HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » School Lunch: Preschooler...

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:33 PM

School Lunch: Preschooler Told Homemade Turkey Sandwich Not Nutritious Enough, Given Nuggets Instead

A preschool student at West Hoke Elementary School in North Carolina ended up eating three chicken nuggets for lunch two weeks ago -- because a state inspector declared that the 4-year-old's lunch wasn't nutritious enough.

The turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice, according to the Carolina Journal, didn't meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. So to meet those requirements, the child was given chicken nuggets. The agent was inspecting the entire class' lunch boxes that day.

The state's Department of Health and Human Services requires that all lunches served to pre-kindergarten students -- whether from school or home -- meet USDA meal guidelines of one serving each of meat, milk and grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables. The regulations also state that if meals or snacks brought from home do not meet nutritional requirements outlined in the "Meal Patterns for Children in Child Care," the school "must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements."

It's unclear to state officials why, exactly, the girl's meal was deemed insufficient. The girl's mother thought that the potato chips and lack of vegetables may have been a problem, but Jani Kozlowski, fiscal and statutory policy manager for the Division of Child Development told the Carolina Journal that the meal should have met guidelines.

MORE...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/school-lunch-guidelines-p_n_1278803.html

114 replies, 12783 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 114 replies Author Time Post
Reply School Lunch: Preschooler Told Homemade Turkey Sandwich Not Nutritious Enough, Given Nuggets Instead (Original post)
Purveyor Feb 2012 OP
Brickbat Feb 2012 #1
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #6
WingDinger Feb 2012 #9
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #10
WingDinger Feb 2012 #11
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #12
WingDinger Feb 2012 #13
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #14
WingDinger Feb 2012 #23
Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #24
msongs Feb 2012 #29
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #34
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #18
WingDinger Feb 2012 #27
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #32
WingDinger Feb 2012 #37
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #42
WingDinger Feb 2012 #43
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #44
WingDinger Feb 2012 #45
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #47
WingDinger Feb 2012 #51
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #52
WingDinger Feb 2012 #55
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #65
WolverineDG Feb 2012 #77
TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #114
noiretextatique Feb 2012 #54
WingDinger Feb 2012 #56
noiretextatique Feb 2012 #61
JSnuffy Feb 2012 #68
hobbit709 Feb 2012 #87
Aerows Feb 2012 #49
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #53
Aerows Feb 2012 #82
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #86
Aerows Feb 2012 #105
noiretextatique Feb 2012 #57
TheCruces Feb 2012 #84
newspeak Feb 2012 #15
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #22
WingDinger Feb 2012 #30
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #33
WingDinger Feb 2012 #40
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #41
MNBrewer Feb 2012 #2
chrisa Feb 2012 #7
Raine1967 Feb 2012 #8
Mz Pip Feb 2012 #102
MNBrewer Feb 2012 #103
Skink Feb 2012 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #25
sammytko Feb 2012 #4
GoCubsGo Feb 2012 #38
WingDinger Feb 2012 #5
noiretextatique Feb 2012 #59
Viking12 Feb 2012 #16
richmwill Feb 2012 #17
tsuki Feb 2012 #19
tabbycat31 Feb 2012 #20
arikara Feb 2012 #21
Johnny Rico Feb 2012 #31
arikara Feb 2012 #64
Johnny Rico Feb 2012 #75
WingDinger Feb 2012 #80
Johnny Rico Feb 2012 #85
arikara Feb 2012 #108
Johnny Rico Feb 2012 #109
Odin2005 Feb 2012 #26
slackmaster Feb 2012 #28
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #35
petronius Feb 2012 #112
Javaman Feb 2012 #36
WingDinger Feb 2012 #39
Southerner Feb 2012 #46
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #48
WingDinger Feb 2012 #62
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #67
WingDinger Feb 2012 #70
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #72
WingDinger Feb 2012 #81
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #88
Viking12 Feb 2012 #50
WingDinger Feb 2012 #63
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #69
WingDinger Feb 2012 #71
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #73
WingDinger Feb 2012 #74
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #76
WingDinger Feb 2012 #79
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #89
WingDinger Feb 2012 #94
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #96
WingDinger Feb 2012 #97
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #98
WingDinger Feb 2012 #99
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #104
yup its me Feb 2012 #58
yup its me Feb 2012 #60
Gidney N Cloyd Feb 2012 #66
sammytko Feb 2012 #78
jmowreader Feb 2012 #83
renie408 Feb 2012 #90
gkhouston Feb 2012 #101
jmowreader Feb 2012 #110
gkhouston Feb 2012 #111
truth2power Feb 2012 #91
christx30 Feb 2012 #107
renie408 Feb 2012 #92
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #93
renie408 Feb 2012 #95
gkhouston Feb 2012 #100
Mz Pip Feb 2012 #106
proud2BlibKansan Feb 2012 #113

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:37 PM

1. I've seen this story all over FB today, but nowhere did I see where it said the school took away the

kid's lunch. If the school didn't take away the home lunch, I don't see why also offering the nuggets is a problem.

ETA: I finally found another story that said they told her not to eat the cold lunch, she ate three nuggets and the rest of the lunch went to waste. That's fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:41 PM

6. I would hazard a guess

that the outrage isn't about whether or not the lunch was taken away but that some unaccountable bureaucrat was dumb enough to impose this rule and some school administrator was dumb enough to enforce it.

There's no reason the lunch should have been inspected let alone denied, regardless of whether or not it was taken away. Nor should the school force a child to eat the school food and bill the family when the family already provided for their child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:56 PM

9. There is EVERY reason for lunches to be inspected.

 

Poor kids are stigmatized, by their clothes, hairstyles, class etc. They will hide the fact that mom packs just a twinkie, or that she/he cant afford any lunch, or forgot to make one.

Kids teeth are inspected, to insure they learn about good dental care. They are taught to cover their mouths when they cough. Wash their hands often etc. They are not adults.

The billing of parents, is the outrage.

My MOM is a lunchlady. She is generally anti-immigrant, or was. She has learned to love the children, and is very proud of her input into raising good citizens. She beams at the children that tell her she is why they do X good practice. The reality is, those that have such access to our children, should be praised, for caring enough to teach them proper ettiquitte, and to suppliment their needs that are not adequately met.

It is unDEMOCRATic, to wish that whoever might care, to butt out. Were it not for one caring lunchlady I know, many children would suffer far worse adulthoods than present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:57 PM

10. There should probably inspections at the door next to the metal detectors.

 

Like the TSA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:59 PM

11. You are right, children should be raised to be good libertarians. And if a child is hurt on the play

 

In the best Rethug debate style, Let them die!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:02 PM

12. Best to just not allow them to bring their lunch and have state issued meals instead. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:05 PM

13. I'm sure you dont intend to be flip, and insular about raising our next generation. Or you wouldnt

 

be here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:09 PM

14. Requiring lunch inspections is not the answer.

 

Informal observation is fine, but having official lunch inspections is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:46 PM

23. If you are noticed, being pulled aside, to address your deprivations, you will be stigmatized.

 

Better to have a policy, that will make it nothin but the regular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:48 PM

24. Like the TSA. Sounds brilliant.

 

Do you present your lunch when you enter the school or as you enter the lunch room?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 02:00 PM

29. lets have government inspection of all foods going into the mom's kitchens ASAP :-) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 02:55 PM

34. I started to say that in an earlier post but deleted it.

Obviously the offending sack lunch came from mom's kitchen. If it isn't fit for school then surely there must be reason to believe home is no better. Perhaps the children should be placed in protective custody until CPS can review the home for several months and the parents sent to nutrition education training.

Or they can at least have their heads put in a box filled with rats until they learn the lunch code is right.

Besides, "presumption of innocence" and "unreasonable search and seizure" and "personal privacy" are just so 18th century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:18 PM

18. How many children are being killed by turkey and cheese sandwhiches with a banana?

Seriously?

If the only reason for defending an unwarranted intrusion into a family's life is because someone you disgree with politically would be on the opposite side then your principles are rather flimsy at best. Reflexive prejudice is not a creed for governance.

Many libertarians also disagreed with the Patriot Act because it was unnecessarily invasive and would lead to ever-greater intrusions into people's private lives without first establishing probable cause. Supposedly progressives echoed that exact same argument but I see now only one side actually meant it. Sadly, the side that stayed true to its principles proved that an overbearing government will in fact demand control over every aspect of your life including what you eat.

I see no good reason why any person should ever be tasked with inspecting food sent from home. Supposedly some kids need school food assistance and we don't have enough to go around. Yet, here is some pointless duty assignment taking up budget dollars to leave perfectly good food uneaten while the finite supply of school-provided lunches have to unnecessarily feed one more child.

Someone -- or several someones -- ought to be losing their jobs through defunding as a minimum, if this story proves true. Iamgine there's no food fascism -- it's easy if you try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:55 PM

27. Are you aware, that five year olds, are showing the beginnings of heart disease?

 

That hyperactivity, ADD and other behavioral obstacles burden our public schools abillity to teach all? That the rising number of homeless kids means no refrigerator? That the message kids are getting now is, you are on your own? Same as the poor and ill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 02:48 PM

32. Who was on their own? The child had food provided.

Please stay focused on the actual facts of a particular discussion.

Speaking out against a grossly unjustified intrusion from an overbearing stooge is NOT an endorsement for childhood hunger. Nothing in the OP even suggests for an instance that hunger was the issue.

If the issue were what you presume it to be then you would be agreeing with me that this episode allowed perfectly good food to go to waste and made the school unnecessarily feed 1 more child when another child might have been left hungry. Instead, all I see is arguments for "the people must be controlled -- regardless."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #32)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:04 PM

37. One silly lunchlady, does not a big brother suffocating all encompassing intrusion make.

 

PS. I started out a libertarian, and still honor their thoughts on self determination etc. I am not a nanny stater. BUt, it takes a village, and we have been doing a horrendous job of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:30 PM

42. "One silly lunchlady, does not a big brother suffocating all encompassing intrusion make."

Good. Let's nip this in the bud before dumb ideas progress further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:32 PM

43. You dont know what you are being manipulated into asking for.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:40 PM

44. I dated guys in college, I know when I'm being manipulated, thank-you.

There is no connection whatsoever between the desire to provide good lunches to families in need and having food fascists inspecting and denying perfectly good food. It's a false dilemma. If you really believe the former is dependent upon the latter than you are the one trying to manipulate people -- and you're failing miserably. In fact, IMHO benevolence and domineering control are mutually excluding traits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #44)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:42 PM

45. Was that lunchlady instructed to dissallow turkey and cheese? Or was it a mistake?

 

Many of those ladies speak poor english. Most are lucky to have a Hs diploma. Most are well meaning.

That you dont see that you are judging a strawman, based on outragetronic news, leading you to desire to intervene, on a punitive basis, is where I cannot reach you.

God help our teachers, when you attack all of them, for one teacher that makes a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #45)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:56 PM

47. According to what I've read it's because the lunch lacked vegetables per HHS guidelines.

Personally, I think the school will issue a mea culpa and vow to refrain from such oversteps in the future and other schools, not wanting to make similar headlines, will follow suit.

As well they should; and that will be the end of it.

But if anyone argues that the action described in the article is a good and proper function of government I will be happy to argue against such notions. If something is required and is found to be lacking than either the requirement is enforced or it becomes meaningless. It's the enforcement that should make us cringe.

Yes, children *ought* to have vegetables but the idea that we would have food fascists inspecting and denying food *ought* to be abhorrent to a free people. Especially since those insisting they trample our rights are doing so for our own good. Such people NEVER grant assurances about when such intrusions will cease or what limits they would draw. They are implaccable in their self-assured righteousness and they are the worst tyrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #47)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 04:37 PM

51. Here goes. I will analyze.

 

""So to meet those requirements, the child was given chicken nuggets. ""

The childs lunch was supplimented by three chicken nuggets, boiled.

""The agent was inspecting the entire class' lunch boxes that day. ""

Maybe even, the school was teaching nutrition. So, THAT ONE DAY, lunches were checked for complete food groups.

""The state's Department of Health and Human Services requires that all lunches served to pre-kindergarten students -- whether from school or home -- meet USDA meal guidelines of one serving each of meat, milk and grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables.""

Laudable goal. Transparent way to impliment it, controvertial. No budget for those things, an unfunded mandate. So, charge parents, to comply with the laudable goal. Instead, funding for the school lunch program, should be supplimented, to add, at no additional charge, what your sack lunch is missing. And your meal from the cafeteria, also meet those USDA nutritional guidelines.

""It's unclear to state officials why, exactly, the girl's meal was deemed insufficient"

The persons responsible for the guidelines, cant figure out how that lunchlady got it so wrong.

""but Jani Kozlowski, fiscal and statutory policy manager for the Division of Child Development told the Carolina Journal that the meal should have met guidelines.""

Our policy is not responsible for this witch hunt.

"""With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that's the dairy," Kozlowski said. "It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard."""

Let me reiterate, that is NOT our policy.

""The struggle to comply with USDA guidelines in school meals is not new. Celebrity chef and TV personality Jamie Oliver spent years trying to remove flavored milk from school cafeterias. The target: glucose.""

That damn limey should mind his own business.

"" While flavored milk met USDA guidelines for dairy, those recommendations ignore the fact that a carton of flavored milk often contained more sugar than a can of soda.""

They need the energy.

""In the first move of its kind in over 15 years, the government last month announced new guidelines to ensure students are given healthier options for school meals. The new standards call for more whole grains and produce as well as less sodium and fat in school meals.""

No really good change, is simple to impliment, on a grand scale. There is a learning curve.

""While the measures mark a step forward from previous years, they still compromise amid push-back from Congress to keep pizza and french fries on the menu -- counting both the tomato paste on pizza and the potatoes that make fries as vegetables. ""

Screw it. Then you make them eat that rabbit food.

"" Even with the researchers' low-cost idea, schools still face costly issues. For school districts to comply with new federal regulations that bring in fresh fruits and vegetables, they have seen a rise in prices,""

Like I said, an unfunded mandate, dumped on undereducated folks, to deal with, or face harsh rhetoric, about they being the enemy.

This is a strawman argument, just like any odd internet spam heart tug story, meant to manipulate you into actions against the scapegoat, or scapegoats. This time, being the lunchladies, that are not paid well, work five days a week, four hours a day, requiring they all have multiple jobs. They have families, and usually have most of their resume, that school or in the school system. They are saddled with perfect upbringing of our children, in the absence of our giving a shit as a society. Or paying for it. Hell, lets have another lottery. That will take care of shit.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 04:48 PM

52. Unless there is probable cause of neglect why is there even a lunch inspection?

Spare me the "laudable goal" talking point. Trampling on people is never a laudable goal. There is no "unless we think its good for you" exception to the Bill of Rights and the concept of human dignity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #52)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 04:59 PM

55. Screw your idea about the noble savage. Kids dont bring themselves up.

 

They must be taught to like veggies. they need to be taught good habits. If their parents dont, or dont know how, you would deprive them of that knowledge altogether? Bogus I say. These are pre school children. Not lord of the flies hippy commune kids.

You wish to deprive those that wouldnt otherwise get proper information and guidance their due. I call that cruel. I call it, you are on your own. Sink or swim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #55)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:27 PM

65. Please show how there was any indication of child neglect

You congratulating yourself on being so concerned for the benighted masses is not an excuse for you to barge into other people's lives. There is no indication of the child be neglected. Butt-out and mind your own business or run for Pope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 07:05 PM

77. Last time I checked, chicken nuggets aren't veggies

and that was the only group under-represented in the child's original lunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WolverineDG (Reply #77)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 12:38 AM

114. How this is overlooked, I can't guess other than willful misdirection.

The zeal to acclimate the kiddies to routine inspections of even the most mundane things, like lunch.

Afterall, Big Brother only has our best interest at heart. Submission is health, submission is security, submission is happiness.

What we should be doing if we were no afflicted with fear and loathing that somebody might be getting over and compulsive taxitis, we'd provide each and every child with a nutritious lunch instead of coming up with some absurd inspection system that charges back to the family for chicken nuggets to augment a fruit and vegetable portion.

An incompetent Big Brother is stunningly galling. You have someone doing a nutrition inspection that subs chicken nuggets for produce???? C'mon man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #45)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 04:58 PM

54. are you serious?

you do realize you are stereotyping cafeteria workers, don't you? my older cousin worked in a school cafeteria. she graduated from, high school, spoke english and owned her own home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:01 PM

56. My mom manages one, and has worked in many.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #56)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:14 PM

61. i get your point...it is a low-paying job

not likely to attract people who have a higher education or other skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #45)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:32 PM

68. That's the point...

 

... what she did was within the bounds of the system as it stands.

The fact that the rules in place allow for such a stupid and invasive situation is the problem. Not folks picking on some poor minimum wage lunch lady.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:14 AM

87. i would have dared you to call my wife "One silly lunchlady"

I also would have advised you to duck, since she could swing a mean left hook.
She spent 32 years providing food at a shelter for abused/homeless kids and she was quite well aware of all the USDA requirements. She had to balance nutritional guidelines with special diets, restrictions because of medications, etc. and keep track of all this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 04:21 PM

49. I ate ham and cheese sandwiches with mustard

nearly every day in first grade. I was neither hyperactive, ADD and still don't have heart disease decades later.

I think the assumption that it's the food causing these issues is a little obtuse. I'm leaning more to the idea of pollution, pesticides and environmental factors instead of "turkey and cheese" sandwiches. If turkey and cheese sandwiches are bad, just how good for you do you think chicken nuggets are? They are fried and made of processed chicken. Is your argument REALLY that fried chicken nuggets promote a healthy heart better than a turkey sandwich?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #49)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 04:50 PM

53. Just admit Fox told you to hate poor kids eating school lunch.

<--- in case it's needed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 11:03 PM

82. LOL

"Cast that Turkey on Wheat and your apple aside! If you want to prevent heart disease rush to the nearest McDonald's for some Chicken McNuggets goodness!"

Honestly? There were days I *wished* my mother would have let me eat from the cafeteria. There are only so many days in a row you can face ham. One year my father got a 26Lbs ham at Thanksgiving for the 4 of us. My word. Ham for breakfast. Ham sandwich at lunch. Guess what was for dinner? Yep more ham. We finally finished that huge thing about 3 days before the Christmas holiday.

I wanted to weep at Christmas because guess what he brought home? Yep . Another huge freakin' ham. To this day I can only eat ham and bacon sparingly because I think we ate ham every meal for 2 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:08 AM

86. You should have told them you converted to Judaism.

No ham and they have the best stand-up comics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #86)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:41 PM

105. I live in the south

and I know they were just trying to make ends meet.

I still cringe, however when I see a humongous ham. Sorry, I know why it happened, but as a kid? 60 days of nothing but ham could kill anybody on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #27)


Response to WingDinger (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:39 AM

84. There was nothing wrong with that lunch n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:11 PM

15. I think the "inspector"

didn't much care for the federal guidelines, was being an arse about the lunch. I mean if the child didn't meet the guidelines, it wasn't the meat, it was the vegetable. I think he's mocking the guidelines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newspeak (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:31 PM

22. If that is the case then their genius is to be applauded for

creating such a hue and cry as to force light on to this insanity.

Sometimes the best way to defeat a foe is to give them what they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 02:15 PM

30. If that is your definition of genius, then this publication is for you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 02:50 PM

33. Where in the OP was there any evidence of the child being left hungry?

Please stop presuming you can/should micromanage the lives of decent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:17 PM

40. This is an attack against school lunch programs, by the same kind of outrage news as Faux.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:29 PM

41. Don't be absurd. This is an attack against meddling busybodies.

If you're worried meddling busybodies will be used as an attack against school lunches then be sure to tell the meddling busybodies to stop meddling. People worried about powder kegs shouldn't play with matches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:37 PM

2. Something about this story sounds like B.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:44 PM

7. I agree, or just a very stupid school district.

Edit: This is HuffPo, so I could almost guarantee this story is at least a bit stretched.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:46 PM

8. Agreed.

I would like to see more of a backstory for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:02 AM

102. I agree

The lunch was fine. I have problems with the idea that chicken nuggets are in any way a good alternative or a healthy supplement to what was in that bag. No vegetable? Seriously? I don't eat vegetables at every meal.

If that had happened to my kid I would have raised holy hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mz Pip (Reply #102)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:20 AM

103. I'm saying that I don't think it happened

or, if it did, not in the way implied in the headline and "article".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:37 PM

3. Low fat boiled nuggets to be exact

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skink (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:49 PM

25. urp!

Sometimes anorexia is not an absolute evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:39 PM

4. Carolina journal is right wing pub put out bt Art Pope

He is trying to take over north Carolina and make it red. Probably sees this as a way of getting to Michelle obama's new program.


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sammytko (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:07 PM

38. Not just that...

It wouldn't surprise me if this "state inspector" did that purposely, just to make the federal government look bad. People see "inspector" and "USDA", and they think the the US government is the guilty party here, not the state of North Carolina. And, I can't help but think that was the whole purpose of this incident. This will come off as "the federal government overreach" AND "Michelle Obama wants to control what you feed your kids".

People inspecting lunches kids brought from home??? WTF??? I have never heard of such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 12:41 PM

5. As there is an attack on feeding the poor, so there is an attack on feeding the poor children.

 

Using a single instance of a lunchlady{agent}, mistaking the requirements of a well meaning edict, to eliminate the school lunch programs, or eliminate the FLOTUSes focus on improving kids nutrician, is right wing propaganda.

One in five kids suffers food insecurity. Many kids are now homeless. So, of course, push home schooling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:09 PM

59. i see your point now

and i agree with you re: rw propaganda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

16. Geez. Can we ask for a little critical thinking here?

A story written by a rightwingnut columnist for a rightwingnut online journal about an anonymous parent's account of her 4-year old's lunch time. yeah, sure. It must be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

17. Seriously???

If my lunch had been subject to "inspection", and I then had chicken nuggets (whatever kind of who-knows-what meat they may be) forced upon me, I would have been outraged. As would my parents. What was wrong with the turkey and cheese sandwich, exactly? And then to be billed for the items- even worse!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:22 PM

19. My son would have gotten ill from the chemical laden "nuggets". Although today he does not get as

sick, he still experiences stomach upset and bowel problems from chemically laden food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:25 PM

20. this "inspector" reminds me of the lunchlady at my elementary school

She would go ballistic if a kid brought something other than a sandwich for lunch (this was the 80s) and make you buy lunch if you did not have a sandwich.

Kids are picky enough eaters instead, and I would consider this child's lunch adequate for the guidelines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:29 PM

21. Deep fried pink sludge is healthier than a sandwich?

seriously? I could see them taking away the potato chips and giving him some celery sticks instead but giving the poor kid chlorine based pink sludge deep fried in genetically modified oil instead of his sandwich is beyond disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arikara (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 02:30 PM

31. You can "see" confiscating the kid's chips?

 

That's a bit heavy-handed, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:22 PM

64. Oh. Is that what I said?

Do you "live" under a bridge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arikara (Reply #64)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:32 PM

75. Yes. You did.

 

Do you "live" under a bridge?

Hey, I'm not the one advocating that an agent of The State inspect a child's homemade lunch, find it wanting, confiscate a portion of it, and replace it with State-approved celery sticks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #75)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 08:26 PM

80. You are the one that didnt read the story.

 

Noone confiscated anything. They gave three Mcnuggets, boiled.

Agent of the STATE, OOOOuu, Scary. Lunchlady.

STATE INDOCTRINATION SPECIALIST= teacher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #80)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:00 AM

85. On the contrary; it appears you didn't read my post.

 

Noone confiscated anything. They gave three Mcnuggets, boiled.

I never asserted that anyone confiscated anything. In post #21, it was stated: I could see them taking away the potato chips and giving him some celery sticks

To which I replied: You can "see" confiscating the kid's chips? That's a bit heavy-handed, yes?

Obviously, the "you" in question is the poster, not the OP or the subject of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #75)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 02:36 PM

108. I should not have responded the first time as I rarely respond when I'm annoyed

people do have bad days, and its easy to misinterpret someone's post, so I actually checked back to apologize. But as you clearly want to keep it going I took a look back at a few of your previous posts and I see its a game for you.

I see no reason to further engage with someone who digs at people for fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arikara (Reply #108)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 04:05 PM

109. Given that you seem to be annoyed right now, why did you just respond?

 

people do have bad days, and its easy to misinterpret someone's post, so I actually checked back to apologize. But as you clearly want to keep it going I took a look back at a few of your previous posts and I see its a game for you.

I've been posting on the internet since the days of usenet newsgroups back in the '80s. Trust me, this is a game for just about everybody.

I see no reason to further engage with someone who digs at people for fun.

But you need see a reason to post a non-apology? M'kay...

BTW, I'm not "digging at people", I'm simply responding to (and in some cases taking apart) the arguments of anonymous posters. It is fun, granted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:52 PM

26. This BS reminds me of the rules at the preschool kitchen I worked at.

You had to follow these idiotic rules about what and what does not count as a food group serving set by the state health authorities, even if the resulting meal would actually be WORSE for the kids!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:58 PM

28. Diana Moon Glampers will make sure no child has a lunch that is better than that of any other child

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 02:59 PM

35. I wonder if the substituted chicken nuggets

had bird shot in them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 12:28 AM

112. "...that one was a doozy."

Er, a DUzy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 02:59 PM

36. Sounds like someone's getting kickbacks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:09 PM

39. Indeed, the school lunch programs are also farmer support programs.

 

They help to even out the fluctuations of food pricing. It is part of our food security as a nation. Same as our fiat currency was initially, to help farmers on bad crop years. So as to retain our capacity to feed ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:53 PM

46. I think this is mountain out of molehill

Did some googling and all the new legislation is for either free lunches provided or food sold at schools. There is nothing in it about inspecting lunches brought from home. Nothing in the FDA regulations I can find either. The earlier article referenced in this article is also from huffington post and right in it it says:

"The guidelines apply to lunches subsidized by the federal government. A child nutrition bill..."

I can only conclude either this story is made up or the inspector overstepped his or her bounds. If the FDA directed this inspector to look at food brought from home, then there really is a story here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Southerner (Reply #46)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:59 PM

48. "or the inspector overstepped his or her bounds"

My guess. I also guess this will fizzle once the school cops, "my bad!" No one will want to be the center of this sort of attention for very long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #48)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:17 PM

62. Why do you get off on VAN JONESING?

 

Bring back the public stocks. Curse them witches. commies, socialists, buttinsky's! Rescind my huge government. Taxes are for fascists. BLAHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #62)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:31 PM

67. Calm down, you're panicking because you can't win.

How far would you push this?

Suppose you step up to inspect a child's lunch and the parent steps forward and tells you, "No." The child has no appearance of being harmed or neglected, just the parent telling you to mind your own business. Do you admit you don't have the power to force a non-consenting inspection and there's no cause to assume neglect or do you insist the power to override the parent's wishes be given to you?

What if the parent still refuses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #67)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:47 PM

70. If you are concerned about school indoctrination, you home school, or go parochial/ private.

 

If you really are concerned about those kinds of things, then you have some other agenda. Like radical libertarian. Or flat earth you want to pass on. Otherwise, you do like my parents did. What did you do for school today. Oh, maybe they arent giving you the whole story all today. We'll discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #70)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:54 PM

72. Who said anything about indoctrination?

Where did that even come-up? You keep shifting to non-existent issues.

The issue at hand is: should the government be allowed to FORCE inspections on people and FORCE compliance to standards without probable cause to suspect harm?

Can you answer this simple question? Will you answer this simple question? Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #72)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 08:43 PM

81. Forcing inspection, is to indoctrinate children to eat their veggies. And ensure good nutrition.

 

You think that is unconcionable, and perhaps unconstitutional, and certainly telling parents, they have more power. Right?

Probable cause? Forced compliance? Suspect harm? I smell Ron Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #81)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:26 AM

88. Oh please. Ron Paul is not only a racist ass he's manifestly dangerous

My husband, while admittedly NOT a psychiatric expert is a former combat medic. Needless to say a portion of his training involves looking for people who might exhibit "questionable behaviors." I used to think Ron Paul used to just spout grandpa-isms, you know those relics of bygone eras of illiberal racial views. No, my husband convinced me Ron Paul trucks is so many wild conspiracy theories about money, 9/11, plagues, etc. that are so easily refutable that he is borderline pathological, if not over the line. Ron Paul would be a danger to all Americans, left, right and center. He would impose the troofer equivalent of the Salem witch hunts.

(I hear he also fears non-existent "psyop" campaigns to subvert American political will. Make of that whatever you will.)

But your efforts to dodge the issue at hand are duly noted. You might as well accuse me of having a vagina -- just like Hitler's girlfriend! It betrays the poverty of your arguments.

If saying parents do and should have more power than some school lunch inspector makes me a heretic, then I happily plead guilty. Yes, I embrace the idea that people are free to live their lives as they see fit unless there is sufficient grounds to suspect they will pose a danger to themselves or others. I admit it. I confess it. I will proselytize this at every opportunity. I will celebrate it. This is my god and She is beautiful, gentle and all-embracing.

So what crime would you convict me of committing?

Let me repeat that, just so the Inquisitors understand --

If saying parents do and should have more power than some school lunch inspector makes me a heretic, then I happily plead guilty. Yes, I embrace the idea that people are free to live their lives as they see fit unless there is sufficient grounds to suspect they will pose a danger to themselves or others. I admit it. I confess it. I will proselytize this at every opportunity. I will celebrate it. This is my god and She is beautiful, gentle and all-embracing.

So what crime would you convict me of committing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Southerner (Reply #46)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 04:30 PM

50. More likely Unicorn Mountain. The whole story is a pure fabrication.

Given the original source of the story, the lack of transparency, and the inability to confirm that it ever happened at all, I call "major bullshit" on the whole thing.

It is sad the so many DUers have uncritically accepted this RW fairy tale as true. They're just feeding into the anti-government RW propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #50)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:18 PM

63. You have it down.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:32 PM

69. You say it's a false story but then you demand the power to make it true.

weird

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #69)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:51 PM

71. A manipulative tale usually has some toe in reality. Then uses psyops, to get you to agree.

 

In this case, to scapegoat. the article even goes into the hissyfit house republicans are having over veggies. And you buy right in. I went to these lengths, to showcase that to others. Be careful what you accept as true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:00 PM

73. "psyops"? Seriously?

You accuse people of massive, coordinate "psyops" campaigns.

But others are the ones having the "hissy fit."

Any disagreement is part of the "psyops" campagn.

But others are the ones having the "hissy fit."

Non-existent conversations over "school indoctrination" are trumped-up.

But others are the ones having the "hissy fit."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:32 PM

74. I went line by line, and you still were invested in vengeance, and outrage.

 

Every line exonerated all involved, showing a simple well meaning mistake, that will not be repeated, as it wasnt intended, in the first place. Those railing against ramming things down our throats, or taking over our entire lives, yadda yadda, are tools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:51 PM

76. It's not a psyop.

The school screwed-up and -- as I've said up-thread -- the sooner they admit such a policy was mistakenly understood and/or should never have been enforced, the sooner it will die down. I also said up-thread that such a thing would be satisfactory. It should be accepted and that should put matters to bed. After the outcry I doubt any other school would want to follow suit.

But this mania *you* have for enforcing some unelected, unaccounted doctrine to be enforced without consent of those whom you would presume to instruct.

That's my issue.

That you also cannot even make the case without resorting to paranoid conspiracy theories or implying disagreement equals manipulation or complicity with RW circles is as sad as it is telling. If an innocent mistake drew too much fire from the other side then no good thing can come from giving them additional ammunition. The surest means for dodging the indictment of being a snooping busybody is to leave others in peace and not pile-on one exploitable quote after another about how you personally want lunches to be inspected for whatever you and some celebrity chef deem appropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #76)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 08:02 PM

79. Is this truly a national issue? One lunch lady that didnt understand?

 

And gave three chicken McNuggets? Serious? How high up does it go?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:29 AM

89. Make-up your mind.

You keep saying this is no big deal and that it's all blown out of proportion. Then, in your very next post you denounce as a party heretic, anyone who says the schools shouldn't be allowed to do this.

Which is it already? Quit playing silly rhetorical games and actually focus on making some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #89)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:04 AM

94. It's not about me. It is about the ubiquitous YOU.

 

The libertarian knee jerk stance of nobody better touch my butterfinger. Life would be great, if everyone would just dissapear.

Children are my possessions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #94)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:18 AM

96. Children are not property, they're part of a family.

Spare us the drivel, please.

The whole point behind the fight for gay civil rights is the fact that people are greater than government and when the government interferes with rights then the government, not the people, must yield. Government should protect rights, not define them based on polling percentages or trample them to assuage restless voting blocs.

Does my view on gay marriage seem too "libertarian"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #96)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:39 AM

97. People are NOT greater than government. People ARE government.

 

Pitting the two against each other, is just what I am talking about. In California, the court stepped in, as gay's pursuit of happiness was being screwed with. So is the pursuit of happiness of poor children, suffering from poor nutrition. Same with the other kids, that are interupted, by those twinkie kids bouncing off the walls.

Is it a right of parents to deprive their children of what they cannot afford, or arent privy to? In your zeal to demand warrants, and probable cause, for pre-schoolers, you lose sight of the JOB we have given our schools.

You throw your lot in with those that care about themselves, their OWN children, and friends. Devil may care about the rest.

Negative rights never saved one life. Positive rights are not unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #97)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:45 AM

98. So if the people are government why is the government

constantly pissing off people? Are the people pissing off themselves? Do they have a right to tell themselves to stop pissing themselves off?

Is it a right of parents to deprive their children of what they cannot afford, or arent privy to? In your zeal to demand warrants, and probable cause, for pre-schoolers, you lose sight of the JOB we have given our schools.


Why do you have such a hard time with probable cause? You do understand that's part of the constitution, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #98)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:51 AM

99. The reason why Gov keeps pissing off people is:

 

There is no one monolithic construct, the people. They are constituencies. There is provincialism, red states, blue states, urban, rural, men, women, all battling for supremacy. All thinking their concerns are paramount.

Democracy was invented to stop warfare being ones vote. Thee Republic part, is where we have representatives to convey our vote.

Teaching pre-schoolers to be militant, anti-authority demanders of probable cause, will perpetuate them in thinking also, that Gov is the enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #99)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:21 AM

104. I'm totally on-board with the first 2 paragraphs

I think the 3rd is a non-sequitor.

Either the government interferes where it is not wanted/needed or it yields to those it presumes to govern. To say "here and no further" is not the same as advocating anti-government sentitment anymore than libertarians make the mistake of claiming actual nutrition assistance (NA) is "unconstitutional." We provide NA to keep people from suffering malnutrition, the same as we would ration rubber, iron etc during time of war. However, and I think you would agree, we don't provide NA just so someone can have a leisurely lunch at a NY-style deli. We use government to affect social order (as you correctly noted) and guard against calamity (I assume you agree).

But at the end of the day the people are the final arbiters. If some agency steps in and imposes a solution, the people ought to be free enough to say there is neither strife nor calamity that necessitates the government's intercession. This is not a call to anarchy or a threat to government anymore than turning away door-to-door Bible salesmen is a repudiation of free moral conscience. I would say it is an actual defense of free moral conscience. However, if the salesman forces his foot past the threshold of the door free moral conscience is in jeopardy because of the unwanted, unwarranted intrusion. He must be rebuffed to defend the freedom he would presume to impose. His pleadings of, "but your neighbors invited me in" or "my religious liberty is threatened by your refusal" or "salvation is good for you" or "only sinners refuse" are not only irrelevant but self-contradicting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:10 PM

60. Potato chips are deemed junk food in certain schools

 

and for this reason, they don't allow kids to brown bag it. The parents were including too much junk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 05:28 PM

66. And don't forget a tall, cool glass of Brawndo to wash 'em down with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 07:42 PM

78. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:14 AM

83. You know, I'm really wondering...

If said "turkey and cheese sandwich" was one or two slices of Carl Buddig meat (the "deli style" meat that's literally thin enough to read through) and half of a Walmart pasteurized process cheese food slice on one piece of bread cut in half because the family is so poor they can't afford anything else--and since West Hoke Elementary is in Raeford, where poverty runs rampant, it's possible--then the inspector was thoroughly justified in giving the kid more food.

Most of us, when we see the words "homemade turkey and cheese sandwich," are thinking of this food item made with thick, luxurious slices of Thanksgiving leftovers but in reality, since all we have is the word of this far-right rag, we have no fucking idea what we're really dealing with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #83)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:37 AM

90. Exactly. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #83)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:59 AM

101. Half a sandwich isn't an unreasonable amount of food for a preschooler.

When my kid was a preschooler, a typical lunch was half a sandwich, apple slices, and carrot sticks. Her preschool provided milk. When she moved up to elementary school, she bought milk at school for a while but really didn't like going through the line just to buy milk, so we always include yogurt in her lunch, in addition to the cheese that's on her sandwich/salad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gkhouston (Reply #101)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:51 PM

110. Half a sandwich with almost no meat in it is a different story

According to http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/body/foodsmarts/article3.html a serving of meat for a child is one ounce of product. If the kid showed up at school with a quarter-ounce of meat on his/her sandwich, that's a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #110)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 12:17 AM

111. Yes, but that's still an "if". On CNN this morning, they said the problem was no milk

in her lunch and nothing was said about the sandwich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:39 AM

91. The worst thing is, I read somewhere what nuggets and other ground up chicken "patties"

are made of, (eyes and all). That was enough for me. I'm not making the claim that it's true. I have no way of knowing.

But I would think the (allegedly sliced) turkey would be better than some "mystery meat". At least you know what you're getting.

On the other hand, I don't get from the article that the food brought from home was taken away from the child. See, 'the school "must provide additional food necessary'.

In any case, this nutrition thing is out of control In our local school district you can't get salt for your baked potato, but the kids are served pizza. How much sodium do you suppose is in that?

And, all bottled drinks are now "diet". Just my humble opinion, but I think sugar substitutes will kill you quicker than pure sugar. I don't drink that diet stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #91)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 02:31 PM

107. Hop on youtube

and do a search for "making chicken nuggets". I made it through 45 seconds of the video before I had to stop.
They were doing it as a satire of "How do they make that". Here's a recap:
The chickens are raised on a farm and the biggest ones are selected. They are thrown feet first into a pulverizer, where the entire bird is chopped up, until the bones are no longer noticeable. The resulting chum is...
I'm sorry. My fingers are not allowing me to type any more. If you ever want to go to McDonald's again, don't look up the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:42 AM

92. For all of you ranting that THIS lunch was a good lunch, so the requirements are stupid

and invasive and 'its Big Brother all over again'...Did you stop to think that the edict for inspecting the lunches of ALL children wasn't designed to pick up THIS lunch? How many kids came to school with barely any food, or unhealthy food that had their inadequate meals supplemented did this right wing 'magazine' fail to mention?

They didn't take the kid's lunch away, they added some protein. The end. And the post at #83 makes a VERY good point. Not all turkey and cheese sandwiches are alike.

This requirement is designed to fill in the gaps for poor kids whose parents supply them with inadequate lunches. My god, those bastards!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #92)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:46 AM

93. Apparently the original sack lunch was sent home uneaten.

So there was no supplementing of a presumably inadequate lunch, there was an outright replacement -- of boiled nuggets, no less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #93)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:14 AM

95. Is there another article that you got that information from? Cause what I read...

didn't specifically say that. It IMPLIED it. Also included in the article was the outline for the program which was as follows: "The regulations also state that if meals or snacks brought from home do not meet nutritional requirements outlined in the "Meal Patterns for Children in Child Care," the school "must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.""

Obviously it is the intention of the program to SUPPLEMENT inadequate lunches brought from home. As the poster who argued with you AT LENGTH upthread tried to point out, just because as single cafeteria worker out of the entire state of NC made a mistake, that doesn't mean this is a terrible program. And we are all, again, ASSUMING that the inspector made a mistake. As the poster said in post #83, if the 'turkey and cheese' sandwich consisted of a slice of Buddig turkey, a half a slice of processed cheese goop on Bunny bread, it didn't meet the criteria of a healthy lunch.

Children's BRAINS don't function optimally without proper nutrition. And without proper nutrition they run the risk of developmental setbacks, etc. Why would anyone object to an effort to insure that ALL children, even those from families who don't understand proper nutrition, eat a healthy lunch at school?

Oh, that's right. I forgot. It's the damned gubbermint telling us what to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:54 AM

100. CNN ran this today. Claim is now that the kid was sent through the lunch line to buy milk.

Unclear as to why/how/if "buy milk" became "buy a school lunch".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 02:07 PM

106. The folks on Tea Party Patriots

are blaming Obama for this and of course had to throw in some attack on Michelle Obama, too.

I think this whole incident was stupid but I certainly don't blame Obama for it. North Carolina is hardly a bastion of government gone nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 12:28 AM

113. So a 4 year old told her mom her lunch was thrown out and she HAD TO eat chicken nuggets

Sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread