The problem governmental authorities face is finding a balance between letting people make their own decisions and stepping in to help when there really is a better way of doing something. So let’s say that Big Macs REALLY are unhealthy and cause all sorts of problems. Do you want the government to step in and make some proclamation about how people should think about nutrition? Do we want the government to tell us how to eat? What if we determine that Big Macs cost taxpayers $1.1 billion yearly–I’m making up that number–down the road in health care costs? Do you want the government to step in now? Do YOU want to pay for the decisions of others to eat unhealthy food?
So here is this flap about breast feeding and Michelle Obama. What do you think?
ARTICLE: “Michelle Obama criticized about breast feeding remarks”
It’s strange how both the left and right take any opportunity to start a fire fight between one other. This in particular seems pointless. Regardless if breast feeing is more healthy for the children in the long run it seems the rule focus is that Michelle Obama is supposedly telling people how to raise their children. While I was reading this I couldn’t help but think “Why are people bothering to talk about this?”. You can tell that the person is more interested in targeting Michelle Obama as a person then addressing whether breast feeding is better for children. Michele Bachmann evens says that she herself has breast feed all her children so she obviously supports breast feeding. So what other reason other then talking a chance to make accusations about Michelle Obama since she obviously does support breast feeding. It shows how much politics ends up not being about actual issues but just childish fights between sides that are only interested in bad mouthing each other. It’s true on both sides of the political spectrum. For example here we have a politician that obviously does agree with the stand point of their opposing political party using an issue to accuse the other side of supporting the take over of the government. On one hand it is a valid issue in the United States today however what in the world does it really have to do her. Michelle Obama isn’t a politician, she’s only the first lady and she is using the position and publicity she does have to promote a positive cause. So why is she the target of this fire? Simply because unlike any actual issue that relates more closely to big government Michelle Obama’s promotion of breast feeding is an easy target. It’s very consistent with all politics that it’s much easier to use insults and mud slinging then facts that the either don’t exist or that the public would not supposedly understand. You see after reading this story a few times how silly their argument really is and how loosely related the topics truly are in comparison.
This is an example of the type of politics the right is embracing. Nothing but negativity. The first lady is not condoning either one. She aparently would recomend brestfeeding but yeah thats her. Shes not saying not to not breastfeed. But there are better examples of how the suposeed big government godzilla is more beneficial than you think it is. I'm sure that if we ever socialize Medicine we will like it, just like social security. Health is one of those issues where government intervention should be welcomed. The very fact that were even connecting breastfeeding remarks to big governments is fascinating to me. How did it ever get this far? Big Macs are definitely unhealthy and seem to be costing us a billion dollars in healthcare annually. So if we did get them banned somehow we will actually save a lot of tax payer money. But what if you simply enjoy a Big Mac and don't believe it'll cost you anything? In that case I'm not getting along too well with the government. But quite simply, the government hasn't done anything to increase the quality of our food. We eat the most chemically and hormonally manipulated food in the history of man kind. I mean this is getting ridiculous they give the chicken a hormone that makes them grow larger breast in order to produce more white meat. And thats not even the tip of the iceberg. But back to Michelle Obama. I'm not surprised they seem to target her. Especially with the president having to deal with a 24/7 news channel spreading lies about him and the left ever since taking office. In the end, this is all a war of classes. And its natural for human beings to distinguish themselves by class when they live realities of life. Thats the afterthought that guides our politics in Washington
The argument about whether the government is too involved or not involved enough in our lives is not something with only one correct solution. In many ways the government has been a big help to our soceity, and civilization in general, and in some ways it has stopped us from making certain individual decisions and rights. In the end, however, the government has been correct in many ways- although it may seem wrong and unfair to us at times. For example, we individually feel as though the government makes bad decisions with war techniques and such things but from the large picture we can see that without a strong government and even the well-organized army, America would not seize this power that we have today. Without these choices made by our government, which may seem inhumane at times, we would not be as safe and as prosperous as we are today. In the same light, I feel that the government should definitely make certain rules to prevent our country and our people from harming ourselves. For example, maybe they shouldnt make regulations about who eats what and such, but definitely make changes to what amount of trans fat or nutritiously harmful ingredients are used in general. (continued….)
(…continued) They could put a ceiling on certain goods that are proven to build cholesterol or harmful fats within the body. The government could boost the FDA levels in investigations and getting the word out as well. A few of my friends took a certain birth control pill which was FDA proven to be harmful, but did not stop using them because they were not warned enough. I feel that it was the governments responsibility to prevent people from buying this product if it was provent to be harmful. They should have invested more in advertizng the harmful effects rather then let the company of the birth control pills continue to advertise. As for Obama's comment and the comments after her, I believe that Obama was correct in everytrhing she said. Breast feeding is in fact a healthier choice for infants and is natural as well as priceless. The rebuttals made against Obama's statement were so ignorant in the fact that they only considered the views of people who did not want to breast feed in the first place and could also afford to do so.
The article from the right-wing politician Michele Bachmann criticizing the First Lady and left-wing politicians’ support of breastfeeding and the governmental aid they are giving to women who wish to breastfeed is unbelievable to me, especially because I cannot understand, even coming from an objective point of view, why anyone would have an issue with the ENCOURAGEMENT of breastfeeding. If anything, don’t people usually have an issue with mothers who choose NOT to breastfeed, because they are “depriving” their children of essential nutrients for better growth and academic activity in the future? The point is, I believe that a conflict such as this, where a right-wing conservative politician is outraged and making a very big spectacle of something the “left-wingers” did, saying they are taking government regulation too far and overstepping their boundaries, is insane and would NOT be an issue between two people, one from the left and one from the right side of the political spectrum.It is simply because they are politicians, and politicians, as we learned from the study Sam shared with us where a Democrat and Republican had their brain activity monitored while they watched statements by opposing political candidates, are extreme in their opinions and judgments and NOT very active with reasoning. The study showed us that they were overly-critical and sensitive to ANYTHING someone of their rival political party said, and were praising their own candidate. They even praised their own candidate when they said things that CONTRADICTED their own political beliefs, simply because politicians and socially subjected to and surrounded by people all around them ALL the time who think and act in extremes, so they adapt these behaviors based on emotion, and all logic goes out the window.Because I truly cannot see WHY this article was even of importance and WHY the encouragement of breastfeeding by government regulation and help with taxes is a BAD thing whatsoever, I can only attribute it to be that the right-wing politician Bachmann had a problem with it simply because it was an idea that came from the left, and she had to find a problem with it to argue, which is in the nature of all politicians. The logistics behind this article may not be as black-and-white as I find them to be, but relating the politics in this article to the study Sam shared in class is the only way I can go about understanding WHY this issue is a big deal to begin with.
Would I want the federal government to say I could not eat a Big Mac? Christ no. Even if the unhealthy decisions of millions of others were to cost a substantial amount I still would not change my position Perhaps the government has a obligation to forbid the sale of Big Macs to protect the material wealth of its citizens, something I belie is protected by the constitution. I think the real question here is why the United States does not adopt the French style health care system. In France everyone can drink and smoke as much as they want (which they do) secure in the knowledge that they will have medical attention when their bad habits catch up to them. This would make many think that the French spend a ridiculously large amount on health care and that they all die young. This is untrue the French have a longer life experience and roughly the same as Americans do on health care. One reason this system is not adopted is fear of the welfare state which stems from the prods tent work ethic.
I think that it is terrible that Michelle Obama is being criticized for making that statement. I could understand if she was imposing some kind of jurisdiction (which she does not even have the power to do) but she was just offering her opinion which was partially backed up with some facts to give it some credibility. I think this is the proper amount of intervention for the government on issues such as nutrition. In the end it is the individual’s choice what they want to do, but I think the government is allowed to give their opinion if it is backed up by credible facts. Actually, I would think that it is the government’s duty to inform people about such costs and benefits of different lifestyle choices because it is the government’s duty to do what is best for the people. Many people do not know or consider all of the costs when they make decisions such as breast-feeding or nutrition and they should be informed for their own health and well being. I do not believe that the government should impose any kind of jurisdiction however on such things because it is taking away freedom that is basic and personal and I think that is too much government intervention. People should be allowed in the end to make their own choices, but they have a right to be thoroughly informed. Obama was looking out for Americans and I think it was purely politics for the criticism from the right.
What is there to say about the government? First, Its absolutely necessary. Anyone who says differently is a dumbass. There must be a system in place to govern groups of people or nothing would ever get done and shit would go crazy. It would just be a no rules, survival of the fittest, living like cave men type of life. The necessity of government is obvious.
The real question is, and always has been, how much power the government should have. And I want to say that I'm not just talking about the power of making decisions or running the country, I'm talking about the amount of government that is subtle and underlying everywhere, affecting any given decision you make everyday. I believe that the role of the government is to take care of the welfare of its people, to manage the country's infrastructure, to provide for the country's defense, and to have and enforce law. The bare minimum required. People would be responsible for themselves and their lively hoods. Business wouldn't have the same amount of intervention that causes problems. The government could actually be extremely focused on what was exactly necessary. With "Big Governments" like the one we have, its almost impossible to find something that hasn't had some form of government "touch" it.. Everything from the food you buy for your dog, to the paint you're allowed to put on your house has rules and regulations behind it. Big Governments want to be in control of everything. They like power. Its an addiction they cant control. So I feel that this issue about creating a fund to give breast pumps to new mother's is another way for the government to get involved and control its people. I understand that there are people who cant afford buying breast pumps…. or that the lively hood of our future generations is at risk by these kids not getting their milk, but seriously… take some damn responsibility and buy a breast milk pump if you need it, or just feed your kid the natural way humans have been doing it the past million years! Its seemed to work out fine. Stop expecting the government to take care of you. And I think the Government should stop thinking it needs to take care of every problem its people have too. Just stay out of it Government. You Suck
The perfect way to run the world is a subject that has bugged me for a long time. Depending on the situation, I come up with two different opinions. When I think about the stupid things that people do with their freedom such as drive like maniacs or develop alcoholism, I get the overwhelming urge to have a government regulate everything that everyone does. That way, we could make sure people don’t do stupid things when better judgment would prevent them.
However, on the other hand, when I think about my own personal situation and the things that I do that other people might think are the result of bad judgment. For example, I enjoy a very unhealthy diet. After taking a lot of time to think about what I want to get out of my life, I decided that I would be much happier if I do what I want for as long as I can instead of trying to live a long, healthy life while being miserable. The multitude of people that I’ve told about this don’t understand the choice I’ve made and would not live the way I do if they were me. If the big government that I wanted to put in place for all the other “stupid” people were in effect, the lifestyle that I want to live would be impossible. With that in mind, the other type of government that I would want in place is one that protects nothing more than the basic human rights. That way, people would have complete freedom to live their lives the way they each want.
These two ideas of government are highly contradictory and obviously both cannot be in effect at the same time. Both ideas have merit and reasons to be followed. The problem then is to find the right mix of the two to provide the happiest life for everyone involved. One solution that I thought of was to evaluate everybody in order to decide whether or not people are sane enough to make their own decisions. That way, those who had the ability to understand the complete result of their actions can be governed less than those who do not. But then who decides who is able?
There has been and always will be arguing between the left and right side of the aisle. Usually it is over important issues, like taxation and foreign relationships. This, however, has gotten to the point of ridiculousness. We can agree that there will always be two sides to an issues, and that there will never be a time when everyone will agree the same way on a social problem, but making such a big issue about breast feeding just seems like a ploy for attention. Breast feeding is a private issue that most people feel uncomfortable talking about, which doesn’t make much sense under scrutiny. Any woman who gives birth will have to make a decision regarding it, and a large percentage of women do in fact decide to have children. Because of this, it doesn’t make much sense for this to be such a private issue when most people will have to deal with it at some point in their lives. It’s much like when people try not to talk about sex when other issues arise, it tends to make people feel awkward and uncomfortable even though pretty much everyone engages in it or makes a conscious decision over it. To not be able to talk about these issues with people is one large reason that they end up being such hot and intense issues in the first place. People just can’t keep to themselves and develop their own opinions, then spout them off when the social chance finally arises sometime in the future. These issues need to be discussed regularly so that informed opinions can be formed, or at least discussed instead of people holding firm to their own long-developed beliefs. The republicans in this article seems to think that, even though there is starting to be empirical evidence for the support of it, breast feeding should be something that every woman has to decide for themselves and shouldn’t be informed from outside sources that could sway their opinions. The first lady is only trying to help out women who decided to breast feed, she isn’t combating women who don’t breast feed, only aiding those who choose to.
I find that the government is not in any position to make decisions for society. The fact is, America is overall a democratic society. Laws and standards are set by the government, but at the the end of the day people make the decisions for themselves. Sometimes, depending on how drastic the decision, if caught, people must suffer the consequences. Consequences previously decided fit by the government. But, until technology is advanced enough for mind control, the government can only do so much. By providing information about the nutrition of McDonald's Big Macs, a difference can be made. I mean, yes it is unfair that taxes are potentially raised for the poor health this food causes. However, it would be going overboard to ban any sort of food distribution, just as the government won't one day pass a law forbidding eating grass. To each his own, right? Well, an invisible line does cross when it comes to the growing, consumption, and distribution of certain plants. It's hard not to address the fact that although a law is in effect, it does not at all prevent people from doing so, regardless of the government rule. So, if they were to ban Big Macs, I find that people would find a way to still get their hands on them even if not eating them might prevent a number of slow deaths. However, I find that the government recently passed new laws that serve to improve society and possibly humanity. By banning texting while driving, there is no doubt that accidents have lessened and that roads are much safer. Also, by banning smoking in public places the environment is more comfortable for nonsmokers and the air is cleaner. I find that since smoking is directly detrimental to health and the direct cause of lung cancer, it is fair for the government to take action. In this case, laws are saving lives. I guess you could also say by banning Big Macs, it could improve the health of many Americans and potentially save lives. But, for whatever reason, I find that it would be far too extensive and would seem much more of an authoritarian approach to governing. So, breastfeeding is proven to prevent child obesity. It is clear that the government is by no means about to ban baby formula. However, they can provide incentives to make people more inclined to breastfeed their children, just as the government is able to provide reasons not to eat Big Macs. On that same note, the government didn't ban texting or cigarettes, but only provided the places appropriate and inappropriate to do so. Are they making our decisions for us, is America one step away from 1984, or are they simply guiding us towards healthier and more beneficial ways of living?
This article is a bit infuriating. It really does represent a lot of the problems that that country’s people are beginning to face. First, it is crucial to point out exactly how this nation was formed. We decided that we did not feel that taxation without representation was a fair rule to follow. We, as individual’s, decided that above their duty to their government, they had a duty to common sense and to a sense of personal freedom. They were not being able to express their inalienable right to freedom and that is what provoked the war that gained independence form England.
This country was then built on the backs of people that worked hard, for themselves and their families. They had pride in their lives and the “American Dream” was fresh and alive. I feel that this same sense of personal responsibility and pride in one’s life and work has somehow fallen by the wayside. I believe that the way that the government tries to control almost every facet of the American citizen’s life is an abomination to the very foundation of how this country was built.
I am a registered Libertarian. I really do believe that with proper education any person should be able to make informed, sound decisions for how they would like to live their life. Yes, there have to be some laws to mediate appropriate interaction between individuals. I am not promoting an anarchy. I am merely promoting the respect for the individual’s freedom over the opinion of big brother. We are born, we live, and we die; these things are true, but why would any person stand for a type of government that removes a person’s right to make their own decisions for how they want to live their life.
We are born to be free and somewhere during the socialization process we think that it is okay to be told exactly what we can do and what we can’t down to the how we feed our infants and ourselves. This is a direct violation of a human’s right to freedom. The government should take responsibility for the education of the individual’s, but after that they should be given their right to life their life the way that they believe is best for them.
In this article, the author mentioned that the IRS’s announcement that nursing supplies aide in practice can be deducted from tax returns amount to a “new definition of the nanny state.” In my opinion, Obama’s promotion of breast-feeding is wrong in no ways. With the fact that breastfeeding is good for children, just like this article mentioned, breastfeeding can reducing childhood obesity, Obama’s promotion is also a kind of promotions which target at a higher standards of lifestyle. It’s a part of government’s responsibility to give the public the sense that how to live in a more healthy way. But which I don’t agree is that a promotion of personal lives had better not turn out to be seemly compulsory by imposing a kind of seductive tax returns. I think government should play its role in more macro aspects of social life, like economy of nations, tariffs, defense of security, foreign affairs. This macro aspects need the government exert varying degrees of influence and control, like subsidizing regulating, restraining, or prohibiting. The total attentions of government are limited in certain period. If the government pays too many attentions to the specific aspects of social life, it may lose the control of the whole development in terms of a nation. Just as Thomas Jefferson said, “the government that governs least governs best,” he was not talking a government that doesn’t govern at all but a government which can work on solving the main affairs the nation concerned most. Besides, a big government in every aspect of life definitely cannot contribute to a quicker improvement of living standards. In opposite, these over regulations or limitations may block the normal speed of social progress. And for individuals, there are various reasons for giving up a breastfeeding, such as due to a health problem of the mother. In these cases, a tax return will be unfair to these families. Hence, I prefer a big government which can enforce laws and regulation effectively in major issues concerning about the future directions of nation but a small government which allow more flexible ways of life in some personal issues.
There is always going to the ridicule when it comes from the different political spectrum or far opposite side. In my opinion, and I have to admit I’m biased, I do agree with First Lady Michele Obama. It is a well proven theory that if you breast-feed your child, they, growing up, have a better chance of fighting childhood obesity. In the United States, we know that general obesity is becoming a huge issue, especially in partnership with the topic of health care, so it’s only smart to think about preventative care. The more you fight obesity, the less health problems a person will most likely encounter in the their later years, meaning that it will be less health care for the government to cover. It is a domino effect and I find it absurd that so many are against it. To help the American people that cannot afford the health care that many people can is something that needs to change. I realize that it is not up to the government to bail people out of their personal problems or to always help financially, but these are our fellow citizens and we should be willing to lend our support and help where we can.
I don’t feel like Michele Obama is pushing any ethics or ways of life on anyone, especially any woman in her statement made on breastfeeding, but rather educating those who don’t, those who do, those who can’t, and anyone willing to listen. Take it as fact if you don’t want to take her statement as advice.
The extent of the role government influences our lives constantly up for debate. It is without question that the government should influence our lifestyles to some extent. However, the government nor government officials should be imposing their belief on such personal decisions as breastfeeding. Bachmann speaks out against Michelle Obama’s promoting of breastfeeding. Backmann is right Obama shouldn’t be trying to influence women to breastfeed their children. These women need to have the ability to choose for themselves. So many things in society become a standard and people tend to follow the standards without freely choosing to do so. The government should no be the influence on, and remover of freedom of choice. As Sam said about the strings controlling our social actions, do we really want the government to be controlling those strings?
When it comes to the example of the Big Mac, it is known that obesity is a growing problem in the United States. Some people lack the will power to stop and knowledge of the risky food consumption. This is an example where some government influence is needed. The government should not regulate the consumption amount by the consumer, that the consumer still should decide part of the process, but regulate the contents placed in foods. Some people may disagree with this kind of influence and say that if people want to eat unhealthy they should be aloud to. The only problem in this case is that, in a way, this unhealthy food is poisoning the population slowly and making them obese.
If the government really wants to influence how the public makes decisions, the government should provide facts and evidence of what they are trying to impose. It is important for the evidence to not be bias to ensure that well-informed people are making their own free decisions. Over recent years the government has enforced a policy mandating fast food restaurants provide nutritional facts so the consumer could see exactly what is in the food. This way the government informed the people of the dangers of eating such food but did not force them to decide, the individual still was able to make a decision on free-will.
The fact that the IRS would want to give tax cuts to a personal decision is completely ridiculous. The government trying to control the way mothers wish to raise their children is a boundary that shouldnt be crossed by the government. Further, I dont see what credentials Michelle Obama has to tell every mother in America should do when it comes to feeding their infants. If she was an RN or an LPN or doctor I could see her reasoning to have the audacity to say something such as that. If the government decided to give tax reductions to the people who decide to breastfeed the government would be indirectly trying to enforce a social paradigm by giving benefits to people who think differently from those who choose formula. Although its not being forced, others shouldnt suffer economically because they choose to think differently from those who agree with a vaunted IRS decision, therefore making this a law would be extremely erroneous and above all, un-American.
I believe that this article really helps people understand how freethinking is a big part of our lives. People should be able to make decisions for themselves no matter the circumstances. The government should not have power of the decisions that we need to make especially for our children. The breast feeding topic is definitely a personal choice that a mother should make for her children. If the government had control over things like that I think that there wouldn’t be much personality in the world and it would take a away creativeness and free thinking. I think that Michelle obama made the right choice because she was standing for her beliefs. She shouldn’t be criticized because it a personal choice. If the government could control something like that it would take away our freedom and choice. I think that the government has enough control over things as it is through tax payers money and controlling on military spending and other things in that area. You cant tell a person that’s a constant smoker to quit smoking. That is just simply taking away our freedom. Some good examples that government could control is cutting down costs on something such as condoms, this would influence the people to have safer sex. Or for example, increases costs on smoking so that people would slow down, but this is my personal opinion because im sure this would anger many people. The social and economical aspects of this situation are very different. The social aspect of this article is that you need to be able to choose whatever you like for your personal life. Economically, this is wrong. The government does have a right to step in and stop something that is wrong, but breast feeding? That’s not there choice. Also, people that are not as wealthy as other may not be able to afford the same commodities. If the government could provide for these people I believe it would be alright.
In this article, Michelle Bachmann is take the typical republican stance by not handing out breast pumps and aids breast feeding however they both believe that breast feeding is important. I believe that breast-feeding is a very personal decision that the lady should make herself because it is her own body. If she decides to do so then she can go to get the certain supplies that she needs for her breast-feeding. The way that the government is handing out certain supplies which aid your breast-feeding is not right. Although it would help the economy if everyone was to buy these products, it does not mean that they can force them upon our women to use for there children. On the other hand I can see why Michelle Obama is working to promote breast-feeding. I do believe that it is very beneficial for the first lady to be promoting something so personal and showing that she is one of the people. The government is already way in debt and I believe that it is wrong that they have decided to go ahead and use our taxpayers money to promote something that may or may not be beneficial to our society. I do believe that the government should be using money to combat issues such as smoking and obesity. And by promoting breast-feeding, they are helping to combat obesity because breast-feeding has been shown to decrease the chances of obsesity in children. They should also be focusing on subject such as smoking. If the government would raise the taxes on cigarretes, then maybe the demand for cigarettes would decrease and that would be combating a huge problem that our society has been facing for years. Overall I believe that Michelle Obama should continue to promote breast feeding but the government should not be forcing the equipment upon our women.
This presents an interesting idea. However, I believe the government should let women make their own choices about their body and their babies. If a woman decides to breast feed that is fine. If she does not that is fine too. Why should something so small be of the government's concern? I was not breast fed and I turned out just fine. I'm not entirely sure how this issue is relatable to the over all well being of our country. We should not reduce ourselves to the point where the government needs to make all of our decisions. What if a woman is uncomfortable with the idea of breast feeding? Formulas, although not as good for babies, work just fine and the difference is minimal.
I believe that this article is correct in stating that there is always a balance to be struck between government control and personal freedoms and responsibility. Sometimes I personally believe that government over exceeds its bounds, and that it is not always done for the good of the people as it is so often justified. In the first example offered within the article I feel it is the responsibility of the individual to chose whether they wish to ingest a product know to be unsafe or not. We all have the right to do what we wish with our bodies as long as it does no harm others. Then again, now that we have universal healthcare it is possible to argue that the negative health actions of one individual are being paid for by all of society, not merely the individual and their family. However, if it is the government that creates the problem for society how can they claim that they are the construct that should get the opportunity to fix the problem. I apologize to no one, I feel that the individual has the right to cost some society so money in exchange for the ideal that we hold above all else within this nation, freedom. A person has a right that cannot be taken away to do as they please.
It is interesting that the government chooses to control people through a means that is somewhat indirect. They choose to target people in an area that they cannot resist: their wallets. When people are hit with monetary sanctions or the opportunity to save money for doing a specific action they are much more likely to do what it is that the government wishes them to do. Money moves the masses to the action of government. I believe that it is true that the government while under the control of democrats has expanded social programs and offered money in return for compliance. Democratic governments have traditionally expanded the federal government as they feel that controlling people is the proper way for a functioning society to operate. Republican governments have typically made an effort to diminish government and spending, except perhaps for defense spending. I am inclined to agree with this article when it states "This is very consistent with where the hard left is coming from," Bachmann told Ingraham. "For them, government is the answer to every problem." She makes a good point that majority of people are likely to be able to feed their babies without the aid of contraptions funded by the government. It is interesting to see that the government is using people like Michele Obama as spearheads to their goals. Either that or Michele Obama has great influence within the government and can cause policy change based on her personal beliefs.
I have to say that Michelle Bachmann sounds incredibly uninformed in this article. Not to insult anyone, but no wonder she’s in cahoots with Sarah Palin. I don’t necessarily understand when Bachmann is coming from. She says how she breastfed five children, yet Obama is not saying that women should no longer breastfeed. I completely agree with Michelle Obama. If a woman chooses to breastfeed, I don’t think it should matter how she decides to go about it. These days, anything can be a tax write off so I don’t know what Bachmann is bitching about. The purpose of a breast pump is for modern women to be able to feed without having to have their baby as a ball and chain. I know that sounds terrible, but women these days have careers. It isn’t 1950 anymore, where all women were responsible for is raising children, cleaning the house, and cooking dinner.
In regards to what Sam posted about the hypothetical Big Mac epidemic. Doesn’t the government already tell us what is good and bad for our health? The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is a federal agency. That’s who makes up the nutrition labels on all our food packages. Technically, the government already tells us how to eat, especially now that more and more restaurants and fast food places are required to post how many calories items on the menu are. We’re already being dictated what to eat. It just doesn’t seem that way because there aren’t laws or punishments for eating the way we choose.
In regards to the theoretical amount of money Big Macs will eventually cost American tax payers in the future, if Big Macs weren’t the problem, something else would be. Being healthy is about more than what someone eats. “Health” is a lifestyle choice. Besides our diet, “health” includes physical activity, mental wellness and our overall well-being. As much as I would love to say that people live the lives they wish, I know it is not the case (which SOC 001 has clearly taught me). While it may seem like each person chooses their own diet, the FDA “suggests” a 2,000 calorie a day diet, which clearly shows that someone dictates what we should and should not eat.
The answer is a resounding: no. The government should not mandate nutrition- there are some choices individuals must make on their own. It is each person's responsibility to take care of his or her own health, finances, etc. Neglecting to do so is no one's fault but your own.Why should my personal earnings go into paying tax that will be used for another's benefit? To an extent, tax and welfare are necessary. When it comes to matters such as health, which is a personal responsibility, the government can not hope to mandate our individual attitudes. If the government were to step in and mandate our eating habits, we would not be able to see the help it was providing. Rather, we would merely see government suppression of an enjoyable activity and grow rebellious and resentful at the lack of freedom we are being shown. What the government can do, however, is advocate healthier eating habits. This way, they are getting the message across to a widespread group of people, but at the same time not forcing anyone who does not want to change their eating habits. This method has proven effective for reducing smoking and tobacco use, and there is no reason why it should not work to decrease obesity and associated conditions. With regards to Michelle Obama's views on breastfeeding, this is her personal opinion that she is advocating. She is well within her right to support natural breastfeeding, and she has the benefit of research behind her. The government does not have a responsibility to help those who seek alternatives. If the government truly wishes to make a difference in people's lifestyle choices, then it can merely advocate in favor of its proposed changes. Too much government control of choices that we currently take for granted will cause unrest and resentment. Alternatives to breastfeeding are not widespread or taken for granted, and there is no reason for the government to provide funds or access to those who require these. Minimal government control is taken for granted in America, but we must remember that the reason for this is to emphasize personal responsibility.
Government regulation is a very important topic to discuss because it will affect everyone's lives in at least one way over the course of their lifetime. I believe that we do need some government regulation to keep everything running smoothly, but too much will take away too many rights and powers that individuals or states currently have. It would not be very beneficial to have no government regulation at all, especially since many people, like senior citizens, who depend on social security, rely on government aid, but I feel that many people who want more government regulation want it for things that they just don’t want to be accountable for themselves instead of the bigger things that they can’t possibly do without the government. In the 1930s when the United States was hit with the depression, many policies were enacted from the government to create new jobs, help the unemployed and prevent situations like this from happening again. Before this, having so much government intervention in the lives of the U.S. citizens was unheard of, but all of the progress that was made and the building blocks for future acts and policies would not have been made otherwise.
In the article, Michelle Bachmann says that she does not like how the government is handing out breast pumps to encourage breast-feeding in infants, but then says that she is a part of the people who have breast-fed too. It seems as though she is making a bigger deal out of this issue than is necessary. I agree that the government should not regulate something like this. I think that deciding how to feed infants is up to the mother to choose what she wants to do. However, I do think it’s a good idea that Michelle Obama is sharing information on the benefits of doing so to general public. This is not necessarily telling mothers not to feed their newborn children with baby formula, but informing them of other options to make the best decision. By handing out free breast pumps, Michelle Obama is trying to promote another healthy way of living, but just like anything else, no one has to take part in breast-feeding especially since there has not been anything negative against using baby formula instead of breast milk. Unlike the promotion of being active to stay fit, breast-feeding or bottle-feeding will not make the difference between people that are healthy or not healthy as they grow up. When I was a baby, my parents decided to feed my brother and I with baby formula. It seems from reading the article that if you do not use breast milk, your children will have a higher likelihood of being obese. I can honestly say that I am not, nor is my brother. Everyone in my family has a healthy weight without having been breast-fed. I feel that it doesn’t matter whether the government tries to promote breast-feeding because being healthy ultimately depends on the family and environment in which children live. The government cannot mandate how people choose to raise their children. If people have a healthy diet and are active, it would not have mattered whether they had received baby formula or breast milk as a baby or not.
Seeing how chaos would most likely occur if the government was not available to govern over the public, I believe the government should have some leeway in making critical decisions concerning the overall welfare of the U.S. However, as Americans, we demand and believe in our fundamentals rights and freedoms, and so, governing what we eat would definitely create disturbances across the states. Although, in fact, the government shouldn’t be telling people what they can and can’t eat, it could also be beneficial for America and its increasing battle with obesity. In my opinion, I don’t believe the government should tell us what we can and cant eat, but I believe the government should try to make a bigger effort in promoting a healthy lifestyle through the media. For instance, Michelle Obama, and her comment on breastfeeding seems logical and healthy, but she does not have the right to tell the public what they should be doing with their children. Instead I believe she should promote the idea of breastfeeding through public speeches and the media, to possibly influence the public rather than appear overbearing.
Ultimately there are both positive and negative sides to this issue. Yes, if the government did in fact intervene with the food industry, I believe it would be overall beneficial towards the increasing problem with obesity and American health. Yet, this could also be negative because we could possibly be giving the government too much power. If the government can rule over what we as Americans can eat, what else could they oversee and control? And so, because Americans were influenced to believe that they have fundamental rights and freedoms, the government controlling what they eat would not sit well with the general public, especially those who eat Big Macs. Furthermore, as long as taxpayers are not affected by this increasing trend in obesity, I believe the government shouldn’t intervene with the increasing trend of obesity. So, as long as taxpayers aren’t paying for health care costs for obesity, why not just let them be fat and merry? Life is short anyways.
Personally I believe that “big government” is the root of many problems in modern day America. Government has become a “big brother” force that is single-handedly trying to control the majority of our actions. Recently, the government has even begun to start controlling our personal choices, such as the food we eat, and the decisions we make for our own families. I am thoroughly baffled by any human who accepts this kind of “big brother” treatment from the government, and I believe our freedom is being taken right from us.
It’s bizarre to think that so many individuals are ok, and even in support of “big government.” I do not agree with nor understand how one would willingly choose to be controlled by an all-encompassing force. I believe that humans should be encourage to make their own decisions. I once heard a quote, “you can give a man a fish, and feed him for a day, or you can teach a man to fish, and feed him for life.” This quote summarizes my beliefs of “big government,” specifically welfare. Catering to individuals will only keep them weak. In order to build a stronger and smarter population of Americans, we must encourage and teach our civilians how to fend for themselves. Therefore I believe that civilians should have to face life’s decisions through a trial and error type of lifestyle.
I’m a very firm supporter of “small government,” and I believe it is the closest thing to freedom that Americans can have. “Big government,” has been the source of American weakness, and has kept our people in the dark. This article about Michelle Obama trying to dictate what mother’s feed their babies is completely ridiculous. It is so strange to think that the government might become so controlling that we won’t be able to make a single decision without it being documented. I am wholeheartedly against this type of control, and I think our freedom is becoming so limited. I do not agree with dictatorship, and this is exactly where our country is heading. We need to fight for our freedoms, and we can’t let the government take over our lives.
If health care is going to be regulated by the government then what affects our health should also be somewhat regulated by the government. But the real issue with Americans is weather or not the government should regulate heath care in the first place. I am a strong supporter of government involvement in the lives of its people. I guess you could call me a socialist so I am a fan of the new health care program. But with this being a mostly capitalist country the socialist program won’t be as efficient as it would be in a socialist country where the government could interfere with what affects the health of the people like what they eat.
In America if a government official wanted to stop the production of Big Macs because of how unhealthy they are for the American people it would never work because of the capitalism of America. There are many public programs that aren’t working as effectively as the could be because of the capitalist country we live in such as welfare, the public school system, medicaid, etc. The American people will never see the benefits of social programs because they feel afraid that they are not free to make there own decisions even if the decisions that they make on there own are the wrong ones. Therefore they will always fight whats good for them.
As far as costs go, if we do not allow the government to have even the slightest influence on what we eat and other factors that affect our health we will literally be paying for it in the long run. With the new health care program in effect, the unhealthier Americans are the more its going to cost the government because of the cost of medical supplies, medication, and salaries of people in the medical field. Therefore its going to raise taxes!
So Americans if you want to live a good life in this democracy that we live in you must vote for the right people so they can make the right decisions for you.
The government has a lot to do with the way we live our lives. This affects the everyday life of every individual out there, in the United States. The fact that the government could even affect the way we live more than it does already is bad. Therefore, the idea that the government could choose the foods we eat by saying that certain ones are not healthy is controlling and not okay. I can almost guarantee that most Americans would agree that the government should not be able to tell us what to eat. As for the people who would benefit from the government becoming more involved in our health choices because of health insurance costs, they should just be able to be in enough control of their body and eating habits and be responsible enough to take care of themselves, instead of having the government babysit them. The rest of us know how to eat well without a babysitter, so you can learn to mature and do the same.
part 1
The fact that our taxes may increase because of health care is ridiculous. The only idea that is even reasonable for the government to get involved is maybe by making more healthy food choices readily available to everyone, possibly make it easier to get healthy food, and harder to get unhealthy food. Basically, if everyone would just manage their fast food intake then this would not be an issue at all. This is all about responsibility and taking care of yourself. If the United States' people would just grow up and learn to make healthy decisions then none of us would have to deal with the health insurance problems that are involved. Obese people should have higher heath insurance rates because they are fat and obviously don't take care of their health. The rest of us should have no health insurance costs, when it comes to obese related issues and other health issues. The fat people could be punished by paying the fit people's insurance, that would teach people to eat healthy and, over time, would change the way people eat forever.
part 2
The big government is yet again here to regulate something else for the americans. Is this really a big deal though? To me no. You have people all the time worried about their weight and their eating styles. Everyone wants to live forever and be fit, and to me that isn't a lie. It sucks for people like me who have to worry about increases in healthcare because of the decisions people make in life to get themselves their. I'm healthy I workout and try to eat right, I should be rewarded for that right? Taxing foods for people that are overweight, like way overweight I think is a great idea. It will help them to loose weight and be happier in the long run. If we also give them free gym memberships it would encourage people that are overweight to workout and shed off a few pounds and be happy. If this happened the taxes would be lifted off them if they have shown progress. People might say this is a bad thing but to me it's change in a good way. A healthier America means a lower tax rate on healthcare for everyone. If you choose to be fat then that's your decision but you have to pay for that because when you are getting lypo-suction, or gastric by-pass, and can't afford the bills, where do the bills go? Our pockets as a nation, and this can all be prevented if everyone would just be healthy, we could also as a nation give tax refunds to people buying more healthy food like fruits and veggies, this would encourage people to eat more. Everytime I go to the grocery store, tastycakes are cheaper than buying produce, or meat products and that is just not right to me. It would be nice for the government to actually help us with something for once with taxes, I mean I bet they would raise taxes on healthcare even if the entire nation was healthy, just because they can and the opinion of people really doesn't matter much to the government, that is why democracy is so nice to the kind people of the United States.
In a case such as Japan's 'suicide forest', I think suicide is becoming more of a leisure activity, if so possible. So many people are doing it these days that those who even have a slight, faint, little thought of causing any type of harm to themselves will act upon it. It is sort of like monkey see, monkey do. One, what I like to call not- so- brave, solider walks off into the forest in hopes to put an end to all the bad in his/ her life. They may never return, and to him/ her that might be considered a successful voyage. However, those who do return home, might think he/ she is a bigger failure than what they started as. Back to the purpose though, once so many people commit the same, intentional, wrong doing it becomes more casual. Something everyone should do, or could do at least. Suicide is now a mere trend; if very influential circumstances become active in one's life then so be it. Right? Well, obviously, since everyone else in society is why can't a particular individual do it, too.
All know that suicide is the most permanent thing to happen to a person, even stronger than death itself. Yes, suicide is death, but suicide is self inflicted death. Common, natural deaths are nothing that can be avoided. What persuades a person to end it all? A lot of things do I suppose. Nothing is worth calling it quits. But I guess that makes the saying true, 'once a quitter, always a quitter'. If one chooses to quit on life, there is no going back. Ever. That's the permanence of suicide.
Maybe I got a little off track on my blog, but I feel that what is happening in Japan is just merely strugglers giving up, jumping on the band wagon, and forever ending a life of frustration. I in no way agree with suicide… Hey, what does not kill you, makes you stronger. At least the forest survivors will be able to live on and preach that theory.
I was searching for an article or a prompt that I could discuss this issue and I guess this is the most fitting. There has recently been the issue of net neutrality (do a quick google search if you have never heard of it, its quite interesting), which relates to how much control should big business and the government have over our use of the Internet, which has remained neutral to this point. For my whole life I have enjoyed and become entirely accustomed to the ability to look up almost anything on the Internet. It shapes our society for better or worse but at least allows us the ability to communicate with anyone at anytime with a quick google search of their name. Or even we can just search facebook for almost anyone’s information. I always thought of that as a huge plus …that is until I heard this story. There is a website called 4chan.org. It is well known as the asshole of the internet and for good reason. It’s full of random hysterical images and jokes but also carries a very dark passenger along with it. People use the website to “troll” other people, which basically involves posting someone you want to trolls information and then everyone on that site basically goes out of their way to harass that person in any way they can. This form of harassment has resulted in 56 suicides and may be more by now. It goes beyond the bounds of racism and has become pure uninhibited hated and harassing for NO PURPOSE. The most sickening story I heard was of a girl who got in a terrible car accident in which she crashed directly into a wall at about one hundred miles an hour. The crime scene photos were emailed from one officer to another investigator only once but sadly 4chan server runners got a hold of them. The one photo is one of the most gruesome I have ever seen, and only so you understand the seriousness and assholeness of their actions, in the photo her face has basically exploded, only part of the jaw remaining, and hair all over the wreckage. The 4chan users found all of her immediate family’s email and contact information and then continued to send out all of the images in a terribly derogatory message only a week or two after the funeral. Something needs to be done about this because its creating a new form of discrimination that has everything to do with the fact that these people know how to use the internet as their masks. 4chan has been shut down many times but they simply just switches servers and go back to work. I don’t know if the government stepping in will change it but something really needs to be done.