Posted on 07/12/2011 7:15:50 AM PDT by kristinn
Stop the presses, Michelle Obama might have eaten a hamburger.
The blogosphere erupted with criticism almost immediately after the Washington Post reported Monday that the first lady sat down at a newly opened Shake Shack in Washington D.C., where she ordered a ShackBurger, fries, a chocolate shake and a Diet Coke. According to the popular burger joint's website, that's a 1,556-calorie meal. (sic, actually it was 1700 calories.)
Many critiqued the first lady's public display of Shake Shack love as she continues to advocate for her Let's Move! campaign, an initiative to eliminate childhood obesity.
But even as the first lady-turned-health-advocate chowed down on a meal that contains almost an entire day's recommended calorie intake, most nutrition experts are telling people to relax.
"[This is an] unfortunate invasion of privacy for Mrs. Obama," said Alice Lichtenstein, professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts School of Medicine in Boston. "She has kept her weight constant and engages in regular physical activity. An occasional indulgence is fine. For many people, that is what helps them keep on track most of the time."
Most experts agreed with Lichtenstein, while saying that the first lady's lunch is being unnecessarily scrutinized.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Yet it’s okay to invade the privacy of a Republican by complaining about the wine he drinks during a private lunch.
Of course, if it was a Republican who preached healthy eating while gobbling down giant hamburgers, ABC News would be appalled.
Apparently Michelle isn't the only one who's a flaming hypocrite.
Now, as for the subject at hand. No one cares if you smoke. I sure don't. But if A) you're the President and you tell the world you've stopped smoking, and the press uses that as just another example of your amazing personal strength, when you're really sneaking puffs out in the Rose Garden, or B) lecturing society on the “right way” to eat while using your position as First Lady to add further burdens of regulation on food processors and restaurants, and restricting food choices for private citizens as you're indulging in the very same meals that you label unhealthy, then yeah, you're going to catch some flak.
Now, if I disagree with you, I'm spitting on Jesus. Your intellect strategies are truly constabulociferous.
You don't recognize the agenda of the left. Leftists couldn't care less about the health of the citizenry. They use obesity as an excuse to tax and regulate food they deem unhealthy. They just use it as an excuse to grow the power and size of the federal government. 'Snack tax', banning happy meals, dictating what types of oils resturaunts can use, ect...
Fair enough.
That is so the diet coke will cancel out the calories of the shake and burger!
Nah, not unfair at all. She wants to scrutinize what others eat, she should be willing to have what she eats scrutinized.
>Outrage over hypocrisy is a juvenile emotion.<
While I can see your point in part, can you explain why liberal outrage at every gaffe of target conservatives is a tenet of Alinsky’s rule stating (to paraphrase) “make your enemy live up to his ideals”? Has that rule not been effective in the past, juvenile or not?
how about Charlie Sheen as the Just Say No to Drugs spokesperson? hypocrite or no?
No. I can't. It certainly seems childish though, and I am hesitant to emulate them.
It would be different were she to say, Eat Healthier lest you end up a l@rd@$$ like me! but no, the media insists on presenting her as some epitome of a physical specimen, when the naked eye belies that fact.
>> “[This is an] unfortunate invasion of privacy for Mrs. Obama,” said Alice Lichtenstein, professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts School of Medicine in Boston. “She has kept her weight constant and engages in regular physical activity. An occasional indulgence is fine. For many people, that is what helps them keep on track most of the time.” <<
Does anyone really think it’d be called an “invasion of privacy” if we found out that a bishop was having an affair with an adult woman? Why aren’t the High Priests ever held accountable for sins against liberalism?
(Compare to the media feast when it was leaked, in what WAS actually a criminal violation of privacy, that Bill Bennett gambled a lot, even though gambling isn’t a sin in Bennett’s religion.)
... and for the record, since when is 1700 calories an “indulgence”?
...It was actually a “crash diet” coke, for later...
More like Michelle orders Four Fried Chickens and a Coke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.