in the military.
Therefore, however "questionable moral character" is defined,
such people are a threat to national security.
It's moronic to state that obesity is a threat to national
security. Recruitment standards have always been a factor
of need. The more recruits the service needs, the lower
the standards. Right now they're meeting their goals, so
they can keep on being highly selective.
Those kids who are being turned down might make as good
solders as did their fathers and grandfathers during the
days when the services took all comers.
Nancy Rudins
This isn't a battle over which first lady's platform is/was more
constructive. It's a comment on the current first lady. I knew
that one criticism would bring out the "YABBUTS"
gertru...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Yabbut what? What Palin said was dumb, and what Obama said makes
sense.
But, never you mind, go ahead and feed kiddies in your orbit cookies
and McDonald's and ignore common sense.
Geesh, this was so obvious, Nancy.
Gertie
William Hale
Nancy Rudins <nru...@att.net> wrote:
Yep, the First Lady made a moronic remark that obesity is a threat to
national security. If they can't pass boot camp, just get rid of boot
camp. Send then straight to war. We will have some fine soldiers
fighting for us. I will feel very safe with such soldiers fighting to
protect and defend the US.
Nancy Rudins
Why are you dragging Palin into this? You and bella are turning
this into a pissing contest over who is dumb and who is not.
Nancy Rudins
I see you had no comment on the other disqualifications for
military service that should also constitute a threat to
national security.
--
Mick
> I knew
> that one criticism would bring out the "YABBUTS"
Not any criticism. A criticism that doesn't make any sense combined
with an insulting descriptor?
SURE. That should bring out the "yabbuts." Patriotic Americans will
respond.
It strikes me that a lot of the "conservative" critics of the Obamas
would not have an issue had the Bushes proposed the identical things.
Nancy Rudins
Again, dragging someone else into this as though it were
some kind of pissing contest. It strikes me that you have
no response.
Mick
> On 12/16/2010 09:59 AM, Mick wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:50 pm, Nancy Rudins<nrud...@att.net> wrote:
> >> I knew
> >> that one criticism would bring out the "YABBUTS"
>
> > Not any criticism. A criticism that doesn't make any sense combined
> > with an insulting descriptor?
>
> > SURE. That should bring out the "yabbuts." Patriotic Americans will
> > respond.
>
> > It strikes me that a lot of the "conservative" critics of the Obamas
> > would not have an issue had the Bushes proposed the identical things.
>
> Again, dragging someone else into this as though it were
> some kind of pissing contest.
I'm not sure I understnd your argument here.
Lets see if I have it right
1) Some generals had a concern about recruiting homsexuals. So all
the other concerns they have about recruiting -no matter how sensible
- are not valid? Is that what you are saying?
2) Even though I believe you wold respond differntly if another first
lady made the good suggestion, Obama is "moronic" for making a
suggestion that expertin the field have also proposed, that is
"dragging another person into it"
Are those your arguments? Or is it something else? I could address
the particulars of your "argument" (Liek were the generals expressing
concern aboput obesity the same ones theat expressed oncerns about
homsexuality?" Maybe maybe not - but you state it as fact. But why
should I take the effort to track down whether it is or not true. when
the arguement it supports is supercillious?
Look, this is not only OT, it is just silly. Michelle Obama's subject
was a valid concern. You might not agree with it - although you
haven't expressed a reason for that other than you don't want the
Homeland security involved in weight control.
Did Obama suggest getting Homeland Security involved? I think not.
Homeland Security, to my knowledge, is uninvolved in other issues that
affect national security, like credit card debt, bank fraud, or
dependence on foreign oil. They still affect national secuirty,
though and they still are concerns.
>< It strikes me that you have
> no response.
If you give an argument as to why Michelle Obama should not describe
obesity as a problem that affect many thing including security, than I
will respond.
My concern is that the"conservative" critics of the Obamas have long
since passed beyond valid concern. They oppose things that simply
would not be a concern to them if right-winger was in office. This
"moronic" criticism of yours is an excellent example of that.
My first response holds: Michelle Obama echoing the concerns of
respected generals is ini no way moronic.
William Hale
Nancy Rudins <nru...@att.net> wrote:
Not quite sure whether you are talking about the generals that don't
want homosexuals in the military or those that do want homosexuals in
the military (ie, those that want to repeal DADT).
Cannot follow your reasoning here. You seem to be saying that the
generals against homosexuals are saying that because homosexuals are a
threat to national security, homosexuals are not fit for military
service. I don't think that is the argument these generals are making.
Instead, these generals against homosexuals serving in the military are
saying that the homosexuals will disrupt the unity (or whatever) of the
battalion so the other soldiers won't be able to fight effectively.
The First Lady is not saying that since obese people are a threat to
national security then they are not fit for the military. She is saying
that since obese people are not fit for the military then they (not
being eligible to join the military) constitutes a threat to national
security.
Likewise, those who do support homosexuals in the military (ie, those
who want to repeal DADT), claim that not allowing homosexuals in the
military is a threat to national security. Many already in the military
who have the foreign language skills in Arabic languages are homosexuals
and we really can't afford to let these people go: it would be a threat
to national security.
In World War II, Alan Turing was a critical person in the military
intelligence branch, breaking the German codes. He was a homosexual.
Such a person with such talents being rejected from military service
seriously would have hurt the English military during World War II.
> >>
> >> People who are in debt are not fit for military service. Must
> >> mean everyone who is in debt is a threat to national security.
Never heard that one. I thought many young people join the military to
make some money (ie, get out of debt) and learn skills to be productive
citizens (with a chance of getting a college education to do even
better).
Are you saying that the military will not accept someone who is in debt?
> >> People who did not graduate from high school are not fit for
> >> military service. Therefore, all dropouts are a threat to
> >> national security.
Um, yes they are a threat to national security. That is one of the many
reasons why the government promotes the idea that people shold graduate
from high school. The government provides public education to them. We
really want an educated citizenry for our society. Likewise, we really
want an educated person for military service.
> People who exceed the standards of number
> >> of dependents are not fit for military service.
I am not aware of that one. I guess you mean that if a person has 10
kids, then they would not accept him because his 10 kids were all be
without a father and breadwinner. They are not same that the father is
not fit for military service. The military is being compassionate for
the children sake and won't accept the father of 10.
> Single parents
> >> are not allowed to enlist in the military. Therefore, single
> >> parents are a threat to national security.
Same as above.
> People with questionable
> >> moral character are not allowed to service in the military.
> >> Therefore, however "questionable moral character" is defined,
> >> such people are a threat to national security.
Yes. They make the pool of eligible soldiers smaller.
> >>
> >> It's moronic to state that obesity is a threat to national
> >> security.
Some disagree with you.
> Recruitment standards have always been a factor
> >> of need. The more recruits the service needs, the lower
> >> the standards.
Yep, just lower those standards. I national security will increase then.
> Right now they're meeting their goals, so
> >> they can keep on being highly selective.
But the generals are making their comments on obesity because they fear
that they won't be able to get people that won't require an extensive
amount of training (more than six months) before they are ready to go
into combat.
When are you going to say obesity is a problem for military recruitment.
When it is 50 % or 75 % or 100%? Or, are you going to just say it will
never be a problem: just recruit them, train them for 8 months, and ship
them out to combat. You would be putting them, their comrades, and the
nation at a risk.
> >>
> >> Those kids who are being turned down might make as good
> >> solders as did their fathers and grandfathers during the
> >> days when the services took all comers.
Yep, they might.
> >
> > Yep, the First Lady made a moronic remark that obesity is a threat to
> > national security. If they can't pass boot camp, just get rid of boot
> > camp. Send then straight to war. We will have some fine soldiers
> > fighting for us. I will feel very safe with such soldiers fighting to
> > protect and defend the US.
>
> I see you had no comment on the other disqualifications for
> military service that should also constitute a threat to
> national security.
Your analogies to other disqualifications are just word play. I don't
accept your analogies are valid.
johns
people would select themselves right out of the gene
pool in 50 years, and the problem would be solved.
Same is true of "ugly" people .. or "short" people
... or even "stupid" people.
But all of them are still right out there where they've
always been. Almost sounds like we need to get
rid of "nice" people who keep trying to fix the "rest"
of us.
johns
Leo
"Nancy Rudins" <nru...@att.net> wrote in message
news:09udnVjUXbEesZfQ...@supernews.com...
Perhaps because it was sarah palin who mocked the first lady and her
platform against childhood obesity that began this topic?
Twittering One
I am not obese.
But I don't get my fractured ankle fully repaired, I may be in my
older years.
Mick
> "Nancy Rudins" <nrud...@att.net> wrote in message
> > Why are you dragging Palin into this? You and bella are turning
> > this into a pissing contest over who is dumb and who is not.
>
> Perhaps because it was sarah palin who mocked the first lady and her
> platform against childhood obesity that began this topic?
Thanks for mentioning that. I had not realized that Palin had done
that. News sources do support this.
I disagree with Palin on most things, but lately I've been watching
for the statments that were beyond the pale. Although the various
left-wingers refer to Palin in bad terms, very little of Palin ahs
said recently supports that view.
OTOH, to me, THIS issue does speak badly -very badly - of Palin.
I wondered why a normally reasonable person such as Nancy would take
a position on this that struck me as so silly.
Nancy Rudins
This wasn't about Palin. This was about Michele Obama.
Dragging other people into a discussion that was not
mentioned is nothing but a YABBUT response.
Nancy Rudins
I never said I supported Palin. The only context in which
I ever mentioned her was her right to freedom of speech, in
response to a poster who said she should not have that freedom.
I defended her rights; not necessarily her statements.
It's so hard to have a reasonable discussion with people who
either jump to conclusions or drag diversionary tactics into
a conversation.
Mick
> On 12/17/2010 10:53 AM, Mick wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 11:35 am, "Leo"<l...@spamalot.com> wrote:
> >> "Nancy Rudins"<nrud...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> >>> On 12/15/2010 08:01 PM, gertruded...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Why are you dragging Palin into this? You and bella are turning
> >>> this into a pissing contest over who is dumb and who is not.
>
> >> Perhaps because it was sarah palin who mocked the first lady and her
> >> platform against childhood obesity that began this topic?
>
> > Thanks for mentioning that. I had not realized that Palin had done
> > that. News sources do support this.
>
> > I disagree with Palin on most things, but lately I've been watching
> > for the statments that were beyond the pale. Although the various
> > left-wingers refer to Palin in bad terms, very little of Palin ahs
> > said recently supports that view.
>
> > OTOH, to me, THIS issue does speak badly -very badly - of Palin.
>
> > I wondered why a normally reasonable person such as Nancy would take
> > a position on this that struck me as so silly.
>
> I never said I supported Palin. The only context in which
> I ever mentioned her was her right to freedom of speech, in
> response to a poster who said she should not have that freedom.
> I defended her rights; not necessarily her statements.
No one in this thread has said anything to the effect that Palin's
freedom of speech should be denied.
> It's so hard to have a reasonable discussion with people who
> either jump to conclusions or drag diversionary tactics into
> a conversation.
Other than you, has someone done this? I mean, Palin made publicized
statems about the issue of Michelle Obama's obesity campaign. She's
such a determinedly public figure that mention of her was not at all
"dragging her into it," IMO. Portraying it as such weas
diversionary, again, IMO.
Mick
> It's so hard to have a reasonable discussion with people who
> either jump to conclusions or drag diversionary tactics into
> a conversation.
Like thrusting the issue of homsexuality and miltary recruiting into
the conversation? Like implying that the generals who made staement
about that were the sam as those speaking out on obesity?
Yes, it is very hard to have a reasonable discussion with people who
do those things.
Leo
"Mick" <mc...@pitt.edu> wrote in message
news:3c3ed398-2bd7-40d0...@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
LOL, yes. My irony meter was zinging.
Nancy Rudins
The purpose was to list other factors that would deny
an applicant from serving in the military. Homosexuality
was only one thing. Indebtedness is another. So is single
parenthood. By implying that obesity is a threat to national
security because of obese people's unfitness to serve in
the military, all these other factors must also be
considered threats to national security because they
prevent people from serving in the military.
These are my words, which have been snipped out of here
somehow.
People who are in debt are not fit for military service. Must
mean everyone who is in debt is a threat to national security.
People who did not graduate from high school are not fit for
military service. Therefore, all dropouts are a threat to
national security. People who exceed the standards of number
of dependents are not fit for military service. Single parents
are not allowed to enlist in the military. Therefore, single
parents are a threat to national security. People with questionable
moral character are not allowed to service in the military.
Therefore, however "questionable moral character" is defined,
such people are a threat to national security.
Nancy Rudins
DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations),
January, 1981):
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The
presence in the military environment of persons who engage
in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate
a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs
the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members
adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to
maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual
trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity
of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and
worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live
and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit
and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public
acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of
security.
Poe
I found you analogy clear to begin with. It's like we live in parallel
universes when certain things like politics (and political figures like
Palin, M & B Obama, etc.) come up that it's glaring. That's why I try,
but sometimes fail, to avoid it.
Mick
> On 12/17/2010 11:40 AM, Leo wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Your analogy is much clearer now. I did not underatand it before, and
I think I do now.
You, evidently, believe that since Michelle Obama mentioned a highly
prevalent (#30%?) social issue as being one that could effect our
security through miltary recruting, that she somehow has a duty to
mention all of them- even the ones that are due to a small minority of
people?
The first lady, due to the fact that she is neither elected nor
official, can pick her issues.
Some of the issues that she could chose - like obesity, debt, or
education, have a clear effect on security. There is no reasaon for
her not to mention that -even if there are otehr issues that
(putatively) affect national security that she does not mention.
I still see this as a diversionary tactic on your part. And jumping
to a conclusion .
I would respond the same way had someone attacked the first lady of a
more conservative president in the way y ou attacked Obama. I'm
pretty sure you would nopt ahve found Obama comments "moronic" if they
had been made by a right winger.
Mick
The incoming Republican chairman of the House Financial Services
Committee, Spencer Bachus, said "In Washington, the view is that the
banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the
regulators are there to serve the banks."
He and I have total agreement on what we consider the goals of the
Republicans to be. I'm glad he's forthright about who he serves.
Poe
I think first ladies, as a matter of practice, pick semi-ditsy female
type causes because it is expected of them. I bet more than one first
lady would have preferred a cause that was less about kids, women, drugs
or booze, and more interesting, but they do what they gotta do, and what
is expected of the female in that role.
Kathy
How about we start a new discussion about something moronic that Sara
Palin has said? And we won't bring Michelle Obama or anyone else into
it, I promise.
Kathy
Poe
No offense but you might be retarded.
Michael Snyder
> As Dan Savage says, stop being so leotarded.
Hah! I like that. May I use it?
Poe
> In article<8n2bbv...@mid.individual.net>, Poe<m...@anywhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> No offense but you might be retarded.
>
> skip the paradoxical pleasantries.. Of course you are being offensive..
>
> geesh.
>
> As Dan Savage says, stop being so leotarded.
It just sounded better than "you are a fucking retard", but I know what
you mean.
bella
"comadrejo" <comadr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:comadrejoagua-479...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <8n2ata...@mid.individual.net>, Poe <m...@anywhere.com>
I don't consider Mrs. Bush attempts to encourage reading or Mrs. Obama's
focus on diet & exercise to be 'semi-ditsy female type causes'. Both
important issues considering how many kids manage to graduate from high
school without being able to read. And how many kids are over-weight and
out of shape now days.
b
>
> Look up Eleanor Roosevelt. What she did at the time was pretty
> controversial, and no First Lady before or since was as controversial or
> seriously get into some serious touchy issues, like Mariah Anderson
> singing at the Lincoln Memorial. Hillary Clinton wasn't as
> controversial or as active as Eleanor Roosevelt, and that is saying
> something.
>
> Her time at the UN, showed she was very good and shrewd politico, given
> she helped pushed and wrote of the UN Human RIghts Declaration of 1948.
>
> If someone who was a disciple of Jane Addams, hang out with a bunch of
> radicals in New York City and had a quixotic relationship with the
> President became First Lady today, the press would still go bonkers as
> they did in the 1930s.
Chocolic
"Poe" wrote in message news:8n2d8c...@mid.individual.net...
---------------------
I think the "you are a fucking retard" is much more appropriate.
Chocolic
Mick
> In article <8n2ataFhp...@mid.individual.net>, Poe <m...@anywhere.com>
> controversial, and no First Lady before or since was as controversial or
> seriously get into some serious touchy issues, like Mariah Anderson
> singing at the Lincoln Memorial. Hillary Clinton wasn't as
> controversial or as active as Eleanor Roosevelt, and that is saying
> something.
>
> Her time at the UN, showed she was very good and shrewd politico, given
> she helped pushed and wrote of the UN Human RIghts Declaration of 1948.
>
> If someone who was a disciple of Jane Addams, hang out with a bunch of
> radicals in New York City and had a quixotic relationship with the
> President became First Lady today, the press would still go bonkers as
Thanks for the reminder.
I think that the first ladies' approaches generally tend to be safe
and non-controversial. Eleanor was not.
"Fighting" for literacy and against obesity is important, but the
first ladies take feel-good approach that trivializeds the issues,
IMO. I understand how someone might feel different than I, though.
"Retards"???? If we were all smart, we would be out getting rich not
squabbling with each other on the 'net.
gerry
> If it is, then the $10 billion Childhood Nutrition
> Act should be funded by Homeland Security instead
> of placing the burden of unfunded mandates on the
> school districts, most of whom are already operating
> on a shoe string budget. Will teachers be laid off?
>
> Tuesday, February 09, 2010
> By Penny Starr
>
> First Lady Michelle Obama in her garden at
> the White House. (AP Photo)
> (CNSNews.com) At a ceremony at the White House
> on Tuesday, First Lady Michelle Obama announced
> the launch of the Let s Move campaign to end
> childhood obesity in the United States, an epidemic
> she said is costly and a threat to national security.
>
> A recent study put the health care cost of
> obesity-related diseases at $147 billion a year,
> Mrs. Obama said. This epidemic also impacts the
> nation s security, as obesity is now one of the
> most common disqualifiers for military service.
>
> --
> Dear Jack,
> Who's king of the world now?
> Sincerely, the iceberg
Typical of the Obamas to criticize the Fat Cats who just looted the US
Treasury by keeping their tax cuts and the "carry" and getting an
estate tax cut for multimillionaires. Now that Obama has been whipped
by the real rulers of America, the 500 old line families that control
90% of the country's wealth, he has his wife attack porky kids who eat
junk food. If Obama is serious about cutting the fat, a good start
would be his firing Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, who is as
chunky as she is arrogant.
Michael Snyder
ahem...
> the issues,
> IMO. I understand how someone might feel different than I, though.
>
> "Retards"???? If we were all smart, we would be out getting rich not
> squabbling with each other on the 'net.
If we were all smart, we would type better.
Mick
> Mick wrote:
> > ... trivializeds
>
> ahem...
>
> > the issues,
> > IMO. I understand how someone might feel different than I, though.
>
> > "Retards"???? If we were all smart, we would be out getting rich not
> > squabbling with each other on the 'net.
>
> If we were all smart, we would type better
Yes!
Indeed!
Poe
>
> "Retards"???? If we were all smart, we would be out getting rich not
> squabbling with each other on the 'net.
It's just a clever disguise, in case we ever get in trouble we can say
we couldn't possibly have done it, we're too stoopid (like hiccup chick).
Leo
"Kathy" <kb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8n2avr...@mid.individual.net...
There's a wealth of possibilities in that dept.
Leo
"Chocolic" <chatt...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8n2i35...@mid.individual.net...
So much for the name calling and nastiness from the cabal.
Nancy Rudins
> pretty sure you would nopt ahve found Obama comments "moronic" if they
> had been made by a right winger.
Now who's jumping to a conclusion?
Nancy Rudins
You are free to start any discussion you wish to start.
Nancy Rudins
Feel free to start one at any time.
Nancy Rudins
The Democrats currently have the majority in the Senate
and the House. They could have eliminated the tax cuts
but they didn't. They rolled over and played dead during
the Bush years. They're doing the same thing so far
during Obama's term.
Mick
> On 12/17/2010 05:36 PM,Mickwrote:
>
> > I'm
> > pretty sure you would nopt ahve found Obama comments "moronic" if they
> > had been made by a right winger.
>
> Now who's jumping to a conclusion?
My judgement is that "Jumping to a conclusion" does not start out with
"I'm pretty sure..." What followed was just a speculation, not
presented as a fact. It's for each reader to draw their own
conclusion.