Nothing is as cavernous and infinite as a teenage gullet — except perhaps the national debt or hell or Lindsay Lohan‘s rap sheet. That is why when my 100-pound high-school daughter, Thing 1, came home from school a couple of weeks ago complaining that she wasn’t getting enough food in her school lunch, I chalked it up to her daily penchant for consuming twice her body weight in Fritos.

But then I saw in the gnus that there has been nationwide backlash by students all across the country, thus defining ‘nationwide’. They are railing against the hunger-causing and yet curiously-named Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, the law that sets nutritional guidelines for public schools and championed by a certain First Lady whose kids attend a private institution.

First of all, we are on to you, you Federal Government pinko wienies. Calling something something other than what it is does not make it that something that the original something wasn’t but you say it is anyway. Okay, I‘m lost too. But what I do know is that a law that causes hunger should not be called a ‘Hunger-Free’ act; it should be called a ’Hunger-Causing’ act. If we as citizens allow this wordplay to continue the next thing you know they’ll pass some sort of bill that raises the cost of healthcare and call it an ‘Affordable Care’ act. HaHa! That’ll be the day…

And secondly, we are on to you too, certain First Lady. What this hard-hitting investigative reporter uncovered through a highly secretive exploratory process known in the biz as “googling,” is that this certain private institution attended by these certain children of this certain First Lady serves up a lunch menu that would make Chris Christie jealous: hot dogs, hamburgers, Philly cheese steaks, meatball subs, salmon & wild rice salad, roasted portobello, pepper & cheddar pane ciabatta, garlic haricot verts, Italian ice — all presumably finished off with a nice Cotes du Rhone Bordeaux à la 1996. Meanwhile, my middle-class peon daughter’s public school lunch consists of three carrot sticks and a piece of leather.

But, like the old saying goes, “Federal bureaucrat knows best.”

The purpose of this act in question is to fight childhood obesity. It does this by limiting school lunches to 850 calories and increasing servings of nasty unwanted fruits and vegetables over the much more super-delicious deep-fried proteins and carbohydrates. Thus the smaller, fresher lunch that costs more fights obesity because the kids throw most of it out due to its extreme nasty grossness and thus lose all the weight they gained as a result of their addictions to video games and escalators.

Unfortunately, much like the time I ate an entire chicken-burrito pizza, there are unintended consequences: classrooms are disrupted by growling stomachs, kids have to be carried onto buses, and football players are collapsing like the US Ryder Cup Team — not to mention the junk food black market that is sprouting up in the hallways which has Al Sharpton up in arms over racist illegal vending terminology.

Thankfully, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack has spoken up with a solution to the hunger his department’s new regulations are causing. He says the kids should eat snacks. Really. You can’t make this stuff up. Well, you can but nobody would believe it and you would be run out of town on a proverbial rail, even though you don’t even know what that means. Maybe they could take snacks to school in new government-issued Vilsacks.

So let’s review what we have so far: the federal government is preventing childhood obesity by limiting food intake which makes the kids hungry and the solution to which, according to the federal government, is to give the kids more food. Combined with the new dress code at our local high-school that bans tank-tops and thus violates students’ constitutional right to bare arms, I would say the kids are getting a first-class education in government runaround that makes their civics classes entirely unnecessary.

But, to be fair and balanced, every issue has two sides (which, incidentally, is one side more than my daughter can get in her school lunch). Proponents of the law say that kids are nothing but big whiney pants because it is more than enough food if they would just use it to fill their gaping pie holes instead of utilizing said pie holes for administrator agitation. The purpose of the law is to improve our children’s health by changing their habits, they say.

I think these so-called proponents are making this up because outside of a private Catholic institution, I have never even seen a habit in school let alone the kids wearing one. Albeit if they did, I would admittedly want them to occasionally change it.

Personally, I’m not too worried about the whole thing. If this War on Obesity is run anything like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs or the War on Terror, my kids will be pleasantly plump in no time.