Which keeps me constantly aware of the heavy need for forgiveness and the great care one takes with dealing with law and gospel.

We're more and more an unhealthy nation, which should be pretty evident just by looking around.  I'm one of those unhealthy people, carrying a few more pounds than I'd like to or should.  It's only partially a vanity thing that keeps me aware of this - I also know it can impact my health.  

So when the First Lady (or anyone else) starts lobbying to improve Americans' health, that's awesome.  But I kind of find this a sneaky way of going about it.  I think there's a fair amount of ideology behind this methodology.

Convince restaurants not to serve what people have been trained to want to eat.  

I agree people should be eating healthier, and I agree that people should be eating out less.  I find it distasteful (pun intended) that rather than work more on changing people's behavior and educating them, there's an appeal to simply cut off access to the things that aren't healthy for them to eat.  In other words, since people are either too willful or too stupid to change their own dietary habits, they have to be forced to change them.

If we were to take a cue from the cigarette industry, we ought to start taxing the heck out of food dishes that exceed a certain calorie count.  I chuckle at that idea too, but I don't think we're necessarily very far off from that.  Food, like cigarettes, has an addictive quality to it that makes it very hard for people to change their eating habits.

All of this is true, I believe.

But it's also incredibly short-sighted.  Once again, we launch an effort to curb one undesired behavior without seeing it as part of a whole.  The First Lady notes how drastically the percentage of money spent on food outside the home has risen in the past 50 years.  I wonder if part of that could be accounted for by increased percentages of households where both spouses/parents work outside the home?   What's that?  As a nation we like the economic benefits (more producers and consumers with more $$ to produce and consume which drives our entire economy) but we don't like the side effects of reduced time and energy when people get home to cook and eat the way they ought to?  Hmmm.  What can we do about that?  I know - let's just take away what they like to eat!  Now they can work their butts off for food they don't really like.  That sounds appealing.  

This isn't the first or only effort to change people's eating habits via legislation.  But when we treat the goal as an isolated issue rather than seeing it in light of the bigger picture, we're missing the chance to really think about what a healthier lifestyle would look like.  One where people are less stressed out, less in debt, less over-worked.  I wonder how many healthy home-cooked meals the First Lady personally cooks for her family (or her husband - I'm all about equality here).  I'm willing to bet it's not very many.  She's a busy lady.  Trouble is, most people are busy these days, and grabbing a quick bite that you know you're not going to have to fight with the kids over is really appealing.

And really unhealthy, for everyone.