If we're such a "family values"-friendly nation, why are we so willing to let our kids be abused for the sake of making money?
According to the allegations in the Penn State scandal, a pedophile was allowed to brutally assault/molest numerous young boys because no one dared to upset the very lucrative apple cart that is college sports. And, as commentator Frank DeFord speculated on NPR today, perhaps there was also some reluctance to sully our noble national pastime of oversized brutes battering each other in pursuit of a pigskin.
And now comes word that Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee have torpedoed the USDA's attempts to reduce the amount of pizza, french fries and salt that our kids consume at school. Why? Because the frozen pizza companies, the salt industry and potato growers asked them to. Really. It's that simple.
The USDA wasn't looking to ban any of these foods, but rather to increase the ratio of non-starchy vegetables and whole grains. This would be a step in the right direction, instead of using our resources to make our kids sicker and fatter. But such a shift would also make a dent in some very lucrative government contracts. So, no go.
There's more going on here than simple greed, though. Because the politicians who do the food industry's bidding are showing as much contempt for the expert opinion of nutritionists as they do towards the science of climate change. As Tom Philpott notes over at Mother Jones, the evidence that we need to feed our kids less of this stuff is solid: "Eat Your Greens, or Your Gut Gets It."
But who needs experts, anyway? Not the GOP. Their ideal nominee should evidently be a blowhard ignoramus with a moral compass that's shiftier than the San Andreas fault line, and at least as deeply cracked.
Take Herman Cain (please.) When the pizza mogul/motivational speaker/alleged serial groper was asked if he could define a man by the kind of pizza he prefers, he declared that "A manly man don't want it piled high with vegetables! He would call that a sissy pizza."
And so goes the ongoing conservative war against vegetables, served up with a side of machismo. We can't let the First Lady instill a love of broccoli in our kids! And isn't Obamacare just a sneaky plot to open the door for legislation that would crucify Americans who reject cruciferous vegetables?
I guess those retired war generals over at Mission Readiness didn't get the memo about the sissifying powers of vegetables. Why are these military experts up in arms over the USDA's caving in to Big Food? Maybe because "Obesity is the leading medical disqualifier for military service, and children get up to 40% of their daily calories during the school day?"
As Amy Dawson Taggart, Mission Readiness's director, noted "This new effort to undermine school nutrition regulations raises national security concerns."
It should also raise questions about what kind of culture turns a blind eye to kids being brutalized and turns our children into vessels for commodity crop crap because it protects the revenues of some high powered institutions and politicians. What warped brand of capitalism have we created that permits our kids to be treated as collateral damage?
Follow Kerry Trueman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kerrytrueman
Anne Marie Carrie: Help for Disadvantaged Youth Means it Doesn't Have to End Like it Began
Dylan Ratigan: Joe Paterno and the Search for Zeus
Todd Green, Ph.D.: Where Is the Courage in College Football?
Do turkeys enjoy thanksgiving?
by Arundhati Roy
Opening Plenary, World Social Forum, Mumbai
16 January 2004
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AR011604.html
One, this is an education issue and should be handled at state and locla levels not by the federal government.
Secondly, if you dont like the foods, pack your kids lunch.
Thirdly, school food does not make kids fat. The proportions are fair sized. If you are concerned about your kids eating habits or weight, try this...teach your kids.
Finally (and this is more an elaboration on point 1) from my understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights there is nothing delegating this responsibility to the Federal Government. Even though I agree healthier foods are needed, this is not the responsibility of any Federal agency, Congress or the President.
btw, I don't think I've ever used "gussied up" before.
Trueman has a head full of snakes and a heart full of venom.......it's up to us to take care of our children and "capitalism" may provide too many choices and too often bad choices, but it ani't capitalism that does all the choosing.
I believe it's called socialism. When the federal government takes control over what children eat for lunch, and corporations lobby Congressmen to send some of that government cheese their way, that's called central planning. It's not capitalism.
Also, when a not-for-profit organization that is part of the Pennsylvania state university program covers up child molestation, that is hardly a failure of capitalism. The UN, the Roman Catholic and now Penn State have all been involved in child abuse sex scandals. I'm not aware of any large, for-profit organization with a similar record of systematically covering up child molestation.
Separately, your question is framed in a silly way. I could just as easily say food, iPods, clothing, construction are all expamles of the free market - would you like to get rid of them?
Didn't some ex-president once say that the business of America is business? Not a word about how being in business and being thoughtful for the buying public as being the business of America.
effectively for financial gain...at the expense of most of the rest of us.
Thanks again,
Sally
Adam Smith was a strong proponent of Government regulation upon business.