20 thoughts on “The Toxic Totalitarian Nanny State”
Well, the school made the mom pay for it! There’s your problem. It was $1.25. It would be so much better if the school substituted the home lunch with a free lunch.
It would help if your facts were right. Per additional reporting summarized here, what actually happened was that:
in no circumstance was this child – or any child, for that matter – being forced to eat the school-provided lunch, nor was this child -or any other child – deprived of her boxed lunch. Instead, as the second linked story acknowledges, the child was just provided with additional food and given the option to consume that in addition to her boxed lunch. In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.
Moreover, the child’s parent signed up for this program.
In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.
Assistant Superintendant Bob Barnes said the official didn’t tell the child she had to replace her lunch with chicken nuggets. Instead, they told her she had to go through the line and get some milk – per federal guidelines – and she misunderstood and replaced her entire lunch.
“I think that the child became confused about what she had to do. I think the child, instead of going over and picking up the milk, I think the child, for whatever reason, thought she had to go through the line and get a school meal which, that’s not our policy,” said Barnes.
Since when does the federal government have the authority to make kids drink milk?
Of course, most people accept the government’s authority to mandate vaccinations, so at this point, we’re really just negotiating price.
There are externalities involved with vaccinations that don’t apply with nutrition. Your kid’s not going to get sick because someone else’s kid didn’t drink milk.
It doesn’t. It does have the authority to make sure kids whose parents have signed them up for a special nutrition program are offered milk.
You may be able to make the case for “externalities” for some vaccinations (though it’s a lot weaker than you think), but not all; Hep-B and Gardisil immediately spring to mind.
In any case, once you accept the premise that the government can force you to do things you like to kids in the name of public health, you’ve accepted that they can force you to do other things that you may not like. IOW, we’ve established what you are, now we’re just negotiating price.
It doesn’t. It does have the authority to make sure kids whose parents have signed them up for a special nutrition program are offered milk.
I agree that the federal government apparently has that authority for some bizarre reason, but the federal government shouldn’t have that authority.
This doesn’t help your case.
Blaming the kid for the actions of the federal employee doesn’t cut it. The responsibility lies with the people who told the kid what to eat. These people didn’t check to see if she ate either meal or drank any milk.
Who are we to believe the kid who says she was told not to eat her lunch or the adult covering their ass?
Not only was there government intrusion where there shouldn’t have been but there was poor communication, poor implementation, and a lack of oversight.
This is a 4 year-old. Why didn’t the official just bring her a container of milk? Because that would have been the most sensible thing to do in dealing with a child of that age.
They were trying to teach her how bureaucracy “works.” They succeeded.
What authority does the school have to search children’s lunches? Did they have probable cause that her lunch violated criminal laws? Are we to accept Gerrib’s narrative that school’s have the right to search everyone’s lunch box and then demand they purchase items the government deems to be missing in sufficient quantities? Or even pick up their government provided “free” quantities? Why is it now some law that parents can’t provide their own children’s lunches without school’s imposing their will?
Yeah, Mom gave the school instructions not once but many times, and the school gave Mom the finger.
Well, other than the fact that:
1) the mother signed the kid up for the program
2) nobody “searched” anybody’s lunch
3) nobody demanded that the kid eat the school-provided lunch
You’re got a point.
The facts are not on your side.
1) The mother told them not to give them milk.
2) The school continues to (magically in the world of Gerrib) notice that the girl doesn’t have milk.
3) Despite constant written protest by the mother, the school give’s her daughter milk, yet Gerrib want’s us to believe nobody demand that the kid eat the school lunch.
I’m using your links and your words Gerrib. I’m just not buying your spin.
Come back Gerrib, there’s even more for you to spin!
Well, the school made the mom pay for it! There’s your problem. It was $1.25. It would be so much better if the school substituted the home lunch with a free lunch.
It would help if your facts were right. Per additional reporting summarized here, what actually happened was that:
in no circumstance was this child – or any child, for that matter – being forced to eat the school-provided lunch, nor was this child -or any other child – deprived of her boxed lunch. Instead, as the second linked story acknowledges, the child was just provided with additional food and given the option to consume that in addition to her boxed lunch. In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.
Moreover, the child’s parent signed up for this program.
In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.
Then why didn’t she eat the lunch she brought?
From a local news article
Assistant Superintendant Bob Barnes said the official didn’t tell the child she had to replace her lunch with chicken nuggets. Instead, they told her she had to go through the line and get some milk – per federal guidelines – and she misunderstood and replaced her entire lunch.
“I think that the child became confused about what she had to do. I think the child, instead of going over and picking up the milk, I think the child, for whatever reason, thought she had to go through the line and get a school meal which, that’s not our policy,” said Barnes.
Since when does the federal government have the authority to make kids drink milk?
Of course, most people accept the government’s authority to mandate vaccinations, so at this point, we’re really just negotiating price.
There are externalities involved with vaccinations that don’t apply with nutrition. Your kid’s not going to get sick because someone else’s kid didn’t drink milk.
It doesn’t. It does have the authority to make sure kids whose parents have signed them up for a special nutrition program are offered milk.
You may be able to make the case for “externalities” for some vaccinations (though it’s a lot weaker than you think), but not all; Hep-B and Gardisil immediately spring to mind.
In any case, once you accept the premise that the government can force you to do things you like to kids in the name of public health, you’ve accepted that they can force you to do other things that you may not like. IOW, we’ve established what you are, now we’re just negotiating price.
It doesn’t. It does have the authority to make sure kids whose parents have signed them up for a special nutrition program are offered milk.
I agree that the federal government apparently has that authority for some bizarre reason, but the federal government shouldn’t have that authority.
This doesn’t help your case.
Blaming the kid for the actions of the federal employee doesn’t cut it. The responsibility lies with the people who told the kid what to eat. These people didn’t check to see if she ate either meal or drank any milk.
Who are we to believe the kid who says she was told not to eat her lunch or the adult covering their ass?
Not only was there government intrusion where there shouldn’t have been but there was poor communication, poor implementation, and a lack of oversight.
This is a 4 year-old. Why didn’t the official just bring her a container of milk? Because that would have been the most sensible thing to do in dealing with a child of that age.
They were trying to teach her how bureaucracy “works.” They succeeded.
Happened again, 2nd N.C. Mother Says Daughter’s School Lunch Replaced for Not Being Healthy Enough
Figures.
What authority does the school have to search children’s lunches? Did they have probable cause that her lunch violated criminal laws? Are we to accept Gerrib’s narrative that school’s have the right to search everyone’s lunch box and then demand they purchase items the government deems to be missing in sufficient quantities? Or even pick up their government provided “free” quantities? Why is it now some law that parents can’t provide their own children’s lunches without school’s imposing their will?
Yeah, Mom gave the school instructions not once but many times, and the school gave Mom the finger.
Well, other than the fact that:
1) the mother signed the kid up for the program
2) nobody “searched” anybody’s lunch
3) nobody demanded that the kid eat the school-provided lunch
You’re got a point.
The facts are not on your side.
1) The mother told them not to give them milk.
2) The school continues to (magically in the world of Gerrib) notice that the girl doesn’t have milk.
3) Despite constant written protest by the mother, the school give’s her daughter milk, yet Gerrib want’s us to believe nobody demand that the kid eat the school lunch.
I’m using your links and your words Gerrib. I’m just not buying your spin.
Come back Gerrib, there’s even more for you to spin!
/popcorn