On a recent visit to an elementary school in New York, First Lady Michelle Obama continued her efforts on behalf of the health and weight of the nation's children. She spoke of how "as parents we try to prepare decent meals, limit how much junk food our kids eat, and ensure that they have a reasonable balanced diet. And when we are putting all that into effect the last thing we want is for our hard work to be undone each day in the school cafeteria." Fine sentiments indeed. But she wasn't really speaking for parents. She was speaking for the administration. Her comments came in regard to the recently changed federal rules regarding what food can be served in school cafeterias and in what amounts.
For progressives there is no distinction between society and government and very little between people and society. The effort made over the years to tease out the public consequences of personal behavior has finally reached school cafeterias. With the ebbing of the crusade against tobacco a new cause has been found in obesity. Efforts once devoted to extrapolating the social and economic costs of using tobacco are now being directed towards obesity. Studies and statistics have been piling up demonstrating how much extra poundage costs society. It was inevitable that fat kids would would wind up in the cross hairs.
There was a time when the government was only concerned with what our children knew. Things have changed greatly since then. The government has since asserted a right to have a say in what our children think, feel, and believe. It should surprise no one that the government is now making a claim on what our children eat. The government is taking its place in our school cafeterias, in our kitchens, our living rooms, and at our dining room tables. It seems that the only room in the house that progressives want the government to stay out of is the bedroom. Every place else is fair game.
Talk of the "nation's" children is a sleight of hand. Children do not belong to the nation. They belong to parents. Society is not responsible for how children are raised. Parents are. Even if society has a stake in rearing children, that does not mean the government should have one. The government cannot yet come into your house and tell you what you can and can't feed your children, what books they should read, what TV shows they can watch, and what they should think, but they are working on it. They have your house surrounded.
When it is perceived that society is in need, the nation is called to step in. When the nation is called, the government responds. When the government responds, liberty recedes. Liberals might want to keep government out of the bedroom, but everyplace else is fair game. You can speak of liberty all you like but liberty does not have a chance against progressives armed with statistics. Children in the U.S. are fat for reasons the government cannot yet control and that drives progressives nuts. That is what they are out to change.
As parents we should be concerned with the health and appearance of our children. As a nation we have other things to tend to.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Minding Other People's Business
Washington might be busy with Iran, the economy, and the upcoming elections, but they are not too busy to take time to tend to the nation's children. In these tough economic times school districts across the nation have been tightening their belts. This is a problem for those who make it their business to keep an eye on America's school children because one of the programs frequently targeted by school districts for cutting is physical education.
There is growing concern that the nation's children are increasingly sedentary and over weight. According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 17% of children between the ages of 2 to 19 years in the U.S. are obese. Representative Franklin Pierce of Washington state, along with 84 other members of Congress, wants to increase pressure on the nation's schools to do something about it. They are proposing that when Congress takes up the issue of education reform later this year that pressure be placed on school districts to increase their efforts in curbing obesity among students. This would be accomplished through compelling schools to compile yearly reports documenting time devoted to student physical activity. The reports could then be collected and provide a basis for comparing schools across the nation in regard to how fit their students are. The theory is that schools could use the information to create plans to assist the larger and more idle of their students become less so. Naturally, school districts will be evaluated based on the numbers they provide.
While almost every school in the nation provides opportunity for physical activity, (think of recess), only five states require physical education in their schools. 48 states have standards for physical education yet only 32 require their schools to comply with those standards. With 17% of the nation's children considered obese, Washington, or more precisely those who make it their business to mind the nation's business, has taken notice. Using economic casuistry those disturbed by the growing number of lethargic and flabby children have sought to put a price on obesity. A leading advocate of national physical education reform, Representative Joe Baca, D-California, has calculated that obesity will have cost the nation $1 trillion by 2030 if nothing is done. A price according to Baca that would bankrupt the nation. He and like minded advocates see the problem as stemming from the absence of any federal law requiring schools to offer physical education. That is what they are seeking to remedy.
We live in a time when economics has become a national obsession. Many have devoted their careers to teasing out the economic costs and benefits of human activity. Once those costs and benefits are identified they become the grist for policy. Morals, ethics, customs, traditions, virtually every aspect of human behavior has developed an economic facet. Smoking is not bad because it will kill you. It is bad because it costs the nation money. Ignorance is not bad because it crimps human potential, but because it hobbles economic potential. Now obesity has been made an economic issue. It is not bad because it is unhealthy and unsightly. It is bad because it costs the nation money.
If little Billy is fat, doesn't do his homework and plays video games all day what business is that of mine? What business is that of Washington's? In a free country a person ought to be able to sit on their couch and eat ice cream and candy all day if they want to, even if it drives some people nuts. Only casuistry of the highest order can make a person's weight a matter of national concern.
There is growing concern that the nation's children are increasingly sedentary and over weight. According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 17% of children between the ages of 2 to 19 years in the U.S. are obese. Representative Franklin Pierce of Washington state, along with 84 other members of Congress, wants to increase pressure on the nation's schools to do something about it. They are proposing that when Congress takes up the issue of education reform later this year that pressure be placed on school districts to increase their efforts in curbing obesity among students. This would be accomplished through compelling schools to compile yearly reports documenting time devoted to student physical activity. The reports could then be collected and provide a basis for comparing schools across the nation in regard to how fit their students are. The theory is that schools could use the information to create plans to assist the larger and more idle of their students become less so. Naturally, school districts will be evaluated based on the numbers they provide.
While almost every school in the nation provides opportunity for physical activity, (think of recess), only five states require physical education in their schools. 48 states have standards for physical education yet only 32 require their schools to comply with those standards. With 17% of the nation's children considered obese, Washington, or more precisely those who make it their business to mind the nation's business, has taken notice. Using economic casuistry those disturbed by the growing number of lethargic and flabby children have sought to put a price on obesity. A leading advocate of national physical education reform, Representative Joe Baca, D-California, has calculated that obesity will have cost the nation $1 trillion by 2030 if nothing is done. A price according to Baca that would bankrupt the nation. He and like minded advocates see the problem as stemming from the absence of any federal law requiring schools to offer physical education. That is what they are seeking to remedy.
We live in a time when economics has become a national obsession. Many have devoted their careers to teasing out the economic costs and benefits of human activity. Once those costs and benefits are identified they become the grist for policy. Morals, ethics, customs, traditions, virtually every aspect of human behavior has developed an economic facet. Smoking is not bad because it will kill you. It is bad because it costs the nation money. Ignorance is not bad because it crimps human potential, but because it hobbles economic potential. Now obesity has been made an economic issue. It is not bad because it is unhealthy and unsightly. It is bad because it costs the nation money.
If little Billy is fat, doesn't do his homework and plays video games all day what business is that of mine? What business is that of Washington's? In a free country a person ought to be able to sit on their couch and eat ice cream and candy all day if they want to, even if it drives some people nuts. Only casuistry of the highest order can make a person's weight a matter of national concern.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Don't Blame Politics
With the GOP nomination process in full swing, politics in the U.S. are in high gear. Candidates are trying to stake out positions and lock up key constituencies. This frequently entails bold promises and solemn oaths as to what they will achieve once they are elected (no one runs for the nomination anticipating defeat). Essential to winning any political contest is distinguishing yourself from your opponents. Distinguishing yourself from you opponents these days means convincing the electorate that you are bolder of vision, stronger of will, and more capable in action than the other candidates. This results in a more partisan and aggressive politics. It is this more partisan and aggressive political process that many are increasingly finding distasteful. They pine for more amicable and less ideological days, when politicians would have gentlemen disagreements that would be addressed through polite discussion. There is much to this position. The political process has indeed become more acrimonious and partisan over the years but this is not due to politicians or parties. Indeed it has little, if anything, to do with our political system at all. It due to division among the electorate. It is the electorate that has become more partisan, not the parties. Politics have become more and more acrimonious because the line between private and public business is growing finer all the time.
Emotion and sentiment have become integral parts of our political process. We want passion on the part of politicians. We want leaders who feel strongly about issues. We want our government to share our sentiments. The problem here is that emotions and feelings do not lend themselves to calm, rational discussion. They touch on the most personal and intimate parts of the human psyche. It is possible to have a calm and detached discussion over fiscal policy. It is not possible to have such a discussion over an issue like abortion. The public may be willing to sit patiently through a political discussion over interest rates but if the topic turns to a more personal subject such as what their children should learn in school their emotions will stir.
This would not be so much of a problem if personal and more intimate matters were treated locally or in isolation, at least they would not be grist for presidential campaigns. But the power of the federal government and the near unlimited reach of the courts have made even the most personal aspects of our lives matters of national concern. You may still be able to think, say, and believe what you like in the privacy of your home but once you step out the door your actions and words are circumscribed by law. In public you are obliged to conform your speech and actions to the prevailing public sentiments.You may teach your child what you like at home but once that child is in school she will learn how to think along socially and culturally acceptable lines. The contentiousness that attends national politics is over which sentiments will prevail where the lines will be drawn.
When political discussion veers from legitimately governmental issues such as finance or foreign policy into social issues such as "diversity" and "values" the water quickly becomes roiled. "Diversity" and "traditional values" are not policy positions. They are open brackets free to be filled by the hopes and fears of people, just like "growing the economy" or "getting spending under control" are not economic policies. They are little more than slogans crafted to calm the fears and soothe the concerns of the electorate. As such they too are simply blank space to be filled by the public.
There always has been profound disagreement over the proper limits and scope of government. The further the government reaches into the personal beliefs and private lives of individuals the more contentious the disagreement. The more power government has over our lives the higher the stakes in any election. The higher the stakes the more bitter the contest becomes. Political parties do not cause conflict. They reflect it. Political partisanship is not the problem with American politics. Disagreement over policy is healthy. Parties should not be condemned for it. Parties are institutions created to organize the political process and make it coherent. They are an attempt to bring order out of chaos.
What is the problem is that the stakes in any national election are enormous. The federal government affects trade and commerce. It sets the direction of the courts. It allocates resources and sets social policy. It influences education. Indeed it touches every aspect of our lives. If the blame over increasing partisanship is to placed anywhere, it is squarely on the shoulders of those who put government at the very center of American society. We are no longer content with a chief executive whose job is to administer the government. We want a leader with a vision. We want a champion to fight for our cause. National elections have ceased to be about politicians and parties. They are about visions.
It is an admirable evasion to lay our selfish and shortsighted political system to the charge of parties and politics. The truth is parties and politics do not create division, they reflect it.
Emotion and sentiment have become integral parts of our political process. We want passion on the part of politicians. We want leaders who feel strongly about issues. We want our government to share our sentiments. The problem here is that emotions and feelings do not lend themselves to calm, rational discussion. They touch on the most personal and intimate parts of the human psyche. It is possible to have a calm and detached discussion over fiscal policy. It is not possible to have such a discussion over an issue like abortion. The public may be willing to sit patiently through a political discussion over interest rates but if the topic turns to a more personal subject such as what their children should learn in school their emotions will stir.
This would not be so much of a problem if personal and more intimate matters were treated locally or in isolation, at least they would not be grist for presidential campaigns. But the power of the federal government and the near unlimited reach of the courts have made even the most personal aspects of our lives matters of national concern. You may still be able to think, say, and believe what you like in the privacy of your home but once you step out the door your actions and words are circumscribed by law. In public you are obliged to conform your speech and actions to the prevailing public sentiments.You may teach your child what you like at home but once that child is in school she will learn how to think along socially and culturally acceptable lines. The contentiousness that attends national politics is over which sentiments will prevail where the lines will be drawn.
When political discussion veers from legitimately governmental issues such as finance or foreign policy into social issues such as "diversity" and "values" the water quickly becomes roiled. "Diversity" and "traditional values" are not policy positions. They are open brackets free to be filled by the hopes and fears of people, just like "growing the economy" or "getting spending under control" are not economic policies. They are little more than slogans crafted to calm the fears and soothe the concerns of the electorate. As such they too are simply blank space to be filled by the public.
There always has been profound disagreement over the proper limits and scope of government. The further the government reaches into the personal beliefs and private lives of individuals the more contentious the disagreement. The more power government has over our lives the higher the stakes in any election. The higher the stakes the more bitter the contest becomes. Political parties do not cause conflict. They reflect it. Political partisanship is not the problem with American politics. Disagreement over policy is healthy. Parties should not be condemned for it. Parties are institutions created to organize the political process and make it coherent. They are an attempt to bring order out of chaos.
What is the problem is that the stakes in any national election are enormous. The federal government affects trade and commerce. It sets the direction of the courts. It allocates resources and sets social policy. It influences education. Indeed it touches every aspect of our lives. If the blame over increasing partisanship is to placed anywhere, it is squarely on the shoulders of those who put government at the very center of American society. We are no longer content with a chief executive whose job is to administer the government. We want a leader with a vision. We want a champion to fight for our cause. National elections have ceased to be about politicians and parties. They are about visions.
It is an admirable evasion to lay our selfish and shortsighted political system to the charge of parties and politics. The truth is parties and politics do not create division, they reflect it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)