Michelle Obama: We Can’t Just Leave (Feeding Kids) Up to Parents

At the ceremony where President Obama signed of the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act”, Michelle Obama has, once again, put her foot in her mouth. This time she did it by taking a shot at all parents:

Speaking at Monday's signing ceremony for the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act”-- a law that will subsidize and regulate what children eat before school, at lunch, after school, and during summer vacations in federally funded school-based feeding programs -- First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: “We can’t just leave it up to the parents."

The law gives the federal government for the first time the authority to regulate the food sold at local schools, including in vending machines.

This is just another example of Democrats thinking that they know better than everyone else and that we need the government to be our nanny and care-takers. Parents have every right to determine what their kids should eat.

I don't have a huge problem with them giving the children better, healthier choices, but they shouldn't try and usurp decisions away from parents and force their children to eat a certain way.

First Happy Meals, Now South LA Bans All New Fast Food Restaurant, Killing Jobs in Low-Income Neighborhood

They should really change California from the Golden State to the Nanny State. First, the San Francisco City Council tried to ban happy meals. Now, in all of their infinite wisdom, the Los Angeles City Council has restricted any new fast-food restaurants from opening, if they are too close to an existing fast-food joint:

New stand-alone fast food restaurants have been banned from setting up shop in South Los Angeles, due to rising health concerns by the city council.

How many fast food eateries does one area really need? The Los Angeles City Council thinks South Los Angeles and South East Los Angeles need new choices as these regions face an over-concentration of such restaurants.

"This is not an attempt to control people as to what they can put into their mouths. This is an attempt to diversify their food options," said councilmember Jan Perry.

Perry's new plan bans new so-called "stand alone" fast food restaurants opening within half a mile of existing restaurants.

Such stand-alone establishments are on their own property, but those same restaurants are OK if they're a part of a strip mall, according to the new rules.
"Give a grocery store and a housing combination a chance to come in," Perry said.
The city says around 72 percent of restaurants in South L.A. are fast food establishments, which is much higher than West L.A. and countywide averages which range in the 40s.

This is not going to do anything to diversify their dietary options. The existence of fast-food restaurants don’t stop other restaurants that may have a healthier menu, grocery stores, or housing combination from coming into the area. What Perry doesn’t seem to understand that healthier menues also carry a higher pricetag. That is the reason why they aren’t coming into the low-income South LA area. Most people can’t afford to pay the higher prices that higher-end restaurants would bring. So, even on the basic principle that this ban is based on is very wrong and it will not produce the results that they are desiring.

Now, let’s look at the unintended consequences of the ban. If the forbid new restaurants from opening that want to come into the poor areas of the city, won’t they also be blocking new jobs that would come with those new businesses? They may be low paying jobs, but I’m sure that most of those that are struggling to make ends meat in South LA would love to be able to make a few extra dollars to feed their kids or buy them shoes, medicine, etc. Why would they take away any job oppurtunities away from their people, given the high unemployment and high deficits in California? This is really incomprehensible, especially since they are taking away these job oppurtunities from those who probably need it the most, the poor.

H/T to HotAir's Ed Morrissey

Happy Meals Are Happy Again After San Francisco Mayor Newsom Surprisingly Vetoes Happy Meal Ban

Kids all across the Bay area can rejoice. The stand-off between Ronald McDonald and the City of San Francisco is finally over:

San Francisco, California, Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed Friday the city's ban on most McDonald's Happy Meals with toys.

In making the veto, the mayor released a new report on how a public-private partnership is combating childhood obesity and how San Francisco's more than 55,000 public school students are now eating fresher and healthier foods.

"Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money," said Newsom. "Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."

Pelosi to Artisans: Don't Worry About Working Ever. Taxpayers Will Take Care of Your Healthcare

I QUIT:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that thanks to the new health-care reform law, musicians and other creative types could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would fund their health care coverage.

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

That's great! Let us encourage all of our "artists" to quit their job and stop contributing to our economy. After all, it is those starving artists that make this economy go.

Hell, isn't blogging a form of art? Aren't I painting my masterpiece of the written word, right now? Maybe I should quit my job and blog all day long. I'll get food stamps and rent assistance. I won't have to work another day at that damn place ever again.

If people received this kind of assistance just because they claim to be an artist, there would be no stopping people who would not ordinarily care one hoot about painting, playing an instrument, or whatever to live off of the taxpayers just because they say that they are an artist. The potential for fraud would be enormous. Would potential recipients have to show some sort of proof of their status as an artisan? If so, what kind of proof would they have to give? Wouldn't any sort of "proof" be easily forged or manipulated to make them seem like they are something that they arenot??

This statement is so asinine that I cannot fathom why she said it. Does she actually believe that most Americans would agree with her? I guess her ultra-liberal, elitist base loved it, but the great majority of Americans wouldn't agree with it at all. I wish Rasmussen would poll people on whether they think that ObamaCare should be used for those "artists" who can work but quit their jobs in order to "focus on developing their talents". My guess is not too many.

Obama's Energy Secretary Wants to Be Your Daddy, Calls Americans "Unruly Teenagers"

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy has, apparently, went from not knowing that his position is a part of the Obama administration or that oil was a part of his Energy Secretary domain to condescendingly describing Americans as teenagers:

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”

So, not only are we "unruly" teenagers not following our parents' (government) rules, but we aren't smart enough to understand the climate change debate and decide for ourselves whether it's bogus or not.

Here's Chu's spokesman extra-lame explanation for Chu's comment. Apparently, he is trying to do a Jedi mind trick on everyone. "You did not hear what you just heard.":

An update: Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing.”

I didn't call Mr. Leistikow's explanation extra-lame or compare him to a Jedi. You believe me. Right?

As Ed Morrissey points out:

With that humbling experience in mind (the Energy Department and White House's own inadequacies at energy conservation), one might think that Chu and the Obama administration would approach energy policy with a little more humility.  Nope!  Instead, Chu talks about American citizens as if they cannot be trusted to make their own choices and the need to parent us rather than govern us with our consent.  Most of us have already had parents and don’t see the need to have our elected officials take their place.

This is the main problem with progressive liberals and the Nanny State that they want to implement here in the US. They want to be our parents. Most Americans are going to be so eager to have "Big Brother" act more and more like our parents.

San Francisco Passes Law Forcing Everyone to Recycle Or Be Fined

The heavily Democratic city of San Francisco has intruded in the lives of every one of their citizens once again:

The Board of Supervisors has approved legislation requiring all residents and businesses to recycle and compost or face hefty fines.

By its own estimation, the city already has the highest recycling rate in the country at 72 percent. But Supervisor Bevan Dufty said it can do more.

The new law approved Tuesday will force landlords and commercial building owners to sign up for recycling and composting services or face fines of up to $500, he said.

While I believe that recycling should be done by everyone, I don't believe that it should be forced on us by the goverment. It is not their place to be our parents.