Monday, October 15, 2012

Michelle O's School Lunches Spark Boycott

-It's about time that people stood up. In this case, the youth put us to shame.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/18/high-school-students-boycott-school-cafeteria-over-new-lunch-restrictions/?intcmp=obnetwork

I promise to keep this one brief.

The regulations that are now required as a result of Michelle Obama's brainchild of a plan to control school lunches have borne fruit.

We now have a case of the students striking back by refusing to purchase the meals.

One of the main totalitarian aspects of Michelle's plan is that the meals are held to strict caloric maximums. In order to avoid going over the Federal government-imposed limits, schools have taken to reducing portions of meals that supply one of the greatest needs of young people - protein and carbohydrates. In the case of active students such as athletes, these meals are not providing enough of what the students need.

What is worse is the fact that the meals are regulated with a true Socialist mindset; the caloric limits are based solely on age, not build, height, or gender. To suggest that a football lineman, or others athletes such as those who participate in track, wrestling, or baseball have the same nutritional  needs as the female students (or Male) who weigh less than 100 pounds is simply an example of applying the falsehood that all of us are the same in every way. Assuming that the student who is not interested in sports and plays video games in the evenings should be dealt the same portions (Note that the same portions are fine if they are big enough to start) as his 6'3" 220 lb. classmate is yet another blow to those who strive to work harder, exercise harder, and achieve. To this I must add this also is another means of marginalizing the masculine members of our society. 

The small kid gets a full belly while the beefy one walks away hungry if he does not bring a lunch from home.

My son wrestles and plays baseball for his High School. Although he is quite active, his weight class is under 140 lbs. My ability to reason would be insulted if I were told that his nutritional needs were exactly the same as his teammates who wrestle in the highest weight levels. The big boys on his team clearly need more than slender females or non-athletes of the same age.

Michelle has done the same thing with our military. The following is from a previous post:

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/02/michelle-obama-condescends-to-our.html


“Don’t worry, you’ll be a vegetable guy soon,”

"When Michelle Obama said this to a serviceman, she was not trying to reassure a confused person in any way - she was acting in a manner of the elitist that she is. She could at least have been honest and said that "I outrank you in influence with the Pentagon and I am going to decide what you will eat."

American servicemen have already long been treated like children when it comes to the food that is served in the mess halls. Their portions are carefully measured, they are not allowed to have creamed beef placed on their potatoes at breakfast if they were first given sausage or bacon because they already have a meat portion, and the meals have for a long time been heavy in low-in-nutrients/high-in-empty calories bread.

A grown man or woman in the military is allotted a portion of each food group (although the salad bar is open for multiple servings). While I can sit at my own table and have multiple portions of meat and greens beans and avoid bread, potatoes, etc, I would have no choice but to walk away unsatisfied in a mess hall, which I did on more than one occasion. It is a sad thing that our service members are treated like they are eight years-old. Why should a 6'4" 220 lb. guy get the same meat portion as a serviceman who is 95 lbs. soaking wet?

Those who recall being allowed to go back for seconds will need to be made aware that this too is long gone. The Marines got rid of that as far back as the eighties.

I will admit that it is easier to plan for a certain amount of each food group to avoid waste, but the amounts of military-style staples allowed to big strapping guys who carry machine guns, tripods, ammunition, body armor, and more is not close to what they would eat if they had any say in the matter.

The continual references to the amount of military personnel on weight control is misleading too. The height and weight charts employed in the armed forces are so out-of-date that they routinely cause big-bodied servicemen to have to undergo body fat or body mass testing. The charts are designed for slender-bodied people who will easily fall under their weight allowance even if they are physically weak and have potbellies.
If one is a big, strong person, then rest assured he or she will be sent for all sorts of further exams. I spent over sixteens years in the Marine Corps and National Guard and I never failed to notice a guy that would be my first choice to be next to me in a combat situation have to go through all sorts of fat/mass testing and often still wind up being put on weight control. Mind you that I also witnessed these same guys operate and rarely was a teammate able to hump a load of full combat gear on long marches as well as these guys could.

The mess halls have salad bars that provide all all sorts of fresh vegetables and that is of course a good thing. The First Lady is taking that a step further by making the servings of extra vegetables take the place of other things that they will want. The additional vegetables are not to be optional in the salad bar but will likely replace other foods. (Note again that they do not get to receive multiple servings of the same item, like a second pork chop, and that they cannot just get back in line and get more food) Her plan will reduce their ability to eat what they want. Even if it were true that 1 in 20 were overweight, how should that affect the other 19?

I once watched a documentary in which contrasts were drawn between the diets of ancient Greeks and their Persian enemies. Aside from the arms and armor, physical preparedness, cultural and tactical differences, the commentators made more than fair arguments that the high-protein* diet of the Greeks helped make them stronger and better able to endure the terrible grind of a long battle.

The Persians, being fead on a grain-based diet, would have had spurts of energy but less of the physical strength and, as anyone who has crashed after the carb-high has left the body knows, little of their opponent's ability to exert themselves while carrying weapons and other gear during the fight. Once the initial clash ended, the Greeks were consistently able to shoulder their burdens and still engage the enemy while losing little of their strength and endurance. Don't forget that our servicemen carry a more than substantial physical burden into combat."

*Milk, cheese, meat, olives, olive oil, linseed, etc.





1 comment: