Michelle Obama's Brownshirts and the Case of the Confiscated Lunch

Ketchup and French Fries: the only two vegetables my younger daughter will eat. The schools would have wasted a lot of money putting fruits, vegetables and dairy in front of her. She's a perfect kid and I am a perfect mom in every way, except for allowing her eating habits.

CM, You at least admit to "allowing" it. I know several people who can't understand why their kids are such picky eaters and complain of having to fix them separate meals all the time.

Lest anybody mistake me, I do support the efforts of schools to provide healthier choices. I just recognize that some students will resist those efforts and that parents, for various reasons, may not always choose to fight the fight. Offer the good choices, just don't ram them down anyone's throat. (Cue mental picture of me, brussel sprouts and my daugher at dinner last night.)

CM,

If it's any consolation, even though I like them now, when I was young we always referred to brussel sprouts as "little gag balls"......

I'm a 50 year old adult and I still hate brussels sprouts. Just try and make me eat them....just try.

^ Add bacon bits and loads of butter and you just may like them! :P

Simplistic - my wife uses spicy sausage sometimes instead of bacon bits - it's even better!!

I hated brussel sprouts when I was a kid (boiled and soggy) but sauteed at high temp in olive oil or grilled on the barbie--they are fabulous.

clarification: the brussels sprouts were boiled and soggy; me, not so much.

#2 - I know someone who works in a school cafeteria so I have heard about govt. interference in the school lunch programs. Frankly, when I first heard what they have to do and can't do, I was surprised because it really seems the USDA substitutes one unhealthy thing for another. For example, it seems they load the kids up on carbs to go "low-fat." In my mind, carbs are much worse than fat in cheese, and if you ever look at labels for "low-fat" foods, you will see that carbs are much higher in those foods.

Govt. does not need to tell anyone what they do with their private property. Why don't we just have the kids, turn them over to the govt., and let them raise them into the perfect little citizens? Oh, wait - a country tried to do that in the 1930's ....

2.4 - I called them little cabbages but I always loved them and other veggies kids didn't normally like (e.g., cauliflower). A good recipe is to sautee them in olive oil and garlic like someone said or even roast them with garlic at 450 degrees because it brings out the sweetness, then drizzle them with a little maple syrup before serving. Not a lot, just a little, and the contrast in flavors is great.

LP
lol
The only way I know how to prepare them is boiled (and soggy)
I'll have to try the other suggestions.

Regaqrdless if Michelle Obama was involved or not. I think we could all do with a little less government intervention in our daily lives.

You want to do the research,set the standards? Fine. Now step aside andlet us live our lives. We do NOT need a Federal (or State) mother-in-law to try to control us.

I know someone who works in a school cafeteria so I have heard about govt. interference in the school lunch programs.

And I met a guy once who thought aliens from distant space were speaking to him through the fillings in his teeth. I'd say we're even on anonymous third person source credibility.

I think we has concerned parents know whats best for our children... not some government worker with some sort of alpha complex !!!

I think we has concerned parents know whats best for our children... not some government worker with some sort of alpha complex !!!

You know I've been saying the same thing about religion and sex yet the "right" continues to try and force their political, moral and religious indoctrination on my children at school.

I'll make you a deal, you stop forcing your political religious doctrine on my children and I'll agree that we should stop providing well balanced nutritious meals at schools... Heck I'll even agree that we should stop teaching nutrition at school that way Darwinism can take it's due course. The resulting increase in the intelligence level of the American gene pool would do more to eradicate the radical right from this country then anything else.

Don't forget that ketchup was a vegetable during Reagan.

Reagan was a vegetable and spent his presidency trying to catch up.

You know I've been saying the same thing about religion and sex yet the "right" continues to try and force their political, moral and religious indoctrination on my children at school.

Well, that's different. When the right wing tramps all over our rights, it's in a god's name so that makes it okie dokie (see state laws requiring women to be sexually assaulted by a vaginal probe before an abortion).

But an abortion isn't an assault? Guess using a speculum to open the vagina to insert objects to dilate the cervix to insert a suction tube into the uterus to vacuum out an embryo or fetus is all part of a standard pelvic exam? Sorry, the hyperbole is what caught my attention.

Abortions are legal, bringing up the subject in a thread about school lunches is less than savory or apt.

so the little girl misunderstood something

No. The adult didn't convey something properly. Don't blame the four year old.

either way, a non-issue.

Non Issue. The School opened her lunch in front of others and ridiculed it in front of the Class. Let me say this again... Its non of their @!$%#ing business to be going through anyones lunch saying anything nothing nota. Has nothing to do with Michelle it has to do with dont @!$%# with my kids unless i give you permission to. Keep your govt away from Uterus Children anything that they dont have a right to do. If you want to keep giving up tights cause you cant raise a kid properly give them the @!$%# up. I dont need help Im doing fine.

Yeah-how did it get to be Michele Obama's fault?

Wow-embellish much?

Probably for the same reason that everything under then sun now is "Bush's" fault. lol

Do you think that Michelle and Bush plotted together on this one?

Probably for the same reason that everything under then sun now is "Bush's" fault.

Not "everything," S.R. Just the worst recession (second only to the "Great Depression") in our history and a fiscal mess and a $1T down the toilet in Iraq because of all that lying about Saddam and 9/11 and WMD and then there was the torture (of detainees as well as the country). So, not "everything," but more than enought to make him the worst catastrophe of a president this country ever had.

#3 - What did the little girl "misunderstand"? Her mother received a note saying her lunch wasn't good enough and she was being charged $1.25 for a lunch provided by the school. (Interestingly, I heard someone make a good point today - we are always told how bad chicken nuggets from McD's are yet that's what they gave her versus a turkey and cheese sandwich!)

The point is the govt. does not have a right to tell anyone what to put in their kids' lunch. I never drank milk, and when I was in school, you had to eat everything on your plate, and that included your milk. So guess what - I packed my lunch so I didn't have to drink milk. Under today's standards, I probably would have been in trouble everyday because I didn't bring a milk from home.

When are you ever going to admit that things like this are just wrong. And, that they never happened until the Obama Admin came into power and his USDA (upon prodding by, coincidentally, Obama's chubby wife - I have seen her fat-ass and legs and rolls in her middle) put these types of policies into place.

that's what the article stated, BLD.

3.10 - Oh my gosh. You have read an opinion piece on the story written by a group that clearly seems designed to go after "the right." You just assume that these types of pieces contain accurate facts? Why don't you Google and find news stories from the local media in North Carolina, e.g., from Reuters, a TV station, a newspaper.

clarifying for you BLD

Wait until the subject of fruit and chocolate during sex comes up........

I dunno...one side wants to assure your child doesn't grow up eating Ho-Ho's and twinkies at school under the guise of a 'meal'.

The mother didn't pack ho-ho's or twinkies....

Lol JC, heads will be exploding all over the place.

No , the mother didn't pack ho-ho's or twinkies, but she sure as hell should have been able to if she wanted to. What if it was the day before the mother generally goes to the store and she was a bit low on supplies? Would it have been ok to pack a couple of graham crackers with peanut butter? This is all so ridiculous (and a bit scary), but the bottom line is.........Hey Gubmint, stay the hell away from my kid's lunch.

Also, a lot of the "healthy" lunches end up in the trash because the kids don't want them.

She can pack whatever she wants to and no one is inspecting any lunches and replacing them. Schools are, however, required to provide healthy food to children in their care. That is all that this Bush era law (passed in 2004) does.

There can be dress codes for school's right? No reason there can't be food codes for schools on the same rationale. Student speech can be censored and even punished. Students can even be detained against their will. Students do not have the same rights on the school premises during school hours as other places.

what the kumquat is it doing anywhere near Newsvine's front page?

Sensationalism drives traffic.

#5 - Then this is even more reason for why govt. should not be involved, because you get civil servants who feel they now have power and think they are so smart when they may not have any idea of what they are doing.

they reported the story as false? when? heard them promoting a segment on it for tomorrow and nothing they said claimed it was false. if false, then why a story?

read the link bebobby has in his post a couple posts up, they apperently corrected the story after the truth came out.

That's not FoxNEWS it's a local Fox affiliate.

chumbkt you are failing everywhere you put your name on this Vine. Also, why didn't you just reply to Bebobby in the first place instead of creating your own vine #11 to look more ignorant then you already did?

Actually Chumbkt's description of the Wookie was spot on. I'd say that's a WIN!

fox news affiliate = fox news

and you say I fail?

Clearly thinking deeply into an issue is difficult for you so let's start here. Not all local affiliates are owned by Rupert.

News directors at other Fox affiliates offered similar views about living under the Fox name. None of the affiliates we spoke with are owned by Fox.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006210030

Also, those still owned by Rupert do there best to signify the differences, as they don't want to be RNC mouthpieces.

"We have to remind a viewer that calls that we are not owned by Fox, they do not control our news and judgment," said Ed Chapuis, news director of KTVU-TV in Oakland, Ca., which serves the San Francisco area.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006210030

Now getting into the specific Fox affiliate that Beebobby presented, 'My Fox 8 WGHP' serving Greensboro, NC area.
http://myfox8.com/contact/fox8-management/

WGHP, virtual channel 8, is the Fox-affiliated television station serving the Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem, North Carolina (Piedmont Triad) designated market area. The station is owned by Local TV LLC, the media arm of private equity firm Oak Hill Capital Partners, and its transmitter is located in Sophia, North Carolina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WGHP

Whoops, I guess you failed again. Local Fox affiliate is owned by another Corporation, not Rupert.
I believe that's strike 2 just on vine #11 alone.
Care to go for three??

Perception

Well said-voted up. FR.

thankfully, in this case, two strikes and you're out. Well done Perception. Why folks say and write things without first making sure they are correct really puzzles me...

Can you believe it Garrison. I was healthy growing up and I ate mostly peanut butter and jelly or bologna and mustard. Not only that, I actually managed to survive without a helmet on both a bike and a skateboard.........

Go jc. Somehow we made it without the Obama's.

Yeah. I even....... wait for it....... played in the dirt!!!!

GASP!

I made mud pies and mud bricks to build a fort with etc too, LOL. Damn glad child services wasn't called on my parents for allowing me to be so "endangered'.

/sarc

Wow JC

I actually managed to survive without a helmet on both a bike and a skateboard.........

Apparently you were such a good bike and skateboarder that you never hit your head when you fell, if you even fell.

I am probably a lot older than you and I can tell you from experience that I lost 4 close friends to motorcycle accidents, all due to head injuries, because they weren't wearing helmets. Helmets weren't required in CA in the '60s. From an economic viewpoint, the public was benefited as they all died at the scene of their accident. But if they had lived to get to a hospital emergency room, we the public would have ended paying for their care.

So, while I do not care a wit whether or not you wear a helmet and die in a crash, I do have a strong desire not to have to pay for your ongoing vegetative health care. (I am guessing you are also against universal health care, which would be fitting with you attitude!)

As for growing up on PB&J, maybe if you had better nutrition, you could have had healthier brain cells.

Can you believe it. I even managed to survive psychologically and I didn't get a ribbon when I finished last in a race in second grade..........

Michael:

I'm sorry about your friends but I think "bike" meant bicycle not motorcycle. Two different animals. Helmets for those kids who ride bicycles being forced by law is overkill and this was the point. Nothing had been said about motorcycles except by you.

Michael,

I will gladly tell you that I rode a motorcycle for several years when I was younger and wouldn't even consider getting on one without a helmet. I think anyone that does is an utter fool. But, I will also tell you that I will be the first to fight for the right of a rider to choose to ride without one. It's called personal responsibility.

I'm certain that I fell off both my bike and my skateboard, at one time or another, but managed to somehow survive. I had skinned knees, bruises, scrapes and bumps. It's called "growing up".

And, for the record, no..... I did not walk uphill both ways in snow storms going to and coming from school........ it was only on the way there.......

Applies to bike (2 wheeled pedal type)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/8503845/Cyclist-killed-in-Italian-bike-race.html

Sorry, but you do not have a right to spend my tax Dollars supporting your prolonged health care for being stupid and crashing your bicycle, motorcycle and suffering a significant head injury.

Oh, BTW, I am not talking about all of us who got this far in life through luck, as in not falling off your skateboard, bicycle, motorcycle, ski and not injuring yourself. That is not a sufficient reason not to wear a helmet and I support a governmental requirement that you have one on when you ride.

I raced semi-pro motocross for 5 years in the early '70s and gave it up after my third concussion, two of which would probably have killed me if I didn't have a helmet on my head. So, for all of you who haven't had a chance to run your head into the ground at any speed above a walk - get some intelligence and stop with "my rights are being infringed upon". You do not have a right to my tax Dollars for an issue that could be stopped by wearing a helmet!

You do not have a right to my tax Dollars for an issue that could be stopped by wearing a helmet!

Or by not smoking?

And I'm certain that if people would just stop driving cars we wouldn't have to worry about healthcare for people who survive traffic accidents.

Don't get me wrong Michael, I'm not saying that people shouldn't wear a helmet. But, I think that our society is trying too hard to micro-manage every aspect of our lives, in the misplaced belief that it can somehow keep people from ever getting hurt or dying. But, what will happen, over time, is that things like motocross will be outlawed in the name of safety. For that matter, motorcycles could ultimately be banned because they do not offer enough protection to suit the government. It can be a very slippery slope.

Taking risks is a part of life. A part of growing up. If we end up with a society of people who are unaccustomed to taking risks, we will lose much of what makes this country great.

IF my taxes or health care costs go up because of folks who ride without helmets, then I support govt in its efforts to curtail these risks and associated costs. You are free until your actions impinge on others... then, not so much...

Matthew - so then you are ready to join the call to abolish cars, because there is risk involved?

Did I suggest we abolish motorcycles?... egads you seem unable to think. why do males under 25 pay more for auto insurance... more risk... want to ride your bike without a helmet, then because of the ADDED RISK, you have to pony up and buy that insurance rider so that the US taxpayer or private citizens don't have to pay to keep you on that ventilator for a decade... it's really not that hard to make sure folks take fiscal responsibility for their freedoms.

Most motor vehicle insurance policies do not cover motorcycles. Even if they did, most of the typical limits people have would barely pay for a year on a ventilator. Just about everyone who ends up needing that kind of custodial care has that care paid through some governmental program. You are right, though, that it is really not that hard to make sure folks take fiscal responsibility for their freedoms. That is precisely what the individual mandate in the health care law does.

I think just fine, thanks. Males under 25 pay more for auto insurance because the auto insurance companies understand the financial risk involved - it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the government. The same with that insurance rider for no helmet - insurance company, not the government. If it were the government doing it, they would either outlaw driving before the age of 25, require that a government certified co-driver be in every car operated by a person under 25, or (more likely) just give out tickets so that they can pretend like they are doing something while bringing more revenue into the state.

JC, where do you think the auto insurance companies get their data for their risk assessments? Govt provided statistics. first empirical evidence that you can't think.

Also, the govt MANDATED that folks must have auto insurance (because of these risks and the need to share the costs across ALL drivers who take these risks). second empirical evidence that you can't think.

You can say you think just fine, but you provide plenty of empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.

Finally, your gem... " If it were the government doing it, they would either..." blah blah blah... When it starts with 'if it were', you know you're gonna get some BS story... and we did. The government did MANDATE auto insurance and does require specific coverage. I am just suggesting a rider for those who are stupid and freedom loving enough to ride without a helmet. It is so simple that even non-thinkers can get it. really, give it a try.

We all managed to survive without the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and pat downs at the airport, too. Yet people suddenly act like everybody will die tomorrow without these things.

Matthew -

The primary purpose of auto insurance is to cover property loss. Although it will also cover some medical expenses, it is utterly insufficient for any type of injury that will require prolonged treatment.

I'm sure that insurance companies make use of government data, however, the data they have collected on their own, over the span of decades, based on actual historical data of their policy holders is probably much more important and useful.

So tell me this, how does your government-based solution do anything when it comes to the person that chooses to ride without a helmet and without purchasing a rider?

Well said bonos.

Yet people suddenly act like everybody will die tomorrow without these things.

If you were correct in this statement then you would drink JC's Koolaid and "demand" we get rid of cars.

The government is not saying don't ride motorcycles. It is saying if you ride a motorcycle you must (most states) wear a helmet. The reason is not so much to protect ourselves from ourselves but to reduce the impact of stupidity on the general population - uncovered health costs.

When I raced I was required to have an approved helmet - it was my decision to race. If you ride a motorcycle on the street - that is your decision and there are rules involved that may affect your decision - you either accept them or your don't ride. You don't get to ride your bike at 100 mph - so why bitch about a helmet.

I would be willing to have the mandate go away if the individual wanting to ride without a helmet will put up a bond to cover the cost of health care needed to keep him(her) on a feeding tube or strapped to quadriplegic frame for 20-50 years. But since the cost of a bond would be prohibitive - wear your frigging helmet.

Oh, BTW, please don't give me @!$%# about not be able to hear with the helmet on. There is no way you can determine a noise's direction without a helmet so that is a false assertion. (Ever been next to a Harley at idle next to a stop sign.)

Restated as simply as possible - I don't want to have to pay for your "right" to ride without a helmet.

Michael,

Since a 50 year bond isn't really feasible, the proper documentation might be a DNR. Seems a lot more appropriate to me, at least for anyone that is foolish enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

I was going to suggest the "DNR" be tattooed on the rider's forehead, but that would probably get wiped away in the first milliseconds of the crash.

How about somewhere around the navel since the rider will probably try to get into a fetal position as (s)he crashes.

JC: So tell me this, how does your government-based solution do anything when it comes to the person that chooses to ride without a helmet and without purchasing a rider?

No system is perfect, but since the mandate was imposed for car insurance, the number of insured has increased dramatically and thus expecting socialist policies to cover selfish americans has decreased. Moreover, states that require helmets also see much more helmet wearing compliance than those that do not. So, would folks still cheat the system of required riders for helmets or required helmets, yes, but the numbers would decrease as would the costs and associated risks. That is how laws work, even though many don't follow them.

Michael,

Personally, I don't really think a tattoo is necessary. The fact that you are riding without a helmet should probably be sufficient to infer an implied DNR.

Republicans are against good nutrition in school lunch programs .

Duly noted

Actually, this Conservative is for parental rights....you must be against that. Duly noted.

Don't forget, Republicans also want poison water, poison air, and poison kool-aid.

Republicans want your Grandmother, you, your kids, and your dog to die, and they want them to die right fcuking now.

Republicans want the world Piers Anthony wrote about in the "adept" series.

Chum, thats like saying dems want all children to be aborted.

cannon-

always take what I post with a grain of salt.

leonthecat

Republicans are against good nutrition in school lunch programs .

Wouldn't it be healthier if they just made the 4 yr old clean up the lunch room and kitchen? That way they could have fired a couple janitors and kitchen help, the little girl could start learning a trade and get a little exercise at the same time. As for nutrition, she could have just gleaned out of the trash cans.

That's called a "Conservative Win-Win"

I worked in the school lunch room when I was in Jr. High, ran dishes through the washer, it didn't kill me.

^ I'm sure you weren't shamed out of your mind like many like to try and apply to that. I also did janitorial work at my church when I was young to help and make a couple extra bucks. Also in grade school kids would volunteer to help out in preparing school food and serving them as well. Not only was it popular taught us at a young age about food preparation, etc, etc. Yeah such horrible life skills to teach young kids... I was mentally scarred for life... *cough*

How is that government business?

Simple. It's not.

This. This is the problem. Why is the government in the business of dictating what parents must feed to their children? How is that government business?

I agree with JC...but let us take a look at the Obama's indulging in junk food....

http://www.examiner.com/fitness-trends-in-san-antonio/obama-eating-junk-food-photo

Michelle Obama orders 1,700-calorie meal at Shake Shack

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/michelle-obama-has-1556-calories-meal-at-shake-shack-outing/2011/07/11/gIQAgwPE9H_blog.html

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/why-does-michelle-obama-criticize-us-for-eating-junk-food-but-doesnt-say-jackschitt-about-her-hu/question-2134321/

http://hillbuzz.org/the-mcobamas-collecting-pictures-of-the-current-first-couple-making-a-couple-of-hippo-critical-pigs-of-themselves

Got some desperation going on there? So the Obamas go out and splurge on a big meal. So what? Do they do it every day? Of course not.

Lots of people go out for dinner and splurge--we do it too. But at work, home, school we try to eat healthy and keep the weight off.

Michele Obama never told anyone what you HAD to eat. That's just silliness. She suggested better, healthy eating habits--period.

Naturally the Republicans are outraged-this is just some new item for them to take out of context, embellish it, and whip themselves into a frenzy over.

Republicans are outraged in the morning, outraged in the afternoon, outraged in the evening, outraged over food, outraged over education, outraged over living.

You guys are silly

So obese and under-nourished children are an epidemic in this country, but don't let anyone do anything about it because some parents might get their feelings hurt when they find out they suck at parenting??

Personally I don't like to ignore problems until they go away. 9 times out of 10 the problem just gets worse.

It isn't about feelings. It's about being able to provide lunch for our own children. The government has no business dictating what children can and cannot have for lunch.

No one said would they could or could not have. They simply supplemented the child's lunch with healthier fare. Are you opposed to children being educated on heathy eating habits? It is, after all, a school; where we send our children to be educated.

Yes. That is what I am opposed to. Because that is what I said. I oppose healthy eating!

Have fun knocking that around for a while, and when your ready to discuss the role of government in dictating nutritional choices of private citizens, I'll be ready to take you seriously.

No one dictated a @!$%#ing thing here, Baron. First of all, the story is bull@!$%# from a right wing web site. If you want to talk about the law, it simply requires that any meal provided be nutritional and also requires the school to supplement meals that are not. No one is forcing any child to eat their goddamn vegetables. They are educating these children on nutrition so that, perhaps, they will not grow up to be a burden on the health care system by being unhealthy. I realize that those on the right fear an educated populace, but I am sure that simply teaching a child to eat healthy will not indoctrinate them. That will have to wait to college where, according to Prick Santorum, they will be turned into irreligious lefties. Now if that causes you to take me seriously, that makes one of us taking the other seriously.

The Government certainly didn't decide what food groups and in what amount were most nutritious for children. God did.
All man did was discover what that balance was, and then he tried his best to make sure each child gets that nice balance. It's not the Government's fault some parents are to ridculously ignorant to consciously think about the food that goes into their child and how it affects that child. And as long as kids are only getting supplemental items ADDED to what is already present, the Government isn't dictating a thing. Just fostering better health.

Those against fostering better health are just bitter because they finally learned a meal of twinkies and a Coke doesn't cut it.

Wow gator. That profanity laced tirade certainly proved your point admirably. I tip my hat to you. I can now see the wisdom of dictating meal content. Thank god we have the government to make sure our children are eating what they should. Especially since the government always does such a great job of things. Especially education.

I guess reading is not something your private school taught you. Once again, the government is not dictating the content of meals. The government is requiring that the schools that serve meals, serve nutritious ones. And the schools are educating ( I know, that is dirty word to righties) students on health eating. And if the government does such a lousy job in education, why has this country, over the last hundred years, become the leader in science, innovation, medical advancements, etc? I know that there are examples of how public education failed miserably, (Prick Santorum comes to mind), but those poorly educated Americans seem to have done pretty well over the last hundred years. Unless you are one of those who do not agree with the concept of American exceptionalism. Are you one of those who do not think that there is anything special about this nation?

And it would appear that congeniality is not something your inner city public school has taught you.

Once again, the government is not dictating the content of meals

Oh?

According to the USDA, schools are required to provide lunches that include 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.

The government is requiring that the schools that serve meals, serve nutritious ones.

I support that fully. However, I also support the right of parents to decide for themselves what they pack. There is no need to force additional food into the lunch. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and the additional cost of this senseless meddling is not worth anything.

And the schools are educating ( I know, that is dirty word to righties) students on health eating.

Education is a good thing. Additional expense for no purpose is not. Leave the parenting to the parents.

And if the government does such a lousy job in education, why has this country, over the last hundred years, become the leader in science, innovation, medical advancements, etc?

Our students are lagging behind most of the free world in all of the fields you listed. At one time we were leaders of science and technology, now we are laughing stocks. The current push to interject religion into science class is a major problem, but it certainly is not the only problem.

I know that there are examples of how public education failed miserably, (Prick Santorum comes to mind), but those poorly educated Americans seem to have done pretty well over the last hundred years.

Yet another fine example of the class and tact you must have learned thanks to our wonderful public education system. Yes, Americans have done well in the past. Some of us will continue to do well in the future. Those of us who think the answer to every problem is to have the government handle it, well, they may not do quite so well.

Unless you are one of those who do not agree with the concept of American exceptionalism. Are you one of those who do not think that there is anything special about this nation?

There are many great things about this nation. However, being an American does not make you intrinsically exceptional. Americans can be just as crude, classless and dull witted as individuals of any nationality.

"inner city public school? You just make things up to make a point, don't you? Kind of like the false claims that of the righties about this incident. That seems to be a pattern. Make something up and use that to support your argument. Then you parse what I wrote to change the meaning to something you can disagree with. Do you think that makes you look clever? "Leave parents to the parenting" Good idea. Ever heard of in loco parentis? Probably not. The schools have the authority to act as parents when the children are in the care of the school. Feeding them nutritious meals and giving them the opportunity to supplement what they brought from home is properly caring for children over which they are acting in loco parentis. As for this nation's current status, take a look at the nationality of most of the Nobel Laureates over the last thirty years. Google, Microsoft and Apple? Ever hear of these companies?

gator, you seem really edgy. Maybe it's because you haven't taken your government mandated nutritional supplement yet.

"inner city public school? You just make things up to make a point, don't you? Kind of like the false claims that of the righties about this incident. That seems to be a pattern. Make something up and use that to support your argument.

That was a response to your private school quip. Hurt your little feelings, did it?

Then you parse what I wrote to change the meaning to something you can disagree with.

You mean, you didn't like how I responded to stuff you actually said? Would you perhaps find a conversation with inflatable banana-pig more suitable for your intelligence level?

Do you think that makes you look clever?

Yes, very clever. So clever I can hardly believe it. My cleverness is one with the gods!

"Leave parents to the parenting" Good idea. Ever heard of in loco parentis?

Latin for in place of a parent it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties. Something I'm sure a towering intellect much like yourself devised. A clever little escape hatch for incapable parents as well. Have fun taking advantage of that.

Feeding them nutritious meals and giving them the opportunity to supplement what they brought from home is properly caring for children over which they are acting in loco parentis.

Does that give them the right to act against the wishes of the actual parents? Or to act at the expense of others? I'm not so sure it does.

As for this nation's current status, take a look at the nationality of most of the Nobel Laureates over the last thirty years. Google, Microsoft and Apple? Ever hear of these companies?

Ever hear of Irena Sendler? Read the link before you use the Nobel prize as though it is the benchmark of integrity you seem to think. And yes, those are great companies. I'm sure your children will do a fine job cleaning the bathrooms for one of them someday.

Baron. My children will be representing yours in criminal court or during mental health commitments if your kids are anything like you. Maybe my son will be the physician trying to help yours deal with their addictions or my daughter the psychologist helping yours deal with daddy issues.

Soph. Cannot be civil with a condescending _________— like him. I will just leave him to his own witless thoughts.

I"m criminally insane really? Did banana-pig tell you that? Make sure they get behind the toilets too, too many janitors miss that spot.

I see, I'm condescending. Well, at least I can leave off the profanity and hateful rhetoric. But I suppose I must have learned that at my private school, right?

The Obamas sometimes have high calorie treats and anti choicers often consider or actually have abortions-- like the Santorums or the Palins. Shrug.

The bottom line is if you resent schools telling you what to feed your kids or telling them they actually have to study or learn, feed your kid junk all day and let him fail. They are suggestions -- not laws.

Baloney. So giving a child something to eat means a parent is losing their rights to parent their children?

That's silliness.

So what happens when a kid gets fed something by the school because some asshat deems their packed lunch not "good enough" and the kid has a food allergy to something and then ends up sick or whatever. I'm shocked so many of you jump on the band wagon that some public or Gov. entity should have authority over what to feed your kid because they don't like what you sent them in lunch without taking common sense steps like.. oh I dunno.. maybe first talking to the parents??

No one has suggested that the government should replace bag lunches. Nothing in the law requires that and it did not happen here, according to reports that come from somewhere other than right wing fantasy land.

simplistic-come back onto the light and leave off the hysteria.

NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO EAT-NO ONE IS TELLING ANYONE WHAT THEY HAVE TO EAT. Do you understand that. It can be suggested, and if you chose to say no--then DON'T.

Children in school are watched to see if they are hungry, watched for signs of abuse, watched to be sure they are learning--and a balanced diet helps with learning.

Parents-at least intelligent ones-make the schools aware of food allergies. If you read the posts above, someone was called into school because they sent peanut butter with their child. Peanut allergies can be so severe they result in death for a child. Now if that was your child that had a severe peanut allergy--would you be thankful the school was doing all that was necessary to protect your child? Of course you would.

I can't understand the Republican outrage because a school gave food to a child. Not bad food, not dangerous food, but food to supplement her diet.

Instead of all this Republican hysteria about food for children, why don't you think outside the box. There are kids that go to school with no breakfast, and a meager lunch. Thankfully the schools feed those kids.

Instead of harping over a child that was given nutritious food, worry about all the kids that go hungry and the school food is all they get.

This Republican outrage is not even logical.

Unless sexual and/or religious political literature is being placed in the lunches of pre-school kids, your rant was utterly off topic and therefore worthless.

hey, i didn't introduce an angry liberal post. i was just responding to a post that i guess, by your standards, was also worthless. of course, one could say, any post which disagrees with your viewoint could be deemed worthless. that's okay. we really don't need those individuals to whom we entrust our kids for several hours a day to look out for their health and well being. it is just school, right?

liberals angry? that's rich.

Seen the Occupy Movements / Riots?? Anti-War riots?? Etc..

Mostly I saw angry cops beating the @!$%# ot of and pepper spraying peaceful protestors.

any time anyone wishes to exert an undue amount of control over our behaviors, it is frightening. the desire to check a student's lunch box is way over the top just as the desire to exert some form of control over our sex lives is excessive.

Giving a child some healthy food is exerting undue influence? Get a grip. Children go to school to learn. Learning what foods are healthy and which ones are not is entirely appropriate.

My son is 3. We live in rural Ohio. There are similar requirements for healthy lunches at his daycare. His daycare is a private enterprise that has to follow state and national guidelines. I ensure my son has at least 2 dairy products (yogurt/cottage cheese and cheese usually) a protein, two grains (bread from the sandwich (wheat) pretzels or crackers), two fruits and or veggies. He doesn't eat it all usually but it's there. I put his lunch in the fridge at daycare each morning. I have seen kids lunches consisting of 2 hotdogs in a ziploc with a slice of cheese, corndogs with the ketchup already on them, lunchables, and the coup de grace a pack of powdered mini donuts. When these kids are 12 and have type 2 diabetes among other ailments and just get progressively fatter and sicker We The People will be paying to take care of them because they will be too fat to work. I doubt they are going through the lunches to ensure the kids have the required nutritional elements. More likely is they could see the child missing a staple and instructed her to get the missing piece. We unfortunately need systems like this in place because apparently a number of parents in this country are inept and set the acheivement bar for thier kids at survival. Kids will sink as far as your willing to let the bar go. Then when they are fat, stupid, and sick we get to support them at subsistence levels through our taxes.

Learning what foods are healthy and which ones are not is entirely appropriate.

I agree until it comes to a point when it's forced upon you. I'm still a strong believer in freedom, personal liberties, and the right to make my own choices for myself and my kid without Big. Gov. overstepping its reach.

SInce nothing was forced on anyone here, you have no problem with a law that requires that a school serve health and nutritious food to its students, right? And someone's choice it to feed their child and McDonald's everday and he or she becomes morbidly obese by the age 11 with the health problems that go with it, do you still want the government to stay out of it?

In this country parents have the right to be bad parents and feed their kids nothing but crap.

Total BS. If you, as a parent, do not feed your kid appropriately, it is child abuse and you will lose that child and probably be incarcerated. Parents most certainly DO NOT have the right to feed their kids nothing but crap. Is it also OK for parents to feed their kids only salt water to purge them of their evil spirits until they die? this happened to some kids in this country... Is that what our freedom is about. egads, the right has really gone over the edge of their flat earth...

Giving a child some healthy food is exerting undue influence?

gatoralum,

yes it is. the intent here is good, but the road to totalitarianism is paved with little bits of ourfault. each time we give up a right or a privilege, we give up some freedom, and when all freedom is gone it is ourfault. we are now under a self imposed restriction on free speech aka "political corectness". now, i don't like many thing many people say and i'm quite sure that many have a strong dislike for what i say. however, we should not, actually must not, permit anyone to restrict free speech simply because it is offensive. today, we have people raising hell about this issue while while those angered by this nannyism are at the forefront in denying women the right to exercise autonomy over their bodies.

There was a great story on NPR last night about a professor of neuroeconomics who studies school food choices in American kids. His findings are quite striking and are being incorporated into our school food programs. They make it quite clear that restricting choice and forcing options do not work and this is not the Obama plan. They note that some very simple things do work to increase the choices our kids make for healthy food options (like simply having the healthier options at the front of the food line. Our government has been funding very productive research in this area and is implementing solid programs as a result. Of course, this doesn't provide much rhetorical fodder for the right wing, so they don't mention it...

simply having the healthier options at the front of the food line

Now that is the kind of plan that I can get behind. Smart. Efficient. Easy to implement.

Total BS. If you, as a parent, do not feed your kid appropriately, it is child abuse and you will lose that child and probably be incarcerated.

Oh what hyperbolic bull@!$%#!

Guess what I was raised on, hot dogs and fast food, that's what. My parents didn't know any better and they got what they had time and money for. You want to try putting them in jail? If I would have had a better education on nutrition I might have been able to change things for myself and them even at a young age.

Ranting like yours is what gives ammo to the right wingers when they talk about nanny state taking over your kids.

But it seems you'd rather just try to raise other peoples children instead of trying to educate them because I guess you know better than everyone, good luck with that.

JC - Now that is the kind of plan that I can get behind. Smart. Efficient. Easy to implement.

Yes, a plan whose research was funded by our government (that the right wing says can't do ANYTHING well), whose implementation is regulated by the government and whose effectiveness is assessed by the government. Hey, what do you know. Government does so things well... even interceding in the proper nutrition of our children.

Matthew - I wouldn't get all that excited over the blind pig......

excited... Just stating a simple fact that the vast right wing seems incapable of accepting. Facts are very robust things and bear repeating. good govt is a very effective tool in allowing for millions of people to live and thrive together. Suggesting govt doesn't work so as to gain control of that government is a blind pig...

Are you honestly trying to suggest that the way to be effective is bureaucratic government solutions? I think that most people understand, instinctively, that "government efficiency" is an oxymoron.

yes JC, and instinct / anecdote is better than data when making decisions, right? ONLY if you put all of your faith in a bearded god in the sky who watches over you. You think NASA uses instinct to decide the escape velocity of space vehicles? You think auto insurers use instinct to calculate risk and premiums? You really want to base your case on that, especially when you admitted above that this is a case of govt doing something well? egads...

No.

They love to be outraged!!

Larry - I'm not sure what you're saying. What about the video is a lie? It's exactly what Fischer said.

I am not going to watch the video. Fischer is a person. People can lie. Therefore, Fischer can lie. Think for yourself.

Larry is a person. People don't make sense. Therefore, Larry can't make sense. Make sense Larry.

LMBO!

Oy vey!

I don't believe any of the people involved with the story or any of you. Just sayin'. None of you know the truth about it. You were not there. Think for yourself.

Larry, do you accept that 1+1=2?

Do you accept that 2+2=5?

not with respect to linear arithmetic, no. Also, unless you love to live with cognitive dissonance, throw out your computer NOW!!! It relies heavily on 1+1=2, so if you don't accept that, you need to get that devil possessed machine out of your presence...

not with respect to linear arithmetic, no. Also, unless you love to live with cognitive dissonance, throw out your computer NOW!!! It relies heavily on 1+1=2, so if you don't accept that, you need to get that devil possessed machine out of your presence...

Actually the computer relies on 00...01 + 00...01 = 00...10 ;-)

Matthew, of course I know how to add and subtract. What's your point?

ISCAD... the computer processes 0s and 1s, and in doing so often compiles them by, wait for it, adding them together to get the sum of 0s or 1s. in this process, they often use the process described as 1+1=2...

Larry... the point is that you seem to not believe the reality of ANYTHING... I was just trying to see just how loose your grasp on sanity was...

Like I said, you don't know the truth about this story. You were not there.

ISCAD... the computer processes 0s and 1s, and in doing so often compiles them by, wait for it, adding them together to get the sum of 0s or 1s. in this process, they often use the process described as 1+1=2...

I know, Matthew-480753. I was just interjecting a little levity.

I was not there when the panamanian land bridge separated the atlantic and pacific oceans, but we have so many facts accumulated that we know when it happened... and much of the consequences. Your self-enforced blindness is just that. since you are in so few places on earth and for such a short time, you must accept very little with regard to the facts of our existence. right?

IFSCAD... my bad

My bad. Hey, everyone! Listen while the prophet Matthew reveals the truth to all of us. Hahahaha. Yeah right.

thank you Larry. let's go back to a truth we agree on: 1+1=2.

thank you all... I'll be here all week...