# President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190 "2009-08-12T16:14:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/21 "2009-08-12T18:33:12Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Horrors, **Bricker**! How will they survive? I hope you’re not claiming that such “suggestions” (I’d call them “truisms” myself) are anything but dead to rights. Should, in addition to all the other advantages that children of the rich and powerful get, they also be entitled to be oblivious to their privileges and the plight of those less fortunate? And seriously, **Bricker** , but for this ad, M&S are just another pair of black girls at Sidwell? :dubious: (Pssst: Their friends already know that their dad is the President!!) “Entitled” is a funny word. I’m absolutely conceding the organization has a legal right to do what they did; I’m suggesting that it’s indicative of douchebaggery, which is admittedly not a term known for its precision of definition. The girls didn’t campaign for thier dad, and their parents don’t want them used, directly or indirectly, to make any political points. I think that’s not an unreasonable view. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/22 "2009-08-12T18:36:55Z")
**begbert** ’s spot on, here. It’s true that some people have (a lot) more money than other people. Because of that money, they’re able to do things or provide things for their family that others cannot. Is this unfair? Maybe, but whaddya gonna do about it? Life is unfair. They’re going to a private school, for heaven’s sake. And I’d be confident in saying that all the children at that private school all get the same quality of lunches. This is purely politically motivated: the non-profit isn’t putting up posters that say that Malia’s best friend at school, Jane Smith gets a healthy lunch but poor Brian Brown at the crap public school doesn’t, are they? Obnoxious. And possibly untrue. At least at the WI public school I attended, there was a good bit of attention paid to the menus to develop balanced meals. I’d assume there’s laws in place for this sort of thing at every public school in the nation. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/23 "2009-08-12T18:36:58Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I wasn’t aware that he didn’t support other people’s kids having the right to get a good lunch when their parents pay to send them to a private school where good lunches are served. I’m sorry, do you think Obama supports the corollary: that if your parents don’t (or can’t afford) to send you to a private school where good lunches are served, well then, enjoy your malk and gruel, urchin? Do you really think that the ad is implicating M&S? It certainly may be implicating their father as being inattentive to the issue. But I thought we were allowed to do that to Presidents. ---
**Author:** ![Reno\_Nevada](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Reno\_Nevada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reno_Nevada)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/24 "2009-08-12T18:39:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, then perhaps the debate can be: is it proper for White House lawyers to call a private citizen and imply that they might take legal action of some kind when they know, or should know, that they cannot take that action? I was under the impression that lawyers working for all different entities do this as a matter of course. And, of course, in this case they CAN take legal action–what stops them from suing the Physicians Committee? They might lose, but they might be more able to afford losing than the Committee can afford winning. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/25 "2009-08-12T18:39:31Z")
> [@wierdaaron](#): > > If Obama’s daughters can have constant 24/7 secret service protection, why can’t I? And they get to live in the White House while there are homeless people all over that city. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/26 "2009-08-12T18:49:47Z")
I think the point that campaign is making is that there are minimal social standards. Children should be adequately fed regardless of what their parents do for a living. In an ideal world every child would have parents who would feed them right. But when this isn’t true, society should pick up the burden rather than tell the kids “Tough luck, you should have picked better parents.” Should the Obama family have been brought into this? Again, in an ideal world, no. But realistically they serve to make the point. The children of the President are a good symbolic representation of children who are going to get every possible advantage. So my opinion is that this group is making a valid point in a resonable manner that falls within the scope of the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/27 "2009-08-12T19:04:24Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I’m sorry, do you think Obama supports the corollary: that if your parents don’t (or can’t afford) to send you to a private school where good lunches are served, well then, enjoy your malk and gruel, urchin? I think Obama supports the corollary that persons who for whatever reason don’t send their kids to private school are going to get food of the level of quality that the public school system provides, which is mandated by resources and need and possibly political motivation, but certainly _not_ by what the kids whose parents pay for or supply the food themselves get. That is to say, I think he takes the rational, intelligent view, rather than the crazed deranged irrational frothing view. By the way, my mom always packed me a sack lunch. It may have been of better quality than the lunches provided by the school. (Well, probably not when the apple sat on and squashed a giant divot in the sandwich, but other than that.) Do you believe that she should have been **forbidden** from giving me such a lunch? Do you believe that the school should have been forced to match whatever lunch my mom could manage to put together? 'Cause that’s what the poster is saying. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Do you really think that the ad is implicating M&S? It certainly may be implicating their father as being inattentive to the issue. But I thought we were allowed to do that to Presidents. I think that the ad is making a slimy argument that is trying to take something that isn’t _slightly_ political and use it’s vague appearance as something political to deceive readers into thinking that something is happening that is certainly **not**. (That is, presidential bias against public school lunches for other people’s kids.) I think this is the rhetorical argument equivalent of a large steaming pile of horseshit. It’s depressing that some people eat it right up. An _honest_ statement of the position wouldn’t use Obama’s kids as their example - it’d use _me_, and my mom’s non-socialist sandwich-providing system. In this regard my situation is equivalent to the obama kids’, after all. Of course, nobody would give a crap about the issue if presented honestly, so we get deceptive over-politicized horseshit instead. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/28 "2009-08-12T19:06:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, then perhaps the debate can be: is it proper for White House lawyers to call a private citizen and imply that they might take legal action of some kind when they know, or should know, that they cannot take that action? I don’t think we have any proof that the WH has implied that,. I do know that the former Governor of Alaska explicitly threatened legal action against several bloggers and media outlets, but I don’t think you’ve started any threads about it. Aren’t implied threats just a part of normal lawyering anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/29 "2009-08-12T19:15:15Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I think Obama supports the corollary that persons who for whatever reason don’t send their kids to private school are going to get food of the level of quality that the public school system provides, which is mandated by resources and need and possibly political motivation, but certainly _not_ by what the kids whose parents pay for or supply the food themselves get. > > That is to say, I think he takes the rational, intelligent view, rather than the crazed deranged irrational frothing view. There is absolutely nothing crazy, deranged, nor irrational (don’t all of those words mean the same thing anyway) about the view that the richest country in the world can ensure that all children receive tasty and nutritious lunches–either because they are fortunate enough to have parents who can provide those at their expense or because we provide them to those children who were not so discerning in their choice of parents. > [@](#): > > By the way, my mom always packed me a sack lunch. It may have been of better quality than the lunches provided by the school. (Well, probably not when the apple sat on and squashed a giant divot in the sandwich, but other than that.) Do you believe that she should have been **forbidden** from giving me such a lunch? Do you believe that the school should have been forced to match whatever lunch my mom could manage to put together? > > 'Cause that’s what the poster is saying. Yes. Excellent observation. The poster is saying “ **begbert2** ’s mom: you are not allowed to make your kids lunch unless you brought enough for every underprivileged grammar school student in the country.” That is what the PCRM wants: they want your mom to make bologna sandwiches for everyone in the nation. > [@](#): > > I think that the ad is making a slimy argument that is trying to take something that isn’t _slightly_ political and use it’s vague appearance as something political to deceive readers into thinking that something is happening that is certainly **not**. Yes, you’re right. A campaign to reform federal law and appropriations is not slightly political. It is entirely political. How do you possibly see it as anything else. Are you sure you know what “political” means? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/30 "2009-08-12T19:17:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I guess there are two topics worth discussion: does anyone want to defend the organization’s poster idea as wise or good? It’s the billboard equivalent of a sound bite. A good one is quite effective for calling attention to a particular position. Whether it’s wise to do so depends on the wisdom of the actual position. The sound bite’s only purpose is to garner publicity with a catchy simplification. > [@Bricker](#): > > And does anyone want to defend the White House lawyers’ use of a phantom legal Big Stick? I think it’s called “What a lawyer does for a living.” Make the best case possible even if it’s not an open and shut win. AKA “If you can’t legal them into doing something, try to bully them into doing it.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/31 "2009-08-12T19:21:47Z")
The point of the ads is that children of privilege get many benefits that other children do not, and the Obama children are certainly examples of children of privilege. So I don’t think that the folks who made the ads did anything immoral or unethical. I do think, however, that they probably did something stupid. It probably wouldn’t have been too hard for them to cultivate President Obama as an ally, and a very valuable ally indeed he would have been. Using his children as the focus of their ads is not very conducive to such an alliance. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/32 "2009-08-12T19:48:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Which reminds me - it seems Alberto Gonzalez is teaching next term, since no law firm has hired him. My respect for the legal profession has gone up a notch. It wasn’t very long ago that, um, shall we say, “certain Dopers” were touting him as an excellent choice for the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/33 "2009-08-12T19:49:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t think we have any proof that the WH has implied that,. We have the word of the president of the organization, who doesn’t seem particularly hostile to the White House and characterized the callers as good people even though he also said that he felt they implied further legal action. What other evidence might there be, at this stage? > [@](#): > > I do know that the former Governor of Alaska explicitly threatened legal action against several bloggers and media outlets, but I don’t think you’ve started any threads about it. I’m not really aware of any of those specifics, but if you’d like to offer up one or more, I’ll happily comment on them. As a public figure, she has very thin protections, so as a general principle I’d say for her to credibly threaten legal action, she’d have to be talking about someone who maliciously published something defamatory, false, and which they knew to be false. > [@](#): > > Aren’t implied threats just a part of normal lawyering anyway? Yes, they are. I’m not sure we ought to aprrove this when it’s the government doing it, though. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/34 "2009-08-12T20:08:05Z")
Lenin once remarked that a revolutionary cannot have children, because they are always held hostage by the State. He had a point. Obama and Ms Palin have already surrendered their children to their ambitions, for good or ill. They may make efforts and protestations to protect their children’s privacy, but it is a futile exercise. Though, in counterpoint, the Clinton’s seem to have done pretty well at it in relation to Chelsea, so perhaps not necessarily. I recall Nelson Mandela’s daughter saying once that while she was proud that he was father to the country, she might have wished he was more father to her. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/35 "2009-08-12T20:22:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Entitled” is a funny word. I’m absolutely conceding the organization has a legal right to do what they did; I’m suggesting that it’s indicative of douchebaggery, which is admittedly not a term known for its precision of definition. The girls didn’t campaign for thier dad, and their parents don’t want them used, directly or indirectly, to make any political points. I think that’s not an unreasonable view. This is what lawyers do. It costs nothing to mail a letter threatening a lawsuit. It doesn’t mean they have a case. It also points out a flaw in the legal system. Without a “loser pays” system it is easy for a wealthy individual to bankrupt someone with frivilous law suits. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/36 "2009-08-12T20:46:17Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > There is absolutely nothing crazy, deranged, nor irrational (don’t all of those words mean the same thing anyway) about the view that the richest country in the world can ensure that all children receive tasty and nutritious lunches–either because they are fortunate enough to have parents who can provide those at their expense or because we provide them to those children who were not so discerning in their choice of parents. > > Yes. Excellent observation. The poster is saying “ **begbert2** ’s mom: you are not allowed to make your kids lunch unless you brought enough for every underprivileged grammar school student in the country.” That is what the PCRM wants: they want your mom to make bologna sandwiches for everyone in the nation. > > Yes, you’re right. A campaign to reform federal law and appropriations is not slightly political. It is entirely political. How do you possibly see it as anything else. Are you sure you know what “political” means? You’re being fooled by the poster. The poster is NOT saying that kids in public schools get inadequate lunches. **That** would be a valid concern, and a political issue, and something that we can reasonably be unhappy about. The poster IS saying that some people’s parents make **personal** expenditures, **separately** from the public school system, and that sometimes those meals that are **personally** paid for are better than those provided for on the public dollar. This is of course **not** a problem, or even a surprise - it’s deserves a ‘whoop-de-frigging-doo’ reaction. Seriously, you’d have to be a moron to be alarmed by this. The poster is pretending it’s about the former issue, but it’s presenting nothing except the latter issue. It’s a bait-and-switch; it’s presenting something that’s _not_ political, and painting it as something that is. In other words, it’s rhetorical horseshit. And irrational doesn’t mean the same thing as crazy or deranged. Though I concede the latter two are similar. ---
**Author:** ![ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chockfullofheadygoodness/32/511_2.png) [@ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/37 "2009-08-12T20:52:40Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It’s the billboard equivalent of a sound bite. A good one is quite effective for calling attention to a particular position. Whether it’s wise to do so depends on the wisdom of the actual position. The sound bite’s only purpose is to garner publicity with a catchy simplification. Exactly. And it’s interesting that their true position is not mentioned by the ad. I, and most other posters in this thread, assumed their point was privileged kids get healthy food, public school kids get gruel and Cheetos. Actually visiting the website referenced on the poster reveals that the group is about requiring vegetarian options in public schools. Their suggested reforms are make vegetarian and vegan options available, make non-dairy available, and for the USDA to “discontinue buying beef, pork, chicken, butter, cheese, processed meats, and other foods high in saturated fat. USDA purchases should facilitate the consumption of healthy foods that are known to lacking in children’s diets—fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and beans.” Now it’s true that American children don’t eat enough veggies and eat too much fat, and I don’t have a problem with the first 2 suggested reforms. However, the last one and a lot of the verbiage on the website makes it look like PCRM is just pushing a pro-vegetarian agenda in a “won’t someone think of the children” wrapper. Sort of a non-batshit-insane version of PETA. As for the OP’s questions, 1. the original poster - Well, it worked. It got national attention and it got me to visit their website and become aware of their campaign, and I live on the opposite side of the country from where the ads ran. On the other hand, the misleading nature of it and dragging in the president’s minor children makes me less sympathetic to their cause. 2. the WH reaction. If they did in fact imply a threat of legal action, that’s heavy handed and makes them look like bullies, as they have no legal standing, know damn well they have no legal standing, and any legal action would be look more like a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) than a case with real merit. So.. douchery for all! ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/38 "2009-08-12T21:59:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > We have the word of the president of the organization, who doesn’t seem particularly hostile to the White House and characterized the callers as good people even though he also said that he felt they implied further legal action. What other evidence might there be, at this stage? While the organization’s president may have _inferred_ that there was a threat, his word, without the actual words spoken, cannot really be evidence that a threat was actually _implied_. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/39 "2009-08-12T22:06:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, not me, specifically. I don’t get healthy school lunches because I’m not even in school. Oddly the first thing to come to mind, and second thing was “because you’re not a ten year old girl?” ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190/40 "2009-08-12T22:23:27Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > **begbert** ’s spot on, here. It’s true that some people have (a lot) more money than other people. Because of that money, they’re able to do things or provide things for their family that others cannot. Is this unfair? Maybe, but whaddya gonna do about it? Life is unfair. > > They’re going to a private school, for heaven’s sake. And I’d be confident in saying that all the children at that private school all get the same quality of lunches. This is purely politically motivated: the non-profit isn’t putting up posters that say that Malia’s best friend at school, Jane Smith gets a healthy lunch but poor Brian Brown at the crap public school doesn’t, are they? > > Obnoxious. And possibly untrue. At least at the WI public school I attended, there was a good bit of attention paid to the menus to develop balanced meals. I’d assume there’s laws in place for this sort of thing at every public school in the nation. When I went to public school, the food was pretty much shit. I can remember pools of grease in the spaghetti and mystery meat sauce, and the pudding was out of a can, and if the little paper cups of it were turned upside down and propped on 2 milk cartons, the pudding didnt ooze out. When I spent several thousand per semester to go to a private school, the food improved. We got fresh veggies and fruits, and food like I might make at home. They baked their own bread and pizza, and pastries/cakes/pies/cookies. No mystery meat, everything was pretty identifiable. We got treated like little humans, not little animals. Now if the people complaining would notice that i paid for better scholastic conditions, and do the math … [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obamas-daughters-get-healthy-school-lunches-why-dont-i/506190.md?page=3)