Yup. The Federal Gubmint is responsible for EVERYTHING. More wagyu beef please!
Posted on 12/19/2010 5:51:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In remarks made yesterday during the signing of Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, First Lady Michelle Obama regarding deciding what children ought to eat, “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.” She went on to say:
I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.
First off, yes we can just leave it up to the parents. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible. They alone should decide what children should eat. If they are not happy with what their children eat at school there are alternatives. While I don’t disagree that school lunches could be more nutritious – this isn’t a proper role for the federal government. If local school boards want to make these changes great. Again, this isn’t a responsibility of the federal government and it certainly isn’t a national security issue.
This act takes us one step closer to becoming a nanny state as the federal government now has the authority to regulate food at school. But, let’s remember, it’s “for the children” so it must be ok.
You can watch Mrs. Obama’s statement below:
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Parents, not the government, should decide what their children should eat and any nutritional value derived therefrom.
These kinds of matters should be individual choices, not a government decree.
“We can’t just leave it up to the parents.”
Go F yourself,,
I don’t want a Wookie hanging out in the Larder.
At times it appears the temptation is to think that if it’s left up to others to make choices about their health, they won’t make the right ones; and because the experts' or policy makers' knowledge is so valuable, or of such potential benefit, or the situation is so critical, the decision must be made for them.
For one reason or another, this mindset is oblivious to the fact that a fact (the descriptive) cannot lead directly to a command (the imperative). It is always mediated through the idea of what one ought to do (the prescriptive). Such an idea is the product of individual judgment.
The difference between a society existing in a state of liberty or in what, throughout most of history, appears to be its default mode is persuasion of the individual judgment by knowledge and example (accomplished in the context of limited proscriptive law) vs. coercion of individual will by force or by its threatened use (from “Your money or your life”--the Highwayman to “The American people are going to get a health care bill whether they want one or not”--Senator Rockefeller).
In the broadest terms, is the end to be a state of knowledge in which the individual is able to understand the possible consequences of his behavior and is then free to choose according to his own desires and goals, the general state of society then an amalgam of informed individual choices? Or is the end to be a state in which the individual’s choices are limited by others to a range calculated by them most likely to result in what they think should occur, the general state of society then an expression of coerced individual actions?
Among some, the attitude seems to be “We know so much now, but people don’t care or won’t listen or aren’t changing fast enough. What can we do to change things now?" The yearning appears to be for some universal remedy. This may be “nice”, but is hardly practicable, let alone even conceivable. It would require an understanding of life and society beyond the capability of any individual or group. Universalist approaches in the realm of economics and government have proved uniformly disastrous.
I am from a family of 14 children & our Mother made sure we did not leave the house without breakfast or a sack lunch. I have witnessed the welfare program of making sure there is breakfast & lunch for the children of lazy parents or mothers. These kids were also without coats, gloves or hats for the cold weather in Colorado. So much for the parents or single parents on taking care of their children. There is no way that I am going to let this black administration take what I have put aside for my children to be put in the pot of wealth distribution. The people of MA better get it on & kick this type of crap out of office.
I’m tee’d off at Barney Frank going after the inheritance.
I’m tee’d off at Barney Frank going after the inheritance.
no one has noticed the connection between this blather and the food nazi bill?
If they dont like what they are Eating at School then they can Give them a Lunch to take. That does Not cost the Government a Dime. That is what this is all about,More Government contracts to Corporations who make Fortunes off the Kids who Dont eat the Crap that tax payers are ripped off for. My Daughter is a Teacher and she sees it everyday,BIG WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS ,just another Government Feel Good Boondoggle
That would require actual parenting. Something today’s modern “parent” is not willing to do. The family court laws have become steadily more invasive into family life. Parents are no longer allowed to discipline their children as all instruction is considered “child abuse.” Most parents just free range their children and pop them on ADHD meds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.