This burns my bacon! More nanny state bureaucratic nonesense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

ps how delicious is the irony that the child's lunch is taken away according to health guidelines and replaced by, wait for it, chicken nuggets.

---

That was indeed a very funny case of irony.

I am sorry but I do not think that is very funny, only very sad. I will not argue it wasnt ironic, only that my government is idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'm sorry....what?



Why?

---

I believe it may be a case of protecting the children with peanut allergies etc. We have the same restrictions in some educational facilities here.

Another point I didn't raise before is, what kind of so called 'free country' has total strangers going around, rummaging through a kids bag, to then sort through their food?! That would have to breach so many privacy and freedom laws surely. I can't see any way in which that sort of behaviour can be justified.


Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

That sounds delicious......

---

Oh trust me it was, quite delicious. Not those styrofoam type pork rinds either this was like real no kidding roast big skin and fat, it was glorious with a side of black beans and rice. I may have one today now that I think about it.

The media has a habit of transforming one thing into something else, I suspect that this is the case here and the story is presented in such a way as to make it newsworthy when it probably was totally benign.

A recent story about a school local to where I work made the news with the headline
Children left to freeze in the classrooms after head turns off heating on coldest day of year 'to show how school can be eco-friendly'
The true story is reported by the staff and pupils in the comments section. Apparently it was no where near the coldest day, no complaints were made and the whole thing was seen as a successful demonstration, but that wouldn't have been news worthy would it.

$1.25 is not a lot of money? The problem is that the $1.25 started out as $10.00 when the Federal government got it's hands on it. For every dollar that trickles down the government has to take in $10. That is why Greece and the rest of Europe is going under a $1.25 at a time.The problem with bureaucrats that they multiple like a virus and infiltrate into every facet of our lives. This will continue till over 50% of the voting public are either bureaucrats or people that are on the dole.....then it will cease to be the America that we know and love......OH!, I forgot we are there.

Later,
Richard

So.. Do I need to live somewhere with a large Cuban population to find this sandwich?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Oh trust me it was, quite delicious. Not those styrofoam type pork rinds either this was like real no kidding roast big skin and fat, it was glorious with a side of black beans and rice. I may have one today now that I think about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

You call this evidence of a nanny-state?

---

Yes, I do! Wholeheartedly. Sheesh.

In fact, it's even more ridiculous than usual in this case since the government here is doing exactly the job of a nanny, i.e., feeding a child lunch. It (the use of "nanny state") is not even a metaphor as applied here; it's actual!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I'll blame the school nutritionist for allowing a pre-schooler to manipulate her into giving her the school lunch, or for thinking the lunch described didn't meet USDA standards. That's a problem of the school having inadequately trained nutritionists, not bad regulations. I see nothing at all wrong with school nutritionists being required to supplement packed lunches when those lunches don't meet minimum nutritional standards. You have a lot of rights when it comes to your kids, mal-nourishing or under-nourishing them are not among those rights.

---

Of course you don’t have the right to malnourish or under-nourish your kids, that's why we have child welfare laws and various departments to protect and remove children from situations where they're being starved or neglected. There was no indication that this kid was starving or malnourished.

We don’t need school personnel who only see a little of the picture to offering kids foods not supplied by the parents without that parent's consent or knowledge. This isn’t about a cup of peas or the $1.25. This is about the school stepping in where it shouldn't.

The mom may have given her kid some veggies for a snack and lots of veggies for breakfast (via an omelet?) and with that in mind omitted them from the kid's lunch. She sends her daughter to school with a healthy lunch and thinks "I've done my child a service and teaching her to eat right" only to have the school feed her chicken nuggets and undermine what she's teaching.

Again, the school doesn't have the whole picture nut they're allowed to act as the final authority and undermine the parents.

I've heard so many teachers complain that parents don’t take responsibility for their children's education. It's no wonder when the schools are sending the message that basically says "we know better than you."
Respectfully,

"As for what to do about it, spank the kid, reprimand and retrain the school nutritionist, and publicly ridicule the mother, Fox News, the local Fox affiliate, the local paper, and anybody else who thinks this is evidence of some sort of devious government conspiracy to take away parents' choices of food for their kids."

SPANK THE KID?! For eating a chicken nugget that was offered to her?! That's a little dumb. A person in a position of authority gives the kid a chicken nugget and you spank the kid for eating it? And ridicule the mother? WHY? She packed a perfectly healthy lunch and for all we know may have already or was planning to give the kid the full recomended servings of veggies to her kid. Again, dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Are you paying attention Crotalus? The law doesn't give anybody the right to dictate what anybody's kids can or can't eat. The law requires school nutritionists to provide a supplement if the packed lunch doesn't meet USDA nutritional standards. It doesn't require anybody to eat or not eat anything, nor does it authorize anybody to confiscate anything.

The lunch in question met USDA requirements, so the school nutritionist wasn't required to supplement the lunch. That she chose to do so anyway means that she is poorly trained, regardless of whether she did it because the kid was badgering her in order to get chicken nuggets (which I think is more likely), or because she really thought the packed lunch wasn't sufficient. This is a bad school nutritionist, not a bad law.

---

So we have a law that is allowing a poorly trained person to tell a kid that her mom isn't feeding her right, to give her unasked for food and send the mother the bill. Can't you see how absurd the whole affair is?

The government sure has a lot of money to spend if it can afford lunch police to inspect what kids are eating. You are willing to allow such nonsense because you are in favor of larger government. I am not. To me this whole affair is soft tyranny.

The government has no business at all trying to micromanage our lives like this, no matter how benevolent it might seem on the surface.

What is the exact law being used here to destroy America? I would like to read the text of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'm sorry....what?Why?

---

Maybe he is referring to the fact that some schools have banned peanuts in any form as being dangerous to kids with allergies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'm sorry....what?



Why?

---

We're not allowed to send peanut butter or any peanut product to school due to peanut/nut allergies that other children may have.

There is a balance to strike,

My wife works at our local primary school (ages 4-11), if the school finds a child who is sent to school with an unhealthy meal on a regular basis then the parents would be contacted about it. The occasional bag of crisps (chips to Americans) is OK but if that was the daily mainstay then the school would speak to the parents. Peanut products are banned due to allergies and chocolate bars are banned too on the grounds of being unhealthy.

Obesity is a major problem and school is there not just to teach children how to read and write it is there to give them the skills for life. Currently we have the 1st generation predicted to live a shorter life than their parents so it is clear that many adults do no know how to feed themselves properly let alone their children.

We may call it a nanny state but who is expected to pick up the bill for problems associated with the increasing levels of obesity. In the UK its the state, I know there are differences in the US with welfare but presumably there are still costs incurred by the state relating to the numbers of obese people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

What is the exact law being used here to destroy America? I would like to read the text of it.

---

Me too. And since I can't post anything under ten charaters I typed this....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeltz

There is a balance to strike,

My wife works at our local primary school (ages 4-11), if the school finds a child who is sent to school with an unhealthy meal on a regular basis then the parents would be contacted about it. The occasional bag of crisps (chips to Americans) is OK but if that was the daily mainstay then the school would speak to the parents. Peanut products are banned due to allergies and chocolate bars are banned too on the grounds of being unhealthy.

Obesity is a major problem and school is there not just to teach children how to read and write it is there to give them the skills for life. Currently we have the 1st generation predicted to live a shorter life than their parents so it is clear that many adults do no know how to feed themselves properly let alone their children.

We may call it a nanny state but who is expected to pick up the bill for problems associated with the increasing levels of obesity. In the UK its the state, I know there are differences in the US with welfare but presumably there are still costs incurred by the state relating to the numbers of obese people.

---

I agree. There is a balance to strike. But doing it through law doesn't work. People still use drugs. Education is key. Why can't they put this as part of health class?

As far as the cost? That's why national healthcare wont work. If we can do whatever we want and not pay for it, then why not? If we can eat like slobs, get unhealthy and have someone else pick up the bill, then we will. The fundamental premis to our society is that we are individually responsible. We look out for ourselves. That's the caplitalist way. Granted, it's in society's intrest to look out for those who cant, but we shouldn't enable those who won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeltz

There is a balance to strike,

My wife works at our local primary school (ages 4-11), if the school finds a child who is sent to school with an unhealthy meal on a regular basis then the parents would be contacted about it. The occasional bag of crisps (chips to Americans) is OK but if that was the daily mainstay then the school would speak to the parents. Peanut products are banned due to allergies and chocolate bars are banned too on the grounds of being unhealthy.

Obesity is a major problem and school is there not just to teach children how to read and write it is there to give them the skills for life. Currently we have the 1st generation predicted to live a shorter life than their parents so it is clear that many adults do no know how to feed themselves properly let alone their children.

We may call it a nanny state but who is expected to pick up the bill for problems associated with the increasing levels of obesity. In the UK its the state, I know there are differences in the US with welfare but presumably there are still costs incurred by the state relating to the numbers of obese people.

---

I may understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, relating to the children's food and I possibly agree.
But the statement highlighted, is very broad, to say the least. I do not want my child taught "life skills" by the school. The current influence of the majority of school teachers, especially middle school through college, does not follow the same path as mine. "Life Skills" covers many subjects too important, to be left to a stranger or current Administration's ideology.
I expect the school to teach my child , reading writing & arithmatic. Leave the "Life Skills" to the parents.
Jeltz, we are facing a crisis, here in America, that threatens the vary foundation that our Country was founded on. The Ground 0 for this is our own public school system. If some parents drop the ball, so to speak, in the "life skills" area,,,oh well,,,.
This does not give the government (public school system) the right to implement control based on the current Administration's ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

What part of the chicken is a nugget exactly?

---

I may be wrong, but I think it's the crotalus. Or the santorum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I may be wrong, but I think it's the crotalus. Or the santorum.

---

I'm pretty sure they're made of chicken lips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hirlau

I may understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, relating to the children's food and I possibly agree.
But the statement highlighted, is very broad, to say the least. I do not want my child taught "life skills" by the school. The current influence of the majority of school teachers, especially middle school through college, does not follow the same path as mine. "Life Skills" covers many subjects too important, to be left to a stranger or current Administration's ideology.
I expect the school to teach my child , reading writing & arithmatic. Leave the "Life Skills" to the parents.
Jeltz, we are facing a crisis, here in America, that threatens the vary foundation that our Country was founded on. The Ground 0 for this is our own public school system. If some parents drop the ball, so to speak, in the "life skills" area,,,oh well,,,.
This does not give the government (public school system) the right to implement control based on the current Administration's ideology.

---

Not all life skills but healthy living, confidence, assertiveness, keeping fit etc. are the kind of non academic skills schools need to pass on to kids.

I used to walk a group of kids to school a couple of whom were there because their parents were happier staying in bed than getting their kid to school on time. One 8 year boy old arrived with his breakfast which was a bag of crisps (chips) he had had nothing else before his mother had pushed him out of the door in the morning. If school can give him the skills a better life than his mother then I'm all for it, that may seem like the extreme end of the spectrum but I live in a decent area and there were quite a few kids like him.

I agree, Jeltz. We are both on the same page with this.
I have a school across the street from our home, but drive my son each morning to a school farther away. I see 6 & 8 year olds walking by themselves in the rain with no protection and some cover the distance of a mile and more. Twice in the past 5 years, there have been attempted snatchings of the children across the street.

I had to get myself to school from an early age. I either had to walk, catch, saddle and ride a horse, but heaven was when I was given my first real bicycle, a crappy old second hand dragster, and learnt to ride it. That was freedom!
Maybe the world has changed since then, though. Maybe I need to just train my kids in some of the more deadly techniques of fighting, to ensure they are safe enough to get themselves to school when that time comes.

Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RayCover

The nanny state bureaucrats have way overstepped their bounds now. To tell a parent what they can and can't pack in their kids lunch goes way too far. I read this article and was just totally disgusted at the arrogance of these people.

To top it off the kid's turkey and cheese sandwich was taken and replaced by deep fried chicken parts nuggets in the name of better nutrition. What short bus did they pull this retard nutritionist off of anyway?

Preschooler's Homemade Lunch Replaced With Nuggets | Fox News

If you read between the lines here you can see one more place where the public education system is undermining the authority of parents in order to indoctrinate kids by making the kids think mom and dad don't know what they are doing. This kind of nonsense is exactly why my two went to private school in their elementary years.

---

I guess I need to revisit the original foxnews article and learn more but
in some states "health care" including nutrition is regulated and licensed.

I would check and then litigate...

Was this person a certified nutritionist or just someone tasked with the job.
Worse was this person self appointed.

I would also establish some bounds based on medical and
religious requirements that the school must comply with.
Wheat, gluten, peanut, nuts.... allergies.

Since they serve and prepare food they also need to have
their health department sanitation inspection on file and posted.

Note that an inspector must open the lunch and inspect the
sandwich and fixing. However the contents of the lunch box
are not known to be sanitary so fresh gloves must be used
as each food item is "touched" and inspected. This is something
that upsets me when I fly. The TSA agent can inspect my
personal kit with grey and dirty rubber gloves. My tooth brush
etc. etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kees

Home made lunch the kid received from its parents looks healthier to me than the nugget lunch porvided by the moron state nutrionist. I guess the nutrionist was bribed by a hambruger chain to push chicken nuggets.

---

Yes and it was also part of the days meal planed by the parent.

To take lunch out of context and place it in isolation is folly.

Someone needs to challenge some of these bogus regulations
as flawed for "fact based" reasons. Law cannot change facts
a law that says rocks are vegetables for example....

The FDA, USDA and friends should not be free to make blunders.

For example a class action for all obese children to shut down
the french fry insanity and yes sugar in soda concessions is in
order. Disclose and discover all the vendor communications....

Coke and Pepsi in grade school... is WRONG.

For the sake of the children, I think we should rename this thread from "Burns my Bacon" to "lightly sautés my pine nuts".

:p

James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

For the sake of the children, I think we should rename this thread from "Burns my Bacon" to "lightly sautés my pine nuts".

:p

James.

---

Steamed would be a better option maybe with some spray butter mist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdbob

Steamed would be a better option maybe with some spray butter mist.

---

With a drizzle of balsamic?

James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

Apparently if I post here, hoglahoo will thank it.

---

sorry, I had to leave the thread at noon EST for chicken nugget lunch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

sorry, I had to leave the thread at noon EST for chicken nugget lunch

---

We used to call that one "Big Lunch".

James.

It isn't on the menu, but if you ask for it and keep your voice down, and if you are living right, you can still get the 50-piece mcnugget oilfest-in-a-box at good ole Mickey-D's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catrentshaving

I don't know about the U.S. but I'm not allowed to send my kids to school with peanut butter

---

I'm sorry....what?



Why?

---

Same here. It actually went beyond this for my son. (Sorry son if you read this years later, I had to make an example of you to prove to the Euro-libs how silly the US is to fawn after them). I mean, for this kid I know. He was at dinner one evening and told his mother and father that he didn't like peanut butter anymore. We asked why and he wouldn't say. His mother told his father that the child's teacher had told the class that day not to bring any peanut butter to school because there were kids who were severely allergic to it. So now that kid is afraid of peanut butter, and won't eat it at home anymore. He used to love it! Thanks, libs! Not!

That's what happens when you mess with God's intelligently designed plan? Why are we now breeding children who can not handle peanut butter, milk, gluten, polio, smallpox, etc.?
I say when the Apocalypse finally comes it'll be well deserved!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

That's what happens when you mess with God's intelligently designed plan? Why are we now breeding children who can not handle peanut butter, milk, gluten, polio, smallpox, etc.?
I say when the Apocalypse finally comes it'll be well deserved!

---

Oh, making fun of religion now huh? That's okay, I forgive you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

sorry, I had to leave the thread at noon EST for chicken nugget lunch

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

We used to call that one "Big Lunch".

James.

---

Damn straight Jimbo. Who had time to put down nuggets at little lunch? If you're gonna do a nugget or two you had to hang on until big lunch ;).


Mick

I read this article not long ago and this seems an appropriate time to share:
How did we survive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Oh, making fun of religion now huh? That's okay, I forgive you

---

Only if you had not edited your post I would have have liked it, but now, forgiven or not, I dislike your interpretation of my words. I pray baby Jesus judge you with his big snickers!

So everyone here has gotten into a tizzy over this ridiculous news item and is using it to further their political and social agenda. Now in Ohio there was a couple who were sentenced because their child was dying of cancer and they did nada and just let nature take it's course. They said they couldn't afford the treatment and the other sibling said why he played outside like a normal child and no one noticed anything odd. Even though at autopsy he was emaciated and had glands in his neck the size of softballs. Not much interest in a story like this eh? So much for the nanny state.

Hoglahoo, I'm curious, how is protecting a child from a very dangerous, life-threatening substance the sole province of "libs"? Are we to assume, then, that the children of conservative-minded people don't die from peanut allergie?

All this labelling and generalization, painting people with a very broad brush doesn't seem very productive. People are different and have different beliefs, but it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Judging someone solely on the basis of how they vote is the height of ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdto

Hoglahoo, I'm curious, how is protecting a child from a very dangerous, life-threatening substance the sole province of "libs"? Are we to assume, then, that the children of conservative-minded people don't die from peanut allergie?

---

If you won't allow me some literary license, then I admit you got me :) I'm glad whoever has or may have the peanut allergy is being looked after, although it was overdone. By whom, I don't actually know, it could have been that the kids made a big deal out of it or maybe it's just that some eight-year olds like mine are very impressionable. Or maybe the libs did it to push their nanny state agenda, hmmmmm ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdto

All this labelling and generalization, painting people with a very broad brush doesn't seem very productive. People are different and have different beliefs, but it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Judging someone solely on the basis of how they vote is the height of ignorance.

---

I agree with you. It does grab people's attention though that's for sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Only if you had not edited your post I would have have liked it, but now, forgiven or not, I dislike your interpretation of my words. I pray baby Jesus judge you with his big snickers!

---

Like Bruno says, Matthew 7:1
Attachment 90230