« | »

Wesley Clark Wants To Control Kids’ Diet

From a short term memory deficient Associated Press:

Are school lunches a national security threat?

By Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press Writer

April 20, 2010

WASHINGTON – A group of retired military officers says high-calorie school lunches are threatening national security.

A study by the group Mission: Readiness finds that school lunches are making American kids so fat that fewer of them can meet the military’s physical fitness standards. That, in turn, is putting recruitment in jeopardy.

A report from the group, being released Tuesday, says that 27 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are too overweight to join the military.

One of the officers, retired Navy Rear Admiral James Barnett Jr., says many young Americans are simply too fat to fight.

The officers are pushing for passage of a wide-ranging nutrition bill that aims to make the nation’s school lunches healthier.

Gosh, how odd that a group led by Wesley Clark would come out with a report that would support Mrs. Obama’s childhood obesity initiative? (Of course it is the SEIU’s initiative originally.)

Especially since this selfsame group, ‘Mission: Readiness’ released a report just last November and yet somehow didn’t mention childhood obesity as a problem at all.

No, way back then the problem was that we didn’t spend enough on ‘Head Start’ and other ‘early education’ programs.

Here is the now long forgotten report (a pdf file):

NEW REPORT REVEALS THAT 75% OF YOUNG AMERICANS ARE UNFIT FOR MILITARY SERVICE

Education Secretary Duncan, former NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark, retired admirals and generals say early learning key to reverse security threat

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 5, 2009) —According to a new report, 75 percent of young people ages 17 to 24 are unable to enlist in the military because they fail to graduate high school, have a criminal record, or are physically unfit. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, former NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark, and some of America’s top retired admirals, generals and other military leaders called today for immediate action to address this threat to America’s national security.

General Clark, Major General James A. Kelley (USA, Ret.), Major General James W. Comstock (AUS, Ret.), Brigadier General John W. Douglass (USAF, Ret.), Rear Admiral James Barnett (USN, Ret.), former Under Secretary of the Army Joe Reeder and Secretary Duncan called for greater investment in high-quality early learning programs to ensure more young people graduate from high school, obey the law and have the option of military service if they choose that path.

The retired military brass are members of a new organization called MISSION: READINESS, led by nearly 90 retired military leaders, including two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton (ret.) and General Shalikashvili (ret.), and six other four-star generals and admirals. The group supports policies to help young people get the right start so they are prepared to succeed in life.

“According to the new report from our organization, Mission: Readiness, 75 percent of young Americans are unable to serve in the military. These are the same young people we depend on to serve in times of need and ultimately protect this nation,” Gen. Clark said. “Support for high-quality early education will help ensure that more young people are on track for successful careers, including military service. Congress is currently considering the Early Learning Challenge Fund and must pass it so states can provide more children with this essential opportunity for learning.”

Secretary Duncan said that the support of retired military brass demonstrates how important early childhood development is for the country.

“I am proud to be joining these senior retired admirals and generals who have served our nation with courage and distinction,” Secretary Duncan said. "We know that investing in high quality early learning programs helps more young children enter school with the skills they need to be successful. That is why this administration has proposed a new investment in early childhood development through the Early Learning Challenge Fund.”

Major General Comstock said that he believes the early education of young children should be an area of bipartisan agreement.

“I’m a lifelong political conservative, and I believe that government should intervene on a limited and targeted basis,” Major General Comstock said. “Early education is not conservative common sense or liberal common sense—it’s just plain common sense. Reaching the most at-risk kids helps increase graduation rates and cut crime, so early education is a matter of national security.”

While the military is currently meeting recruitment goals due in part to the severe economic recession, the retired leaders said the challenge of finding quality recruits will return when the economy recovers.

“The armed services are meeting recruitment targets in 2009, but those of us who have served in command roles are worried about the trends we see. Our national security in the year 2030 is absolutely dependent on what’s going on in pre-kindergarten today. We urge Congress to take action on this issue this year,” Rear Admiral Barnett said.

The retired admirals and generals cited evidence from prominent research studies showing that children who benefit from early childhood education are significantly more likely to graduate from high school and avoid crime as adults.

For several decades, researchers followed children who attended Chicago’s Child-Parent Center (CPC) early education program. By the age of 18, children left out of the program were 70 percent more likely to be arrested for a violent crime than those who attended. By age 20, participants in the early education program were 29 percent more likely to have graduated from high school.

“Commanders in the field have to trust that our soldiers will respect authority, work within the rules and know the difference between right and wrong,” Maj. Gen. Kelley said. “Early learning opportunities help instill the qualities that make better citizens, better workers and better candidates for uniformed service.”

Many states have made substantial progress in providing early education services to young children. However, more than half of all states are reaching only 30 percent or less of their four-year-old children through state and federal programs. Ten states serve 20 percent or less of the four-year-olds in their state. Nationally, the federally-funded preschool program Head Start serves only half of at-risk kids, and Early Head Start serves less than five percent of infants and toddlers from eligible low-income families.

“The role of an admiral or a general is to look over the horizon, identify future problems and pinpoint the best way to overcome these challenges,” Brig. Gen. Douglass said. “The research shows today’s kids need early education, so let’s put that into practice now.”

Congress is now considering a new initiative, the Early Learning Challenge Fund, designed to help states provide more at-risk kids with access to quality early learning programs. The proposal will provide grants to the states of $1 billion a year for up to ten years to improve the quality of early childhood development programs and expand access to more at-risk kids. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in September that included support for the Early Learning Challenge Fund, and it is awaiting deliberation in the Senate.

“Imagine ten young people walking into a recruiter’s office and seven of them getting turned away. We cannot allow today’s dropout crisis to become a national security crisis,” former Under Secretary of the Army Joe Reeder said. “Starting with early education will make sure young people have a foundation that will prepare them for whatever path they choose, including the defense of our nation.”

The military brass called on members of the U.S. Senate to pass legislation supporting the early learning proposal, so more young people will succeed in school, obey the law and become contributing members of the community.

“The most important asset we have for our national defense is our men and women in uniform. To be successful in their careers, in or out of the military, young people need to get a strong start in life,” said Amy Dawson Taggart, national director for MISSION: READINESS. “The question is not whether we can afford to invest in high-quality early education. The real question is—can we afford not to?”

Doesn’t more early education mean more school lunches?

Oh, well. As long as we can find more target at which to throw more taxpayer dollars.

And buy more Democrat votes.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, April 20th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “Wesley Clark Wants To Control Kids’ Diet”

  1. canary says:

    “Imagine ten young people walking into a recruiter’s office and seven of them getting turned away.

    Did ya hear Obama has played more golf in one year, than Bush did in 8.

    I’d consider learning the only mass holding Obama’s bones together being 100% fat & hot air, pretty poor example.

    I’d say Obama and his top’s with their faces sucking to his ahs, lucky if anyone walks into a recruiter office. Like, anyone wants to live in just to get up serve tea & apples and say “We are Obama’s Americans. Obama and We love you” as they dodge bullets and line-mines.

    How come Obama’s main goal is to pick off the marines, first. Obama deserves nothing but his own middle-finger salute.

  2. Mithrandir says:

    Here’s an email I got from a teacher about wasting money on ‘healthy’ school food for kids. What is the point of wasting all this money! Feed your own kids! Look what they serve in schools…..bleech…

    ______________________________________________________________________

    School lunches:
    The biggest boondoggle ever! Parents need to feed their own children. The cost to have meals cooked, sometimes delivered to the schools in plastic wrap, staff to accept money and hand out milk, costs you over $100,000 / year, depending on the size of your district. There is no reason each child can’t bring his/her own lunch. If students are starving, then it is for the state to investigate child abuse, not have the school cover up for it.

    What are they feeding your children?: Fat, Oil, Sugar, Salt, Processed Foods, Carbohydrates.

    I have seen the menus year after year, and it is no where near a nutritious meal. The vegetables they throw in are so lifeless and unappetizing, the trash can is filled with them everyday, to the extent that a teacher is assigned to monitor it. Here are some common food items schools brag are ‘nutritious meal options.’
    LUNCH:
    Pizza, grilled-cheese sandwiches, caramel apples, hamburgers, hot-dogs, sausage, cake, pudding, brownies, cookies, ice cream, french fries, cheese sticks with dipping sauce, onion rings, fried chicken, fruit drowned in syrup, tacos with sour cream, rice krispy treats, corn-dogs, buttered garlic bread, chocolate milk, salted pretzel with cheese, cup cakes, salty crackers with cheese, nachos with cheese, jello, tater tots, macaroni with cheese, fried chicken burgers, burritos, buttery/salty bread sticks with dipping sauce.
    BREAKFAST (even worse):
    French toast with syrup (sugar), pancakes with syrup (sugar), bacon/sausage links (fat), cereal (colorfully spray-painted sugar balls), juice (sugar), muffin (bread the body converts into sugar), glazed doughnuts (bread/sugar), toast with butter (bread-sugar / fat).

    • skclewis says:

      YECH! Not anything I remember from my school days back in the 60’s. I remember getting a good hot meal then. All the food was prepared right in the school cafeteria. You could smell lunch cooking all through the school. There was very little waste and the trash was mostly milk cartons and paper napkins. And there were very, very few kids who I recall as being fat let alone obese. And everyone of my classmates who went to a recruiter after graduation was enlisted. I seem to remember things changing in the late 70’s or early 80’s when schools started pandering to the kids.

    • Right of the People says:

      I remember my mom getting up every morning to fix breakfast and my lunch for school. Lots of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, bologna and cheese, salami, other lunch meats plus always an apple, banana or orange, and milk money. I was never overweight nor were my friends of course on the other hand we used to run around like maniacs at recess instead of playing handheld video games.

      The cafeteria made wholesome, tasty meals and whenever they had footlong hot dogs or the special meals like turkey on the day before Thanksgiving my sister and I were given money to buy our lunches as a treat. My family didn’t have a lot of money in those days but my sister and I were always well fed.

      I can’t believe that today supposedly so many kids are allergic to peanuts. It must be a new disease developed since the sixties. If that many kids in my generation had been allergic to peanuts, my generation would have starved as half the kids I went to school with had peanut butter and jelly at least 2 to 3 times a week. We’d have been dropping like flies. Maybe it’s a symptom of ADD.

    • proreason says:

      “It must be a new disease developed since the sixties”

      Most of the diseases “developed” since the sixties are figments of people’s imagination. Sexual addiction is the best possible example, but there are dozens more.

  3. GetBackJack says:

    Guess Wesley doesn’t know about the FTO gene. And the mutant variety of that gene which is now carried by an estimated one third of the American population.

    I ain’t making this up …. leads inexorably to gross obesity and a physical brain capacity anywhere from 3% to 6% smaller than human norms.

    Add to this the Government’s idea of ‘nutritious’ food – damningly illustrated by our own Mithrandir – and we’ve got a recipe for an undisclosed group waging genetic war on the human race.

    And that’s not science fiction.

    First there was the Keynesian Model, then the Macro-Model, then the Supply-Side Model …. right now we’re i the Vampire-Model. Sucking the life out of us like vampires on our necks.

  4. JohnMG says:

    …..”says that 27 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are too overweight to join the military……”

    So what?! Only slightly more than 3% of these people have tha balls and the requisite patriotic fervor to contemplate enlisting in the first place. The rest are content to have somebody else carry the weight of keeping the country safe for their thankless asses.

    But don’t worry. I’m sure Obama will find enough skinny faggots to man(?) our military. To hear him tell it, the country is just teeming with patriotic queers anxious to serve, the only seeming barrier to them doing so is that they have to stay in the closet or be denied entry. Ohhhh the injustice of it all.

    Why not enlist every one of these whiney sonsabitches and send them over to Afghanistan to fight with the muslims (those stalwarts of gender-equality). I mean, they are all sooo ready to rock-n-roll, but that mean ol’ Uncle Sam just won’t turn ’em loose.

  5. bousquem says:

    I remember my school district would occasionally serve decent food but for the most part it was fried food or really fatty food. I ate it because after a while I got sick of sandwiches from home, but that was maybe one day every week or two. As much as I love vegetables (ask my parents how much broccoli, green beans, and spinach I ate growing up), the school had cooked the vegetables to basically tasteless mush and then left them in steam warming trays for hours more. The salad bar had been introduced my junior year and that was just some tomatoes, old cucumbers, slimy carrots, and wilted iceberg lettuce hacked up into chunks. I do think that there needs to be an improvement in school lunches but really all we should be spending money on is maybe 1 or 2 people to come in part time during lunch to sell milk and maybe juice to the kids.

  6. Mithrandir says:

    Yeah, I have no idea why schools BOIL vegetables! The most nutritious form is FRESH. When you boil them, it sucks out all the nutrients, and what you are left with are the hulls. Many people say if you boil, use the water for soup or gravy.

    But why tell the public schools what to do? They know everything, how can we challenge the gov’t that never makes mistakes?


« Front Page | To Top
« | »