Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Sarah Palin brings on the nutritional stupid.


Remember a few days ago when I commented on San Francisco Mayor Newsom's adoption of Big Food's demonizing position - that government shouldn't tell people what to eat? That legislation like banning the sale of toys with nutritionally bereft food or posting of calories somehow tramples on your civil liberties?

Well good ole Sarah Palin, she's done gone one better.

Not only did she parrot the whole, government shouldn't tell people what to eat bit (this in reference to the government simply providing nutritional guidance),

"Who should be deciding what I eat? Should it be government, or should it be parents?"
That wasn't enough.

Nope.

Instead she also brought cookies to give to the students and explained in her Twitter feed,
"2 PA school speech; I’ll intro kids 2 beauty of laissez-faire via serving them cookies amidst school cookie ban debate;Nanny state run amok"
Because what could be more laissez-faire than pushing cookies on school children as a prop to promote your own political aspirations?

Who should decide what American kids eat? Their parents or Sarah Palin?

She's a gem alright. A regular American Andrew Lansley.

[Hat tip to Martin Collis via MEDIAite and great photo illustration by Mario Piperni]

Bookmark and Share

8 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:59 am

    There's a certain irony that it' OK to tell children to go to a public school and learn what the government wants them to about everything else, but not proper nutrition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have one thing to say about Palin... You're on a reality show lady! You're on the lowest of the low as far as tv gets, give it up. Next step... celebrity boxing. Stay out of politics.

    And I dont sit on the left. I voted Ron Paul. Dontchaknow

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sick of the Sarah Palin bashing. I don't want her running for national office, but don't people have anything at all better to do than to bash her?
    I live in CA, the nanniest of states and the nanny is getting so old it reeks. Yes kids are too fat, but banning toys just seems idiotic. The people running San Francisco are complete nitwits. Maybe parents should grow a pair and just say no. And buy some fruit. And eat at home.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I never was a Palin basher before. Even with the whole thing about "I can see Russia from my house" and all that. The news and SNL gave her a raw deal. BUT... the second she took up reality tv, I cast her in with John and Kate. I just dont see putting your family though that and turning something precious in to a circus

    ReplyDelete
  5. karen1:48 pm

    This from the Guardian, "At that time, Lansley was a paid director of the marketing agency Profero, whose clients have included Pepsi, Mars, Pizza Hut and Diageo's Guinness. He gave up the directorship at the end of 2009." Too many jaw droppers to quote. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/government-health-deal-business

    ReplyDelete
  6. When a culture parallels bringing cookies with government prohibition of a toy in a meal, it shows how dumb people can be.

    Generations of American moms baked their kids cookies and they weren't fat. It's not a cookie. It's lock key kids, or the missing dinner table. It's a gallon of soda pop or the store bought cookies full of chemicals we don't understand. Bread can make you fat, if you load it up with chemicals and eat a loaf at every meal. Is there going to be a ban on bread next?

    It's not Sarah Palin's or Michelle Obama's fault that kids are fat. And, neither of them can solve the problem. Big business, marketing, tv watching (and the commercials), weak parents, fat parents, ignorance, lack of exercise, a lazy self-gratifying culture are all part of the problem. A toy does not make a kid fat, nor does one hamburger or one cookie. It's a culture that loves to please itself without discipline and common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. angela11:14 am

    I'm surprised you haven't blamed George Bush for the obesity problem.

    And, Barack Obama smokes. But, that's not stupid at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Angela,

    Perhaps if you (and Sarah Palin) looked up the definition of "laissez-faire" you'd understand the stupidity inference.

    And while you're at it, after reading your comments I think you'd also be well advised to look up "logical fallacy" as well.

    ReplyDelete