TEA Party Republican Embarrasses Montana in the Wall Street Journal

TEA Party Republican legislator Tom Burnett has a letter in the Wall Street Journal last week calling for slashing school food for poor and hungry children.

Burnett’s letter comes in the wake of calls to reverse Congress’s idiotic declaration that pizza counts as a vegetable. Rep. Tom Burnett, of Bozeman, argues that instead of improving school nutrition, he has “a better reform.” Burnett wants to reduce the food assistance given to poor kids to help them afford school meals.

“To be practical, reforms must re-examine the over-abundance of food offered to children, not just nutritional quality.  Too much food, too often, harms.”

For some kids, meals at school are the only food they get.

The Wall Street Journal letter is a follow-up to the bizarre 53-page treatise Burnett penned recently to convince others of his belief that we should cut food for needy kids. In “Hunger in America: The Myth [PDF].” Burnett writes that hunger doesn’t exist because he hasn’t seen it:

No advocates parade a line of emaciated children at any school or playground. They just can’t be found.

But that’s not the only reason Representative Burnett has come to the conclusion that no one is really going hungry.  He also bases his case on…wait for it…pictures of fat people he found on the Internet (see right), which he includes in his article as “evidence.”More Burnett evidence....is this guy naked?

In addition to claiming that hunger doesn’t exist.  He also sanely tells us that not being hungry “kills,”

Hunger is a normal part of a healthy person’s day. One should expect to be hungry six hours per day, the two hours preceding each meal. Satiety kills.

In the treatise, Burnett proposed to create a massive federal food police bureaucracy to crack down on the poor to stop them from buying items that Burnett feels they don’t deserve. Those in need, says Burnett are characterized by “Indolence. Shirking responsibility. Indulgence. Enabled laziness.”

They don’t budget or plan. Lack of foresight is common in this population. They don’t restrain their impulses, one of the definitions of management problems. They don’t discipline themselves to stay in school, to turn in their homework, to get out of bed on time, to study when they’d rather watch movies.

Republicans in Congress and the Montana Legislature have made several recent attempts slash the budget for help for hungry kids.


50 Comments on "TEA Party Republican Embarrasses Montana in the Wall Street Journal"

  1. I think there might be a mental issue here with Burnett . He needs to seek help

  2. The U.S. Census Bureau uses information on the estimated number of food stamp recipients and cchild lunch programs as part of its Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program. This program was created by the Census Bureau with support from other Federal agencies, and provides more current estimates of selected income and poverty statistics than the most recent decennial census. Model-based estimates are created for States, counties, and school districts. The main objective of SAIPE is to provide updated estimates of income and poverty statistics for the administration of Federal programs and the allocation of Federal funds to local jurisdictions. Estimates are modeled using a variety of data sources; in addition to numbers of food stamp recipients as obtained from the USDA/FNS, these sources include summarized information from individual Federal income tax returns, and population information.

    By the way Rehberg voted against funding projects just like this, this month! because it shows a light on the poverty in our state as well as the county. Burnett and Rehberg want to disavow that poverty exists and they don’t want counties given the extra monies granted by the US Government to fund Food programs for children or elders. Defunding the Census, and SAIPE program. Guarantees Old folk die quicker and young people in our state do not have the food to grow intellectually in school!
    Burnett and Rehberg are just wrong for this state!

  3. Hmmm, after reading his letter as a whole and reading your interpretation, It’s fair to say that your framing/priming is askew.

    Child obesity is a serious problem in the United States, and all Burnett was saying was that offering too much food in public schools may be one of the sources of the problem.

    Just because school lunches/breakfasts provide affordable food for poor children, doesn’t mean that the amount they’re served shouldn’t be a healthy amount. He was talking about healthy moderate portions as opposed to unhealthy portions, not getting rid of school food.

    Also, I realize that your blog is biased against all sorts of conservatives/republicans and that Tom Burnett is one of them, but just because you’re biased (or have to maintain a bias) doesn’t mean you have to be unreasonable.

    • Just to be fair, you should read the 53 page report before you try to spin Burnetts letter.

    • Read the report Just to be Fair!

    • Before accusing someone else of being unreasonable, shouldn’t you at least apply a little reason yourself? For instance, perhaps you could clarify exactly what Tim Burnett’s credentials as a nutritionist are. Or maybe, you could explain how a politician is qualified or able to ‘apportion’ food to school kids. Are you or Burnett advocating for a Nanny state law dictating exactly how big a scoop of beenie-weanie kids can have at a given age and weight?

      Burnett in his letter gives the example of 1600 calories being fed to sedentary 8 year old girls who in his unqualified opinion should only have 1200. First, are ‘lunch-room ladies’ going to be legally required to apportion food by gender, activity level and age? Who’s going to front the money for such instruction, JTBF, you? Tom Burnett? The tax-payers? That hardly seems reasonable at all, does it? Second, the whole point of Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign as well as the NFL’s “Play 60” and countless other programs already active in schools is that 8 year olds not be sedentary. Structured activity has been shown time and again to decrease child obesity, increase social involvement, decrease absenteeism and asocial/anti-social behaviors. It strikes me that that’s a vastly more cost-effective way to solve the blight of ‘child obesity’ than to make Oliver ask ‘for more’ because we’re protecting the precious 8 year old sedentary girl.

      Most important, JTBF, if we’re being reasonable, is asking the basic question. What problem does Tom Burnett *really* want to solve? He hasn’t the learning or background to solve ‘child obesity’, nor does he have a position that can solve such without creating bigger problems. I suggest to you, being reasonable of course, that Tom has two problems of real interest to him. 1) Very obvious from his 53 page “report” is his interest in saving money. In fact, the only way his letter makes sense at accomplishing the goal of defeating “the very real problem” of childhood obesity is if the public just pays for less … or none. Simply put, Burnett doesn’t want our money going to feed poor kids. Taking his ‘report’ into account, it’s more obvious that Tom Burnett doesn’t want his money spent to feed poor kids. (Unless they’re Mormon, and then that’s what tithing is for. One does have to wonder what difference Tom sees between tithing and taxes, yes?) 2) Tom has a deep interest in getting reelected. To do so, he will use the foulest method known to politics, turning man against his brother’s children. “Save your resources to take care of your own”, Tom will preach. “But whatever, don’t spend it on that fat lazy (whoops, I forgot the euphemism “sedentary”) girl-child down the road”. If he were honest, he would add, “unless the money comes from church tithes”. Apparently, the LDS faithful are never “sedentary”.

      Now, JTBF, do tell me how I’m being “unreasonable”.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | May 21, 2012 3:25 PM at 3:25 PM |

        Well said. Can’t add a thing to that.

      • If you’re going to accuse the reasonable, shouldn’t you use reason to do it?

        I’ll be fair and say that you bring up a few good points- despite your argument being riddled with logistical fallacies and nonsense- everything, including this website is a reelection ploy.

        But, if you’re going to claim that everything from now until 2013 is a reelection ploy, and that Burnett isn’t qualified to suggest solutions for child obesity- I wouldn’t be taking anything away from this article, or Michelle’s “Let’s Move” and the NFL’s “Play 60” programs. What qualifies them to suggest what a healthy diet consists of for the typical physique of an average 8 year old girl, are they nutritional experts? Is Rodger Goodell a nutritional expert? If so, why is the average lifespan of an NFL lineman at 50 years, my best guess is that he’s not.

        -“Tom has a deep interest in getting reelected.”

        Michelle also has a deep interest in her husband getting reelected. I guess by your suggested logic, she should cancel the program. Drop the fallacies please.

        -“If we’re being reasonable, is asking the basic question. What problem does Tom Burnett *really* want to solve?”

        I couldn’t tell you that, and I’m not sure why you brought it into the discussion. I was reasonable in my previous post, and didn’t make claims based outside MTcowgirl’s initial post. Her/His post did not contain any question marks, did it?

        -“Taking his ‘report’ into account, it’s more obvious that Tom Burnett doesn’t want his money spent to feed poor kids.”

        Well, instead of making claims without representation (especially with your hunch that I haven’t read the report yet), I suggest you quote portions of the report which back your claim. You’re not really making an argument, you’re just making claims. It’s really an eyesore.

        I’ll read the report later tonight, and get back to you in the morning. Have a good night!

        • FACT: School breakfast and afterschool snack programs are designed to feed low income kids.


          FACT: Tom Burnett argues in support of cutting these programs–programs set up to help these kids get food.

          FACT: Reading Tom Burnett’s blog will cause you to lose brain cells. You might want to take a break for a few days.

        • JTBF, you write just like that Tea Peep from Anaconda, Jon Arnold. You miss-use words and concepts in an attempt to sound reasonable, but you fail because of that very thing. For instance, both you and Arnold call me out for making “logistical fallacies”. There is no such thing as a “logistical fallacy”. There are logistical errors or logistical mistakes; but fallacies are, by definition, logical. It would help our effort at ‘being reasonable’ if you could at least use your words correctly.

          It would also assist in being reasonable if you wouldn’t just claim that someone is using logical fallacies, but rather identify them. For instance, you commit a Straw Man fallacy:

          But, if you’re going to claim that everything from now until 2013 is a reelection ploy,

          I made no such claim, but you argue from the position that I did. That is the classical Straw Man fallacy, setting up a false position for your opponent and then bravely knocking down what never was in the first place. That’s how reasonable discussion works. When someone commits a fallacy, you point it out and question it’s truth value. Do you think you can do that, Jontobefair?

          Now, continuing our reasonable discussion, I never pretended that the FLOTUS or Roger Goodell were nutritional experts, nor did I even claim they were giving advice on such. Kindly remember, I wrote that they are giving advice on activity, not school lunch programs. You’re obfuscating the point. But, since you really want to go there, I can claim with absolute certitude that Michelle Obama has access to vastly more resource on nutrition and exercise than Tom Burnett. In fact, as I have pointed out to another, Michelle Obama is echoing what has been endorsed by every Surgeon General of the US since C. Everett Koop. He served under St. Reagan, if you will recall. In addition, Michelle Obama is advocating for fewer carbs from high fructose corn sugar, which another in this discussion has posited as a *real* solution to child obesity. All Tom Burnett has advocated is ‘food austerity’. I notice that you make absolutely no argument to support his position, save mentioning that public funds provide “affordable” food for poor children, yet shouldn’t supply ‘as much’. The ‘as much’ remains completely undefined, and the logistics of accomplishing this remain completely removed from your discussion. That was the very point of my response to your “reason”, a point that remains unanswered. How does Tom define “too much” food? Is his definition reasonable? What are the logistics of implementing his plans to solve ‘child obesity’?

          I couldn’t tell you that, and I’m not sure why you brought it into the discussion.

          Then you weren’t paying attention or being reasonable, were you? The preceding paragraph explains exactly why I brought it into the discussion and why it is exactly relevant if we are being reasonable. Tom has proposed a solution to what you call “a very real problem”. Tom is a politician, a legislator, which means he is one afforded the power and responsibility to solve very real problems in the name of the voting public. It is incumbent on us, as the voting public, to question his proposed solutions and why he proposes such things. Since we’re being reasonable, I’m rather surprised that I have to explain such simply obvious things to you.

          One thing that reasonable people don’t do is expect others to be responsible for their own ignorance, especially when proudly demanding such a thing. You claim:

          I was reasonable in my previous post, and didn’t make claims based outside MTcowgirl’s initial post. Her/His post did not contain any question marks, did it?

          No, but it did contain links, links you couldn’t be buggered to follow. Those links included a link to Burnett’s report on obesity in America. That simply wasn’t a link you wanted to follow before pretending to be reasonable. So you didn’t actually respond to Cowgirl’s post, did you? Instead …

          Well, instead of making claims without representation (especially with your hunch that I haven’t read the report yet), I suggest you quote portions of the report which back your claim. You’re not really making an argument, you’re just making claims. It’s really an eyesore.

          No wonder you didn’t read relevant information. Your poor eyes are sore. Let me offer you a hint, Jontobefair, no reasonable person is responsible for your willful ignorance. Not one. No reasonable discussion can take place with the willfully ignorant; none. Whether you think you were being reasonable or not, you were not commenting in good faith, at all. You were cherry-picking your information and then blaming another because you don’t know what is obvious to the informed. I hope that you do read Burnett’s 53 page indictment of the lazy poor who aren’t Mormon. Perhaps you’ll come back with a reasoned response, because so far you certainly haven’t.

      • I see no shame in saving money. The movement to say we’ve been Taxed Enough Already was formed on this exact principle. It should be the responsibility of the parents to feed these kids, not mine. If these people can’t afford to feed their families they should consider seeking employment.

        • Spoken like a true religious fanatical TeaTard.

          • I realize cutting taxes is not something liberals are willing to do. But they should at least start thinking about what exactly is the role of government. The government cannot be all things to all people. We cannot afford it. I have to take care of myself, yet others recieve a monthly check for not doing the same. This creates the entitlement mentality that we see today. It’s not sustainable and its time to cut the cord.

            • We Have had thirty years of your way “Dont Tread” it didn’t work it was a Huge failure. Your tax cuts aren’t ever going to work to pay the deficit. Money needs to be made by the middle class to buy, which in turn make companies make more products and Hire more people for that demand.

              Its a pretty simple way of saying what the market will bear.

            • Again, spoken like a true TeaTard. First, I am not a “liberal”. I am a financial conservative. Second, I fully believe that any society that is worth having should ensure that every citizen in that society has at least the basic essencials cared for. A society that throws out it’s elderly or poor is not a moral society. Third, tax cuts worsen the problem, not improve it. I realise you probably failed math in school, but reducing revenue will make the deficit larger, not smaller. Please lose the uneducated hillbilly act and pull your head out of your ass.

              If you are one of those idiots that believe “trickle down” actually works, you are too stupid to even reply to. Even President Bush (Senior) referred to it as “Voodoo Economics” because that is exactly what it is. 30 years later, there still exist not a shread of proof that “trickle down” works and only complete morons still subscribe to that idea.

    • Structured activity has been shown time and again to decrease child obesity, increase social involvement, decrease absenteeism and asocial/anti-social behaviors.

      The usual mush? That sentence really needs some referencing (and diagrammng). Our kids may be getting fatter by the day, but conflating other behaviors with mere over-intake of sugar and starch (soda, French fries and pizza, which are in large measure what makes them fat) says nothing about asocial and antisocial behaviors, which as far as I know are about like they have always been.

      Dietary science these days is, like climate science, often backed by financial interests that have an interest in disinformation. Here’s a question that should give you pause for thought: Do people who don’t exercise get fat, or do people who get fat stop exercising?

      Before you answer, consider this: We’ve had an abundance of food since the end of WWII. In the 50’s, 60,s and 70,s, gyms were scarce, running was rare. People were more sedate and yet weighed less.

      Given all of that, what changed? Amazing how you pontificate on things about which you know nothing.

      • Mark, before you demand others to reference and back up their statements, please provide proof that A)food was available in the same abundance in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s than it is now, B) that people were more or less sedentary in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s than they are now and C) that obesity was not as much of a problem in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s than it is now. You are making some sweeping statements that you want us to respond to without providing a shread of evidence that the situation even remotely existed (for the record, I already know the answer to most of those questions and the situation is – quite frankly – apples and oranges. I just want to see how you flail away at the answer).

        • Tokarski reasoning:

          No, no, no, Moorcat. Back in the fifties and sixties and seveties, people smoked more. Activity had nothing to do with it, silly man. Everyone knows that smoking makes you healthier because I’ve just stated as much. Buy that little 8 year old sedentary/lazy girl a pack of Lucky Strikes and watch the wonder of health unfold.

      • And just for the record, Tokarski (if he had an honest bone in his body) states:

        Amazing how Burnett pontificates on things about which he knows nothing.

  4. Wow, dealing with anther Kailey in the know. For the record, I’m not a believer in the amazing Kaileys.

    Since neither exercising more or eating less lead to long-term weight loss, there must be other factors involved, and indeed there are. While obesity has always been around, and many of us are genetically predisposed (most of us are not), for the most part it a merely the body reacting to signals sent by the type, and not amount of calories consumed. An excess of sugars, complex carbs and starchy foods over time will signal to the body( by means of excess production of insulin) to store fat in adipose tissue. If this condition persists, the fat tissue will in essence be locked away and immune to release.

    The changes that are on exhibit now in our population, and in an alarming number of children, are caused by dietary factors, the primary one being sugar intake, which has increased steadily since the end of WWII, and before,but not nearly as we see now. That factor, and not exercise, not dieting, not fat intake, is what goes hand-in-hand with increasing obesity.

    I did not just read about this – I lived it. I was overweight, and read a 600 page tome, Good Calories, Bad Calories, which is to a diet book, but merely a review of dietary science. Based on this book, I cut sugar out of my diet, along with pizza, most bread, pasta, donuts, and beer. I ate heartily, never counted a calorie, never felt hungry or that I was ‘on a diet.’ from April to August of 2011 I lost 22 pounds without effort.

    The author of the book dismissed the idea that I should exercise as a means to lose weight (it just makes us hungry and we eat it right back), so I cut back there too. I had been an exercise freak,but cut back to two mild workouts a week. I still do mild exercise, but nothing like before, and weight is no longer a problem. I’m at a good weight, have high energy, feel,great, and my physical six weeks ago showed a man in excellent health – the aide who took my blood pressure said “wow, that’s really good!”, almost surprised. (120/76)

    So anyway, I have addressed your brother’s lame-ass opinions about sedentary behavior, and that’s all I feel like doing. Your answers are contained herein, but if not, consult the book. It recommends no regime, the autor is a journalist ant ot a dietmguru, and only reviews dietary science as it existed up until the 70’s, and how it has been since been perverted by food corporation funding of science.

    he only infers that last sentence, by the way. I state it emphatically.

    • And, as usual, you use your own life as an example that we are suppose to take as scientific fact. Does your arrogance know no bounds?

      Fact.. Last year I lost 42 pounds in 94 days. I did not modify my diet at all with the possible exception that I added more protein on top of my regular diet. This loss was tracked religiously as was my diet and my activity level.

      This weight loss would be unhealthy in most people. Due to my unusual body chemistry it was neither unhealthy or of concern for the doctor that was monitoring my progress.

      The only change in my life that caused this unusual weight loss was a significant change in my level of activity.

      The bottom line is that each person’s body chemistry and ability to loss/gain weight is different and what works for one, may even be damaging for another. For example, I cannot EVER be a vegetarian. My body is incapable of producing certain things without animal protein. I am – quite literally – a obligate carnivore. Some people are able to adopt a vegetarian diet without issue. In the same vein, the Atkins diet is also quite dangerous to my personal body chemistry as it has been shown to be quite dangerous for others.

      Literally billions of dollars each year are spent on the newest and latest trends in dieting, exercise and body sculpting and the only concrete science that has been shown to be true is that each person is different. One can only approach weight loss with the most general of approaches unless you are speaking about a specific individual. In general, exercise has been shown to reduce obecity for the majority of people – your story aside.

      You are a lame and sad individual, Mark and your psuedo science based on your experience and some book you read years ago are hardly convincing.

      • Yes I resort to insult, you don’t. The absence of insult in your words is apparent. Congrats on losing 94. That’s an amazing feat., sincerely. You are hardlumunique. For most of us, exercise and reduction of fat intake does nothing but make us hungry. It’s absurd to say we are all unique, as there are so many of us. Polling works because we are not unique and are groupable. Jung reduced us to several types, oddly predictive. That part of your analysis is in error.

        There was a decided shift in food policy under Nixon due to rising prices, from meat-based to carb-based. It is cheaper to eat carbs than to run them first through cows. We are now the people of corn. I, like you, eat meat. But it’s cheaper to feed people corn-based products, and so it is no surprise that obesity is most prominent among the poor.

        Odd that you think yourself some unique case of obesity, rather than just a guy who got fat. Odd that you needed a doctor, rather than just researching and moving forward without a mentor or diet guru. This stuff is accessible to mere mortals. Just avoid dietitians. They don’t know shit. Avoid sugar in all forms, your body responds favorably. What’s the problem here?

        • Again, your arrogance is showing. I was not, by any means obese in the standard acceptance of the term. I was simply overweight by my own standards. Further, your reading comprehension is, once again fail. I lost 42 pounds in 94 days.

          It comes as no surprise that you would prefer to deal with potentially lifethreatening exercises like a radical loss of weigh using “self help” books. As someone that has an unusual body chemistry and having had an unexplained heart attack in the last five years, I chose (as most people with two brain cells to rub together would) to consult with a licenced doctor.

          My body chemistry is unusual, Mark, not unique. While the medical reasons behind that unusual body chemistry are well documented, I am not arrogant enough to believe that no one else has similar problems. What I am saying is that a generalized approach to something as personal as weight loss can be (and often is) dangerous. Anyone contemplating a large weight loss should consult with a licenced doctor and should be monitored for things like body chemistry, liver action etc.

          • “Unexplained” heart attack? You’re getting weirder by the minute. Are you an alien being? This does explain a great deal of Kaileyness – you arrived on a spaceship. Your body is not like others, your internal organs are not arranged like ours (and your brother’s absence of a beating heart now makes sense!)

            And, btw, 42 pounds is also a great accomplishment. Congratulations.

            Obesity is a problem in our society, and I can’t begin to understand it in medical detail other than the general knowledge given us by scientists over the centuries (yes, centuries), abandoned in the 1970’s, that our bodies are complicated but evolved to process fat, protein and fiber, store some, have it ready for use, but to stay lean. Overweight people could not move about easily, would be lousy hunters and unattractive spouses, so that natural selection would minimize their occurrence. (The idea that we store fat for lean times makes no sense, as it is a detriment to all other essential activities).

            Sugar in large quantity, refined wheat and rice were not part of our heritage. We are not built to process them, so that we don’t even have the “enough” switch when ingesting it. (Author of GCBC Taubes gives the great example of sitting in a movie theater eating a jumbo popcorn – would we instead eat 15 slices of American cheese? From a caloric standpoint, it’s the same, but our brains tell us “enough! on the cheese pronto.)

            That’s most of us, almost all of us. We all want to be exceptional, but we are not, and odds are you are not, other than the Kaileyness. Cutting sugar out of the diet wll not kill anyone, so that a doctor is no more needed than if you decided to quit hitting your fingers with a hammer. Sugar in the quantities American consume it is poisoness. Just stop. Save the doctor for the complicated stuff, like this notion that you are unique. Different kind of doctor.

            • Yes, Mark… Unexplained. When I went to the emergency room, I exibited all the symptoms of a major heart attack. I spent four days in the hospital and had dozens of tests afterwards. Nothing indicated why I was apparently having a heart attack. Moreover, the enxyme changes that usually accompany a heart attack did not appear in my case. To this day, the attending doctor cannot tell me why I had a heart attack (or if I had an actual heart attack). Your hyperbole aside, it was frustrating and disheartening to hear. Since the professional has no idea, I am left with no idea – therefore unexplained.

              You simply aren’t as smart as you think you are. You are not a nutritionist, a medical doctor or scientist studying the effect of food on the human body. You are an insular accountant with a perchant for sermonizing on this blog without the least idea of what you are talking about. Do everyone a favor, Mark, and return back under the adding machine you slithered out from under.

            • Your arrogance is still showing Mark! You cant even let a man have a say regarding his own body.

              You know what! I’m fat now. working on losing but it is never been in weight only body size. Everything turns to muscle with me when I work out and fat if I dont, but the wieght stays about the same. People metabolisms are not the same, except by genetics!

              Got hurt riding 6 years ago, and I stopped smoking at the same time, and since I came home to take care of my family I gained horribly, but not really in weight just in FAT! Dang it, whats a girl to do. LOL

              But being a good candidate for my district doesn’t mean a Beauty contest, it is a contest of sharper wits, and better Ideas.

              I already know Ill beat the weight thing, thats a given, but fighting bullshiters like you Mark will always be a uphill battle. Yeah But I am always ready for that also….

    • Since all you have a to “refute” me, Tokarski, is anecdote and a book, I’ll do you one better and refute myself. Just 4 weeks ago, I lost 20 pounds in two days by being completely sedentary. I didn’t even get out of bed. The only exercise I got was to my abdominals while I was throwing up. But I curtailed my food intake to zero, and voila, I was 20 pounds lighter. So of course, being sedentary has nothing to do with obesity. If we want to solve the scourge of child fatness we simply need to make certain they get the flu more often.

      You didn’t “refute” anything, Mark. You simply offered a contrasting view regarding health relationships that are not zero sum, though both you and Tom Burnett seem to think they are. Notice that I never said that ‘structured activity would solve child obesity’. What I did write, however, has been endorsed by every Surgeon General since Koop. If you want to see just how badly your supposed ‘refutation’ fails, insert “being sedentary” where I wrote structured activity.

      Being sedentary has been shown time and again to decrease child obesity, increase social involvement, decrease absenteeism and asocial/anti-social behaviors.

      Kindly show one single medical professional who will endorse *that* claim. In truth, I agree with you completely about the shift to corn based agri-business and the overwhelming presence of high fructose corn sugar in our food. But notice, that’s completely beside the point of what I wrote that you claim you have ‘refuted’. Simply put, you’re avoiding the issue again for your own personal satisfaction. You thought you saw a Kailey being wrong, and so to you, that became the issue. No, Tokarski, it really isn’t. The issue at hand is a politician who, like many of his ilk, wants to save money by putting a greater burden on those who can least afford it, and hiding his effort behind the charade of concern over ‘child obesity’. Other than the fact that that effort comes from Republicans and not the eeevil Democrats you revile, something like that should be right up your alley. Obviously, your hatred of me easily derails that super-human intelligence of yours.

  5. I noticed that the Watchdog blogger Dustin Hurst retreated this post today. Perhaps that’s a sign that he’s seen the light and will change his stripes : )

  6. Seems to me that there are a lot of vegetables in Congress.

  7. Hey if pizza has been declared a vegetable, why not Eric Cantor?

Comments are closed.