[bernabby]

Just heard on the news that the USDA (Agriculture Department) is checking all the homemade lunches brought to school by pre-schoolers. One little girl down somewhere in North Carolina, had her lunch taken away because it did not meet Michelle Obama's standards. To add insult to injury, the school sent the mother a $1.25 tab to pay for the lunch provided by the cafeteria. Come on folks, enough of this government intrusion into our and our children's lives.

[December Rock Star]

Just heard on the news that the USDA (Agriculture Department) is checking all the homemade lunches brought to school by pre-schoolers. One little girl down somewhere in North Carolina, had her lunch taken away because it did not meet Michelle Obama's standards. To add insult to injury, the school sent the mother a $1.25 tab to pay for the lunch provided by the cafeteria. Come on folks, enough of this government intrusion into our and our children's lives.

There's a song in here dude.

Little Katie's day didnt go so well
the USDA put her through hell
plundered her lunch, and took it away
how did these bums get so much say

The lunch police
have entered our schools
cant take care their own
and play us for fools
kids will be kids
and let em be that way
the lunch police
just get in the way

finish it...

[MrFitz]

It seems a little bit over the top from what I've read. Though equally I also haven't been able to find a response from the school on the matter so everything that I have seen published is all very one sided so I will take it with a pinch of salt.

Looking around the net i cant see an actual guideline that says every school in america must have a lunch inspector I would suggest this is something some schools or states have taken on themselves and that in itself is a bit ridiculous. Reading some reports the school is not famed for a healthy eating program so I perhaps imagine they've thought that desperate times call for desperate measures but it seems very foolish. Though they aren't helping the kid if they have also fed her a whole school meal as well as her lunch bag - it seems like common sense should of prevailed and someone should of just given her a glass of milk or an apple or whatever they deemed to have been missing from her lunch box!

There needs to be a culture of educating children from a young age of what constitutes a healthy lifestyle, as a teacher myself I find it a sad sight to see children scoffing crisps and then unable to run 50m without having to stop to walk and thats only 7 year olds!

What the US government has preposed is not ludicrous, meat, 2 veg, fruit and milk is a sensible balanced diet - we have milk provided for school children to the age of 7 by the UK government whilst snack time fruit and veg is also subsidised so each child receives fruit/veg and milk at school. Schools also can be rewarded for being healthy schools which incorporates educating children about what is healthy and providing enough time for children to get regular exercise. Its a good initiative and the impact on the children is both obvious to see and very rewarding.

[Joan]

Quote

Just heard on the news that the USDA (Agriculture Department) is checking all the homemade lunches brought to school by pre-schoolers. One little girl down somewhere in North Carolina, had her lunch taken away because it did not meet Michelle Obama's standards. To add insult to injury, the school sent the mother a $1.25 tab to pay for the lunch provided by the cafeteria. Come on folks, enough of this government intrusion into our and our children's lives.

USDA is not inspecting lunches toddlers bring to school, or making anyone else do so. Though come to think of it, such a program would definitely create a lot of jobs.

The news story was about some preschool employee's misinterpretation of North Carolina regulations. That person made a wild call as to whether a little girl's lunch came close enough to USDA nutrition guidelines. The contention here was that there was fruit, but no vegetable, in the kid's lunch bag. But what caught my eye in the news story was a "requirement" that every meal served in school cafeterias contain meat. USDA has no such requirement or authority, and neither does any state, though guidelines might mandate that meat be offered. But that's not what the article said. As a long-time vegetarian I can assure you that no government entity in this country has the authority to require anyone to pack meat in a child's lunch. The reporter's research was a little sloppy. Then, whoever used the story as the basis for a radio segment apparently piled on on additional errors. If the facts as reported in the newspaper were correct, raising a child vegetarian in North Carolina would literally be illegal, and it isn't.

[MrFitz]

[quote name='Joan' date='15 February 2012 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1329309181' post='571330']

Quote

But what caught my eye in the news story was a "requirement" that every meal served in school cafeterias contain meat. USDA has no such requirement or authority, and neither does any state, though guidelines might mandate that meat be offered. But that's not what the article said. As a long-time vegetarian I can assure you that no government entity in this country has the authority to require anyone to pack meat in a child's lunch. The reporter's research was a little sloppy. Then, whoever used the story as the basis for a radio segment apparently piled on on additional errors. If the facts as reported in the newspaper were correct, raising a child vegetarian in North Carolina would literally be illegal, and it isn't.

Sorry Joan when i posted about having meat I forgot to put Meat or substitute (as I think the guidelines say but I cant put my hand on the paperwork I found earlier - damn google ) is why I came back on to edit it before anyone made any additional comments (but you beat me to it )

Alot of what I read on this topic is very one sided and thanks Joan for finding an article for me with the school's view but I cant help feeling that alot of the media and bloggers are jumping on some story whilst being misinformed.

I have friends and family who are vegetarian or vegan but I find the idea of North Carolina being a state free from vegetarians and vegans rather amusing (and absurd!) I'd love to see the brochures and posters I mean how would you police it? "Mrs Bloggs thats an awful lots of carrots you are buying there, I do hope for your sake they are being cooked with a good steak or I'll have to call the feds"

[Joan]

MrFitz, on 15 February 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Sorry Joan when i posted about having meat I forgot to put Meat or substitute (as I think the guidelines say but I cant put my hand on the paperwork I found earlier - damn google ) is why I came back on to edit it before anyone made any additional comments (but you beat me to it )

Oh no, sorry -- I was ranting about the story itself, not your summary. Your summary was accurate but the reporter had gotten that part wrong. If I weren't a leaf-eater myself it would have blown right by me.

Quote

"Mrs Bloggs thats an awful lots of carrots you are buying there, I do hope for your sake they are being cooked with a good steak or I'll have to call the feds."

"Officer, please put down that phone, these carrots are for my horse. Whinney will be steaks and burgers once she hits market weight."

[MrFitz]

Ahh I see sorry! I didnt spot that in the article - just reread it and noticed it! From a journalistic point of view its a bit of a "whoops" moment to suggest every school child meal in north carolina should contain meat!

[Bruce N]

bernabby, on 14 February 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Just heard on the news that the USDA (Agriculture Department) is checking all the homemade lunches brought to school by pre-schoolers. One little girl down somewhere in North Carolina, had her lunch taken away because it did not meet Michelle Obama's standards. To add insult to injury, the school sent the mother a $1.25 tab to pay for the lunch provided by the cafeteria. Come on folks, enough of this government intrusion into our and our children's lives.

Where, and on what news source did you hear or see this news item bernabby, and who was reporting it ? And the bigger question being "why" would that person report such a story as being true, when it's so obviously false ?

[Alistair S]

I'm not sure that the story is false, just some of the background to it.

The girls's lunch (turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, fruit juice, etc.) sounds pretty good to me. Some employee was being an idiot from the sounds of it.

[Simple Simon]

Alistair S, on 16 February 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

. Some employee was being an idiot from the sounds of it.

That would certainly seem to be the guts of it - the meat in the sandwich, so to speak.

[m24p]

Alistair S, on 15 February 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I'm not sure that the story is false, just some of the background to it.

The girls's lunch (turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, fruit juice, etc.) sounds pretty good to me. Some employee was being an idiot from the sounds of it.

Clearly it's Michelle Obama's fault.

[Bruce N]

I was just curious if that was the same copy to the story that Joan had posted, as to whether that was what bernabby was referencing.

Either way, I would say that the state has a moral obligation to step in and put an end to this form of child abuse.

[RLD]

m24p, on 15 February 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Alistair S, on 15 February 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I'm not sure that the story is false, just some of the background to it.

The girls's lunch (turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, fruit juice, etc.) sounds pretty good to me. Some employee was being an idiot from the sounds of it.

Clearly it's Michelle Obama's fault.

How dare she try to improve the health and nutrition of our fat children.

This is America damnit.

Free to be fat as we wannabe.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

they should lunch an investigation

[bernabby]

Bruce N, on 15 February 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

I was just curious if that was the same copy to the story that Joan had posted, as to whether that was what bernabby was referencing. Nope.

Either way, I would say that the state has a moral obligation to step in and put an end to this form of child abuse.

Why is it the State's job and not the parents? Last time we had a state run cradle to grave takeover led to a bunch of brown shirt youths in lock step salute to the leader of the state.

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Why is it the State's job and not the parents?

You know, Bernabby, I'd be the first to agree with you inasmuch as the action taken in the example you mentioned was absolutely ridiculous and over the top. But that doesn't answer your question.

Let's consider other forms of parental child abuse for a moment. These occur, on a regular basis, within homes and across all cultures. Who should intervene if not the state? Now, I will grant you that feeding a child an unhealthy diet is pretty low-key in the greater scheme of things, and it is also vastly open to interpretation, and I certainly don't feel that the state should have any role in attempting to force parents to feed their children in a certain way. But I think it has to be acknowledged that there are many parents who simply have no idea what a healthy diet might mean, and I think the state does have a role in educating - not coercing - parents to better care for children in this regard.

As a teacher, I get to see children from all kinds of home backgrounds, and I get to see what they bring to school in their lunch boxes (those are luck enough to have lunch boxes), and it saddens me to see those who are obese and unhealthy being fed diets of pies, soft-drinks and other fatty foods that are almost totally lacking in any real nutrition.

Is it the state's job to force parents to bring up kids in any particular way? Hell no. Is it the states job to ensure that those children who need protection from abusive, or simply incompetent parents? I believe so. The line between these areas is not clear-cut and needs to be trodden with a great deal of care, sensitivity and discretion. In the case you mentioned, that line was crossed to a ridiculous extent.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 15 February 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Why is it the State's job and not the parents?

You know, Bernabby, I'd be the first to agree with you inasmuch as the action taken in the example you mentioned was absolutely ridiculous and over the top. But that doesn't answer your question.

Let's consider other forms of parental child abuse for a moment. These occur, on a regular basis, within homes and across all cultures. Who should intervene if not the state? Now, I will grant you that feeding a child an unhealthy diet is pretty low-key in the greater scheme of things, and it is also vastly open to interpretation, and I certainly don't feel that the state should have any role in attempting to force parents to feed their children in a certain way. But I think it has to be acknowledged that there are many parents who simply have no idea what a healthy diet might mean, and I think the state does have a role in educating - not coercing - parents to better care for children in this regard.

As a teacher, I get to see children from all kinds of home backgrounds, and I get to see what they bring to school in their lunch boxes (those are luck enough to have lunch boxes), and it saddens me to see those who are obese and unhealthy being fed diets of pies, soft-drinks and other fatty foods that are almost totally lacking in any real nutrition.

Is it the state's job to force parents to bring up kids in any particular way? Hell no. Is it the states job to ensure that those children who need protection from abusive, or simply incompetent parents? I believe so. The line between these areas is not clear-cut and needs to be trodden with a great deal of care, sensitivity and discretion. In the case you mentioned, that line was crossed to a ridiculous extent.

I agree some perhaps, many, people should not be parents. Just today for example, a mother in South LA tried to drown her 2 little girls. The 1 year old died and the 5 year old is in critical condition. I have no problem with the State intervening where there is a legitimate reason to do so. Policing the lunch boxes of pre-schoolers is not a legit reason. In a related matter, I feel the State has crossed the line in criminalizing parental efforts to discipline their kids. Throwing a parent in jail for spanking is absurd. Can you blame parents for acting like caring parents when big brother is watching and ready to impose their will just because they can?

[Alistair S]

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Policing the lunch boxes of pre-schoolers is not a legit reason. In a related matter, I feel the State has crossed the line in criminalizing parental efforts to discipline their kids. Throwing a parent in jail for spanking is absurd. Can you blame parents for acting like caring parents when big brother is watching and ready to impose their will just because they can?

I guess this is typical of some of the logic and argument that you throw up.

Please show where people have been thrown in jail for spanking.

I'm assuming that last sentence is a typo. If it was meant to read "uncaring" then the answer is "Yes". If it isn't a typo, in what way are parents acting like caring parents in a way I might blame?

Who is trying to impose their will?

Why do you claim "they" are doing so "just because they can"?

What evidence do you have for any of the above?

Take me through the logic of these few statements. Is it the same kind of logic that makes you conflate OWS protestors with homeless alcoholics and teachers with paedophiles?

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

In a related matter, I feel the State has crossed the line in criminalizing parental efforts to discipline their kids. Throwing a parent in jail for spanking is absurd.

That's an equally interesting area, Bernabby. Legislation was introduced in New Zealand back in 2007 that made spanking/smacking a child illegal. It was, and still is, highly controversial. I have mixed feelings about it. I do clearly understand that it was brought in, to a large degree, in response to the very high level of child-abuse we, sadly, have in our country, and the argument of many (and I am sure you would agree with this) is that it is not fair to criminalise parents who believe that spanking is a key element of child-discipline, just because of the actions of those who let such violence get out of control.

I think there can be occasions where a short, sharp physical "reminder" can help protect a child from danger, or from hurting someone else. But I also feel that, in general, using violence (and spanking/smacking is a form of violence) as a means of disciplining a child is implicitly teaching the child that violence is a valid and normal approach to solving problems or correcting behaviour. And, I'm sorry, but it isn't. As with the food thing, it seems to me that the degree to which the state gets involved is always going to necessarily be a grey area, and one within there has to be a reliance on sound judgement of individual cases.

I think I might have briefly and lightly spanked both of my girls at some time when they were young. I don't recall the exact circumstances, but I know that the act of doing so was far less effective in developing their understand than the talks we had once we'd all calmed down a little.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 15 February 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

In a related matter, I feel the State has crossed the line in criminalizing parental efforts to discipline their kids. Throwing a parent in jail for spanking is absurd.

That's an equally interesting area, Bernabby. Legislation was introduced in New Zealand back in 2007 that made spanking/smacking a child illegal. It was, and still is, highly controversial. I have mixed feelings about it. I do clearly understand that it was brought in, to a large degree, in response to the very high level of child-abuse we, sadly, have in our country, and the argument of many (and I am sure you would agree with this) is that it is not fair to criminalise parents who believe that spanking is a key element of child-discipline, just because of the actions of those who let such violence get out of control.

I think there can be occasions where a short, sharp physical "reminder" can help protect a child from danger, or from hurting someone else. But I also feel that, in general, using violence (and spanking/smacking is a form of violence) as a means of disciplining a child is implicitly teaching the child that violence is a valid and normal approach to solving problems or correcting behaviour. And, I'm sorry, but it isn't. As with the food thing, it seems to me that the degree to which the state gets involved is always going to necessarily be a grey area, and one within there has to be a reliance on sound judgement of individual cases.

I think I might have briefly and lightly spanked both of my girls at some time when they were young. I don't recall the exact circumstances, but I know that the act of doing so was far less effective in developing their understand than the talks we had once we'd all calmed down a little.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you about the effectiveness of spanking. I raised 2 boys and a girl. I don't believe I ever spanked my girl because she really went through her early years as an angel. It wasn't until she reached her teens that she started to wander but by then she was too old to spank. However, she still knew I was the one enforcing the discipline so knew how to play daddy's girl. My boys, on the other hand, had their share of sore butts. They all turned out to be responsible adults. It probably all worked out for you as well though you employed different methods. Who's to say which method is the right one. I'm saying leave it up to the parents.

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

I'm saying leave it up to the parents.

And on that note, I guess we've pretty much come full circle.

All I will add is that it sounds as though we both have reason to be grateful for the ways in which our kids have turned out.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 15 February 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

I'm saying leave it up to the parents.

And on that note, I guess we've pretty much come full circle.

All I will add is that it sounds as though we both have reason to be grateful for the ways in which our kids have turned out.

Amen.

[Bruce N]

Quote

I feel the State has crossed the line in criminalizing parental efforts to discipline their kids. Throwing a parent in jail for spanking is absurd.

Quote

I'm saying leave it up to the parents.

Quote

All I will add is that it sounds as though we both have reason to be grateful for the ways in which our kids have turned out.

"Children may doubt what you say - But they'll always believe what you do."

Gees I must be an oddball, my father never once assaulted me (spank), just as I've never raised my hand to my own son. Did I have to discipline my son at times ? Yes I did, which would usually involve grounding him or taking away some privileges.

My goodness, what kind of monster have I unleashed on society by being so nimbly-pimbly in rearing my son that way, well my son after graduating as a RN- registered nurse, is now going for his MN- Masters of Nursing.

I asked him once what he liked most about his job, he replied when he is assigned to the emergency intake, and what an adrenaline rush he gets, because anything and everything can come through the doors at anytime, and how everyone moves like a well practiced sports team when it happens.

I then asked him what he disliked the most about his job, and he replied, "the young children in trauma, where it's quite obvious they'd been abused and the police have to be called in, and then hearing the parents arguing and yelling at the police in the corridor," "It's my bloody right to discipline my child as I see fit."

For the life of me, I just can't see, or equate any imaginable reason as to why a 200 lb adult, with all their life experience, would have to resort to physical assault in order to discipline a 60 lb child, and then justify it as being for the child's own good.

As for packing a lunch box with candy, chips, soft drinks, I don't see that as being any different then if a parent was packing his kids lunch box with liquor and drugs and cigarettes, the odds of that obese child's life expectancy and health is not much better, then if a parent was doing just that.

[MrFitz]

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

Why is it the State's job and not the parents? Last time we had a state run cradle to grave takeover led to a bunch of brown shirt youths in lock step salute to the leader of the state.

You are right iIt is not the states job the states education authorities job is to educate. Therefore guidelines such as these are used to educate parents and children what food is healthy and which food should only be eaten as a treat or sparingly. UK law now recognises that clinically obese children at such a young age are being abused/neglected because of their poor diet.

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

I happen to call it sufficient evidence to connect teachers to pedophillia be it as actual participants or head in the sand cowards - much like the Catholic church priests. These are the facts I use to come to my conclusions.

A guilty till proven innocent stance. Therefore Bern are you suggesting that myself, simon and other educators on this forum are pedophiles? Its an over exaggerated connection. May I also point out that all your examples are american? Can I make the same presumption of all americans?

There is no evidence other than anecdotes that connect teachers to pedophilia. Im not burying my head in the sand I accept that a very small minority of the teaching profession use their position for wrongdoing and are frankly sickening. But we dont need to be all tarred with the same brush. It is hard enough being a teacher and I sometimes think that it is often more difficult being a male teacher as people will always make wild accusations based on news stories "oh he's a teacher, he must be a pedophile, or gay or just wrong in the head" things similar to this have been insinuated to me and friends without any basis other than they read on the internet, newspaper, heard it on the news that a male teacher has been arrested.

The large majority of teachers do a good job. They care for children in their class, they teach them, and they help them achieve their aspirations. They are not all pedophiles.

[Alistair S]

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

You should know by now that I just don't throw out mud and see what sticks.

On the contrary, I know you do throw out mud to see what sticks. Your "facts" are usually wrong, including the "facts" you included in your opening post on this thread, which have been debunked (and ignored by you, preferring to try and spread your net).

My first debate with you was regarding World War II as I recall, in which virtually every "fact" you typed out was demonstrably wrong. You are one of the few people who post who cause me to verify everything you state, simply because you have a record of playing fast and loose with "facts" and I will no longer take your word on anything.

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

No need to take you through the logic because I have stated facts.

MrFitz, on 16 February 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

A guilty till proven innocent stance. Therefore Bern are you suggesting that myself, simon and other educators on this forum are pedophiles?

That's exactly why the logic is important. When Bernabby does get facts right, he then draws illogical conclusions and states them as additional facts.

The logic is important.

All Pit Bulls are dogs. Golden Retrievers are dogs. All Golden Retrievers are Pit Bulls.

This is the kind of logic we are faced with on a regular basis and it's intellectually dishonest.

In the case you mention, John, it is also hugely insulting to a good number of members here. However, there is no way of demonstrating this to Bernabby without him flying into a rage of self-righteous indignation.

Frankly, I'm tired of it.

[FunkDaddy]

Educators take on a defacto role as guardian. They are legally obligated to report suspected abuse...I can see a very valid argument for schools taking over a child's lunch to ensure they get properly fed. Some parents simply don't care. I say good on the school that does it AND charges the parents the cost of the meal.

[stewart alexander]

Please show where people have been thrown in jail for spanking...


golly... I'd better be careful...

[Bruce N]

Bernabby, I've deleted some of your posts, as they were in my opinion simply garbage, inflammatory, and nonconstructive to this discussion.

If you have a problem with that, you're quite welcome to take the matter up with the site owner, Jodi.

Thanks
Bruce

[bernabby]

stewart alexander, on 16 February 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Please show where people have been thrown in jail for spanking...


golly... I'd better be careful...

I have but it has been censored.

[bernabby]

Bruce N, on 16 February 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Bernabby, I've deleted some of your posts, as they were in my opinion simply garbage, inflammatory, and unconstructive to this disscusion.

If you have a problem with that, you're quite welcome to take the matter up with the site owner, Jodi.

Thanks
Bruce

Oh, oh Mr. Censor on the prowl.

[m24p]

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

I have but it has been censored.

Help, help, I'm being repressed!

[SatanInventedBras]

MrFitz, on 16 February 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

bernabby, on 16 February 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

I happen to call it sufficient evidence to connect teachers to pedophillia be it as actual participants or head in the sand cowards - much like the Catholic church priests. These are the facts I use to come to my conclusions.

There is no evidence other than anecdotes that connect teachers to pedophilia. Im not burying my head in the sand I accept that a very small minority of the teaching profession use their position for wrongdoing and are frankly sickening. But we dont need to be all tarred with the same brush. It is hard enough being a teacher and I sometimes think that it is often more difficult being a male teacher as people will always make wild accusations based on news stories "oh he's a teacher, he must be a pedophile, or gay or just wrong in the head" things similar to this have been insinuated to me and friends without any basis other than they read on the internet, newspaper, heard it on the news that a male teacher has been arrested.

The large majority of teachers do a good job. They care for children in their class, they teach them, and they help them achieve their aspirations. They are not all pedophiles.

I do not have any data to support this, just common sense and observation. Pedophiles search out opportunities to be around children. What are the best professions and and best locations to be around children? Schools. Are all teachers pedophiles? Of course not. Are most teachers pedophiles? No. Is there a disproportionate number of pedophiles working in and around schools? Yes, for the above stated reason. The same can be said of religious organizations. They also provide academic and social services to children and youth, which is again, why there is a disproportionate number of pedophiles working in and around churches and other places of worship. Same goes for Boys and Girls Scouts, Brownies etc. This does not negate these organizations' inherent importance, it does, however, increase the responsibility of parents and guardians (guardians of children are not just parents - it's the community, society at large) to be hyper-vigilant concerning the safety of their children. Without this concern, we're creating apathetic, dysfunctional and unhealthy future generations.

And yes, I am also a teacher. I am not, however, a pedophile.

EDIT: Whoops, was so agitated by Bernaby's post, I hit reply before reading the rest of the responses.