Federal Obesity Dept.

Some quotes from Michelle Obama:

"Most of our kids get the majority of the calories from the meals they eat in schools. We have an opportunity to work with the federal government and the school lunch providers to figure out how to make those meals healthier..."

"People who make soft drinks, people who make food for school lunches, it's community groups, it's businesses who make decisions about where they're going to locate grocery stores. It's our media. It's Disney, it's Nick TV. It's everyone that has an impact on the health and life of our children, our teachers. So it's all of us..."

"This is a solvable issue because it's, you know, it's community-based. I said this in my launch speech, this doesn't require new technology, or, you know, new research. We have the solution in our hand. But it takes a coordinated effort."

I am in agreement that our country has an obesity problem. I also agree that the best place we can have the biggest impact is in our children. I absolutely do not agree that the federal government should have anything to do with it.

Mrs. Obama recognizes the undesirable end result of obesity, but, like her husband, mistakenly seeks to use the federal government to solve a community-based problem. The problem of obesity is the consequence of bad choices. We all know how the federal government tries to influence choices we make, raise taxes on certain things, and levy penalties and fines (like they are doing with alcohol, tobacco and firearms).

This problem starts in the smallest of communities, the family. The federal government is already over involved in the family, we do not need more of a bad thing to solve this problem. Should this be part of public school education? Absolutely. Should these public schools negotiate with vendors supplying lunches to increase the nutritional value of the meals? Definitely. This is a state and local issue, not a federal one. I have heard Mrs. Obama talk about the nutritional choices her family makes (having fruits for dessert, etc.) and think that is a great message for her to share with the nation. She seems to know something about good health choices, practices it herself, she is a good spokesperson for this cause. The federal government has no place in this issue.

Now before you start telling me all the things that the federal government has done in the past to promote health and all the benefits that have resulted, let me just say, "I don't care." This is, as Mrs. Obama so accurately stated, a "community-based" issue, not a federal one. It would be wrong for the federal government to expend any amount of budget (and they can do NOTHING without expending budget) on any program trying to reduce childhood obesity.

Maybe some of you are thinking, "What if the federal government got involved by raising nutritional standards for food stamps and WIC? Those people are likely using Medicaid and better health for them would save us money in the long run. How could you be against that?" Well I would liken this line of thinking to that of those who think it is a good idea to give free syringes to heroin addicts. I have no interest in improving federal government programs that shouldn't exist in the first place.

The bottom line is that there are already too many federal programs justified by the incorrect notion that if they do ANYTHING that can be called good, they are a valid. The real solution to childhood obesity, and many other issues, is to reduce the size, impact, and cost of federal government so our local communities have more and better resources to address these issues (with greater success).

New Element Discovered

Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest
element yet known to science. The new element,
Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy
neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312
particles are held together by forces called morons,
which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like
particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has
no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected,
because it impedes every reaction with which it comes
into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a
reaction that would normally take less than a second, to
take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of
2 - 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a
reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time,
since each reorganization will cause more morons to
become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic
of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a
critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is
referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes
Administratium, an element that radiates just as much
energy as Governmentium since it has half as many
peons but twice as many morons.

Under the pretence of taking care of them

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802

When conservatives object to programs run by the government, especially "social" programs, we are often painted as mean and selfish by liberals. The idea that we could possibly be against a program designed to help people that lost their job, women with children, or people that have worked until age 65 seems to be proof that our hearts are hard and we don't care about others. I suppose that some conservatives are mean and selfish people, just like some liberals are, but not all of us, there is another reason for our position.

Really, there are two main reasons conservatives are generally against many government programs; they are out of scope for the responsibilities of the federal government and they don't work. Before I go into more detail on these, let me share something about my perspective. I have been there and seen it myself. I have been a liberal. The quote often attributed to Churchill, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." comes to mind. It is one thing to have a passion to help those in need and another to act on that passion with reckless abandon ignoring the rights of one group in an attempt to restore them to another.

Seeking Fairness

Our federal government has never been responsible for "fairness". Fairness is a liberal PC term meaning so many things that I can't even attempt a definition. This makes it great for politicians wanting to spin either the compassion of their proposed legislation or the callousness of those opposing it. The problem is, without a definition we can't evaluate fairness. Likewise, when we infuse the identity of a bill with "fairness" later evaluation that may reveal anything negative is declared fabricated lies of the mean people of special interest. This is often when you hear all the stories of the oppressed (like this sickening example). There is no right to fairness in this world, and liberals can't create it no matter how many other rights of ours they sacrifice on the PC alter. We should love each other and we should help each other, these are things that the federal government can't do for us. When the Fed tries to do these things, they tax us to support their efforts, taking from those who can (and should) do it better, to fund government operations that can't (and shouldn't) do it.

Government Efficiency - Oxymoron

There is also the argument that because conservatives don't want the federal government to do all these things for us that we are for the "status quo". This bi-polar argument just doesn't work, we can disagree with liberal ideas without proposing an alternative government solution. The solution is usually to keep government out of things and let us take care of each other. Liberals will of course claim this will not work, enter more sad stories of the oppressed, and go back to the "conservatives don't care" attack. The truth is that the government does a few things well, but many others not well at all. Health-Care, Welfare, and Social Security are great examples of this. The thing about those big government solutions, they sure do get a lot of loyalty (and votes) from the entitlement crowd.

Good News and Bad News

The Good news is that the solution is simple, not easy, but simple. We need to reduce the size, scope, and authority or the federal government. There may be some other issues to tackle, like term limits, but if we focus on reducing the Federal government we can fix the vast majority of issues this country is having.

The bad news is that this will take generations to accomplish. Life is not like TV, we don't solve all problems in 20 minutes with two commercial breaks. The issues we face today are born on thousands of bad choices over decades (if not the past century), choices that are contrary to the principles that this country was founded on. These principles gave this nation the tremendous success it has enjoyed, and made it a beacon to people around the world seeking liberty, and thereby, prosperity. The passion for the freedom to seek opportunity, take risks, and earn a better life for us and our children has been replaced by the lie that the government is responsible for insuring our life style is high, our risk is non-existent, and our children will have to pay for it all. Entitlement is the leech sucking out the life blood of liberty, and we will have to burn it off before we can regain our strength.

The solution will require a fundamental shift in ideologies, from entitlement values to opportunity values. We will have to reverse the methods of lowering the ceiling (taking from those who risked to take advantage of opportunity) in an effort to raise the floor (redistributing to those unwilling to take risk to pursue opportunity). The burden of making this shift falls on conservatives. The first thing conservatives need to do is understand their own conservative principles and how they apply to government. As the teachers it is incumbent on us to thoroughly understand before we endeavor to enlighten others. We need not be more intelligent, eloquent, or charismatic than those we share our ideas with. We need only to understand the basic conservative principles that our nation was founded on, employing them in our personal choices, and demanding the same of those who represent us. We need to calmly, but passionately, engage our neighbors, coworkers, and family members discussing issues based on how these principles will work. We must have a grassroots effort to change the hearts and minds of this nation, and let the legislation to correct our mistakes rise up out of this new understanding of liberty.

So where do we start? We start with ourselves, every one of us, learning the foundational conservative principles that are our tools. I do not say this arrogantly, because I need to do the same. I will follow-up with resources that I have found, and hope that you will share yours as well.

Abstinence-Only Approach

In an article from the Associated Press (see sources below):

Billed as the first rigorous research to show long-term success with an abstinence-only approach, the study released Monday differed from traditional programs that have lost U.S. federal and state support in recent years.

This is an interesting study, in essence it found that abstinence makes sense when you teach kids how to think through the "pros and cons" instead of telling them how it is.  Given some guidance, teens (and younger) can easily see that the benefits of sex (let's be honest, there ARE benefits) carry consequences as well.  If they are honest, the consequences are almost completely negative if you are not married and especially if you are a teen (or younger).

What we see here is the difference between telling kids facts and having them regurgitate them for a grade on a test, and teaching them how to make logical choices that consider things fully.  The biggest difference is that memorizing some facts on condom failure can't translate into anything else, but the skill of making a logical choice that is well informed can be utilized in many other areas.  Imagine the social benefit when these kids use the same process to evaluate drug use, shoplifting, gang activity, or education choices.  Even better, when we convince ourselves of something (such as sex before marriage is not a good idea) we are more likely to modify our behavior.

We shouldn't be surprised that when schools teach character building in place of static information we see what we should see, better choices.  The down side of this is that the same holds true when liberal "safe sex" ideas are taught along with the same "pros and cons" method.  When the information provided is biased, it is much harder for the choice to be wise. 

How do we battle this?  Several ways, those of us who actively parent our children can help them both in character building and getting the facts straight.  This might not be as easy as it sounds, sometimes it feels wrong to say that having sex has benefits, but the truth is the truth.  You have to have the courage to be frank about the subject or they will stop listening.

As citizens we can insist that our tax payer funded schools present unbiased facts.  We can vote in school boards that insist on avoiding agenda based education (whether it is religious or planned parenthood).

We can be frank in discussing things with youth we are around (sports, scouts, church, family, etc.) and encourage responsible choice making, knowing the skill can translate in to other areas of their life.
Sources (take your pick):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584519,00.html?test=latestnews
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_he_me/us_med_abstinence_education
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/health/main6165752.shtml

More Super Bowl Ads

Who would have thought there would be so much controversy over Super Bowl ads?

Pro-Abortion group Planned Parenthood (Should be named Planned Infanticide) lauched a preemtive YouTube ad to counter a Super Bowl ad by Focus of the Family (http://www.focusonthefamily.com) featuring Heisman Trophy-winning college star Tim Tebow.  From a strategic standpoint PP did well to use the hype ahead of the Focus of the Family ad to get media attention for a fraction of the cost.  The message that their "Woman's choice" position accomodates women who do not want to murder their children is old and tired (and a lie).  Even better, it backfired on them, showing what an extreme agenda they have, and what little tolerance they have for any who see things differently.

Isn't it amazing that this would get so much attention, epsecially by Planned Parenthood, who is getting investigated for "bending the rules" and allowing under age abortions without parental consent in Alabama?  Alabama is giving the abortion clinic until next week to present its plan to correct violations involving minors receiving abortions.  This is not an issue where somebody accedentally forgot to fill out a form, this is an example of the agenda of Planned Parenthood.  Follow the money, noticed that the worker in the video didn't forget to tell her to bring $100 cash.

High Dollar PSAs

The Census bureau is spending $133 million between January and May -- or, more than $13 million for each of the 10 questions they ask, including a $2.5 million Super Bowl ad. This effort is more like Obama's campaign efforts (big surprise, isn't everything he does campaigning?), than a PSA. Instead of "Get out the vote!", it is now, "Get out the census!".

Just a thought, why would this be done? The census is important, but this promotion budget is obscene. This is an obvious attempt to turn the census into a "game changer" for voting districts and representation. Considering that originally ACORN was supposed to help with the census (and we all know how accurate they are when it comes to voter registration....right Mickey Mouse?), it is safe to say that we can count on a very biased liberal slant to this census.

I know, I know, go ahead and call me a conspiracy theorist, but if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam....