Fighting new standards
Congress has been under severe criticism from all sides for its inability to address the ills of the country. The Nov. 16 article "Lunch standards fought," is the icing on the cake. It is an unassailable fact that obesity among children and adults is one of the leading health issues in our country and is costing us, the taxpayers, billions of dollars a year in medical costs for those afflicted. The Department of Agriculture, to its credit, has proposed changing the standards for school lunches to help address poor nutrition and obesity among children. Not only would the new standards have an immediate impact, but they would also help children make long-term improvements in their eating habits.
What is Congress' response? It is fighting the new standards at the behest of the food industry, which has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo both in school lunches and poor eating habits. The makers of frozen pizza, salty foods, tomato paste, etc., all benefit from the poor quality of today's lunches. Of more concern to these companies is that children may grow up insisting on nutritious, fresh foods to the long-term detriment of profit margins.
The failure of Congress to support better nutrition and to address the problem of obesity is a tax on us all in the form of higher health-care costs and greater government dependence due to rising disability claims associated with obesity. However, who ever said that Congress didn't know which side of the bread was buttered?
JOHN WIGODSKY
Winston-Salem
Success and rewards
In response to the Nov. 15 letter "General welfare," there are several points that need to be clarified. As a "rightist strong man," my defense is not of greed but of the right of all citizens of this country to be successful and have the rewards that go along with success. My defense is of personal responsibility and the initiative in people that leads them to better their own condition. Socialism ruins human initiative. What was the last great invention from a socialist or communist country?
Spending is not my enemy. Unsustainable and wasteful spending is and should be everyone's enemy. It is not possible for this country to maintain trillion-dollar deficits. Have we learned nothing from Europe?
The letter writer mentions the greed of the uncharitable few. The uncharitable few give billions every year to support causes like medical research, food programs for hungry children and building churches and hospitals, just to name a few. How much altruism is necessary to remove the "uncharitable" label?
Greed can be defined two ways, both of which can be summed up with people's belief that they do not have as much as they desire or deserve. The very desire to see wealth distributed can rightly be defined as greed. On what does the writer base his belief that the 5 percent deserve to have less or that the 95 percent are owed more? How much more and how much less would make the division equitable?
B. SCOTT DRAUGHN
Winston-Salem
Rethink criticism
Columnist Chris Fitzsimon needs to rethink his criticism of UNC budget cuts ("Surprisingly puzzled opponent of higher tuition," Nov. 19). He questions why UNC Board of Governors member Fred Eshelman is upset over the cuts when Eshelman supported the election of Republicans who voted for the cuts.
Fitzsimon misses several points.
When you are broke (and we are), you cut spending. I can't think of a better place to start than our university system. Our once-beloved universities have lost their soul. We don't educate North Carolinians anymore. Instead, we spoon-feed them pabulum of liberal culture and political correctness, fed by bureaucrats (under the guise of "educators") with a liberal agenda.
However, assuming one still sees value here (and what card-carrying liberal wouldn't?), let us proceed. Fitzsimon criticizes the General Assembly for ignoring our state's constitutional requirement to "provide higher education to residents of the state as free as practicable." The only thing the General Assembly needs to be criticized for is raising tuition on the wrong group. I suggest a better solution. Leave tuition and fees where they are for North Carolina residents and raise them 40-50 percent for non-residents. If UNC is the premier university everyone thinks it is, non-resident students will still come here. Last time I checked, there were considerably more applications for admission than acceptances.
Besides, if non-state applicants don't want to pay to play at UNC, they can always go to Duke or Harvard, where I am sure there are bargains to be had.
FRANK F. COAN
Winston-Salem
Congress has been under severe criticism from all sides for its inability to address the ills of the country. The Nov. 16 article "Lunch standards fought," is the icing on the cake. It is an unassailable fact that obesity among children and adults is one of the leading health issues in our country and is costing us, the taxpayers, billions of dollars a year in medical costs for those afflicted. The Department of Agriculture, to its credit, has proposed changing the standards for school lunches to help address poor nutrition and obesity among children. Not only would the new standards have an immediate impact, but they would also help children make long-term improvements in their eating habits.
What is Congress' response? It is fighting the new standards at the behest of the food industry, which has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo both in school lunches and poor eating habits. The makers of frozen pizza, salty foods, tomato paste, etc., all benefit from the poor quality of today's lunches. Of more concern to these companies is that children may grow up insisting on nutritious, fresh foods to the long-term detriment of profit margins.
The failure of Congress to support better nutrition and to address the problem of obesity is a tax on us all in the form of higher health-care costs and greater government dependence due to rising disability claims associated with obesity. However, who ever said that Congress didn't know which side of the bread was buttered?
JOHN WIGODSKY
Winston-Salem
Success and rewards
In response to the Nov. 15 letter "General welfare," there are several points that need to be clarified. As a "rightist strong man," my defense is not of greed but of the right of all citizens of this country to be successful and have the rewards that go along with success. My defense is of personal responsibility and the initiative in people that leads them to better their own condition. Socialism ruins human initiative. What was the last great invention from a socialist or communist country?
Spending is not my enemy. Unsustainable and wasteful spending is and should be everyone's enemy. It is not possible for this country to maintain trillion-dollar deficits. Have we learned nothing from Europe?
The letter writer mentions the greed of the uncharitable few. The uncharitable few give billions every year to support causes like medical research, food programs for hungry children and building churches and hospitals, just to name a few. How much altruism is necessary to remove the "uncharitable" label?
Greed can be defined two ways, both of which can be summed up with people's belief that they do not have as much as they desire or deserve. The very desire to see wealth distributed can rightly be defined as greed. On what does the writer base his belief that the 5 percent deserve to have less or that the 95 percent are owed more? How much more and how much less would make the division equitable?
B. SCOTT DRAUGHN
Winston-Salem
Rethink criticism
Columnist Chris Fitzsimon needs to rethink his criticism of UNC budget cuts ("Surprisingly puzzled opponent of higher tuition," Nov. 19). He questions why UNC Board of Governors member Fred Eshelman is upset over the cuts when Eshelman supported the election of Republicans who voted for the cuts.
Fitzsimon misses several points.
When you are broke (and we are), you cut spending. I can't think of a better place to start than our university system. Our once-beloved universities have lost their soul. We don't educate North Carolinians anymore. Instead, we spoon-feed them pabulum of liberal culture and political correctness, fed by bureaucrats (under the guise of "educators") with a liberal agenda.
However, assuming one still sees value here (and what card-carrying liberal wouldn't?), let us proceed. Fitzsimon criticizes the General Assembly for ignoring our state's constitutional requirement to "provide higher education to residents of the state as free as practicable." The only thing the General Assembly needs to be criticized for is raising tuition on the wrong group. I suggest a better solution. Leave tuition and fees where they are for North Carolina residents and raise them 40-50 percent for non-residents. If UNC is the premier university everyone thinks it is, non-resident students will still come here. Last time I checked, there were considerably more applications for admission than acceptances.
Besides, if non-state applicants don't want to pay to play at UNC, they can always go to Duke or Harvard, where I am sure there are bargains to be had.
FRANK F. COAN
Winston-Salem
LTE #1 the name "CON"agra comes to mine.
ReplyDeleteLTE #2 Blinded by the right.
LTE #3 ..." Our once-beloved universities have lost their soul. We don't educate North Carolinians anymore. Instead, we spoon-feed them pabulum of liberal culture and political correctness, fed by bureaucrats (under the guise of "educators") with a liberal agenda.'
Irrational Rant
Lte1....Congress,and indeed Washington, can not address the ills of the country because it is among the chief ills of the country. They have no business in the school lunch program nor does anything else in DC have any business in the program. Why look to Congress to do what should be done locally? Congress gets fatter, our debt gets fatter and our kids get fatter. No surprise.
ReplyDeleteLte2...you are wasting your time responding to the empty echo chamber named Marcialito Cam. He likes to lift text material from long dead utopian idealists.
ReplyDeleteLte3...the value of UNC and every other institution is now being reconsidered in light of the pending college debt bubble that will soon burst. To me a good start will be to get rid of academic tenure. It represents a staleness where rigor is needed.
ReplyDeletehaving participated in clinical trials for 15 years at UNC and Duke, I feel confident to say that between the UNC, State, Duke, and the Research Triangle Park, NC has one of the most productive research centers in the world, especially when it comes to medical and pharmaceutical innovations.
ReplyDelete-our nation is not broke, it's just that the people who have all the capital aren't consumers. It has collected at the top and is stuck there because the "job creators" don't want to take any risks. Well all I have to say is that the youth of this country have been risking their lives for the past 10 years overseas and continue to do so, while the "job creators" have benefitted outrageously in this country. It's time they took a little risk themselves on the very nation that put them where they are today.