browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

Listening to Michelle

Posted by on May 29, 2012
Share via email
I applaud First Lady Michelle Obama’s initiatives toward focusing people on their diet and exercise habits.  However, I resent any government body, whether it be federal, state, local, school district, etc. which attempts to mandate such ideas.  Mrs. Obama is correct in bringing attention to these issues, but there are two main problems with the issuance of mandates. The first problem has to do with what we either don’t know or think we know that turns out to be all wrong.  How many times have we been told that eggs are good for us, then they’re bad, then they’re good all over again?  The same thing can be said about things like wine, milk, bread, meat, etc.  InNew Yorkthey have banned table salt in restaurants, but in the Midwest where sea food is less plentiful salt is the main source of iodine in most people’s diets.  Recent studies suggest salt might not be the blood pressure culprit we’ve all believed it to be for decades.  At this point, who can say for certain which idea is correct?  The reality is that our physiologies are all different, so a food source that might be a killer to one person might just as easily be a saving grace to someone else, and vice versa.  So why mandate an unknown? The other problem is the whole idea of personal freedom.  I have, and always will resent the “nanny state” idea of any government that believes it can make better decisions on my behalf than what I can make on my own.  The idea of the city ofSan Franciscodictating to McDonalds what their menu must look like is extraordinarily condescending.  It makes the assumption that the citizens of that city aren’t smart enough to make the correct decisions all on their own.  Having a school district inNorth Carolina pull a kid’s ham and cheese sandwich lunch only to replace it with chicken nuggets isn’t a simple “misunderstanding”.  It’s a blatant attempt at nanny state control. Personally, I want all governments to stay out of my diet, my bedroom, my church, and my life in general.  I fully understand that governments have their roles to play.  However, those roles should be minimized and restricted to the specific aspects of our lives that they are designed for.  I resent city governments that dictate my diet.  I don’t want school systems that politically indoctrinate my children.  And I don’t want a federal government that makes any church violate its own doctrines.  Perhaps if government stayed out of those areas they would have more time to focus on the things they should be focused on, like fixing the potholes on my street.
Share via email

Comments are closed.