Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's next? Collecting stool samples to make sure all is well? These little authoritarians should mind their own buisness...If some people are to dumb to eat well...or to poor...then attack the corporations that invented and conditioned the populace to eat gargage - go to the source...not the consumer.
Last edited by CaseyB; 02-17-2012 at 05:40 AM..
Reason: language
In other words, "It doesn't amtter if it's true as long as it fits in with my tinfoil hat view of the world as presented to me by Faux News and RWNJ chain emails.
Oooh, "Faux News", what an edgy thing to say! The implication being that the person in question gets his ideas and thoughts fed to him by a certain media outlet. However, the lame retort "Faux News" is just another silly one-liner fed by other media outlets, lol!
Oooh, "Faux News", what an edgy thing to say! The implication being that the person in question gets his ideas and thoughts fed to him by a certain media outlet. However, the lame retort "Faux News" is just another silly one-liner fed by other media outlets, lol!
Oh the irony!
What's ironic about it? We all know that Faux News has no integrity. Every single one of the big names has one thing in mind, namely to keep screaming that the sky is falling so they can sell their books.
This is a fine example right here.
Start with a poorly researched story where the facts are lacking.
Blow it up into a commentary on national policy.
Implicate Michele Obama, who had NOTHING to do with it.
Nothing in the revised story really changes anything.
The person inspecting the lunches was a North Carolina Education Staff Member conducting a review of the child care center i.e. an "agent of the State"
The original story never said the mother was charged for the lunch; only that a note sent home said she could be charged. Still true, apparently.
The fact that the child's homemade lunch was not technically "replaced" but "supplemented" is really semantics. The child apparently came home with her entire homemade lunch uneaten, having eaten only 3 supplemented chicken nuggets instead. Sounds like, perhaps, in the child's mind, her homemade lunch had been "replaced" to the extent that she didn't feel comfortable eating any of it.
This whole story, modified a bit to sound slightly less intrusive, still points out the problem with beauracracy. The USDA sets a nutritional standard that the State says must be enforced at the licensed preschools not just for the food the school provides but for lunches brought from home and that the parents can be charged for any food the school deems needs supplementing in that child's personal lunch. As in this case, the parent's choice of a healthy lunch differed from the school's choice and many would argue was superior; i.e., a turkey sandwich on whole grain bread vs. chicken nuggets. A teacher (who was 'nervous' due to the State Inspection) admittedly "mishandled" the situation. A decision was made to usurp the parent's authority and supplement the child's lunch with the arguably less nutritious school food, which the parent 'could' have been charged for. Yes, the school apologized. No, the parent won't be charged. But, the point is that this whole Statist/Nanny program exists in the first place and is just ripe for mismanagement/abuse/waste. Some schools won't even allow the kids to bring lunches from home apparently trying to avoid the risk of not having the child's lunch deemed nutritious enough should a State Inspector make an unannounced visit.
On the school's lunch menu for Wednesday was fish sticks, which I presume met the 'technical' requirements for a USDA nutritious meal containing 'meat.'
Nothing changed?? How about the first statement which reveals that the guy was from the state and not the federal government?
But you do understand that this IS a federal program? It is implemented federally but managed by the state with federal oversite.
It makes no sense why you guys are trying to play as though this never happened. It is quite comical really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
