Chances are that Michelle Obama's question was primarily rhetorical.
But there is a very real answer available.
It's a black thing.
Explanation forthcoming.
Former first lady Michelle Obama expressed concern Friday over the Trump administration's decision to scale back school meal nutritional requirements.
"You have to stop
and think, 'Why don't you want our kids to have good food at school?
What is wrong with you, and why is that a partisan issue?" Obama said at
the annual summit of the Partnership for a Healthier America, a nonprofit that works with the private and public sectors to fight childhood obesity. "Why would that be political?"
Obama's comments come a little over a week after Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue signed a proclamation that relaxes standards for the upcoming school year in three key areas: whole grains, salt and milk.
Under
the new proclamation, states will be able to grant exemptions to
schools experiencing hardship in meeting the 100% whole-grain-rich
standard. Schools will no longer need to hit the strictest target for
lowering sodium in foods offered to students. And meal programs will be
able to serve students 1% flavored milk instead of fat-free flavored
milk.
The policy change loosens school meal standards Obama advocated as first lady through Let's Move!, her signature public health campaign aimed at combating childhood obesity.
Obama
-- who did not mention President Donald Trump or first lady Melania
Trump by name -- emphasized that it's important to make sure parents
think about the importance of healthy school lunches.
"Moms,
think about this," she said. "I don't care what state you live in. Take
me out of the equation; like me, don't like me, but think about why
someone is OK with your kids eating crap."
Obama said she will continue to fight for the cause.
"My
commitment to these issues is real," she said. "I picked this issue
because there was deep passion for it as a mother. ... I'm going to
continue working on this."
One of the ongoing and consistently frustrating effects of the hot button topic that is the Trump presidency is the inability, in an unprecedented number of areas, for any of us, probably, judging from what we've seen so far, many, even most of us to find any common ground.
Probably more so that at any other time in, at least, modern history, there exists a mindset in the pro-Trump demographic regarding anything even remotely attached to the name Trump that always, unfailingly, boils down to this.
You is either fer us or you is agin' us.
That's why Michelle Obama's seemingly fair, reasonable and, yes, I'm gonna go out on the big limb here, logical question seems, simultaneously, worthy of a fair and reasonable answer and shameful.
Shameful, of course, in the sense that the question shouldn't even have had to have been asked in the first place.
But the answer is pretty clear. Pretty obvious.
It's a black thing.
In the flurry of executive orders and proclamations and arguably royal decrees that have been pumping out of the White House like waste water from the newly freed of regulation fat cat owned factories, there are policies and issues, and new positions on those policies and issues, that can, to any reasonable mind, be eligible for fair debate as to their value or lack.
And a lot of those policies and issues are much too complex and multi-layered to either simply embrace or dismiss on the basis of nothing more than partisan love or hate.
Put in an easier to grasp light for the Real Housewives/American Dad level students of sociology, some of that shit be complicated.
Michelle Obama's issue isn't one of those issues.
Because, at least, a part of her question falls into the category of crystal clear grasp of the obvious.
"...why is someone OK with your kids eating crap?..."
Now, since this isn't anywhere even close to our first rodeo when it comes to all things Trump, let me head the likely first and foremost knee jerk response off at the pass.
Better yet, let me utilize a resource that never fails to stir the pot, if not energize the debate and discussion.
The style of logic and reason most amusingly, if not anywhere near intelligent, predictably offered up by one or both of news TV's favorite court jesters, Kellyanne Conway and Jeffrey Lord.
I suspect their response would go something like this.
"Well, first, I think it's unfair to Secretary Perdue and, of course, to the President to demonize the almost hardly worth mentioning adjustments to the outrageously over legislated regulations regarding these food products in our schools. And, of course, the typical liberal Democratic interpretation of, again, these very minor tweaks, if you will, in the percentages and content levels of these food products is, as usual, a blatant over exaggeration which the Secretary and, of course, the President, along with, I'm very sure, the President's millions and millions and millions of supporters find offensive and counter productive to the goals which the Secretary and, of course, the President have set to get our country back on track after eight years of unpresidented divisiveness and partisan prejudice...and I might add that Mrs. Obama's characterization of the still very healthy choices available to our nation's students as "crap" is demeaning, on its face and shows a great disrespect for our nation's hard working school cafeteria workers, who, by the way, voted in historically unprecedented numbers for the President last November."
By now, of course, the pro-Trump camp would be several, very likely off key notes into the hourly rendition of the Hallelujah Chorus while the anti-Trump camp would be eye rolling very close to, but never managing to match or best, the now iconic style of Anderson Cooper.
And just so all you pro-Trumpers in our studio audience today don't think the last few minutes of intentional snark was all I got here, let me put that notion to rest.
Here's a quick point by point in response to what would certainly be accusations of nit pick.
- Under the new proclamation, states will be able to grant exemptions to schools experiencing hardship in meeting the 100% whole-grain-rich standard. ----I confess to a sizable lack of expertise in the area of food standards, but I am a reasonably educated guy and additionally confess to my confusion as to what it is, exactly, that constitutes "hardship" when it comes "meeting the 100% whole grain rich standard"......is there a moment at, say, 91% at which that last desperate lunge to get across the ravine is simply unlungeable?
- Schools will no longer need to hit the strictest target for lowering sodium in foods offered to students. I'm officially a senior citizen now with both monthly Social Security check receipts and pretty nice, semi laminated AARP membership card (not to mention pretty nice tote bag) to prove it and my personal experience with health issues in my own life, thus far, gives me the courage of my convictions to share that nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does there exist empirical documentation to support the stand that more salt is ever better. Ever.
- And meal programs will be able to serve students 1% flavored milk instead of fat-free flavored milk. Again, I'm going to go with the more fat is never better than no fat, at least in terms of health....in terms of flavor and, of course, the kind of selfish self indulgence that America has turned from a list of preferences to a daily lifestyle these days, well, hell, fat free, my ass...no pun intended.
Sonny Perdue, the aforementioned current Secretary of Agriculture, questioned about the merits of loosening the shackles of culinary oppression, offered up what can fairly be called a waste no words assessment.
“If kids aren't eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they
aren't getting any nutrition – thus undermining the intent of the
program.”
The reference to the kids not eating the food has to do with the reported results of some studies that indicate kids don't care much for the whole grain, lower sodium, fat free stuff.
In fairness to Secretary Sonny, the first instinct is to think "well, uh, yeah, if the kids aren't eating the food, then that's not good."
Right behind that, though, comes the rest of the reality. That what kids would do given a choice between nutritionally balanced meals and Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew three times a day, you wouldn't have to be a casino master to place the right bet there.
Admittedly, Purdue's solution to the problem doesn't go what could rightfully be called overboard. I mean, it's not like he's advocating for the Bill Cosby approach to childhood nutrition and offering up chocolate cake for breakfast ("....well, let's see....there's eggs.....and milk......yeah.....), but there is a case to be made that there's evidence of indulging the little scamps a little bit. (..oh, you don't like the fat free milk, Johnny/Jane? well, here's some 1% for you, precious, because we don't want you to be denied a single thing that displeases you or makes you unhappy...")
I don't honestly think that's what going on here.
Full disclosure, some of my cynicism about it may be rooted in my own generational bias, having grown up in the atmosphere of "...eat it, don't eat it, you can go to bed hungry if you want, your call".
I think what's going on here, at least, to some extent is that thing I mentioned earlier.
A black thing.
There's no shortage of op/ed, essay or commentary addressing the belief that a dominant factor in the election of Trump was racial attitude. That Make America Great Again really translated, then, as well as now, to Make America White Again.
And it would be quick and easy day in court if the case to be made was that Trump's agenda and, accordingly, the agenda of those who serve at the pleasure, is to undo, untie, and/or reverse as much of the past eight years as can be undone, untied and/or reversed if only for the purpose of undoing, untying and reversing. And if you factor in the fairly irrefutable fact that the President of the last eight years was black, then, there's that.
And Michelle Obama, the original advocate of the Let's Move/nutrition standards program is, again, even to those who are ready to argue anything and everything expressed by anybody even daring to breathe anything but undying loyalty to the Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, a black woman.
So, it's not a stretch to suggest that this "....almost hardly worth mentioning adjustments to the outrageously over
legislated regulations regarding these food products in our schools..." is racially motivated, as well.
It's a black thing.
Just not that black thing.
There is a scene in the acclaimed Patsy Cline biopic, "Sweet Dreams", in which actor Ed Harris, portraying Patsy's husband, Charlie Dick, storms around their living room during one of their many, now legendary husband/wife bickering brawl and, after hundreds of harsh words have been exchanged, suddenly stops bickering and bantering and offers up a single, succinct word.
"Black", Charlie barks.
Patsy, momentarily quizzical, resumes her caustic point of view.
"Black", Charlie responds.
Again, Patsy hesitates and then plows ahead in full argue mode.
"Black," Charlie replies.
Finally, sufficiently flummoxed, Patsy stops and responds equally succinctly.
"Charlie, what the hell are you talking about?"
"...I'm just sayin' black.....to see if you're gonna say 'white'..."
Seems like if the Secretary and, of course, the President were going to revise, refurb and remodel the status quo from the promised ground up get go, they'd go full monty and damn the restrictions, let the sodium rain down like manna from heaven and, get ready, kids, we're gonna go crah-A-zee and here comes the 3.5 percent chocolate milk, babies.
And as for that 100% whole grain nonsense?
Fuggedabout it.
It's time to Make America White Again.
Strictly bread wise, you understand. (wink. wink.)
Instead, it's "not quite 100% whole grain is cool" and "more, but not a lot more salt" and "pick a number between whole milk and fat free milk and, well, doggies, there's 1%."
In the workplace, when the organization is in general disarray, but the weekly email from the boss announces the new policy on correct placement of staplers on desks with three additional paragraphs devoted to details for the coming week's employee get together lunch, that's what's commonly known as "busy work".
"hey....look what I'm doing to effect change and run this place more efficiently."
In a presidency long on image, long on bluster, very long on blowhard and very, very, very short on skill or savvy to actually effect change and run this place more efficiently, the busy work takes the form of not quite 100% whole grains, more but not a lot more salt and a staggering one whole percent more fat in the milk.
All changes that meet at least one requirement that has absolutely nothing to do with nutrition.
They undo, untie and reverse.
Michelle Obama happens to be African American. But she could just as easily be Hispanic, Asian, Portuguese or even Eskimo.
Whatever she, and, of course, her husband, the President, put into place during their time of leadership has to go because it has to go.
You see, all of those things make Trump see red.
Michelle wants kids to eat healthier. And spearheaded a program to accomplish just that. Might even say she shined a light on the challenge.
A bright, white light.
The Secretary and, of course, the President, ain't havin' none of that.
It's a black thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment