Former Senate Majority Leader: Obesity 'Threatens Our Security as a Nation'

CNSNews.com ^ | November 29, 2011 | Christopher Goins

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

(CNSNews.com) – Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) says obesity threatens America’s “national security” because many people who join the armed forces cannot pass the required physical tests because they are overweight.

Frist also cited a 2010 study on the problem entitled “Too Fat To Fight."

“Childhood obesity is something much larger than something that just hurts and pulls back and restrains our economic strength. It threatens our security, our national security as a nation,” Frist said on Tuesday at the "Building for a Healthier Future" summit held in Washington, D.C.

“Between 1995 and 2008, over 140,000 potential military recruits failed their entrance physicals, failed them because they were too heavy,” said Frist. “That’s 140,000 young men and women who were motivated enough to enlist but, because of being overweight, could not. They were the ones who wanted to serve their country, who were willing to put themselves in harm’s way, and they were told, ‘No, you’re too heavy to safely be trained.’”

He continued: “We hear the quotations all the time from people who are right on the front line. Retired four star U.S. Army General Johnny Wilson said that childhood obesity, and I quote, ‘has become so serious in this country that military leaders are viewing this epidemic as a potential threat to our national security,’ end quotation.”

Frist then mentioned a report by retired U.S. military leaders that analyzed the effects of obesity on military recruitment. The report called on Congress to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act with several modifications.

The “2010 study was even more direct and it was titled simply, ‘Too Fat To Fight,’” said Frist.

[Jack Hammer]

Not nearly as much as chronic stupidity - and that latter is epidemic, especially in congress and the White House.

[9YearLurker]

So 10,000 potential recruits a year don’t have the discipline to reach a military level of fitness. In a nation of 300+ million, I don’t see that as a major problem.

(The cost to us in terms of near-nationalized healthcare is another issue.)

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I don't know why. I'm fat and an expert marksman..."

Being a soldier is a lot more than how well you shoot. In combat, you're not getting into the correct prone position, checking the wind and adjusting the dope on your sights. You also don't get to wear a shooting jacket. It's about being able to rappel and hump miles upon miles with 50 pounds of gear on your back. It's about going on a patrol in extreme heat conditions and not suffering heat stroke because you're out of shape. Young adults being turned down have to be pretty heavy, not just a little overweight. It's a serious problem in this country and parents are abdicating their responsibility by letting junior spend too much time playing games on the computer and not enough out riding bikes and playing.

[9YearLurker]

I’m not generally part of the ‘evil corporations’ crowd, but Monsanto IMO is evil.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Well for one thing the BMI {I think it is} standards are insane."

I agree with you. The BMI standards are ridiculous. I'm 6' 1" and weigh 175 pounds. I'm still in the normal range, but at the high end, almost to the point of being called overweight by BMI standards. I wear size 31 waist pants.

Even so, when I was younger, I wore size 30 and 34 long. It was never hard to find pants back then. Now I can't always find size 31 waist, 34 length in pants I like. Many times they don't have that size and a lot of times I settle for 31 waist and 32 long and it comes up almost short. Or I have to wear 32 or 33 waist and hike up the belt. Why is this? I suspect that in todays world, the size 31/34 is just not wore that much because people overall are getting larger. Kids are not as active as when we were kids.

Fortunately, the military does not use the BMI to screen whether you are overweight or not. Each service has different standards, but most of them are pretty generous with regards to height/weight requirements. As I recall, for my height in the Marine Corps, I was allowed to be up to about 215 or 220 pounds. Even if you go beyond that, you can get a waiver and they'll measure your body fat. That tells me, a lot of these kids rejected are really fat. That's a problem.

[Scotswife]

The BMI actually punishes you for being muscular.

You know what is a bigger threat to our national security?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Fedgov has no business concerning itself with childhood obesity. Period."

I disagree. The preamble to the constitution says that one of the duties of the federal government is to promote the general welfare. It is definitely in the government's interest that we are a nation of healthy people. Now, as Jeffererson said, that does not mean that the federal government should allocate money and authority to ensure people are within weight standards:

"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; "

I would have no problem with Moochelle if she was out promoting that our kids need to be healthier and that schools should get back to better physical exercise in gymn. My problem is that when she tries to use the power of the federal government to monitor what our kids eat in school, at home or takes away food choices in the name of "healthy". Similarly, if all these people are doing is raising the alarm and trying to alert the public of this serious problem and informing the public of ways to get healthier, I have no problem with it. There should not be any coercion in it by the federal government, thats all. The coercion needs to happen from parents!!

[aruanan]

The preamble to the constitution says that one of the duties of the federal government is to promote the general welfare.

That phrase has been used, probably more than any other, to justify all sorts of federal government action directly counter to the Constitution.

But the first thing you have to understand, and what those who use this phrase to promote whatever utopian or venal program they want do not want to understand, is that the sole means by which the federal government is to promote the general welfare is limited to the enumerated powers granted to it by the Constitution. Period. Everything else is left up to the states and to the people.

Again: the promotion of the public welfare by the federal government is to be accomplished through the Constitution, everything else is left to the states and the people respectively.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Did you read the rest of my post or just stop at when I cited the promotion of the general welfare clause? I went on to explain what that means. The federal government certainly has a vested interest in whether it’s citizens are healthy. That does not mean (as I stated in my previous post) that they should be devoting money or enforcement authority to attain this goal. It means they should “promote” it, by informing the public about it and raising awareness. That’s what I see Bill Frist doing here, advocating for a healthy lifestyle and raising awareness to the serious consequences of not doing it (children being too fat to join the military). Besides, he’s not even in the government anymore, but a private citizen.

[aruanan]

Here's something that relates to those who attempt to use the power of the federal government to enact their views of how society should be run:

What is the end to which we want to apply scientifically gained knowledge of nutrition and health? That answered, what are the means we will employ?

In the broadest terms, is the end to be a state of knowledge in which the individual is able to understand the possible consequences of his behavior and is then free to choose according to his own desires and goals, the general state of society then an amalgam of informed individual choices? Or is the end to be a state of being in which the individual’s choices are limited by others to a range calculated by them most likely to result in that state of being, the general state of society then an expression of coerced individual actions?

The latter end is characteristic of family (both nuclear and extended), of tribalism (the mythologized extended family), of socialism (re-mythologized tribalism in a suit), and of totalitarianism (demythologized socialism with guns). All consist in the individual being forced by others using various means into behavior that will be

1) for his own good later in life (the family),

2) for society’s good (tribalism/socialism), or

3) for the good of the individuals in control of the society (totalitarianism).

While this is universally seen as appropriate within the child/family relationship for developmental reasons, its application to society at large by some group within that society, or by one society to another, has been the cause of most social ferment throughout history

Some health professionals seem to believe that the government should sponsor their efforts to counter the self-interested efforts of others (nutrition and diet quacks for example) because they are right and the others are wrong, because they are altruistic and the others are not. It may be true that they are factually correct and genuinely altruistic, and that what they wish to do will have a beneficial effect on many people, but it doesn’t follow necessarily that the government should fund them.

This is a manifestation of a widespread phenomenon brought about by the advent of the secularized state. Instead of viewing the state as a limited means to a limited end, the tendency has been to imbue it, a temporal entity, with the attributes of a transcendent final judgment in which all injustices and inequalities are finally rectified. In this way, the secular state has been categorically, though not personally, deified and expected to act accordingly (something of a diffuse divine right of kings).

This is seen in those who believe the necessary response to a social ill is the passage of a law, especially a federal law, and the enactment of a program, especially one that they can devise and administrate (and that not necessarily for cynical reasons). Those who feel they are on the side of right, certain they aren’t acting against society’s interest, often appeal to the State to aid them in their struggle against evil. Since the spirit of the secular state is money and power, they ask to be endowed accordingly. It’s pathetically naive and dangerous.

[cotton1706]

Good Lord. Limp-wristed Frist back in the news! Go away!!

[aruanan]

Did you read the rest of my post or just stop at when I cited the promotion of the general welfare clause?

Of course, I read it. I was taking the opportunity afforded by your mentioning the general welfare clause to point out 1. that it's been abused by utopian statists and venal politicians for many, many years, to promote unconstitutional programs, and 2. that the instrument for promoting the general welfare is the Constitution itself with its limits on the federal government. This is a point that it seems most people don't get, especially statist Democrats. Remember a while ago people asking folks in Congress what the limits were to their power and they said there were none and also what in the Constitution gave them the authority to enact Obamacare and they referred to the general welfare clause, as though that was sufficient to ignore the limits put on the federal government by the Constitution?

[MinuteGal]

I thought Frist was gracefully retired. No such luck.

Looks like he might be gearing up to run for some office in the future....with "obesity" as his entry.

Some of these guys go crazy after being out of the spotlight for a while.

Leni

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Okay, then I misunderstood. Your post was not directed at me specifically, but at people generally and how they view it. You took the opportunity of my post to express a more general thought on the enumerated powers of the federal government. I apologize for snapping. It appeared you had directed that post to me specifically.

[aruanan]

I apologize for snapping. It appeared you had directed that post to me specifically.

No, if you hadn't continued as you did, then you would have been part of that general group. Ha ha.

[maine-iac7]

You say: “I’m not generally part of the ‘evil corporations’ crowd, but Monsanto IMO is evil.”

Got that right.

Are you eating these poisons - you are if you don’t grow your own foods or aren’t getting CERTIFIABLE organic foods...

Every American needs to watch this - bookmark it

on YouTube - part 1 of 1-6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgWI2BtYgXU&feature=related

[9YearLurker]

Thanks, yes, I’ve watched it previously.

[cva66snipe]

Kids today do not have the safe environment to be kids in most of us over 50 remeber and grew up in. I don't mean this in EPA sense but rather most of we were safe too leave home in the morning to go out, come in maybe at lunch, then be home for supper then many times back outside. In most places you can't do this anymore. It's a different world out there and a far more dangerous one. By the time I was 16 I could match most adults carrying backpack weight and distance covered. But I could not do things like climb a rope, pushups, etc.

When I was 14 it was safe for me too camp alone on the lake for most the summer. You can't let a kid do that today. The past four decades changed this nation in that respect. The places I camped out alone as a kid I now usually carry too go walk the lake banks. I did have a .22 rifle when caming as a kid though. Yea some of it is TV but we had that. Most of it is kids can not be kids anymore due to dangers brought about from The Great Society.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

" The past four decades changed this nation in that respect."

I've had this same conversation with my wife over the years. She takes the exact position you do. I contend that it was just as dangerous back then as it is now. The difference now is that we have so many 24 hour news outlets combined with other mass media such as the internet that we find out about all of the kidnappings, rapes, bad things etc. Back when we were growing up, our parents didn't learn about most of that stuff but it went on. Out of sight, out of mind.

[samtheman]

I don't know why. I'm fat and an expert marksman...

LOL!

Touche!