OT-Jamie Oliver Food Revolution

For some reason I just can't tolerate that guy. His voice is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

found it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go_QOzc79Uc

If Oliver kept it to trying to persuade people, I'd be more tolerant of his efforts. Unhappily, he does not, and his enthusiastic use of the State to enforce his cherished views on what people ought to eat leave me cold and thinking he's just another health nazi and busbody who believes his every stand ought to be enforced at bayonet-point.

LINK

Read the article at the link I provided.

My take is not unlike that of the author of the article. Just look at the progression of the use of State power regarding tobacco, and you'll understand: First come the gentle warnings and really, who could be opposed to simply informing people of the potential threat to their health? Yet we see where it winds up when the lumpenproles resist the instruction of their betters. As Loren Lomasky put it:

(He)courts an electorate that persistently rejects his embrace and instead obdurately holds onto its own affections. It thereby shows itself unworthy to be the object of devotion of so ardent a lover. But rather than acquiesce in rejection and give up the chase, the swain will turn the tables, transform the drab voter-consumer into beauteous citizen, and once and for all win her favors--if not through seduction then by rape.

Oliver cares and cares and cares. He cares so much, it's obvious that he's a superior sort of human being and, as such, it's his natural duty to tell us all what to do.

Homey don't play dat.

Sort of playing devils advocate here, not disagrreing with anyone, BUT...
Is the school food worse than any other prepared meal purchased outside of the home? The kids aren't being forced to eat it are they? I mean I realize the Osama Bin Laden, I mean Barack Obama administration is forcing things on us but I think we can still send lunch to school with our kids.

The kids aren't being forced to eat it are they?

Wellll...

Negative reaction to the British government’s nationwide implementation of Oliver’s school-lunch recommendations was swift and widespread. Parents, some of whom labeled Oliver’s food “low-fat rubbish,” pulled 400,000 kids from the school-lunch rolls, choosing to brown bag it rather than have their kids eat Oliver’s “healthier” options. Parents opposed to Oliver’s scheme handed food to their kids through the gates of schoolyards. Some vendors and parents set up shop outside schools and sold food to students. Enterprising students, in turn, sold food to peers in schools, which led to suspensions for pupil transgressions as absurd as “crisp dealing.”

I've gone back and re-read the article, and I don't think it's a very good article. The author states his point:
"Food Revolution is a bold attempt by Oliver to begin forcing every American to cook and buy only the foods he thinks we should eat"

...and then as supporting information, goes on to list Oliver's many efforts...none of which actually attempt what is claimed...to force people to cook and buy what he things we should eat.

The efforts listed include education about diet and cooking, and reformation of school (optional) lunch programs. Neither of these in any way force food or views on people. I agree that the state has no business enforcing what people eat. But I also agree that the diets of a large portion of our population are harmful, and have contributed to our healthcare issues, and that education is a big key to addressing that issue. Since most of the education in this country is done in public schools, then that's the logical place to start.

Our schools need to do a better job of preparing children to function in a healthy manner in the real world. They can hardly teach diet in health class and home-economics, meanwhile teaching that burgers, pizza and fries every day are healthy for lunch. And since the STATE is funding these school meals, the state has every right to chose what to serve.

The premise of the article would be something I could support, if it were actually the case. But even the author of the article was unable to present a compelling argument supporting his premise.

Regarding the tobacco issue. Your projecting the problems of one issue onto another, and presenting a slippery-slope argument.

Mine have that option, but they don't, at least not every day.

I'll watch that show here in a few minutes so I'll have a better Idea of what its about. -RP

Unless they wanted to purchase other things inside the schools, whereupon they were suspended for their infraction.

Oh, and I assume you are aware that the City of New York has banned trans-fats, and that a bill has been put forth in the State House to do the same with salt.

When you nationalize people's bodies, it's not a slippery slope to point to the logical conclusions.

I have no knowledge of UK school policies, but where I live, this is an existing policy. Children are not allowed to exchange lunches or sell food, it would have nothing to do with Oliver's plan.

No, I suppose it doesn't force them to eat it. It just forces them to pay for food that, in the end, they do not want. It also gets kids suspended for the laughable offense of selling things they do want to eat.