Michelle Obama warned readers in an an op-ed for The New York Times on Wednesday that, “Right now, the House of Representatives is considering a bill to override science by mandating that white potatoes be included on the list of foods that women can purchase using WIC dollars. Now, there is nothing wrong with potatoes. The problem is that many women and children already consume enough potatoes and not enough of the nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables they need.”
So much for being pro-choice. But isn’t that such a fun phrase, “override science”? Both in its predictable use and its lack of sensible meaning. You can’t override science, so why is she claiming a House bill does so? You can override “scientific consensus,” which is itself an unscientific idea, but not science. It’s a nice, frightening buzz-phrase, though, logic be damned.
If you disagree with a Democrat, you hate science. You also hate children, hate women, hate clean water (personally, muddy drinking water is my favorite), hate nature (yay, litter!), hate Earth, hate non-whites and non-straights, hate the elderly, and hate children with Down’s Syndrome. There’s no arguing with Democrats. If you disagree with them, there is no possibility for civil discourse. You are simply labeled a hater and a cretin, and that gives the Democrats a good enough excuse not to engage in civil discourse or debate with you. “I don’t need to justify myself to a hate-monger.” It’s really convenient, being a Democrat.
So Republicans want to override science, Michelle tells us, because they want to allow women who are receiving Women, Infants and Children (WIC) assistance the choice to purchase white potatoes. This is like saying that if I have a sweet potato and I have a white potato, and I tell a woman, “Here, take either one,” I am overriding science. Giving someone the option to buy white potatoes is anti-science, according to Michelle; science, she believes, does not allow room for freedom of spud choice.
I really don’t understand this woman’s brain. There is no way she got to college without the help of affirmative action. Absolutely no way. And she has nothing against sweet potatoes, so it must be true what they say: she just really hates whiteness that much.
Now that I’ve gotten that Michelle-bashing off my chest, I must say that I do recognize obesity is a legitimate concern. But she just makes it so difficult to want to support her initiatives for school lunches. On the one hand, I want parents to have the choice what to feed their kids, but on the other hand, parenting has sadly become a hands-off job and they’ve started relying on public schools to do everything for them. And since these kids are going to public school on taxpayer money, maybe a lack of choice is simply one of the consequences the kids and their parents must suffer; the kids for being so gluttonous, and the parents for willing to subjugate their kids to inferior, government-run education.
If obesity is bad for the country, which it most definitely is, then why should we, who claim to care about the future of the country, be against making public-school kids either eat healthy or go hungry for lunch? I understand a lot of the vegetables end up being thrown away, but that’s the kids’ choice and it at least has the silver lining of them eating less. If parents don’t want their kids to be forced onto healthy foods, then this has the more important silver lining of incentivizing homeschooling.
Mexico is the fattest country on Earth, with the United States only recently falling into a close second. (The only reason we’re so high on the list, though, is because the squat, refrigerator-shaped citizens of the aforementioned fattest country keep invading ours.) And the majority of American children, including Mexican-“American” children, are physically unfit.
So it’s with a bitter taste in my mouth that I must say I support the forcing-public-school-kids-to-eat-healthy aspect of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign. Ugh.