Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Hunger:  A Cure for Obesity

What is the main problem facing American children? Right. If you have listened to the "news" over the last year, and the attacks on the American fast food industry, it is obesity. Thus, is it not a good thing that some children were forced to go to bed hungry at least once in 2007, thereby helping them fight their main health problem? This is the (ridiculous) story today:

"Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year's sharp economic downturn, the Agriculture Department reported Monday."

Note how artfully the above non-story is worded. "Sometime in 2007". "Struggle to feed themselves adequately". Consider that last one. And then think about those "obesity" stories. Are rich kids in America feeding themselves "adequately"?

These are what I call "phantom statistics" (headline: "50% More Kids Hungry in 2007"). They mean nothing. The numbers are presented with a preciseness and alarm which the facts do not justify.

No, I don't believe hunger is a real problem for children in America. Oh, I am sure a few fall through the cracks because their parents do not know how to have access to resources to get food for them, or because their parents are drug addicts who ignore them. Neglectful parents are surely the main cause of real hunger for children in the U.S. By the world's standards, the poorest child in this country has access to more food than the "middle class" in most countries.

The implication in the story, of course, is that we should DO SOMETHING. Uh-huh. How long have we been working on food programs for poor children? George Soros alone could handle any remaining "hunger" in children in this country. For that matter, insider trader Mark Cuban could handle it, and maybe reverse his bad (deserved) recent publicity. Is the government really going to be able to make up for all deficiencies in parents? Not in this universe. I repeat (with confidence): There is no real "hunger" in America, that people could not avoid with use of the resources already available to them.

But what about "adequately"? Should the government take over mandatory nutrition for children? If you think this will work, you are beyond my help. We can provide "nutritional" meals at school. But this idea of the government forcing everyone to eat healthy is one of those central planning ideas with no future, and no past ("past" of actually working). The government is never going to be able to substitute for individual responsitility.

By the way, if you think that people cannot "afford" "nutritional" food, think again. Is it cheaper to eat at McDonald's or buy vegetables and fruit? Don't be silly. My daughters grew up on "Happy Meals", and they are expensive (relatively).

Nope. It is not lack of resources causing "inadequate" eating. It is lack of discipline and self-control (including the "control" to find out what you should be eating). Dirty little secret: I don't eat "healthy" either! I am addicted to Cokes--not to mention ice cream.

Now maybe if I were poor enough, and not able to afford Cokes and ice cream............ Nah! You are right. I would do what the "hungry" do now. I would give up the "healthy" stuff for the Cokes and ice cream!!!!

No comments: