[PUG] Michelle Obama is a bully

This problem runs so deep.

Yes, we should encourage a healthy lifestyle, but talk is cheap.

What about our society built around sitting down for car rides, tv, internet, office work, spectator sports, 'entertainment'.

What about our diet of cheese burgers, cornmeal, soda, taco bell, pizza, nachos and ranch dressing?

Most kids in school these days eat french fries or drink pepsi for lunch.

They go home and they play xbox, because they hardly have the motivation to do anything else.

Where are the thriving communities where kids interact with each other without hating each other?

Whatever happened to the sandlot?

Kids are at home chatting on FB and masturbating all day.

We have become a nation of lazy, cowardly gluttons, slaves to the sick system that feeds us.

How do we get out of this mess?

Change the diet. Change the way we eat, change the way we live, expect greater things.

We need to be responsible for ourselves.

Responsibility means making well informed decisions.

We must empower ourselves so that we may empower others.

Lead by example, etc...

How do we get there? Challenge the current system. Keep the government in check.

We elect leaders, trusting them to work for the people.

If they aren't doing their job, maybe we should re-think the effectiveness of our system.

Expose the flaws and raise awareness.

We the people have subscribed to this failed system, and we continue on thinking that change is here because we have a guy like Obama in office.

Sure, he looks good in a suit and he can deliver a speech, but we are being led down the same dumb path that we have been on for a long time.

I dont trust em.
 
Oranguh said:
Perhaps the message has not been received in a very positive way (albeit it's difficult to).... But... I find it difficult that a person in this position could have any form of sinister intentions that amount to her being a "bully".
Click to expand...

Well like I said, I don't think she was trying to or even thought it might come across this way.

She just tried to make logical jumps, she probably figured that Americans care about their wallets, so she probably thought if she could link money to obesity in children, then she could get people to care.

The result was quite ironic.
 
Sali said:
Isn't being fat a symptom of an unhealthy lifestyle though?
Click to expand...

Most obesity is a result of genetic variation in reaction to the environment. Overall pretty much everyone in the modern world is sedentary and eats poorly, including the thin ones, only those with certain genes will grow large, however that doesn't save thinner people from health problems (apart from those associated with stigma), in fact it might lead to complacency, which might be why mortality in "normal" weight is now comparable to the moderately obese and overweight is optimal. Healthy lifestyles should be promoted to all people, targeting one particular segment creates stigma and complacency.

Raccoon Love said:
Exactly. The message no matter how you sugarcoated, is going to sound offensive.

Michelle has been actively campaigning against bullying. That's been one of her focuses. She really did not meant for this to be "hurtful".
Click to expand...

Isn't that how all bullies go though? "I never meant to hurt you, we were just joking around/didn't mean it etc."

Her intentions are irrelevant if she is doing harm, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

bickelz said:
Well who else is to blame for fat people being fat? Government conspiracy? Skinny people magazines? Being fat rests on factors that have to do with you and you only so when someone tries to help and there is no progress, the blame rightfully goes on you. The same thing would be said about school work. If you help the kids who are behind excessively and the make no or negative progress, the fault is theirs, not yours.
Click to expand...

Put it this way,if Obama was promoting a pill instead of "exercise, fresh fruit and veg" and that pill had been proven many times over in well controlled scientific studies to be completely ineffective for weight loss. Why should those people diligently taking the pill without result get the blame? When it's obvious that the pill/intervention is a complete failure.

If you want to help someone first prove that your solution actually works! Obama hasn't done this. I'm sure that the doctors that used to practise bloodletting thought they were helping too!
 
Last edited:
Quinlan said:
Most obesity is a result of genetic variation in reaction to the environment. Overall pretty much everyone in the modern world is sedentary and eats poorly, including the thin ones, only those with certain genes will grow large
Click to expand...

I don't know, I used to be fat until I got into working out a lot and changing my macro-nutrient balance I think this genes stuff is a load of crap to be honest. that's just my opinion but I'm sticking to it because of experience.
 
Sali said:
I don't know, I used to be fat until I got into working out a lot and changing my macro-nutrient balance I think this genes stuff is a load of crap to be honest. that's just my opinion but I'm sticking to it because of experience.
Click to expand...

A helpful link:

http://www.drsharma.ca/eating-more-...-in-some-people-maybe-sometimes.html#comments


I actually think that getting macronutrients right is really important, probably a lot of people could lose weight but not if governments keep promoting so much carbs and fructose and demonizing saturated fat.
 
Michelle and her husband Barack are both lawyers, and bad ones at that in politics, when they try to promote "causes" for the general public. They do what they please; they are conditioned to a certain lifestyle already that is more removed from the common man trying to just eat and survive in this damn economy.

Is anyone going to believe a woman who tries to promote this childhood obsity thing who was recorded in Aspen with her 2 daughters sharing a calor-ific meal of "ribs" on holiday?

Or who blew her government paid "private vacation" with 40 friends, no less, at perhaps the most expensive resort in the world (located in Spain) ---- ? Wonder what she ate there, out of view of US eyes? What an idiot! If she's so concerned - why didn't she take that money and divert it to a " reverse childhood obesity foundation" she could have created? Huh?

Oh Michelle....Michelle....Michelle.....tsk..tsk...tsk....

Wait! I know. "It's a black thing - close to her heart - this childhood obesity, and its multicultural as well."

She talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
 
Calories aren't the issue it the the proportions of specific nutrients...
1kCal carbs will are different from 1KCal of protien/fat
 
Kavalan said:
Calories aren't the issue it the the proportions of specific nutrients...
1kCal carbs will are different from 1KCal of protien/fat
Click to expand...

You can only lose weight if you're burning more calories than you eat, sure your body processes them differently but the main reason people get fat is because you can eat a ton of calories worth of carbs without getting full.
 
Sali said:
You can only lose weight if you're burning more calories than you eat, sure your body processes them differently but the main reason people get fat is because you can eat a ton of calories worth of carbs without getting full.
Click to expand...

certain genetic effects allow for certain people to retain certain metabolites due to conditioning. also it is dependent on ones glycogen stores, and how well they degrade fatty acid stores into the carboxylic acid cycle. Sometimes creating a caloric deficit doesn't work within the window of working out and the body's process to retain energy.
 
Kavalan said:
certain genetic effects allow for certain people to retain certain metabolites due to conditioning. also it is dependent on ones glycogen stores, and how well they degrade fatty acid stores into the carboxylic acid cycle. Sometimes creating a caloric deficit doesn't work within the window of working out and the body's process to retain energy.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I've never seen anyone that actually puts in the work fail.
 
There are plenty of medical and psychological conditions, as well as medications for such conditions, that lead to considerable weight gain. (For example, when my sister began taking medication for her Bipolar she put on over 40 pounds in less than a year.)

Different diets affect different people differently. What is a healthy diet for most can be unhealthy for a minority. Diets designed for weight loss often do permanent damage to one's metabolism, and can be counter productive even when you ignore the fact that the attempt to adhere to one creates more stress.

(Similarly different study habits work better for those with different learning styles. It is very possible for an attempt to help those doing poor in school to be responsible for negative progress.)

Due in a very large part to agricultural subsidies, healthy foods are generally much more expensive than unhealthy foods. Those in poverty have a hard time affording a healthy diet, and can become addicted to the unhealthy habits even once they leave poverty.


Much of the advice given decades ago by the government dealing with what foods are healthy has been shown to be false. These were mostly honest mistakes based on the best science availible at the time, but have not all been adequately corrected. The FDA is essentially a clientele agency, which serves the purposes of the agribusiness and pharmaceutical corporations rather than the public.
 
I reckon once you normalise your hormones (usually by reducing carbs) the calories take care of themselves, conciously counting calories seem backwards to me, get your hormones right and then you won't have to.
 
We have a similar problem here in Australia and the big differences have happened over the last 20 years. The number of people you could class as obese back when I was in school was minute. I actually remember there only being two kids in my grade who could have been considered seriously overweight. Now, it is starting to look like obesity is the norm. What has changed? A few things: time poor parents working long hours to pay off their mortgages or other debts, more driving and less physical exercise, more processed food because people don't have the time or knowledge to cook for themselves. A lifestyle change is needed because the western world is slowly killing itself.

It might sound harsh to couch the impact in economic terms but sadly it is the only thing some people will understand. I can see why she might have chosen that route even though I don't like it myself.
 
When I was in gradeschool, I always had something deep down that really bothered me when it came to the staunch anti-smoking rhetoric that was rammed down all of our throats. A completely legal activity (for adults) that they told us we should never do. They didn't say "Don't smoke if you're underage", they said "Don't smoke, ever." Every friday the entire school gathered for a sing-along on the blacktop where we, the 6th graders (age 12 for you non-US people), were scolded for not wanting to sing silly songs - because if we didn't do it then the 2nd graders weren't going to do it either. We were tools instrumental in indoctrinating those younger than us - we were indoctrinated to be indoctrinators. We'd sing "Smoke is no joke. Smoking is a terrible habit. Smoking isn't good for a woman or a man or a kid or a chipmunk or a rabbit" and the teachers would clap along. Yes, I still remember it. We did it every Friday. Later, we'd tabulate how much money our friends and family who smoke would save if they quit and, instead, put that money into a savings account. We were indirectly encouraged to pass this information on to those respective friends and family.

As I've experienced different things, I come to a similar conclusion concerning others. Distrust anyone who is attempting to compel you. There's a difference between someone who is simply showing you something different and allowing you to make your own decision, and sometimes that difference is very subtle. Direct compulsion is evident (You should eat healthier food and exercise, and you aren't a good person if you don't). Non-compulsion is fairly evident (We're going to be holding an assembly on ways you can get into better shape. It's voluntary, and if you're interested you're welcome to come!).

Indirect compulsion is trickier, and it's the snakey way of escaping being called a dictator. Replacing all vending machine items with completely different "healthier" things - like carrots and fruit juice and such. Banning the placement of fast food restaurants in low income communities, handing out "informational" pamphlets with aborted fetuses, caged animals, starving africans, obese people in hospital beds... and chock full of one-sided information. Imagine the uproar if smoking was presented fairly in school - even if the information eventually would lend to the argument that it's bad. Imagine somebody saying "Smoking has been shown to lead to cancer and heart disease all sorts of other nastiness, and your clothes tend to smell like cigarettes, and they cost a lot, but some smokers find that breathing smoke is enjoyable or enjoy the taste and are willing to take that risk. There is another side to each argument, even if some outweigh the others when looked at objectively. Poaching baby seals sucks, but you can make some money from it if you're willing to risk it and be violent toward those cute cuddly mother fuckers.

I always get the sentiment from someone when I say these things. It goes something like: "So you don't want healthier kids? Are you crazy? This is great for everyone! You just want people to suffer. You don't care about the children. I don't like you. You're an awful person." Of course, underneath that is subtle compulsion too - "You should believe what I believe because what I believe is good. You shouldn't think for yourself. People don't like you because you don't agree with us, so you should agree with us so you can have our acceptance."

If those arguments persist, I'd say that I'd like to see the following items paraded by schools:

Don't eat unhealthy food.
Don't root for any sport team other than your state or local town's sports team.
Don't drive SUVs.
Don't speak against the nation, and don't question the validity of our wars.
Don't read any philosophy that doesn't embrace the nation, and don't read existentialism.
Don't vote for parties other than Republican or Democrat, depending on the general consensus of your state.
Don't practice islam because many of its practitioners are violent.
Don't practice buddhism or hinduism because they're foreign. (Do those sound absurd? How about don't practice or research witchcraft or satanism? A little less absurd?)
Don't have children if you are at risk of having ones that are handicapped (physically or mentally).

As for me, I'd throw a twist on each one of those. I'd add "if you don't want to" at the end of each one. I remember Alan Watts saying once we're compelled by honestly agree with society and the system and the general consensus. That's a double bind though, because one can't do anything voluntarily if they're compelled to.

As a side note. There's a scene from "Thank You for Smoking" that made me grin widely - where the smoking lobbyist main character of the film goes into a career presentation at his kid's school. It turned that anti-smoking propaganda on its head and made a great argument... but left a shocked teacher because the message was essentially in favor of smoking.

This is it :D
 
I think a lot of the "snaky" things you are referring to are done in the hope that the government or whoever will appear to be "doing something" about whatever problem it is. Whether any of these solutions have any effect whatsoever is open to conjecture I think.

I don't have a problem really with kids being told not to smoke because it's bad though I'm feeling a little bit creeped out by the happy clappy anti smoking presentation you were subjected to in school. That's cruel and unusual punishment right there.
 
With that same sentiment, I would say that I would be pleased if schools educated children on disobeying and speaking out against their parents, teachers, political leaders, police officers, and all other forms of authority if they feel that those figures are wrong. I have a feeling that that parents would get pissy and want to put a stop to it when it led to their children thinking for themselves (a good thing that breeds maturity and responsibility) by telling their religious leaders to "go fuck themselves". Or by saying "Fuck you!" to their grandma at dinner *.

* Dr.Shephard is guilty of this specific social crime when his grandma asked if she could pick up the tip twice after he specifically told her not to start with the "I'd like to help pay for dinner" stuff ...and it was awesome. :m027:
 
lets call a hoe a hoe

The issue here is not whether kids are healthier if they are not fat. It is not whether the parents of fat kids are responsible for their fatness. The issue is that Michelle Obama has the temerity to suggest that parents of fat kids take notice and do something about it.

With a "normal" (read "white") First Lady, child health and education is a safe place to spend First Lady attention, but not so for Mrs. Obama.

I remember doing sit ups in 5 th grade back in 1970 for my Presidential fitness sticker and nobody complained about the intrusion of Presidential power. (and fircken Nixon was in power)
 
Isn't it reasonable that she'd trial this intervention on a smaller scale and see if it actually works before lumping even more stigma on fat kids?

Do a trial in a small town or county, see if it reduces their BMIs and if it doesn't, then don't bother with anything larger untill you figure out something that will work.

Oh but wait a minute such a trial has been done, over and over and over again and each time with no impact on bmi, the fat kids are exactly the same, except now they're failures as well as fat.

She told the whole world that her daughter was chubby, way to go super mum! I'm sure she won't grow up with any body image issues now...
 
Quinlan said:
A. Put it this way,if Obama was promoting a pill instead of "exercise, fresh fruit and veg" and that pill had been proven many times over in well controlled scientific studies to be completely ineffective for weight loss. Why should those people diligently taking the pill without result get the blame? When it's obvious that the pill/intervention is a complete failure.

B. If you want to help someone first prove that your solution actually works! Obama hasn't done this. I'm sure that the doctors that used to practise bloodletting thought they were helping too!
Click to expand...

A. Taking a pill is not the same thing as exercise and diet, which is the only way to lose weight healthily. So if you encourage people to exercise to lose weight or set a goal that they agree to, it's their fault for not getting there. Just like in the school allegory I posted earlier on this thread.

B. Obama's solution: eat right and exercise. I really don't see the need to re prove that since it is, again, the only healthy way to lose weight. The other big factor dealing with weight gain is stress, something Americans have a lot of. We need to take a break, you know?

Genetics and Weight Gain:

[MENTION=3454]DrShephard[/MENTION] Probably knows more about this than me and I'm not sure if he mentioned it earlier but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

So the hormone leptin that is controlled by the hypothalamus signals when to stop eating. A big theory about weight gain is that many have a decreased sensitivity to leptin and/or do not produce as much when actually full thus causing constant overeating. Evolutionarily, this makes sense because we are truly hunters and gatherers that would sometimes have to go without food. Overeating when food is there is a survival instinct. Now that food is abundant, we can't control ourselves. We don't need to exercise or stay in shape to get food. It's just there.
 
I've always been kind of a big guy, I wouldn't say obese but definitely overweight for my build and height. One thing I've started doing is eating smaller meals a day of better food and only eating until I'm not hungry anymore. There's a big difference in eating until you're full and eating until you're no longer hungry. It's an easier way for me to "keep track" of calories without actually having to keep track of them. I know that if I eat good foods in small meals 5 or 6 times a day and only eat until I'm not hungry anymore I will end up burning more that I'm taking in.

That being said, that took years for me to figure out. I think that the intention is in the right place, I don't think she's being a bully really, but I do think that because it is a sensitive subject (the weight issue in America) and because people don't want to admit that maybe they need a change in lifestyle it can be taken that way, as bullying. I honestly wish when I was in elementary school and junior high school they took the time to educate us on leading a healthier lifestyle.

Bully? Perhaps, but she still has a good point. Many kids and even families need to learn to live healthier lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top