Today’s challenge: Try to find any indication in this Washington Post article that there might be a legitimate perspective* other than the authors’ screamingly obvious desire for federal programs to combat childhood obesity:

Since the alarm was finally sounded in the late 1990s, the problem has been the country’s reaction: a fragmented, inchoate response that critics say has suffered particularly from inadequate direction and dollars at the federal level. . . .

Health experts insist that strong leadership from the top is crucial . . .

Critics say the White House has not pushed the issue much beyond personal responsibility. They say the administration and lawmakers are not aggressively pressing for industry or food policy changes. . . .

Advocates say the limited power of persuasion and lesser state and local resources make forceful federal measures imperative. . . .

Congress has paid tepid attention to childhood obesity . . . . A measure by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), to create a federal commission on childhood obesity prevention, among other actions, wasn’t even debated.

They even quote, with a straight face, Yale’s Kelly Brownell. Who handed control of the Post over to the interns?

* * *
* E.g.: Whether childhood obesity is good or bad (my vote: bad!), it isn’t the federal government’s job to make kids eat healthy foods any more than it is the federal government’s job to make kids watch educational TV programs.

* * *
P.S.— There’s good advocacy journalism and then there’s bad advocacy journalism. This isn’t either one of them! It’s . . . agitprop? Bad advocacy journalism would resemble this piece with one or two token quotes from Obesity Myths or somebody at the Heritage Foundation thrown in, to make it seem as though the reporters were at least checking off boxes to appear evenhanded.

Good advocacy journalism doesn’t make the reporters’ own feelings quite so obvious. But by the end of it, you arrive at a certain conclusion without realizing you’ve been led there, and you have a vague sense that anybody with at least a median IQ would arrive at the same conclusion too, if they thought about the issue a little. 

Hey, maybe you aren’t benefitting personally from cigarettes and sugar candy. Changes nothing.

Does not mean others aren’t. I notice how you attack what I say indirectly instead of focusing on what I really said. You guys stoop to the lowest level. I must REALLY get on your nerves.

Either you agree with me that people are profiting from cigarettes and sugar candy or you don’t agree. Wouldn’t that make for a more civil discussion ?!

R. Smith, you have no idea what I was getting at and you evidently don’t care either.

As for greta’s remarks, yeah sure, creeping socialism is a potential problem, and sure there are problems in how well it could be regulated without introducing additional problems.

Which brings us back to the original issue.

Either you agree or disagree that childhood obesity is a problem.

Either you agree or disagree that the reason for the problem is in part junkfood.

Either you agree or disagree that it can be properly regulated to lessen the problem.

Either you agree or disagree that regulation is good or is instead a violation of libertarian principles.

Either you agree or disagree that this is “creeping soft socialism”.

Either you agree or disagree that even if this is, it is worth it to make a dent in the problem.

I’ll take greta over Daffy Duck any day, but that’s only because a bare minimum of decency and intelligent commentary is something to hold out hope for.

To quote Daffy Duck (that most authoritative of sources):

“I may be a miser, but I’m a GREEEEEEEEDY miser!”

I’ve yet to make my millions, but there’s always hope for the future.  And I’ve yet to sue anybody for any reason - but again, let’s not lose hope!  I mean, you see so many people with lawsuits these days, you think, “Hey!  I’d like one too!” (thank you Steve Martin). 

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to work out a shady back-room deal with some of my corporate buddies that will net me hundreds or even tens of dollars while bilking the huddled masses of poor people out of their refundable federal tax credits…

“Advocacy advertising” ???

Attention crew...we are now entering the sub idiotic.

Here’s an example of non advocacy advertising.

“Eat at Joe’s..or not. Moe’s is pretty good too..and likely closer. Maybe even cheaper.”

Bill,

I thought you were a greedy lawyer who made your greedy millions sueing the companies that poison our helpless children with their greed driven death toxins...like Tootsie Rolls?

Don’t tell me you’re a corporate death merchant AND a greedy lawyer!!!

Reminds me of the old strip from National Lampoon...Doctor Lawyer.

What amazes me is that the concept of free will is so alien to so many Americans. The house pets. Even the illegals understand it better than some of the natives.

Live well...Die well.

I (as in self)determine (as in determination)… the definition of “well”.

Kids are always right, especially when supported by the local Social Workers and Child Protection Agency. I admit to being a stupid parent by letting my kid become obese (fat).

A fat kid has trouble at school and is costly to feed. Plus, socially his only girlfriend will be a fat girl. One who likes tight pants, bare middrift and has a tattoo. Immitates her mother.

It is time to make McDonalds and other food seducers to pay each state billions in fines. Just like Big Tobacco. Think about how much it costs in healthcare. Those bastards should be made to pay. Remember, it is all for the children and the GenASS to spend.

(How appropriate that the password is “soviet34”.)

“So you guys like the idea of unrestricted smoking and juice paks for the kiddies that would kill a polar bear.”

Right, Ed.  That’s exactly what we said.  Glad we made that so clear for you. 

<eyeroll>

So you like the idea of the government playing the role that a PARENT rightfully should play?

“It doesn’t hurt your swell buddies can make a ton of money off of sugary treats and cancer sticks.”

Gee, I didn’t realize I was so transparent.  That’s right - my swell buddies all sell cigarettes and candy to tots - gotta get `em hooked at an early age, ya know.  And if they make a ton of money, then I personally benefit because, uh… hmm… well I dunno how I would benefit if the cigarette and candy makers sell more of their product.  And, come to think of it, I don’t know anyone who even works for a cigarette or candy company.  Huh.  Sorry, Ed, but it looks like your little theory is completely full of holes.  At the very least it’s full of something that comes out of certain holes.

The issue is not whether or not advocacy journalism is a good or bad thing (and whether it’s “good” or “bad” will depend, I am certain, on your agreement or disagreement with the particular position being advocated).  The issue is what is being advocated here - what is being advocated is yet another massive federal government bureacracy not contemplated by the U.S. Constitution.  Not that that pesky little nuance ever stopped a Democrat from building a pet federal empire.

Mr. R. Smith hit a home run with his comments on advocacy journalism. I will leave well enough alone. I would like to remark on the other spectre that was so evident to me in the WP piece. The increasing demand for the Clinton/Obama brand of creeping soft socialism that is oozing quietly all over Europe.The UK has indeed proposed many of the same programs as we have here in the U.S they are on a VOLUNTARY basis for 2 two and a half years at which time a general report will be made to the public as to the success or failure of the efforts. They have proposed subsidies for healthy foods and taxes on “sin” foods like sugar and fatty goodies.Anyone see a problem for corporate abuse there? How about media training for older children?
In the event that all the stale ideas put out by the EU don’t work, perhaps a “New Government Body whose job it would be to legislate the whole shebang. That might not fly though because in their own words “There was concern that another government body would not be popular as governmental bodies are not always highly regarded.” That is so very British. In regard to Mexico the only program that I could find was one implemented by Pepsico involving a video game dispensing nutritional advice to village children. In a country where 80% of the schools do not provide water and Pepsi is pushing its Aquafina and juice along with the game it does seem only fair to give them some credit. But this is certainly no revolutionary movement South of the Border. Canada is the only place I could find where the government has actually mandated changes in the school cafeterias, advertising etc. but I could not find any data on the results of the changes. I did start out to check if the governmental interference had made any difference in solving the child obesity problem in the world. I was not surprised to find that it did not. I will respectfully leave a quote for your consideration.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism but under the name of liberialism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialistic nation without ever knowing how it happened."----Norman Thomas.American Socialist.
And they will hate it.

Pink ribbons identify the fight against breast cancer. Yellow bracelets symbolize cancer research fundraising.

Fighting childhood obesity now has its own unique symbol for awareness and fundraising, the Do Tag.

Monkee Do’s cute monkee on a shoe tag sends the right message of “DO"ing to kids and adults. It also establishes an identifiable symbol for childhood obesity fundraising and awareness.

To see the foundations participating in the Do Tag Project, please visit [url=http://www.TheDoTag.com]http://www.TheDoTag.com[/url]

So you guys like the idea of unrestricted smoking and juice paks for the kiddies that would kill a polar bear. (they just have to read the nutrition labels)

It doesn’t hurt your swell buddies can make a ton of money off of sugary treats and cancer sticks. Good for business you know.

I repeat the websites Bart is dipping into don’t want to publish their contributors because it is beyond doubt a who’s who of corporations profiting from our bad health.

Forget advocacy journalism. Not even a problem. But advocacy advertising, a long established problem. You want opinion. The conservatives are nothing if not one specious opinion after another. All written up as if truth of course.

Here’s a great piece from a Reuters stooge “reporting” on the UN’s recent decision to prop up Obama’s campaign with an investigation into racism in the US.

“His campaign has increased turnout among black voters but has also turned off some white voters in a country with a history of slavery and racial segregation”

Implied message...turnout increased among deep thinking, civic minded and issue oriented people who don’t use race to judge while those white people are stuck in their old slavery-segregationist ways!

And this guy (and his editor) graduated from journalism school.

Must be one of those intellectually superior types that Ed dreams of hob snobbing with.

Let me see if I could do this.

“while there is no indication that Mr. Jefferson was involved in the crime, he is a black man living in an area where a disproportionate number of murders are committed by black men”

heh! convicted!

(Yeah..I know..no editor would ever let the term “black men” pass the censors. Those about to hyperventilate and collapse into guilt driven PC convulsions should use their uncomfortable information blockers to African American out the term) Dammit! I meant to say “black out”...or did I? I don’t know. It’s hard to tell anymore.

The gov’ts role in dictating personal lifesytle choices was cast in steel when we let the anti smoking zealots off their leash. All we have left is a long retreat..fighting a rear guard action until the weak willed and feeble minded sell us out for good.

And there is no such thing as “good” advocacy journalism because what is “good” is determined by a particular opinion...and opinions are not journalism.
Leading someone to a prescribed conclusion is manipulation disguised as information.

Post Your Comments:

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.