Journalists in favor of child obesity

You know, the world is funny sometimes.  There'll be an issue that pops up every once and a while that you cannot even CONCEIVE of someone being against and then all of a sudden a piece of legislation asserting the rights of those non-existent resisters will pop up.  For example, a bill giving money to people who put themselves in mortal danger on 9/11.  Then the bill preventing the government from shielding contractors who endorse rape.

And now.  This moron.  A journalist (I guess you can call her that, she works for Time) who actually is trying to make the point that making school lunches healthier is a bad idea.  Are.  You.  Kidding.  Me.

Let's start with facts.  And by facts, I mean mspaint pictures:

As you can see, you put greasy shit into children and they become fat children.  Now I know your journalism school probably told you that math wasn't relevant to the real world, but the transitive property would indicate that:

If you take AWAY the shitty double-down fatmobile, you go back to a regular kid.

That's the logic behind the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.  Stop giving kids shitty food, and they'll stop being unhealthy.  I'll also note that the site above gives quotes from just about everyone who's anyone in pediatrics and medicine saying that this is an excellent idea.  But a Times journalist says otherwise.

She begins her article talking about a school in Tulsa that has an excellent football team, presumably because they all weigh 250 pounds and cram down pizza every day.  Because eating junk food is definitely the healthiest way to gain weight.

Then she goes on to describe how "...the ice cream bars and Fruit Roll-Ups...make 7th grade tolerable for middle schoolers nationwide." I actually had a small aneurysm when I read that.  If the only thing that makes school tolerable for you is candy and ice cream, then there's more wrong with your education than your diet.

Then she goes on to make points.  Not good ones and not ones based in any real fact, but points.  Her first point is described in her title "Parents and Principals not pleased about coming school lunch guidelines".  Because there are no parents or principals who are in favor of these measures.

No, instead she quotes some random schmuck from the 8th most obese state in the US:

But the yummy stuff makes more money — and that's a big deal in an era of tight school budgets. "We had a Chick-fil-A night and made $800," says Emily Burns, a mother of three who sits on a PTA board at a Tulsa elementary school. "People feel bad" about the fried food, she admits a bit sheepishly, "but it's $800, and that can buy a piece of equipment for our school."

$800 dollars to sabotage your child's health? What a bargain!

The other issue is money.  Which isn't an issue.  And, furthermore, the costs of obesity and having children living unhealthy lives is kind of worth the few extra million.

In the end, the act is a step in the right direction.  And Ms. Ball's article is a step in the wrong direction.

I should note, also, that if you look up Karen Ball on Google Image, you get this:

Looks like someone never grew out of fruit roll-ups and ice cream.