Celebrity Transformed by Ozempic

Cookie Monster Shows Off Stunning Weight Loss After Taking Ozempic https://t.co/q3Lq52URh7 pic.twitter.com/NlewPaV2eT

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) April 14, 2024

The Biden Diet

New 'Biden Diet' Sweeps Nation: Pay The Same Amount Of Money But Eat 50% Less Food https://t.co/YlVMYiTAx5 pic.twitter.com/vyPUZpZhFT

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) April 11, 2024

Dr. Phil and Happy Meals

Dr. Phil's take on the San Francisco Happy Meal controversy makes a lot of sense.

He believes it's the parents' responsibility to decide what food their children eat. The government is overreaching by banning toys in Happy Meals.

DR. PHIL MACGRAW: It's the parents' job to decide where they take the children and what kind of eating patterns they develop. If we turn this over to the government, what else are we going to turn over to them? This seems to me to be way overreach.

Video.


Transcript

ANDERSON COOPER: So Dr. Phil, what do you think about this? I mean, this law doesn't ban Happy Meals. It bans the toys that go with the Happy Meals if the meals don't meet certain health requirements. Does that make sense?

DR. PHIL MCGRAW, TALK SHOW HOST: Well, you know, I think it's along the same line of thinking when they banned Joe the Camel, which was considered to be a cartoon, which would appeal to children. And I think they know that kids want those toys, and so by putting the toy in there, they're enticing these children to buy these non-nutritious meals. And so they're saying, "Look, do we want to do that?"

And I agree that's not a good business practice. And I've got to say, 25 percent of Caucasian children are considered overweight, and 33 percent of African-American and Hispanic children. So this is an epidemic-level problem. Make no mistake.

I really applaud the fact that somebody's paying attention to this, but, Anderson, this is the parents' job. I mean, it's the parents' job. They're the ones that buy the food, present the food, put food in the house, take kids to buy these things. This is the parents' job. And you don't turn that over to the government.

You cannot abdicate. You can't even delegate this decision to the government. This gets back to the core level of parenting, and I think it is dangerous if we get the government involved in this way.

COOPER: You're saying it's an over reach; it's getting the government too involved in this sort of decision making which should be left up to parents.

MCGRAW: I think it is an overreach. I mean, if the government wants to be active in trying to do something about this epidemic of childhood obesity then get involved with education. Change the school lunch programs.

My God, so many of the school lunches that are delivered around the country are so high in carbohydrates and so low in protein and so high in sugar and so high in sodium, that's contributing to the obesity. What are they worried about putting a toy in a Happy Meal? They need to be focused on the things that they now fund because this is a serious problem in America.

But look. This is the parents' job. It's the parents' job to say no. It's the parents' job to say, "This is not nutritious." It's the parents' job to decide where they take the children and what kind of eating patterns they develop. If we turn this over to the government, what else are we going to turn over to them? This seems to me to be way overreach.

COOPER: But you know, there are a lot of parents who -- just to play devil's advocate here -- there are a lot of parents out there who say, "Look, we don't have a fighting chance against some of these huge companies and all the advertising dollars they pour in."

I read that the food industries spend $4.2 billion on advertising and marketing, that the average preschooler -- these are a couple of facts. The average preschooler saw 2.8 TV ads every day for fast food. Kids aged 6 to 11 saw 3.5 ads, and 15 percent of preschoolers ask to go to McDonald's every single day.

I guess there will be some parents out there who are saying, "Look, this isn't a fair fight."

MCGRAW: Well, it may not be a fair fight, because the marketing machine is huge. It is powerful.

But if we're trading numbers, let me trade this one with you. Seventy percent of overweight children are going to become overweight adults. And for every 40 pounds you're over, your likelihood of heart attack, cancer, Type Two diabetes goes through the ceiling. This is one of the battles parents need to pick.

COOPER: I was watching this documentary, "Food Inc.," which is a really fascinating look at food in the United States around the world. And it gave the example of Wal-Mart, which was pressured by customers to start offering healthier choices in some of their outlets, you know, healthier yogurt and stuff like that. And they actually did, and that's been a huge deal for -- you know, when Wal- Mart chooses to do something, it's got a huge impact on the marketplace. And that was based on consumers demanding something.

MCGRAW: We've got the real power here. And believe me, this turf war is fought at the local level. You get moms and dads talking to those managers and saying, "We're going to drive right down the street, and we're going to go somewhere else. We're simply not going to come here." Then that franchise will start doing something different.

Don't ever think we don't have the power of the dollar. Because where we go and where we choose to spend it, particularly during these tough economic times, is something they pay attention to. And the reason they're selling us what they're selling us is because that's what we've showed the willingness to buy.

COOPER: Yes. That's true. I must say I've switched to buying salads at McDonald's, although it's hard passing up on those Big Macs, but I force myself to do it.

MCGRAW: It really is. They look and smell good, and once in a while they're OK, seriously. But you just -- you have to understand these kids, they get -- they get so focused on this, and your eating habits are learned. People aren't born with a palate for this. They learn it across time. If it's learned it can be unlearned and relearned. So parents, don't give up the fight.

In short, parents aren't helpless.

They should grow a spine. McDonald's doesn't control what their children eat.

Parents should start parenting and government should get out of McDonald's business.

Wendy's New Fries

Big news from the world of fast food:

Wendy's is revamping its fries to appeal to "foodies," those wanting "more natural foods."

With an eye toward appealing to foodies, Wendy's is remaking its fries with Russett potatoes, leaving the skin on and sprinkling sea salt on top.

The fast-food chain has been changing its menu to focus on "real" ingredients to win more fans.

...The new fries are slightly slimmer than the old ones, and crispier because they're smaller. They will have more salt, a medium size fry goes from 350 milligrams to 500 milligrams, and calories add 10 to 420. The selling price will not change, ranging from 99 cents to about $2. The fries will still come to stores frozen.

Wendy's is planning a marketing push, including national television ads airing later this month, to highlight the changes.

"We want every ingredient to be a simple ingredient, to be one you can pronounce and one your grandmother would recognize in her pantry," said Chief Marketing Officer Ken Calwell, who declined to say what the Dublin, Ohio, company was spending on the effort.

People want more natural foods and they want to know where they come from, he said. Having the skin on is a way to remind people that fries come from potatoes, he said. Testing showed that some people think restaurant french fries are processed foods, he said. The old recipe used a blend of potatoes, not always Russett, but the fries were 100 percent potato.

Sea salt is being increasingly used in fine dining and in mainstream eating. Lay's, part of PepsiCo Inc., uses sea salt in a version of its natural potato chips.

The new fries are also cooked in a different blend of vegetable oils.

Wendy's worked with its suppliers to grow more Russett potatoes, so the new recipe will only cost a fraction more to produce.

"Having the skin on is a way to remind people that fries come from potatoes."

What?

Does anyone eating Wendy's fries forget they're eating potatoes? Is the skin a necessary reminder? People inclined to forget aren't inclined to care.

If the fries taste better, terrific.

If customers like the changes, good for Wendy's.

But they're still fries. Promoting the new fries as a more "natural food" suggests that they're a healthier choice.

No.

A stick of Land O'Lakes butter contains sweet cream, salt, and milk. That's very natural, but having a large order of butter with your burger isn't a good idea.

Twinkie Diet

It's the calories, stupid.

I'm not surprised at all by the success of the Twinkie Diet.

Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.

The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

It's all about how much you consume.

Weight loss is not a mystery. Eat less and you'll drop the pounds.

It doesn't matter what you eat as long as you don't eat too many calories.

The discipline that it takes to limit one's food intake, battling the desire to eat a lot, is where it gets difficult for some.

But when it comes to losing weight, it's very simple. It isn't what you eat. It's how much.



MMM...Twinkies!

Heinz Ketchup - Less Salt

I don't know why Heinz is messing with success.

Leave my ketchup alone!

From the Associated Press:

H.J. Heinz Co. is messing around with the recipe for its flagship product, reducing the sodium content in its ketchup in a move that the company described as the first "significant" change in the nation's dominant brand of the tomato-based condiment in nearly 40 years.

A little more than a week ago, employees began cooking up the new version. Bottles of reformulated Heinz ketchup are expected to start appearing, quietly, in grocery stores this summer.

...Heinz is moving carefully, but with confidence that consumers will be OK with the new recipe.

"The initial consumer taste tests were conducted in Pittsburgh, before we expanded to six cities across the U.S., to ensure the recipe met our consumers' expectations," said Jessica Jackson, a company spokeswoman.

Why slash the salt?

It's not as if people consume mounds of ketchup. Will the decrease in salt in ketchup be all that significant in an individual's daily diet?

I haven't tasted the new stuff. If it tastes the same, terrific. Slash the salt. But if it doesn't, I guess I'll have to start salting my ketchup. That's a pain.

Lots of products have low salt versions. Why not do the same with Heinz ketchup?

If the new recipe tastes different, I predict other cheaper brands will benefit. Why pay more for Heinz if it doesn't taste like Heinz?

I hope the Obama administration doesn't put a tax on salt.

Wienermobile and PETA

PETA is exploiting the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile accident in Mount Pleasant.

PETA Sends Food Gift Along With the Message 'Hot Dogs Threaten More Than Property'

For Immediate Release:
July 21, 2009

Contact:
Ashley Byrne 757-622-7382

Milwaukee, Wisc. -- On the heels of a run-in between the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile and a Mount Pleasant home, PETA has written a letter to homeowner Paula Righter and her son Nick Krupp and is sending them free copies of its "Vegetarian Starter Kit" and packs of veggie hot dogs, which the group guarantees are not only free of cholesterol and bits of pigs' noses but also missing the unwanted side effects that can come with meat franks--including an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, certain types of cancer, and wayward vehicles.

"Hot dogs and other meat-based products can put a dent in a person's health," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "The best thing that we can do to protect life and limb--not to mention property--is to stock up on delicious, healthy veggie dogs."

For more information, please visit PETA.org.

PETA's letter to Paula Righter and Nick Krupp follows.

July 21, 2009

Nick Krupp
Paula Righter

Dear Mr. Krupp and Ms. Righter,

On behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and our more than 2 million members and supporters worldwide, I'm sorry to hear about the damage your house suffered when the Wienermobile crashed into it last week. As some small compensation, we are sending you a gift of delicious and healthy veggie wieners to try.

Most people lose their lunch when they learn about what actually goes into an Oscar Mayer hot dog. Meat hot dogs contain every imaginable part of abused animals, including pigs' stomachs, snouts, intestines, spleens, and even lips.

Hot dogs and other meats, like the ones that the Wienermobile promotes, can cause damage to much more than just property. They can put a dent in our health and are environmentally devastating, and as I'm sure you know, they cause animals to suffer on filthy factory farms and in frightening slaughterhouses.

In light of your recent run-in with the Wienermobile, we hope you'll stick with veggie dogs and give wieners the miss that you wish the Wienermobile had given you! Included with the veggie dogs is our "Vegetarian Starter Kit," which is filled with celebrity endorsements, handy tips on making the transition to a vegetarian diet, and lots of tasty recipes.

Sincerely,

Lindsay Rajt
Vegetarian Campaign Manager

Good grief.

The Wienermobile accident has absolutely nothing to do with actual hot dogs.

These PETA people are nuts.

I don't think the Wisconsin Fresh Market Vegetable Growers Association used the accident as an opportunity to promote its products.

If the Oscar Mayer logo were removed and the Wienermobile had a makeover to become a cucumber-mobile or a zucchini-mobile, that wouldn't have prevented the accident.

The Wienermobile isn't made of meat. Meat didn't damage the home.

I don't associate the accident with the product in any way.

Nevertheless, I'm not at all surprised that PETA would exploit the crash. PETA is obsessed with the Wienermobile.

The group issued a crass news release a couple of weeks ago, when Oscar G. Mayer passed away at age 95 -- PETA Wants Wienermobile Buried With Oscar Mayer.

Group Says Unhealthy Advertising Gimmick Should Be Put to Rest

For Immediate Release:
July 9, 2009

Contact:
Nicole Matthews 757-622-7382

Madison, Wis. -- With the passing Monday of Oscar Mayer's retired chair Oscar G. Mayer, PETA has sent a letter to Nick Meriggioli, president of Oscar Mayer, urging him to bury the company's Wienermobile along with Mayer.

"For years, the Wienermobile has been driving kids toward a meat-laden diet that can increase the risk of making them fat and sick," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "The best thing that parents can do for their kids, for the animals who are raised for food, and for the environment is to stock up on delicious, eco-friendly veggie dogs and burgers and bid farewell to the Wienermobile for good."

For more information, please visit PETA.org.

PETA's letter to Nick Meriggioli follows.

July 9, 2009

Nick Meriggioli
President
Oscar Mayer
Kraft Foods, Inc.

Dear Mr. Meriggioli,

We send our condolences on the death of Oscar Mayer's retired chair, Oscar G. Mayer. As we all know, laying someone to rest can be an occasion to examine a life as well as an opportunity to send a positive message.

The Wienermobile travels around the country and entices children to try Oscar Mayer meats that can set them on the road to developing life-threatening illnesses. For example, you are likely aware of Harvard researchers' findings that children who frequently eat cured meats like bacon and hot dogs are at a much higher risk of developing leukemia, while kids who eat more vegetables and soy actually have a reduced risk. And, according to the American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada, vegetarians are less prone to heart disease, certain types of cancer, diabetes, and obesity than meat-eaters are.

Children are naturally fond of animals and are shocked when they learn about the pain and misery that pigs, cows, and chickens suffer in the process of being turned into wieners and other flesh foods sold by your company. People who know pigs compare them to dogs because they are friendly, loyal, fun-loving and intelligent. Pigs are also naturally very clean -- they avoid, if at all possible, soiling their living areas, an impossibility on factory farms, where they are forced to live amid their own waste. Pigs killed for Oscar Mayer hot dogs and bologna have their tails and testicles cut off without any painkillers. They are trucked through all weather extremes to slaughterhouses, where many pigs are immersed in tanks of scalding-hot water while still conscious.

Please do the right thing for children and animals. Seize this moment to bury the Wienermobile along with Mr. Mayer -- and perhaps go a step further by creating a new line of family- and animal-friendly Oscar Mayer products, such as "phony baloney" and veggie dogs. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tracy Reiman
Executive Vice President

That's really disgusting.

The quacks at PETA have no shame.

ILVTOFU

Kelly Coffman-Lee loves tofu and she wanted to declare that on her license plate.

ILVTOFU

The Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles rejected her idea.

From KDVR:

One Colorado woman's love for tofu has been judged X-rated by state officials.

Kelly Coffman-Lee wanted to tell the world about her fondness for bean curd by picking certain letters for her SUV's license plate.

...But the Division of Motor Vehicles blocked her plan because they thought the combination of letters could be interpreted as profane.

Says Department of Revenue spokesman Mark Couch: "We don't allow 'FU' because some people could read that as street language for sex."

...The 38-year-old Coffman-Lee says tofu is a staple of her family's diet because they are vegan and that the DMV misinterpreted her message.

Video.

MARK COUCH: Some people could misinterpret what her... what she loves. There are many people who would see that and be offended. And so we, need to be aware of it and take care of it.

KELLY COFFMAN-LEE: Tofu. It's a word. And, you know, if the DMV is gonna start censoring what people might be thinking, that's a little bit 1984-ish for me.

Coffman-Lee is being unreasonable. Maybe that happens when you eat too much tofu.

The DMV rejection is certainly not "1984-ish."

Colorado officials need to uphold state law and standards of decency.

I find it hard to believe that she didn't realize what she was spelling out.

But giving her the benefit of the doubt, once this interpretation of her proposed plate was brought to her attention, I'd think she wouldn't want to drive around with the message ILVTOFU.

Instead, she's whining about censorship to the media.

I guess this is her 15 minutes.


Photo: Kelly Coffman-Lee

Does she look like she loves tofu?

Putting on "Recession Pounds"?

From Reuters:

Americans may reduce the amount they spend on food in response to a sour economy but some experts fear they may pick up weight in the process.

The specter of "recession pounds" is a concern weighing on health professionals, who point to numerous studies linking obesity and unhealthy eating habits to low incomes.

They fear that as people cut food spending they will cut back on healthy but relatively expensive items such as fresh fish, fruit, vegetables and whole grains, in favor of cheaper options high in sugar and saturated fats.

"People ... are going to economize and as they save money on food they will be eating more empty calories or foods high in sugar, saturated fats and refined grains, which are cheaper," said Adam Drewnowski, the director of the Nutrition Sciences Program at the University of Washington in Seattle.

"Things are going to get worse," he told Reuters in a telephone interview. "Obesity is a toxic result of a failing economic environment."

..."We associate poverty with obesity because energy dense foods are less expensive. More poverty does not have to translate into more obesity but it certainly could," said Dr. Robert Eckel, the former president of the Dallas-based American Heart Association.

Drewnowski said it was possible to eat in an affordable and healthy way, partly by relying on the basic foods which saw America through the Depression of the 1930s.

"The answer lies in affordable but nutrient-rich foods such as ground beef, beans, milk, nuts, cheese, carrots, potatoes, canned tomatoes, soups, and rice," he said, calling it "a diet for a new Depression."

So we're calling this a "new Depression"?

Good grief.

It's possible to consume a diet of foods that are both healthy and affordable. Foods high in sugar and saturated fats aren't exactly cheap.

So many Americans eat way too much and exercise way too little. Those same unhealthy habits were practiced in times of prosperity. People became fatter when the economy was doing well. Now, those know-it-all experts say people may become fatter because the economy is tanking.

I guess the experts have to say something in order to justify their lofty positions as experts, even though so many of their conclusions make them come off like dolts.

Bottom line: A recession is no excuse to put on excess pounds.

The Baked Beans Diet

Although it's effective, I have doubts that this diet will catch on.

From SKY News:

A diet of baked beans helped Neil King to lose 140 pounds in nine months. In fact, since June 2007, he's eaten more than half a ton of them, about 1,500 cans.

Prior to dieting, King ate a full English breakfast, which at its heart consists of bacon and eggs and may include sausage, toast, and stewed tomatoes, for lunch, and drank eight pints of lager in the pub after tea.

King, from Halstead in Essex, England, made the switch from boozing to beans after being told he was at risk for bowel cancer.

And his high fiber diet has been gas-free since he stopped having toast with his beans, it is reported. The diet helped King go from 420 pounds to 280 pounds.

Speaking to Britain's Mirror, King said, "Some people think I'm mad but I love the taste and the weight has been dropping off."

King apparently eats six cans of beans each day, and has them with rice for lunch and with potato for his afternoon tea.

His wife Cheryl told the Mirror, "He's like a new man."

Baked beans contain little fat and are full of fiber, although it is best to go for a low-salt variety.

What have you got to lose?

COURIC IS A LIGHTWEIGHT

From frumpy to FABulous!

To use an astronomical analogy, CBS determined that its new star Katie Couric was a "red giant."

Fearing the red giant would burst in a supernova explosion, the powers that be decided it would be in the network's best interests to present Couric as slimmer and trimmer and brighter.
From Don Kaplan, in The New York Post:

Talk about a miracle diet - Katie Couric has become the Incredible Shrinking Anchorwoman.

Thanks to a computer "slight" of hand, the Tiffany network has made the new face of "CBS Evening News" instantly drop about 20 pounds.

It looks more like a 25-30 pound drop to me.

In a picture widely distributed to the media last month, a normal-looking Couric wore a frumpy light gray suit and her trademark smile.

But thanks to Photoshop, the popular editing software, the same photo, printed in a CBS magazine, shows her looking much, much thinner - and her suit has become a few shades darker.

Couric, who was made aware of the picture's alteration yesterday, joked that she liked the original better.

"There's more of me to love," she quipped.

See, those are the kind of quips that turned me away from Couric and Today years ago.

I've never looked back.

The picture was taken in May when Couric, 49, appeared at the CBS "Upfront" presentation at Carnegie Hall.

It was later widely distributed by CBS as an official photo of its new $15 million-a-year anchor- woman.

Then the computer generated version appeared in the latest quarterly edition of Watch!

It's produced and edited by the CBS press department and distributed to network employees, news-media outlets, affiliates, network gift shops and Paramount-owned theme parks.

Network officials say the magazine has a circulation of around 400,000.

"The picture was retouched without the knowledge of Ms. Couric or CBS News management," a CBS spokesman said.

As far as the magazine goes, an insider insisted the publication was just following normal industry practice when it shrunk Couric.

I think it's worth noting that "normal industry practice" has had a part in creating generations of girls and young women with eating disorders and body image issues.

He claimed that just about all magazines tinker with photos - even though some top photographers and photo editors at news organizations have lost their jobs in recent times for doing just that.

Most media experts say that whenever a photo is altered in any way, the public should be alerted, although it's more of a problem if it occurs at newsmagazines rather than a magazine a company publishes about itself.

Retouching a celebrity's photo cannot be compared with the alteration of news photos.

I assume that everything about the people we see on TV and in movies is carefully packaged and primped and fake. They're vain. Illusion is what they sell. So what else is new?

News photos, on the other hand, cannot be transformed. Tampering with them is tampering with the truth.

Because Couric is CBS' new anchor for its evening news, there are some issues that come into play in this photoshop makeover that distinguishes it from the typical celebrity redo.

Is Couric part of CBS' entertainment division or the news division? Is there a difference? Is CBS News infotainment?

CBS appears to be focusing more on Couric's weight physically than her intellectual weight in terms of credibility as a journalist.

Doesn't Couric need to lend gravitas to the CBS Evening News???

Like Uncle Walter before her, shouldn't viewers be turning to Aunt Katie?

Would CBS have given a man the same extreme makeover?

Do you think so? I don't.

CBS allowed Dan Rather to go with that creepy buzzcut. The network obviously didn't care what he looked like. Not surprising considering that it didn't care what he said.

And what about Bob Schieffer? He's not exactly prime beefcake.

And what about Mike Wallace or Morley Safer?

Do you think CBS would let a woman pushing 90-years-old stick around? I don't.

It's hard not to conclude that CBS gave Couric the photoshop treatment because she's a woman.

So much has been made of Couric making history as the first solo female anchor of a network news broadcast. By altering her image, the message is sent that a woman's worth is dependent on the physical attractiveness of her body rather than the quality of her mind.

CBS claims to be a pioneer, taking a step forward in the empowerment of women, when in reality, the network has just taken women on a giant leap backward.

I think the altered image of Couric is the clearest indication yet that CBS is changing the way it presents news.

CBS has abandoned the Edward R. Murrow, hard-boiled tough guy heavyweights for a lightweight Couric.

The Couric photoshop job is a metaphor for what's happening to CBS News.

Of course, we've known for years that CBS is a propaganda arm for the Left. Now, the network has dropped the pretense that its news division is a serious, credible outlet. The charade is over.

CBS News has been Oprahfied.

Clinton's DO NOT SWALLOW Initiative

Bill Clinton seems to be trying to show the public that he would make a good "First Gentleman."

His war on childhood obesity certainly would befit that role.

Doesn't that type of program seem like something a First Lady would do?

May 3 (Bloomberg) -- The nation's largest soda companies agreed to halt almost all soft drink sales in elementary and middle schools under pressure from parents and health advocates.

Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and Cadbury Schweppes Plc will only sell water, juice, tea and low-calorie drinks in schools under a deal brokered by former President Bill Clinton and the American Heart Association. The companies will limit soda sales in high schools to diet drinks, Clinton said at a press conference in New York today.

…Former President Clinton, through his foundation, established the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, whose goal is to reduce childhood obesity.

"We are eating more fast food and got into this super-size culture," Clinton said. "I used to be part of it. I don't think there are any villains here. I don't think anybody realized this confluence of forces could produce such results."

…Clinton said he wants to see similar policies adopted by school cafeterias and snack-food makers. "We hope we'll be able to apply the same sort of approach to food," Clinton said.

I'd much rather have former President Clinton fighting childhood obesity than have him fighting President Bush and undermining the country while we're at war.

(Jimmy Carter, take note.)

This quote cracks me up:
"I don't think anybody realized this confluence of forces could produce such results."
I'm not sure why, but it's funny.

Did Bill say something like that to Hillary after he confessed that "Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate"?

Anyway, I predict that Bill's successful effort to pressure the soda companies to halt sales of their empty calorie soft drinks in elementary and middle schools, as well as restricting what they sell in high schools, won't do much to get kids to slim down.

The first thing they'll do after school is head for junk food. I'm sure most homes are loaded with unhealthy snacks.

What will be the next target of Bill's foundation?

Grocery stores? Concessions at movie theaters and sports venues?

Will you have to be 21 to buy Pepsi?

Will you need to present photo ID to get it? "We card anyone under 30."

This is a feel good, insignificant measure. It really doesn't address the problem at all. Preventing a kid from buying soft drinks at school is not the answer to the obesity problem.

I think kids should be encouraged to have healthy eating habits, so I don't mind the soda ban. I just don't think it is some sort of panacea.

I have some ideas to combat childhood obesity:

1) Reinstate recess at schools.

2) Lift the ban on dodge ball.

3) Permit children to fully compete in organized sports, meaning KEEP SCORE.

4) Outlaw all remotes.
In other words, diet is just part of the equation. Exercise is also important. When it comes to kids and weight, I think we're seeing increased obesity because they don't move anymore. Today's kid barely have to walk.

Lifestyle choices need to be altered. That has nothing to do with Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and Cadbury Schweppes Plc.

Parents need to take responsiblity for the health and well-being of their children; and children must listen to their parents.

Kids will be confronted with the temptation of junk food outside of school. I really don't see why there needs to be a ban. Perhaps they could just exercise a little discipline and say no to soda.

I can understand why Clinton would think it's better to instate a ban rather than show self-control. He has well-documented self-control issues.
___________________________________

Tim Graham of NewsBusters writes about NBC and Clinton's "LANDMARK SODA AGREEMENT."


A screen shot of Bill, from NewsBusters.
Look at the graphic. HAHAHAHA



What's not so funny is that major milestones in the establishment of a government in Iraq are ignored by the lib media, but this "landmark soda agreement" gets treated like it's an enormous accomplishment, positively historic.

Positively lame!

KETCHUP-GATE

WHAT DID CBS KNOW AND WHEN DID IT KNOW IT?
I love this story!

Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center writes:

The October 2, 1981 New York Times provides a window into the media mindset of the time, with a reporter posing this question to President Reagan at a press conference the day before:

"The style of your administration is being called millionaires on parade. Do you feel that you are being sensitive enough to the symbolism of Republican mink coats, limousines, thousand-dollar-a-plate china at the White House, when ghetto kids are being told they can eat ketchup as a vegetable?"

Sadly, the identity of the person who posed this particular question was not reported in the Times, but this was a spin heard in various forms throughout the media landscape in the early 1980s.

On Tuesday, I received the usual late-afternoon "Inside Scoop" e-mail from CBS News, announcing the topics for that night's "Evening News" and the next morning's "Early Show." As always, the e-mail started out with an interesting quotation and a "Did You Know" fun fact.

The fact from CBS News: "DID YOU KNOW? 4 tablespoons of ketchup has about the same amount of nutrition as a ripe tomato."

Now, where were CBS's researchers 25 years ago?

This is priceless.

CBS, the network that made "The Reagans," a disgusting hit piece starring Mr. Barbra Streisand (James Brolin) as President Reagan originally intended to air during the 2003 November ratings sweeps, quietly admits that ketchup is in fact nutritious.

Mr. Barbra Streisand as President Ronald ReaganAmid outrage from conservatives, CBS determined that the film did not "present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience." It was shipped off to air on the Showtime cable network instead.

One of the film's weirder moments depicted Nancy Reagan, played by Judy Davis, ranting about ketchup.

In November 2003, John Leo of Jewish World Review wrote that Davis as Nancy was shreiking at Brolin as President Reagan: "Ketchup is a vegetable! It is not a meat, right? So it is a vegetable!"

Leo added that Davis said she hoped the script would encourage Americans to examine their leaders more closely.

Maybe Reagan critics should examine nutrition facts more closely.

For a quarter of a century, libs have mocked the suggestion by the Reagan administration that ketchup be considered a vegetable for school lunch programs. The man responsible for the ketchup uproar was David Stockman, Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Early in Reagan's first term, Stockman proposed classifying ketchup as a vegetable as part of Reagan's budget cuts for federally financed school lunch programs. Recognizing the nutrition value of ketchup would have made it cheaper to satisfy the requirements on vegetable content of lunches.

The suggestion was widely ridiculed by Dems and the lib media. Eventually, the proposal was killed.

Since 1981, the libs have held up the "ketchup as a vegetable" fiasco as one of their favorite examples of the supposed heartlessness of Reagan and Republicans. When President Reagan passed away on June 5, 2004, Leftists again brought up the issue to ridicule him.

On June 6, 2004, AlterNet posted a list of "66 (Unflattering) Things about Ronald Reagan," written by The Nation's David Corn.

From AlterNet:
Editor's Note: This list of "66 Things to Think about When Flying in to Reagan National Airport" appeared in the Nation on March 2, 1998 after the renaming of Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. As Corn says, "the piece remains relevant today -- particularly as a cheat sheet for those who dare to point out the Reagan presidency was not all that glorious and was more nightmare in America than morning in America."

The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.

And the list goes on...

What a guy!

Corn and his lib cohorts were eager to attack Reagan (in the interest of being fair and balanced, of course), as the country mourned his death.

Ketchup took the sixth spot on Corn's lengthy list.
It looks like David Corn and all those angry, spiteful libs that have spent a quarter of a century criticizing President Reagan for the ketchup thing have egg on their faces.

A meager 4 tablespoons of ketchup has about the same amount of nutrition as a ripe tomato. The libs must believe that "fun fact" to be true because the word comes straight from the standard-bearer of truth in journalism, CBS.

I'd like to know how long CBS knew that ketchup was a nutritious addition to the diet. I wonder if Mary Mapes sat on the story. At the very least, don't you think this demands an internal investigation at CBS?

Hey libs, would you like a little ketchup with that crow?