Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

School Lunch Police are out...
Quote | Reply
Insane...
and this school even has a "Lunch Inspector"!!!

Carolina Journal
RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

“I don't feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.

The girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”

When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. you’re lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.

Ultimately, the child care provider can’t take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she “would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child.”

It is unclear whether the school was allowed to charge for the cafeteria lunches they gave to every preschooler in the class that day.

The state regulation reads:

“Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.

“When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.”

Still, Kozlowski said, the parents shouldn’t have been charged.

“The school may have interpreted [the rule] to mean they felt like the lunch wasn’t meeting the nutritional requirements and so they wanted the child to have the school lunch and then charged the parent,” she said. “It sounds like maybe a technical assistance need for that school.”

The school principal, Jackie Samuels, said he didn’t “know anything about” parents being charged for the meals that day. “I know they eat in the cafeteria. Whether they pay or not, they eat in the cafeteria.”

Pridgen’s office is looking into the issue.

Sara Burrows is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.

Last edited by: EricinSC: Feb 14, 12 11:04
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"It's a great day in South Carolina!"

___________________________
De que depende?
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Right, because chicken nuggets are much healthier than a turkey sandwich.

---------------------------------------
Awww, Katy's not all THAT evil. Only slightly evil. In a good way. - JasoninHalifax

Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why didn't the fruit juice count as a fruit? They worried about the fiber?

~Matt
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is the "insanity" in the policy itself? Or just the implementation?
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Another reason to love homeschooling.

In my opinion, the insanity is with the policy itself- it was only exacerbated by a mildly overzealous enforcement in this case. As a parent, I really do not want or need the state inspecting, literally, what I feed my kid for lunch and handing down an approval or disapproval of my choice.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The insanity is in both the policy and the implementation of it. Why do we even need such a policy? Agreed that many kids could/should eat healthier, etc...but it sure isn't the job of the government/schools/anyone else to tell me how to feed my child.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It seems that, if you take public schooling as a given (I understand some here may debate that), then there's a state interest in requiring at least a minimally adequate meal to support the learning process and environment. But it seems like this can be dealt with better on a case by case basis, without having to inspect and approve or modify lunches brought from home. It might require a little more attention to other behaviorial issues, but eliminating the lunch inspectors might free up some resources.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [Blue Rider] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Blue Rider wrote:
"It's a great day in South Carolina!"

Just for the record, this was in NC...lol. Here in SC we have our own little problems - but I'm sure Thunderbutt has the lunch patrol on its way!
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why aren't potato chips a vegetable?

I miss YaHey
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
but it sure isn't the job of the government/schools/anyone else to tell me how to feed my child

But would you agree that, at some point, it is their job? Are you free to not or only sporadically feed your child? Are you free to serve your child alcohol or special brownies? What about a diet of twinkies and Coke?
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't believe this story.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, I would not. Now, if we got into the territory of "sporadically or not feeding my child", then that would be on border with child neglect/abuse - so in that sense, there is a requirement to report, etc - same could be said with alcohol, etc - thats illegal. I don't think we can equate twinkies, cokes, or brownies with the aforementioned.
The school system is designed for parents who cannot adequately afford to feed their kids a lunch - they provide it for free or at a reduced rate. So, that kinda negates the "sporadically or not feeding" aspect.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
LorenzoP wrote:
I don't believe this story.
Lol...not believe it in that you don't believe its true, or not believe it like "I cannot believe a school could do such a thing...they must be nuts" kinda way?

It has been reported in the local papers, local news, national news, talk shows, etc. What makes you not believe it?
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
then there's a state interest in requiring at least a minimally adequate meal to support the learning process and environment.

Are you arguing that that's what this policy is intended to do?
Because I think that's a bit of a lawyerly stretch. I think some busybody thinks kids should eat their fruit and vegetables, and since they have a captive audience, by God, kids in public schools are going to eat their fruits and vegetables.

I would say that the state has an interest in maintaining an adequate learning process and environment. That does not provide the state with a license to preemptively impose a host of requirements on parents/children that are arguably connected with that legitimate goal somehow. If a kid is somehow disrupting that environment or can't take part in the learning process, and there's reason to believe it's because of a poor diet, that can and should be legitimately dealt with on an individual basis.










"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

What about vegetarians? Gluten free diets? Lactose intolerant kinds? Replacing a kids lunch with their school lunch could result in a tummy ache or worse if the child doesn't normally, or can't consume certain foods.

Good intentions, but its bullshit.


---------------------------------------
Awww, Katy's not all THAT evil. Only slightly evil. In a good way. - JasoninHalifax

Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It has been reported in the local papers, local news, national news, talk shows,

Please provide citations. I can't find any independent article or reference.

Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [Katy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yep. My son is autistic. We severly restrict his wheat and dairy intake. I'd be pitching a fit if some bureaucrat made him drink milk and eat bread.

Everyone knows that chicken nuggets are much healthier than a turkey sandwich.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
then there's a state interest in requiring at least a minimally adequate meal to support the learning process and environment.

Are you arguing that that's what this policy is intended to do?
Because I think that's a bit of a lawyerly stretch. I think some busybody thinks kids should eat their fruit and vegetables, and since they have a captive audience, by God, kids in public schools are going to eat their fruits and vegetables.

I would say that the state has an interest in maintaining an adequate learning process and environment. That does not provide the state with a license to preemptively impose a host of requirements on parents/children that are arguably connected with that legitimate goal somehow. If a kid is somehow disrupting that environment or can't take part in the learning process, and there's reason to believe it's because of a poor diet, that can and should be legitimately dealt with on an individual basis.


I don't know for certain what the policy is about, but I suspect promoting a positive learning environment is part of it. It wouldn't surprise me if that's the genesis of school lunch programs. That's not inconsistent with a "busybody" aspect creeping in over time.

I agree with your last sentence. That was my point.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [squid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
squid wrote:
It has been reported in the local papers, local news, national news, talk shows,

Please provide citations. I can't find any independent article or reference.
Heres 3 links:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/...clusive.html?id=8762
http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/
http://foxnewsinsider.com/...nch-is-unacceptable/
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
EricinSC wrote:
No, I would not. Now, if we got into the territory of "sporadically or not feeding my child", then that would be on border with child neglect/abuse - so in that sense, there is a requirement to report, etc - same could be said with alcohol, etc - thats illegal. I don't think we can equate twinkies, cokes, or brownies with the aforementioned.

So, in other words, you agree that there are limits to parents' abilities to decide what to feed their children. A parent's right ends when it crosses the line into abuse, understanding there may be disagreements over what constitutes abuse.

When a parent chooses to send his or her child to public school (I understand "choose" may be a loaded word here), does the school have any say greater say (beyond the abuse standard) over what the child eats while at school? For example, can it prohibit certain items if it feels those are disruptive?

What if this were a private school?
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But it seems like this can be dealt with better on a case by case basis

The problem is that if you're going to deal with everything by a "Case by Case" basis then there is no need for the policy. IF there is no need for the policy then you must accept that some are going to feed a "Healthy lunch" and others will not.

Either you have a "Controlled system" or you don't.


Look at this case as an example. First, how do you even find out that a child is eating a Twinkie and a Coke unless someone is reporting or inspecting? Poof, reporting and inspection policy. Then how and on what basis do you decide "Preference" of food and "Preference" to level of "What is healthy".
The second you decide "What's healthy" you then have a policy. Poof, guidelines that can't be broken.

Now of course you could say "These are only guidelines, you don't have to follow them"...but then you're right back to people eating Twinkies and Coke if they want to and you still have inspectors but they have no teeth and are just wasting money.


So in this case you had guidelines. You only had one of two choices, follow them, or not. If you're not going to follow them and enforce them then they no longer become guidelines but suggestions. If you ok bypassing the guidelines for a case that is "Somewhat healthy" who is going to draw the line on how and when to draw the line for a "Not so healthy" lunch? What conditions? What if it's a special occasion?

This is of course the problem with any legislative policy. If you can't create a policy and say "Under all circumstances this must be followed", then more than likely that piece of legislation shouldn't be implemented at all because there will ALWAYS be acceptions....IMHO.

~Matt






Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In terms of legal/illegal, yes, of course...matter of fact, as a citizen, if I see anything illegal/abusive/etc, I think I have the duty to report such.
As far as the school having a say in what the child eats at school...no, I do not. I don't know what food a child could eat that would cause disruption or impair a learning environment, but if that were the case, then yes, in the same way it controls disruptive behavior. Thats comparing apples to oranges in this context, though. At that point, it is effecting other students.
Last edited by: EricinSC: Feb 14, 12 12:13
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At the very least, the policy is overreaching.

The feature that I find most objectionable is the fact that they can add or replace items at their discretion, then charge the parent for it. Isn't that basically the same thing as forcing one to participate in a school sponsored health plan? You either pay for the healthy meal, or we will force you pay for the healthy meal.

When did school lunch get so complicated? I remember some of the mystery food that we ate when I was in school. By midday, I was so hungry I would've eaten roadkill. In hindsight, I probably ate roadkill.

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I really think you are lawyering this thing to death, but I'll play a little longer.


So, in other words, you agree that there are limits to parents' abilities to decide what to feed their children. A parent's right ends when it crosses the line into abuse, understanding there may be disagreements over what constitutes abuse.

Yes, but: This is a different tack than arguing that the state has an interest in maintaining an adequate learning environment. And I don't think parents are obliged to prove that they aren't abusing their children. That is, I think it's possible that a poor diet (a VERY poor diet) might cross the line into neglect that's actionable on the part of the state. I do not believe that justifies requiring all parents to prove that they're providing a healthy diet to their kids by way of lunch inspections. And it does not justify the state mandating that parents must provide lunches that meet the FDA guideline, or whatever it was.


When a parent chooses to send his or her child to public school (I understand "choose" may be a loaded word here), does the school have any say greater say (beyond the abuse standard) over what the child eats while at school? For example, can it prohibit certain items if it feels those are disruptive?


Not generally, in my opinion. "If the school feels a food item is disruptive" is a pretty vague and meaningless term. I think a school would be justified in prohibiting food items that pose a danger to other students, if that applies at a school- peanuts, if some kid is allergic, maybe.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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


Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
(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


Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MJuric wrote:
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


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.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
I really think you are lawyering this thing to death, but I'll play a little longer.


So, in other words, you agree that there are limits to parents' abilities to decide what to feed their children. A parent's right ends when it crosses the line into abuse, understanding there may be disagreements over what constitutes abuse.

Yes, but: This is a different tack than arguing that the state has an interest in maintaining an adequate learning environment. And I don't think parents are obliged to prove that they aren't abusing their children. That is, I think it's possible that a poor diet (a VERY poor diet) might cross the line into neglect that's actionable on the part of the state. I do not believe that justifies requiring all parents to prove that they're providing a healthy diet to their kids by way of lunch inspections. And it does not justify the state mandating that parents must provide lunches that meet the FDA guideline, or whatever it was.


When a parent chooses to send his or her child to public school (I understand "choose" may be a loaded word here), does the school have any say greater say (beyond the abuse standard) over what the child eats while at school? For example, can it prohibit certain items if it feels those are disruptive?


Not generally, in my opinion. "If the school feels a food item is disruptive" is a pretty vague and meaningless term. I think a school would be justified in prohibiting food items that pose a danger to other students, if that applies at a school- peanuts, if some kid is allergic, maybe.


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?
Last edited by: AlanShearer: Feb 14, 12 13:04
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
I really think you are lawyering this thing to death, but I'll play a little longer.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlanShearer wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
I really think you are lawyering this thing to death, but I'll play a little longer.


So, in other words, you agree that there are limits to parents' abilities to decide what to feed their children. A parent's right ends when it crosses the line into abuse, understanding there may be disagreements over what constitutes abuse.

Yes, but: This is a different tack than arguing that the state has an interest in maintaining an adequate learning environment. And I don't think parents are obliged to prove that they aren't abusing their children. That is, I think it's possible that a poor diet (a VERY poor diet) might cross the line into neglect that's actionable on the part of the state. I do not believe that justifies requiring all parents to prove that they're providing a healthy diet to their kids by way of lunch inspections. And it does not justify the state mandating that parents must provide lunches that meet the FDA guideline, or whatever it was.


When a parent chooses to send his or her child to public school (I understand "choose" may be a loaded word here), does the school have any say greater say (beyond the abuse standard) over what the child eats while at school? For example, can it prohibit certain items if it feels those are disruptive?


Not generally, in my opinion. "If the school feels a food item is disruptive" is a pretty vague and meaningless term. I think a school would be justified in prohibiting food items that pose a danger to other students, if that applies at a school- peanuts, if some kid is allergic, maybe.


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?


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.
Last edited by: EricinSC: Feb 14, 12 13:29
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [BigMikeGA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BigMikeGA wrote:
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.


This!
It all has a way of slowly creeping in under the radar.
Last edited by: EricinSC: Feb 14, 12 13:30
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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


Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [squid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
squid wrote:
It has been reported in the local papers, local news, national news, talk shows,

Please provide citations. I can't find any independent article or reference.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
EricinSC wrote:
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:).
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Last edited by: EricinSC: Feb 14, 12 18:06
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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**
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [Mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mojozenmaster wrote:
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.

I bow to the Great Mojo!
I'm right there with ya.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [EricinSC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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**
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MJuric wrote:
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


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.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [Mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mojozenmaster wrote:
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.

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!!!!
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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

Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [Mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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


Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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**
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [Mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
$38,000 includes dinner and the right to ballwash for an evening.

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man
Quote Reply
Re: School Lunch Police are out... [last tri in 83] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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**
Quote Reply