Posted on 02/27/2012 3:40:11 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
President and Mrs. Obama seem to be terrific parents and should be commended for the steps they have taken to improve the health and well-being of America's kids. Back in December 2010, President Obama signed the "Healthy, Hunger Free Children Act" into law, and in January 2012, the First Lady, in partnership with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, unveiled a set of new school meal standards, they claim "will improve the health and well-being of 32 million kids nationwide."
As I understand it, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) food consumption guidelines are based on net daily consumption, and school lunch recommendations are designed to enhance an already healthy diet consisting of two additional balanced meals and healthy in-between meal snacks.
Every child is unique. Johnny may prefer his milk at breakfast and dinner rather than at lunch, while Susie may prefer yogurt in lieu of milk. Joshua may hate vegetables, so his Mom sneaks them in by serving veggie burgers at dinner.
Enter: An unnamed (for her protection) 4-year old North Carolinian girl whose "mom packed" lunch consisting of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice was apparently deemed unacceptable according to USDA nutrition guidelines and was given a whole school cafeteria lunch to supplement the already plentiful lunch — by someone I affectionately call "Mr. Tubby." The effort backfired when, according to the John W. Pope Civitas Institute, "the girl was so intimidated by the inspection process" she only ate the supplemental chicken nuggets."
At the time of this writing, the circumstances surrounding the incident have all the makings of a "whodunit." The Carolina Journal said the alleged "inspector" was a "state agent," others said it was a "state inspector," and some school officials say the teacher was to blame. I just got off the phone with District 46 Representative G.L. Pridgen, who said he was still caught in the crossfire of information in an effort to assist the girl's parents.
When it comes right down to it, "whodunit" doesn't matter as much as why "whodunit" did it. Most likely, the USDA did not send an inspector to pick through sack lunches. Furthermore, it is admirable that the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services has rules requiring all pre-K programs serve nutritious meals according to USDA standards -- but those guidelines and suggestions should end where the role of the parent begins.
It is as if some of those in leadership genuinely believe they know better than we do what is best for our kids. They don't. With that in mind, it is reasonable to assume that USDA-recommended lunches served by schools may or may not be healthy -- simply because officials haven't a clue what kids consume before and after school. Giving a child a school meal that was designed as a prototypical meal for the general population could, in reality, be a recipe for obesity based on an individual's overall eating habits.
Inspector Tubby's actions should serve to remind us how well-meaning rules or guidelines become grotesquely out-of-whack when the government sees fit to meddle in matters deemed personal. What was meant to help us hurts us when the government casts out a rule "for the greater good" and individuals get swallowed-up in the process.
A guideline is only as effective as its implementation. If there are other "Inspector Tubbys" out there doing the implementing, the well-meaning USDA guidelines the First Lady created to "improve the health and well-being of 32 million kids nationwide" could do the opposite to facilitate rather than impede childhood obesity.
Processed chicken fingers: better than a turkey sandwich, according to the food police.
Nanny State PING!
Lost me after the first sentence — but definitely lost me after the first paragraph.
George H. W. Bush:
``I do not like broccoli.
And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid
and my mother made me eat it.
And I'm President of the United States``
My kid is 24 and the only “veggies” he eats is iceberg lettuce and broccoli w/ cheese sauce.
I tried...believe me I tried...the nanny state can go to h@!!.
“Inspector Tubby’s actions ...”
Inspector Tubby should be fired for his actions. In a liberal world he/she has done irreperable psychological harm to this child and the parents should sue the pants off the agency that sent this know it all out to terrorize children.
What happened in this country that the wife of the president has power to do anything about what kids eat?
I remember that so well.
and the libs went bonkers, doing the monkey hyena dance liberals do, squawking that the President had no right to put down broccoli, that broccoli was people too.
Bush actually had to apologize to the association of broccoli growers or some such and it was just absurd.
The Repubs, then as now, sat silent and nodded in agreement that they do not anger the broccoli lovers of the world.
What is the end to which we want to apply scientifically gained knowledge of nutrition and health? That answered, what are the means we will employ?
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 of being in which the individual’s choices are limited by others to a range calculated by them most likely to result in that state of being, the general state of society then an expression of coerced individual actions?
The latter end is characteristic of family (both nuclear and extended), of tribalism (the mythologized extended family), of socialism (re-mythologized tribalism in a suit), and of totalitarianism (demythologized socialism with guns). All consist in the individual being forced by others using various means into behavior that will be1) for his own good later in life (the family),While this is universally seen as appropriate within the child/family relationship for developmental reasons, its application to society at large by some group within that society, or by one society to another, has been the cause of most social ferment throughout history.
2) for society’s good (tribalism/socialism), or
3) for the good of the individuals in control of the society (totalitarianism).
Some health professionals seem to believe that the government should sponsor their efforts to counter the self-interested efforts of others (nutrition and diet quacks for example) because they are right and the others are wrong, because they are altruistic and the others are not. It may be true that they are factually correct and genuinely altruistic, and that what they wish to do will have a beneficial effect on many people, but it doesn’t follow necessarily that the government should fund them.
This is a manifestation of a widespread phenomenon brought about by the advent of the secularized state. Instead of viewing the state as a limited means to a limited end, the tendency has been to imbue it, a temporal entity, with the attributes of a transcendent final judgment in which all injustices and inequalities are finally rectified. In this way, the secular state has been categorically, though not personally, deified and expected to act accordingly (something of a diffuse divine right of kings).
This is seen in those who believe the necessary response to a social ill is the passage of a law, especially a federal law, and the enactment of a program, especially one that they can devise and administrate (and that not necessarily for cynical reasons). Those who feel they are on the side of right, certain they aren’t acting against society’s interest, often appeal to the State to aid them in their struggle against evil. Since the spirit of the secular state is money and power, they ask to be endowed accordingly. It’s pathetically naive and dangerous.
We were fortunate to have large gardens when the kids were small.
We all “worked” in the garden and there was a lot of excitment about the development of the veggies. They were proud of being able to grow lettuce, tomatoes, carrots, peas and corn, etc. and tickled when they were finally ready to pick.
I had no rules about how many they picked should go into the basket and how much got eaten in the garden as they picked. A lot got eaten before it hit the basket. It made a huge difference in their perception of eating veggies. They know the difference between home grown and store bought.
I do not want the government taking over people’s children’s meals!
Who the hell wrote this article?
1. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the executive office has any business telling us what to eat . . . and certainly not the so-called president's wife.
2. All one has to do is look at the size of Mooch-elle's butt, and you kinda' wonder does she ever look in the mirror . . . or are they all in the idiot's room in front of his prayer rug.
This woman is huge and fat. I can't believe she's not embarrassed by her size.
Everyone who knows me knows that I’m a SAHM with little ones. We homeschool. I do not do drugs. It’s been many months since I had a sip of alcohol. I really couldn’t tell you when it was, but would have to say “at least’ months because I can’t actually remember.
So, this may sound odd coming from someone like me, but consider this:
If the government has the right to tell you what to put in your body, like drugs, or alcohol, then it has the right to tell you what to put in your body as far as food.
If the government knows best in one instance, it makes total sense for it to know best in others.
I would argue that the government does not know best and that we shouldn’t have a drug war. Many of my fellow conservatives disagree to the point where they will say that anyone who disagrees must be a doper. They are wrong, of course.
Know that this is the result of giving the government power in other areas, like drugs, and alcohol and education, and medicine, and so on. Know that screaming, “But drugs are different”, doesn’t make a difference once your power is gone.
If you give the government power, it will always take it. You will not always have the ability to get it back as easily as you gave it. It will often be abused.
“Just say no”, was the slogan.
First it was drugs.
Now it is fatty foods.
Both have been programs kicked off by first ladies. Both have turned into massive, invasive federal monsters.
Michelle Lets Governors Gorge on 2,000 Calorie Dinner
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/02/27/michelle-governors-gorge-2000-calories/
For decades the government schools - in conjunction with the tag-team media - have had a free hand in filling children’s minds with progaganda and all other manner of false and toxic teachings. After turning generations of young skulls to mush, the same entity has aggressively moved to attack developing physical bodies.
We already know how relentless is the assault upon able-bodied adults, how much moreso is the attack upon innocent and easily-intimidated children? These predators brazenly work their evil in broad daylight.
The populace has already been conditioned via the demonization of real food (eggs, butter, beef), the savior of working families aka any school lunch program (surely devised in the pit of hell) and the absolute garbage masquerading as food available on grocery store shelves. I suspect that the worst offerings are those products labeled “heart healthy” or plastered with some other government-approved marketing slogan.
It’s not the healthy people who crave Obamacare and socialized everything, but the sick. Sugardaddy government, indeed.
This “Healthy, Hunger Free Children Act” and whatever overlapping USDA partnerships are nothing but perverse euphemisms for more fascist Beelzobama-inspired policies.
Same here. It is not the government’s business.
You may very well be correct. All that "heart-healthy" wheat food is apparently helping to make us fat and sick.
Ha, I saw that book on the bookstore shelf but didn't venture too close... I thought it was one of those lose-weight-with-toxic-er-healthy-whole-grains, lol.
The gluten issue aside, the chemical cocktails in a lot of these products ought to wave a zillion red flags. Frankenfood isn't just served by Little Debbie. How about a serving of fungicides with that healthy whole wheat bread, yummmmm...
Thanks for the ping!
“It is as if some of those in leadership genuinely believe they know better than we do what is best for our kids.”
This is an example of the problem with the GOP today. They fail to realize that this is stage 1 thinking. It isn’t that the nanny staters think that they know better than we do how to raise our children. It IS that they think they know better than EVERYONE else how to run EVERYONE’s lives.
They are only using the children as a stepping stone to control every aspect of everyone’s lives.
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.