Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Child Nutrition Bill

Hi guys, my name is Eric and I write a similar pro-atheism and pro-capitalism blog over at alternativereason.com. I plan on contributing and reposting some of my materials here at Skeptical Eye and hope that I can contribute to your content.

With our further ado, here is my critique of an article over at my favorite blog, The Huffington Post, that demands we pass the Child Nutrition Bill.

1. Better School Lunches!
The Post claims that this bill will improve the quality of school lunches, and I'm fine with that. I don't see why nutritionally deficient food should be fed to children and everyone deserves to have the freedom to eat how they please. I do feel like this kind of skips over the whole "should we have public schools" "should the government feed children at said schools" and "who is going to pay for this we, as a nation, have been laying off teachers for over a year now." But assuming magically healthier food can be conjured up for the plates of our school children, there is nothing wrong with this idea.

2. Junk Food Out of Schools
Wait a minute, we didn't even make it past the second reason before we began violating rights/confiscating choices? Ah right, a liberal blog. Seriously, when the coke machine in my high school was replaced with a coke zero and a water machine I was pissed. As a cafiend I needed my daily fix and at 16-17 years old I was more than old enough to determine when I could buy a pop. Not to mention the revenues the machines generated for the schools. Seriously though, I love soda and I don't see how removing soda machines will "help obesity" (once again assuming that obesity is something that needs to be solved by the government). When they took the machines out of my high school, I walked across the street and bought there instead. Loss of revenue? Check. Reduction of my calorie intake? Nope. I think many government officials fail to realize that the population understands that junk food is unhealthy but continues to consume it anyways and that is their choice. The pop machines don't force me to drink soda, in fact I am generally asked to pay for a soda, indicating that a choice to consume has been made (unless you accidentally inserted a dollar into a vending machine and accidentally drank the resulting product, then you may have a case, but then you need a lot more help than the government can provide). Okay better move on, you'll see this rant again when I find another "soda tax" article.

3. Families Rely on School Meals
This is not a good reason. Increasing peoples' dependency on the government for even the most basic of tasks (i.e. feeding yourself, keeping yourself alive for the next day) is not a pro. It is not the governments job to feed your child, nor yourself. Seriously, people say "we're becoming socialist" need to check their definition. America's been socialist for a good while now and feeding everybody's children only makes this worse.

4. A Historic Investment for Kids
Bullshit. It says right in the article that the bill is fully paid for (4.5 bn) but then in the next sentence it says it's not paid for. To clarify, part of the bill is "paid" for by cutting out temporary extra spending elsewhere. So it is being paid for by reducing spending that was temporarily increased...which is the same thing as costing too much. And then the "temporary extra spending" will be reinstated, so the bill is in no way paid for (from the information the HP gave).

5. Good for Farms and Farmers
I don't know much on this issue, but I have seen quite a bit of dissent over at the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Facebook Page. If anything though, local produce is no better/worse than "corporation" food, which is likely safer since it is subject to stricter scrutiny.

6. Democrats and Republicans Agree On It!
First, logically, this is not a reason just a statement. If the Democrats and the Republicans both agreed to hold a baby burning session and burn all but the first child of each house, this doesn't mean that the idea/law etc... is moral.
Second, Republicans and Democrats are just using this for a PR boost. They are basically the same party (less freedom, more government) that tag teams for effectiveness.

7. Health Advocates and Industry Support It!
Well, I believe that is called lobbying. Of course it is "support" when it's on your side and the "lobbying" when you are opposed the idea. I haven't read the bill (guilty as charged, however like the Senators, I am very busy and unlike the Senators it's not my job to) but I bet there is a fair amount of corporatism involved, as is the norm for "business in Washington.'


Read more at: AtlReason


  1. I don't know who you are Eric and you seem like a nice kid so take please take this advice: Run. I hear very evil things about what Skeptical Eye does to people.

    As for the post, #3 is all you need to know about the liberal mindset these days.

  2. Yeah, kids at school shouldn't get to eat.

  3. kids at school shouldn't get to eat.

    Hmm, so if someone is against the government doing something, that means they're against anyone doing it? How does it follow that because you oppose another tax supported program that you believe "kids in school shouldn't eat"?

    Can you point out in Eric's post where he says kids shouldn't get to eat? I didn't read that, Bret.

  4. Oh right, I forgot the real argument was, "Should poor kids even get to go to school?"

    My bad.

  5. Also, shame on you for making me plod through this wandering diatribe of spelling errors again, Nikk. Talk about a need for public education...

    With our further ado

    It is not the governments job

    The jury is still out on how many f's are in caf[f]iend. I'll give that one to him, by virtue of me liking the word.

  6. No young children should go to school, poor or otherwise, but if that's what parents want, let them or someone else pay for it by some means other than theft.

    The public schools need to be abolished, though. They're nothing more than government regimentation training centers.

  7. shame on you for making me plod through this wandering diatribe of spelling errors again, Nikk.

    More like typos (the r is right next to the t) that we all make. I know you're too perfect for those, Bret, but at least it gave you something you could comment on, since you have no arguments of substance.

  8. I know you're too perfect for those

    No, I'm just too anal to leave it up without correction.

    If I have to tear one particular thing apart, it's this ridiculous statement:

    I haven't read the bill (guilty as charged, however like the Senators, I am very busy and unlike the Senators it's not my job to) but I bet there is a fair amount of corporatism involved, as is the norm for "business in Washington.'

    Besides needing to close it out at the end with a double quote *twitch*, it also makes no sense.

    You never read the bill, which I don't fault you for, but you seem to make a pretty explicit claim as to what you feel is in it. It would have saved me sime if this had been mentioned at the beginning, something like, "I have no idea what I'm talking about, this is just me criticizing liberals in general."

  9. Hey Bret, thanks for pointing out my spelling errors, I'll try to fix the ones you mentioned and anymore that I stumble across.

    My point is that education is not a right (no matter what the U.N. says) also, before you make me wade through your lengthy posts that criticize minor typos, be sure you look up the proper use of quotations and citations. You wouldn't want people to think that I said "Should poor kids even get to go to school?" or "kids at school shouldn't get to eat" because I didn't imply or say either of those things.


  10. What is "sime" Bret? You know it usually doesn't bother me when people make typos, but I'm just too vindictive to let it slide. :P

    Anyways, I was arguing against the reasons the HP gave for the bill, as I mentioned in the beginning, not against the bill itself. This is my last comment for now, I have to go do work. Why don't you write a rebuttal to my post Bret, that way I can see if you have anything of substance to say, instead of a general criticism against people that have better things to do than meticulously type their blog comments.


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails