Vomit!!!!!!!!!

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Vomit!!!!!!

Yep, that's what many in a Kentucky school district think of "Lady Obama's" touted school lunch program.

No reason to fear the government? A government DICTATING to school districts, which in case you have forgotten is a local/state functions, what they can or cannot serve for school lunches. The government is DICTATING what kids can , or cannot eat, IF they chose to eat at the school. NEXT, they will start to outlaw the practice of bringing your own lunch to school.

I wonder, what part of the Constitution gives the government legal authority to DICTATE the size and content of school lunches in local school districts? Yep, tyranny in action! Just WAIT! The SAME bunch of tin horn dictators now controls your health care!

Kentucky students to first lady Michelle Obama: Your food ‘tastes like vomit’


Students in a rural Kentucky county — and their parents — are the latest to join a growing national chorus of scorn for the healthy school lunches touted by first lady Michelle Obama.


“They say it tastes like vomit,” said Harlan County Public Schools board member Myra Mosley at a contentious board meeting last week, reports The Harlan Daily Enterprise.


The growing body of USDA meal regulations implemented by the Department of Agriculture under the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010″ has long been a signature issue for the first lady.


Denizens of Harlan County don’t much care, though. Their primary concern at the board meeting was a bevy of complaints that local children are starving at lunch — and for the remainder of the school day — because the food on offer in the cafeteria is crappy and there isn’t nearly enough of it.


“Kids can’t learn when they’re hungry!” parents shouted to the board, according to the Enterprise.


Other gripes involved the new bread, which students don’t want to eat because it’s brown wheat bread, and the new milk, which is skim or one percent fat, not two percent or whole. The cafeteria’s chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk offerings are now nonfat.

Jack Miniard, the school district’s director of school and community nutrition, was on hand to explain that the federal government now governs both food choices and portion sizes in most American school districts including Harlan County.


Under the National School Lunch Program, Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, participating schools must provide lunches — including free or reduced price lunches — with minimum amounts of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and whole grains. Also, in what presumably falls outside the hunger-free aspect of the act, there’s a calorie cap: 850 for high school lunches, 700 for middle schools and a mere 650 calories for kids in elementary school.


Students can only have one serving of meat or other protein. However, rich kids can buy a second portion each day on their own dime.


Servings of carbohydrates such as potatoes are limited to just a single serving of three-fourths of a cup per student.


On the plus side, students can eat as many fruits and vegetables as they want.


Across the country, students and parents have expressed dissatisfaction with the federal government’s new food regime. Some wealthier suburban school districts are simply backing out of the National School Lunch Program, though doing so can mean giving up a six-figure annual subsidy for the district.



















Kentucky students to first lady Michelle Obama: Your food ?tastes like vomit?
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
It's a Federally Assisted program. They can dictate it right down to the manufacturer they buy their trays from. If I offer to take my buddy Roams to Mcdonald's for lunch I can dictate what I buy him...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It's a Federally Assisted program. They can dictate it right down to the manufacturer they buy their trays from. If I offer to take my buddy Roams to Mcdonald's for lunch I can dictate what I buy him...

What part of the Constitution allows that kind of authority? Is it good? What gives them the RIGHT to take money from those who EARN it and give to someone else? Why are they involved at all in local school districts? Does not the 10th Amendment forbid that? How does this "program" enhance freedom?
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
What part of the Constitution allows that kind of authority? Is it good? What gives them the RIGHT to take money from those who EARN it and give to someone else? Why are they involved at all in local school districts? Does not the 10th Amendment forbid that? How does this "program" enhance freedom?

I don't think the lunch program has anything to do with freedom or that the 10th Amendment necessarily prohibits it's implementation. On the other hand, I don't want to see a kid starve. My opinion is if you put your hand out, don't complain about what is dropped in it... As far as me paying for it? I don't like that but I don't like 50% plus of my tax dollars going for alleged national defense programs either...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I don't think the lunch program has anything to do with freedom or that the 10th Amendment necessarily prohibits it's implementation. On the other hand, I don't want to see a kid starve. My opinion is if you put your hand out, don't complain about what is dropped in it... As far as me paying for it? I don't like that but I don't like 50% plus of my tax dollars going for alleged national defense programs either...

First, I believe the 10th DOES prohibit ANYTHING that is not specifically mentioned in the Articles, which this is not.

Second, while I agree with providing charity I believe it is a VOLUNTARY thing and should NOT be done by force. Which EVERY government program is.

Third, while I agree that we do spend FAR too much on the defense budget, the defense of the Nation IS mandated as a Federal Responsibility in the Constitution.

Fourth, far too many people are "milking" the "system". For the most part, IF people took responsibility for their lives, WORKED, IMPROVED their skills, and lived within their means, there would be very little need for government programs.

Fifth, I too do not wish to see kids starve. HOWEVER, I contend that in the VAST majority of cases it is 100% the fault of parents that they are. There is just NO valid reason, except in cases of extreme illness etc, that ANYONE in this country should not be able to provide for their own on their own merit. I contend that, in the vast majority of cases, poverty is a conscious choice, not an imposed condition.

I can show FAR too many, real life examples. of people living WELL below the so called "Poverty Line", who are doing QUITE well, on ONE income and NO participation in federal programs. Then again, they WANT TOO.

I enjoy these debates when they stay non personal, they are fun and I learn.
 
Last edited:

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There have been instances already of schools taking away the lunch a child brought from home and making them either eat what the school offered or go hungry. That is WRONG!
 

cubansammich

Not a Member
There have been instances already of schools taking away the lunch a child brought from home and making them either eat what the school offered or go hungry. That is WRONG!
Seems like it probably is wrong on the surface without any details. Those pesky details may change a normal persons opinion however. If this child was 10 years old 300 pounds and 4 and half feet tall and the lunch was 4 pb and j sandwiches a big bag of ruffles, with 3 king sized candy bars and a 2 liter of Pepsi to wash it down maybe it would still be wrong but it would be understandable.

Provide the story and why the lunch was taken.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There have been instances already of schools taking away the lunch a child brought from home and making them either eat what the school offered or go hungry. That is WRONG!

Believe it or not, I do agree with you. :cool:
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Seems like it probably is wrong on the surface without any details. Those pesky details may change a normal persons opinion however. If this child was 10 years old 300 pounds and 4 and half feet tall and the lunch was 4 pb and j sandwiches a big bag of ruffles, with 3 king sized candy bars and a 2 liter of Pepsi to wash it down maybe it would still be wrong but it would be understandable.

Provide the story and why the lunch was taken.

Huh? What business would it be of the school even if it did contain 4 PBJ'S?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This was a few months ago and I did not save the link. Even if it were "understandable" it is still wrong and inexcusable.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
First, I believe the 10th DOES prohibit ANYTHING that is not specifically mentioned in the Articles, which this is not.

Your belief is mistaken: the 10th amendment doesn't contain the word 'specifically'. Nor the words 'explicitly' or 'expressly', which are often conflated with the Articles of Confederation [where the word 'expressly' did occur, but was removed for good reason from the 10th amendment].
It doesn't just grant powers to the States, but also to "the people", and the people want our kids educated. Nutrition is an important part of that.


Second, while I agree with providing charity I believe it is a VOLUNTARY thing and should NOT be done by force. Which EVERY government program is.

Government functions with the consent of the governed - if you disagree with government programs, take it up with your representatives.

Third, while I agree that we do spend FAR too much on the defense budget, the defense of the Nation IS mandated as a Federal Responsibility in the Constitution.

See point #1, about the "people", who hold the real power - when they decide to use it.

Fourth, far too many people are "milking" the "system".

Agreed. But why is the focus of anger on the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale? Because the people at the top are just as guilty of gaming the system, and they're a lot more successful at it, too, because the have the education and the means to hire top level help in their efforts. Consequently, the damage they cause is astronomically greater.

For the most part, IF people took responsibility for their lives, WORKED, IMPROVED their skills, and lived within their means, there would be very little need for government programs.

That was true a few decades ago, but not anymore.



Fifth, I too do not wish to see kids starve. HOWEVER, I contend that in the VAST majority of cases it is 100% the fault of parents that they are. There is just NO valid reason, except in cases of extreme illness etc, that ANYONE in this country should not be able to provide for their own on their own merit. I contend that, in the vast majority of cases, poverty is a conscious choice, not an imposed condition.

Utter hogwash - the "vast majority" qualification. Got cites? Statistics?

I can show FAR too many, real life examples. of people living WELL below the so called "Poverty Line", who are doing QUITE well, on ONE income and NO participation in federal programs. Then again, they WANT TOO.

Do you understand the meaning of 'anecdotal'? Because so far, that's all you've got to back your contentions, and it isn't good enough.

I enjoy these debates when they stay non personal, they are fun and I learn.

Says the person who thereby makes it personal, lol.
 

cubansammich

Not a Member
This was a few months ago and I did not save the link. Even if it were "understandable" it is still wrong and inexcusable.

What if I told you that a 18 year old gang member shot and killed 3 police officers?

You could very well say the same thing without details. The details are everything! The details could reveal that they were crooked cops and they had broken into his home and were gang raping his mother and 2 sisters.

So basically without details you got bupkis try again or get the details.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
There have been instances already of schools taking away the lunch a child brought from home and making them either eat what the school offered or go hungry. That is WRONG!

I recall that too, but if memory serves, the issue [at least in the one I read] wasn't nutrition. It was about a young child with serious and severe allergies to nuts that constituted a life threatening condition. Even another child's peanut butter breath could provoke an attack, so all children were prohibited from bringing foods that could harm the afflicted one. They were also required to wash their hands and rinse their mouths before & after eating.
That situation was a real trauma for the kids who wanted their PB & J for lunch, but the local officials handled it, no federal involvement at all.
 

Brisco

Expert Expediter
Vomit!!!!!!

NEXT, they will start to outlaw the practice of bringing your own lunch to school


Provide the story and why the lunch was taken.

This was a few months ago and I did not save the link. Even if it were "understandable" it is still wrong and inexcusable.

So basically without details you got bupkis try again or get the details.

State Inspectors Searching Children?s Lunch Boxes: ?This Isn?t China, Is It?? - Civitas Institute

School takes child?s sack lunch saying it was unhealthy | KRQE News 13 Blog Albuquerque, NM

School Lunch Taken By Official Was Teacher's Mistake, But Seen By Critics As Government Meddling

Chicago School Bans Lunches Brought From Home? | A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss

..........and the Ignorance with some still befuddles me.......................
 

Brisco

Expert Expediter
Thank you. This is the one and had nothing to do with anything other than far over reaching bureaucrats.

And if my child were so allergic that seeing an advertisement for peanuts might kill him/her there's no way my child would be in a public school.

And Nowhere in any of these articles (and there are DOZENS of others out there) is there ANY mention of Lunches being taken because of Peanut Allergies...............Good Gawd. :rolleyes:

(I'm quite sure it's a Valid Concern - but has NOTHING to do with this discussion)

It only took me a Minute to run across these stories..........My opinion towards the ignorance portrayed is directed at the one who basically said "provide me proof or shut your piehole".

I could have said "get off your a........ and look for yourself"...........But thought Nah........if they're too ignorant to look themselves...........it probably wasn't going to be worth the hassle.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
And if my child were so allergic that seeing an advertisement for peanuts might kill him/her there's no way my child would be in a public school.

Unfortunetly, this kind of garbage does indeed happen. My wife works for a public school system in suburban Detroit and confirms a simple sandwich of pb&j is verboten. The parents don't care that their child has an allergy, it's the other children that have to suffer.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Unfortunetly, this kind of garbage does indeed happen. My wife works for a public school system in suburban Detroit and confirms a simple sandwich of pb&j is verboten. The parents don't care that their child has an allergy, it's the other children that have to suffer.

Yes, the poor little ones have to suffer being deprived of peanut butter while in school, but they can have it as soon as they get home. Which is more than the allergic kid gets.
The reason it's an issue is because the kids in question are 5-6 years old, and don't understand the potential for harm in bringing something that is hazardous to a classmate. When they're old enough to understand, most wouldn't want to endanger someone else over a PB&J sandwich.
And while I might agree with Leo about not wanting to send my child to school with a disability of that nature, the parents involved want their child in school, and they have the right to that.
Part of the socialization that going to school teaches kids is that life doesn't revolve around their wants - sometimes, the needs of others get priority.
 
Top