But would you agree that, at some point, it is their job?

No. It is the job of the government to protect the rights of the child, not to force the parents to act in a certain manner. If at such a point that the child is being abused, physically, mentally or in any other way the child should be removed from the home.

In short I value individual rights more than parental rights and I think that we have this bassakwards in this country. If you can't be a decent parent you shouldn't be allowed to abuse your kids. Give the kids to decent parents and stop worrying about they raise them.

~Matt

(I understand "choose" may be a loaded word here)

And I think "Choose" is also the crux of the problem.

The second a person has no "Choice" to go to or not go to a school they also give up all other choices of what happens at that school.

The school now MUST act according to the "Common good" rather than allowing the parent and school to make choices.

What if this were a private school?

If this were a private school I would have several choices. I could leave my kid there and follow their rules, take the kid out and put them in another school. However more than likely I would walk in and say, "This is what I want my kid to eat. Please don't feed them things I do not send with him" and the school, knowing that if they did not abide by my wishes they would loose a customer, would likely abide by my wishes. If the school felt so strongly that they did not want what I was feeding in their school, would make the choice to ask me to leave. Beyond this I can think of at least a half a dozen more choices...choices are a powerful thing :-)

~Matt

The comment I was responding to was the seemingly absolute statement that the government had no business in telling a parent what it can feed it's child.

I was merely trying to point out that there is a limit to that, that "at some point" the government has such an interest, in only to protect a child from abuse.

Like I said, I agree with your statement in a previous post that these things should be handled on a case by case basis designed to address the real problem. I'm not defending the policy or its implementation. You're confusing my posts that address a separate issue, the line between parental rights and other interests, with school lunch policies.

That said, does the school have a right to step in if a parents routinely send their child to school without an adequate lunch, with the result that the child is unattentive and more disruptive the last few hours of the day? What if the child's lunch is sugar infused red bull and pixie sticks, with the result that he's now bouncing off the walls for the next hour or until he crashes, just as if not more disruptive? Can the school step in and say no more Red Bull and pixie sticks?

Well, the REAL question is when will the federal government mandate all schools have appropriate technology so that the instant replay rule can be instituted into recess kickball games.

Unattentive behavior? No, the school cannot force a change in lunch because it believes the unattentiveness is due to what the child is eating for lunch - lots of other variables may be attributed to that as well. Being disruptive? At that point, the disruption is effecting OTHER students, so yes, the school can/should take action to prevent it from interfering with other students rights, etc. However, it would be hard to prove that the disruption is caused by lunch. By the way, most schools in our area prohibit so called energy drinks outright - its for everyone, no exceptions. If you're gonna have a rule, it can't be subjective, but rather has to be specific. I have no problem with a rule such as the "no energy drinks"...it covers everyone and leaves out subjection.

And these are the type of people & consequences that w will get when we cede our rights to the state. For those of you that love Obamacare - let this be a lesson on unintended consequences. You think this type of crap won't happen with Obamacare - you are a friggin idiot. Small petty people working behind th monolith of governmental obscurity will be making decisions that truly affect your life. NO THANK YOU.

---

http://bigmikega.wordpress.com

This!
It all has a way of slowly creeping in under the radar.

The comment I was responding to was the seemingly absolute statement that the government had no business in telling a parent what it can feed it's child.

I was merely trying to point out that there is a limit to that, that "at some point" the government has such an interest, in only to protect a child from abuse.

My point is that the government doesn't have any right to tell a parent what to feed a child.

They do however have the responsibility to enforce the rights of everyone and in the case of minors that means making sure the child is fed.

What I'm saying is that I would support the right of the state to remove the child from the home before I would support legislation that allowed the state to force the parent to feed a child a certain way.

Maybe by default that is the state telling the parent what they can and can't feed the child, but I see them as two very different approaches and reasons.

Giving the parent the choice of "Feed your child properly or we will remove the child from the home" is an "Either or" condition. "Feed your child properly or we will do what we have to in order to make sure you do" is a "We will figure out a way to make you do what we want you to" condition.

~Matt

Your comment got me to thinking...so I searched MSNBC, CNN, Huff Post, NPR, and a few other major media sources...no one is reporting this story. I find that quite interesting. All of the local media, and the outlets that most claim as independent and/or right wing are reporting the story. Maybe the others will pick it up, but as of 8:45EST, they haven't unless I just can't find it.

Why would the national media report on an overzealous lunch room inspector? It's not that slow of a news day:).

Must have been pretty slow - one of the Huff Post headlines was "Man breaks into apartment and cooks chicken". Now thats an important story worthy of headlines!

I think the reason the left leaning media does not report on it is because it plays into their desires, but does not play well with the public as a whole.
I think the reason the independent and right leaning media report on it is because they are showing just another way that the govt is intruding into our lives.

I would wonder how much the lunch subsidies enter into this picture. Do the schools still get a large state/national subsidy for school lunches that they serve? I know that is the reason the use for having school last until after lunch on a snow day. They only get the subsidy for lunches served. So if they can get parents to stop sending in lunches, then that is more money they get in subsidies. Perhaps it is an over zelous lunchroom supervisor trying to get more kids to eat school lunches.

I hope everyone who said "oh that would never happen" when I mentioned what the Food Nazi's could do in the story about military meals and the first lady telling grown service members that they will "learn to love their vegetables".

Nothing is beyond them and as was mentioned Obamacare opens all kinds of situations like this in many areas.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Mojozenmaster 2/10/12:

"Of course this is after his goons inspect your kids lunch bags for non-compliant food like twinkies, Mt. Dew and ham sandwiches"

How is it that The Great Mojozenmaster makes observations and identifies threats like this and they occur even sooner than he thought?

it's because I know what I am talking about.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

I bow to the Great Mojo!
I'm right there with ya.

Watch your ass before Obama's behavior police make you believe oppression is normal......and enforce rules that hamper your 'freedom.'

They are trying to find ways to take what you now take for granted and legislate it out of existance.

Do you remember SOPA? Obama's supporters (big campaign donors) here in Hollywood are not at all happy about that result.

Do not think for a second that they are not trying to pull another fast one that could ruin this forum and the main forum.

I am very close to believing that all democrats are the enemies of individual freedom and self determination.

It will be funny as hell when they oppose themselves and 'eat' their own.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

I see your point, and it makes sense. But it's kind of like two sides of the same coin, not that I don't recognize that how the issue is framed can make all the difference.

You do understand this involved local enforcement of a state regulation, in a state where Republicans control the administration as well as both legislative bodies. States Rights!!!!

I'd like to know the origin of this regulation, because when I realized this was in NC I was wondering about where this law came from and how it got put in place.

I see your point, and it makes sense. But it's kind of like two sides of the same coin

Agreed, just that I think one side of the coin leads down a different path than the other.

I've "Struggled" with the whole "Parental rights" thing for a long time. I think I've somewhat reconciled it with the idea that kids have all the same "Natural rights" as any adult. However they do not have the same legal rights.

In any case where the childs natural rights are being violated by the parent, the child should be removed from the home.

Now the interpretation of when that should be can and will get all sorts of kinds of messy, but, IMHO, we error to often and to far on the side of "Parental rights". IMO I do not believe parental rights is a "natural right" on the same order of "Right to life" and quite possibly not a "natural right" at all. IOW most certainly you have the right to have sex and get pregnant and "Make a baby". Once that baby is born however that baby's "Individual rights" trumps the parents "Parental rights".

How this all plays into the state telling the parents what the child must eat is rather simple. Either the state believes the parent is competent and will take care of the child competently including what they feed them, or they don't. If they do the state should not be telling that parent what to feed the child under any circumstances. If they do not believe the parent is competent then they should remove the child from the home. This being justified by the fact that "Non competency" is so egregious that it is violation the childs individual rights to life in some manner.

This completely removes the state from the choice of "What should the child eat" as well as "What school should the child go to", "What shots should the child take" etc etc and merely leaves the state with the decision of "Are we being remiss in the protection of this childs rights or not?"

~Matt

How is it that The Great Mojozenmaster makes observations and identifies threats like this and they occur even sooner than he thought?

I always thought it was because you were impotent.....I mean omnipotent.

~Matt

omnipotent

I am.

I know what's on the menu for Obama's $38,000.00 per plate fundraising event at Will Ferrells Beverly Hills home this evening before dinner is even served.

And, I can assure you that the food is not worth $38,000.00 per plate.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

$38,000 includes dinner and the right to ballwash for an evening.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

It does not include recipes from Michelle Obama's LAUSD cookbook.

If you took 21,000 of Michelle's Best Meals (the ones that get shitcanned every day) and multiplied those meals by 38K per meal that's not far from a billion dollars.

If I was Obama, I would have had the LAUSD cater his event this evening with real LAUSD cafeteria food......a display of solidarity with the little people......but that would mean Will Ferrell has to dispose of all that shitty food.

And, those meals truly are wasted.

**On a serious note, the most noble of all volunteer efforts is to use your truck, van or car to transport perfectly good food that would have been tossed out, to hungry people in your community. It's not as simple as donating $5 on a text message, but what lacks in convenience is more satisfying through effort.**

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**