The ever reaching arm of a burdensome, un-constitutional government

[fred41]

Stupid government policies are stupid government policies. Period.

[Stavros]

Interesting I hated school lunch most of the time. I remember a kid eating a green hot dog in the 3rd or 4th grade. And there vegetable YUCK. I surely hope that the food is better these days at least.

A green hot-dog?? As if chicken nuggets weren't bad enough as a 'healthy option'!! Or is it a Southern thang..?

[russtafa]

yeah we got a government no one wants

[hippifried]

I believe that the incident in question, in North Carolina, is this one:
http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-...t-china-is-it/

Okay, but where's the USDA?
Preschool in Mayberry, huh? Somehow, I don't remember Barney being a Fed.

[Faldur]

Damn that North Carolina big brother government for trying to make sure kids get a balanced meal. DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!

Those who give up their freedoms so easily. What will happen when you surrender this freedom, allow your kindergardener to be searched at will. Then a party is elected to office that you strongly disagree with? What will they be searching for?

[Stavros]

I think you are being disingenuous Faldur. Yes, there are times when the attempt by a State or a Government or an Education department to deal with genuine social issues goes too far, and in this case the Inspector doesn't even seem to have done his or her job properly anyway as the child in question never ate the vegetable that was the prime cause of the action. But it isn't part of a conspiracy by North Carolina to take over everyone's lunch options, presumably with the threat of the Gulag/Guantanamo if they resist. The Inspector after all, didn't grab the child's head, and force-feed the vegetable in question. Come to think of it, I don't think they even get vegetables in the Gulag.

The core issue here is actually the debate about what children should be eating. There is a wider issue too about parents who cannot afford to give their children a packed lunch, and those who can. I don't think this is something that can be regulated because children's attitude to food is so diverse, and can also be emotionally damaging if not handled properly.

Reverse the equation -should parents who cannot afford to provide their children with a packed lunch be content to know that when they send their children to school, their children were eating burgers and fries with soda followed by chocolate fudge cake? Enough sugar and salt to rot a cat's teeth in seven days.

There must be better ways of dealing with this.

[JerseyMike]

Reverse the equation -should parents who cannot afford to provide their children with a packed lunch be content to know that when they send their children to school, their children were eating burgers and fries with soda followed by chocolate fudge cake? Enough sugar and salt to rot a cat's teeth in seven days.

No parents who cannot afford to provide their children with a packed lunch shouldn't be able to have children at all. That is why I support Planned Parenthood.

[Faldur]

Well Stavros I wasn't, nor am being disingenuous on this issue. When we surrender our right to freedom, and allow the government to inspect our children's lunch boxes to ensure they meet the government standard our country as it was founded is lost.

I do not care what the government thinks my children should eat. I am their father and I will decide. The intent of this issue, IMHO, was to instill that the government knows better than the parent of a child.

[Faldur]

Wrong. A pharmacist cannot decide he doesn't believe in antibiotics and refuse to sell them. Certain pharmacists in Illinois claimed they didn't have to carry or sell birth control. The State and the courts saw the issue differently; i.e. they do have to carry and sell birth control.

Sorry, your statement is completely wrong. A pharmacist has the free right to choose each and every item that he/she sells. If a pharmacist was so ignorant that they choose not to sell antibiotics, A) they would probably be out of business within a year, and B) would probably not qualify for a license to operate a pharmacy. But his/her FREE right to make what ever moral/ideological decision is theirs to make, however stupid it may be. Freedom does not discriminate against the stupid.

In Illinois the courts upheld the state's regulation that a pharmacy must sell certain items. Thats why we have state elections, and vote on how we want our state's managed. The pharmacies were forced to obey the law. If the pharmacy found the law so against their beliefs they have the option to go elsewhere or close. Simple really..

[Silcc69]

Those who give up their freedoms so easily. What will happen when you surrender this freedom, allow your kindergardener to be searched at will. Then a party is elected to office that you strongly disagree with? What will they be searching for?

Homeland Security.....