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

[Faldur]

So now the federal government feels it is they're responsibility to inspect 4 year olds lunches. We actually hire USDA officials to search 4 year olds coming to schools with the lunches their parents have packed.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xEehooYC6Rk/TE-MrBtKbyI/AAAAAAAACmY/iu8KbVCZQpU/s1600/boston-tea-party.jpg

[trish]

The government of Virginia now feels it needs to rape women who seek abortions in their first trimester by jamming an ultrasound device up their vaginas without their consent and with absolutely no medical need. The vote for the bill was split down partisan lines. It is the conservatives who want big government in your sex life.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/15/government-sanctioned-rape-in-state-virginia-and-texas

Not a surprise though. It's the conservatives who say that your boss's religious sensitivities trump their employee's individual freedoms. Just gotta hope your boss doesn't convert to Christian Science or becomes a Jehovah's Witness!

[Faldur]

It's the conservatives who say that your boss's religious sensitivities trump their employee's individual freedoms.

Huh? Which "boss" is trying to say their sensitivities are superior to anyone else's? You used the keyword, freedom. The "boss" has no less a right to freedom than does an employee. But an oppressive government has no business in this country telling anyone that they MUST buy something.

But when the USDA wants to come in to search your lunch box to ensure your eating the right foods, thats ok. So how far out until the NCCC comes into your home to inspect your computer to ensure you are only visiting the sites government wants you to visit?

[trish]

The latter issue to which I'm referring is the objection of the Catholic hierarchy to the requirement that the health care insurance they provide to their university employees, hospital employees etc. include the coverage of contraception. Their logic is if you're employed by a Jehovah Witness, they don't need to provide you with insurance that covers blood transfusions... because JW's find blood transfusions morally abhorrent. This is an issue, as you must know, is currently being demagogued by conservatives throughout the U.S.

[Faldur]

Again Trish, freedom really isn't that hard to understand. An employer has the freedom to manage his company with his/her personal beliefs. An employee enjoys every free benefit that an employer does, along with the freedom to choose where they work.

And now that you have totally changed the topic, I supposed your in complete agreement with governmental searches of 4 year old lunch pails?

[trish]

What are they searching for? Why are searching for it? Who's actually is doing the searching? Are they really actually searching the lunch pails of four year olds ('cause they don't usually go to school)? You didn't give a link to the bill or a non-Fox story covering the bill.


An employer has the freedom to manage his company with his/her personal beliefs.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.

[Stavros]

I believe that the incident in question, in North Carolina, is this one:
http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-inspectors-searching-childrens-lunch-boxes-this-isnt-china-is-it/

The issue of nutrition in school meals has been in and out of the news here for a few years since the tv/celebrity chef Jamie Oliver determined to wean high school children off a lunchtime menu of 'turkey twizzlers' and fries -and demonstrated not only that nutritious meals were simple to make, and cheaper -but that most 13 yr olds didn't want them! The food was junk, the turkey was poor quality and loaded with cereal and water, and so on. At a school where the healthy option was de rigeur, angry parents were passing fish 'n chips to little Darren and Sharon through the school gates.

Ok, it seems in Carolina even though the Inspector hired by the State to implement a nutrition progrmme developed with good intentions, forced the girl to accept the school meal as well as her own, what was it? Chicken Nuggets!!! It was the lack of a vegetable in the girl's lunchbox that alarmed the Commissar, but she didn't eat the one the school did provide anyway, so if there is a healthy eating programme going on in the school, it clearly didn't work.

The girl does'nt like vegetables, I hated them too when I was little, its a desperately anxious period in life and my school days around the age of 7-11 were an absolute misery at lunchtimes.

Change of programme methinks. Or ditch it, and hope that parents will, if they can afford it, provide their children with healthy lunches.

[onmyknees]

Again Trish, freedom really isn't that hard to understand. An employer has the freedom to manage his company with his/her personal beliefs. An employee enjoys every free benefit that an employer does, along with the freedom to choose where they work.

And now that you have totally changed the topic, I supposed your in complete agreement with governmental searches of 4 year old lunch pails?



These Libs slay me. As long as it's their guy encroaching on individual rights....they're essentially mum. Civil liberties from me.......not for thee ! lol You don't need to close your eyes and imagine the hand wringing of Rachel Maddow if it was the Bush Administration that allowed the groping of grandmas at the airport....or strip searches because of colostomy bags. They screamed Bush and Cheeny were shreding the Constitution, but remain curiouly silent when his successor ( closer to their idelogy) keeps in place the exact same policies. At least with respect to the Kelo Supreme Court decision, libertarians and conservatives were vociferous about private property rights. We didn't look at the Bush Administration and say....well he's our guy so we'll temper our disdain. They tell us we're Islamophobic and that we don't respect religion because of opposition to the Ground Zero mosque, and out of the other side of their mouths.....they tell us a 20 dollar morning after pill trumps religious liberty. They scream and stomp their feet about the Patriot act and it's modest provisions, yet can't muster the energy to protest the reality that attractive woman are being singled out at airports for full body scans and rubs. They draw some sort of equivalency between the Bush theoretical policy of tracking guns to Mexican Cartels, yet call us racist when we demand to know why Holder made no provisions to actually track these guns and Mexican citizens are being slaughtered by those guns. How dare we demand to have the facts?
They call us bigots and Bull Conner when we ask the same level of proof to exercise that most sacred privilege of voting that we do when cashing a check, with the full knowledge that states have found tens of thousands of dead people on the voting rolls. How dare we demand proof of residency? They say they cherish free speech, yet support and patronize organizations that look to crush and silence opposing views. They want to extinguish your right to smoke tobacco anywhere, anytime, even in private establishments , and deny your second amendment rights....monitor your sugar and fat intake....yet speak of your discomfort with the amount of federally funded abortions, and you'll be singled out and vilified. It's called hypocrisy...and they live it and breath it everyday. How any of these people can even look in the mirror, behold the oozing, intellectual dishonesty, and not want to smash what they see is truly mystifying to me.

These fuckers must be "shellacked" over and over again.

[trish]

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

[Silcc69]

I believe that the incident in question, in North Carolina, is this one:
http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-inspectors-searching-childrens-lunch-boxes-this-isnt-china-is-it/

The issue of nutrition in school meals has been in and out of the news here for a few years since the tv/celebrity chef Jamie Oliver determined to wean high school children off a lunchtime menu of 'turkey twizzlers' and fries -and demonstrated not only that nutritious meals were simple to make, and cheaper -but that most 13 yr olds didn't want them! The food was junk, the turkey was poor quality and loaded with cereal and water, and so on. At a school where the healthy option was de rigeur, angry parents were passing fish 'n chips to little Darren and Sharon through the school gates.

Ok, it seems in Carolina even though the Inspector hired by the State to implement a nutrition progrmme developed with good intentions, forced the girl to accept the school meal as well as her own, what was it? Chicken Nuggets!!! It was the lack of a vegetable in the girl's lunchbox that alarmed the Commissar, but she didn't eat the one the school did provide anyway, so if there is a healthy eating programme going on in the school, it clearly didn't work.

The girl does'nt like vegetables, I hated them too when I was little, its a desperately anxious period in life and my school days around the age of 7-11 were an absolute misery at lunchtimes.

Change of programme methinks. Or ditch it, and hope that parents will, if they can afford it, provide their children with healthy lunches.

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.

[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/ (http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-inspectors-searching-childrens-lunch-boxes-this-isnt-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.....

[trish]

In Illinois the courts upheld the state's regulation that a pharmacy must sell certain items.Exactly. Illinois pharmacies must sell birth control. That's the law. Moreover, a pharmacy that refused to sell antibiotics would lose it's license. So what part of "A pharmacist cannot decide he doesn't believe in antibiotics and refuse to sell them " don't you understand.

[Faldur]

Exactly. Illinois pharmacies must sell birth control. That's the law. Moreover, a pharmacy that refused to sell antibiotics would lose it's license. So what part of "A pharmacist cannot decide he doesn't believe in antibiotics and refuse to sell them " don't you understand.

Did you not read my post?

"A pharmacist has the free right to choose each and every item that he/she sells."

I think we have a fundamental difference of how we perceive freedom. I believe you distain the fact that people have the free will to make any choice in their lives that they wish to.

[Silcc69]

Did you not read my post?

"A pharmacist has the free right to choose each and every item that he/she sells."

I think we have a fundamental difference of how we perceive freedom. I believe you distain the fact that people have the free will to make any choice in their lives that they wish to.

Cept gay people aren't really free to mary one another and I wonder why.....

[Faldur]

Cept gay people aren't really free to mary one another and I wonder why.....

And you know my opinion on that? I am all for gay people marrying, what is it to me. It their lives, not mine to judge. I proudly live in a state that just passed a law allowing it. I am also for keeping abortion legal and safe. Does that shock you?

I personally appose what abortion is, but I believe changing peoples minds is more important and humane than endangering their lives. In my minds perfect world we would have the finest abortion clinics in the world, that are never used. Is that so terrible?

[trish]

I can only surmise that you're making a big deal out of some sort of bizarre notion of "free right" as opposed to a "right." By that reasoning you have a free right to murder whomever you please, but that doesn't mean you can decide to murder whomever you please and do it.

[Silcc69]

And you know my opinion on that? I am all for gay people marrying, what is it to me. It their lives, not mine to judge. I proudly live in a state that just passed a law allowing it. I am also for keeping abortion legal and safe. Does that shock you?

I personally appose what abortion is, but I believe changing peoples minds is more important and humane than endangering their lives. In my minds perfect world we would have the finest abortion clinics in the world, that are never used. Is that so terrible?

We have had this convo before but we know as a whole where the GOP stands on this issue. As we have seen gay republicans, muslim republicans, and even transgendered republicans. But they for some reason or another simply aren't welcome in the GOP.

[Faldur]

I can only surmise that you're making a big deal out of some sort of bizarre notion of "free right" as opposed to a "right." By that reasoning you have a free right to murder whomever you please, but that doesn't mean you can decide to murder whomever you please and do it.

We live in a land with laws. If someone chooses to murder another person there are consequences for their unlawful actions. One of them being they forfeit the most precious gift they have, their freedom.

[trish]

Likewise, we live in a land of laws and a pharmacist must sell antibiotics or lose his current mode of livelihood.

[hippifried]

Mountains, molehills, all the same.

[Stavros]

I liked this thread when it was about the issues generated by the growing fear that 'our children' are not eating healthy meals and becoming obese as they grow older (with all the health implications of that), and whether or not by sending Inspectors into schools to order children around, you are losing your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As on your side of the Atlantic, there has been a debate here about healthy eating, Jamie Oliver had a tv series on healty eating in schools; and sociologists, dieticians and politicians have turned what should be a coherent debate into a pointless argument to regulate what people eat when the simple truth is that feeding children is the hardest part of the problem, because children can often have extreme reactions to particular types of food, such as vegetables.

Oliver would argue, and probably be right, that how a vegetable is cooked is the key, and that noone is going to enjoy carrots and beans if they have been boiled for so long they have lost their consistency and their flavour. But if a child has an extreme reaction to the smell of something cooking, or has tasted something it thinks is vile, even if it was badly cooked, and hated it thereafter, you cannot force the child to eat it. Forcing a child to eat anything is wrong, if it was the UK I think we would want that Inspector disciplined for assaulting a child.

And it is also not good enough for people to claim that a healthy diet consists of 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day, plus physical exercise. Some people cannot afford to buy five portions of either, and there are cultural differences which mean some people eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner; some eat potato rather than rice, and so on.

My pet hate: mashed potato. Its a long story, but I can eat potato fried, roasted or boiled, but no Michelin-starred chef or a French cook, male or female, will ever get me to eat mashed potato. You can put as much Jersey butter, chives, creme fraiche or Cognac in it, I will not eat it.

[muh_muh]

all this aside am i the only one who got the feel from reading the article that the inspector overstepped his boundaries massively by taking away the childs lunch and this has nothing to do with the program being a problem but is simply a case of an overzealus inspector who should get fired?

[hippifried]

all this aside am i the only one who got the feel from reading the article that the inspector overstepped his boundaries massively by taking away the childs lunch and this has nothing to do with the program being a problem but is simply a case of an overzealus inspector who should get fired?
Well that's been my take, but I'm not willing to assume even overzealousness. The reality is that we know what Mom put in the bag, but we don't know what was in the bag when the inspector took a peek. These are children. Am I the only one with vivid memories of childhood? "Hey, I'll swap you a piece of gum for your apple."

[Faldur]

all this aside am i the only one who got the feel from reading the article that the inspector overstepped his boundaries massively by taking away the childs lunch and this has nothing to do with the program being a problem but is simply a case of an overzealus inspector who should get fired?

Your not the only one, although the thought of me agreeing with you probably won't sit well.

When did parental rights get trumped by government? Since when did we surrender that kind of power to big government? It is a slippery slope when you empower a bureaucracy to manage so much of your lives. How far off can it be that we will be told which websites we can visit and which we can't? Is that any different than inspecting your lunch?

[fred41]

all this aside am i the only one who got the feel from reading the article that the inspector overstepped his boundaries massively by taking away the childs lunch and this has nothing to do with the program being a problem but is simply a case of an overzealus inspector who should get fired?

I believe this could very well be the case. It could also just be a misunderstanding. I say this because there probably would have been more outcries than this.

[Prospero]

Oh Fred - you are way too reasonable. This is surely just another indication of the evil jackboots of big government trampling all over the constitution and on the rights and freedom of ordinary American citizens. Abolish all government. Especially that which tampers with the rights of corporations to flood the election process with huge sums of money.
And big government works right the way down the system - like those States passing new laws requiring photographic ID to register to vote (funnily enough all Republican administrations) which effectively excludes many students, the very poor, many Black people, the unemployed etc. And funilly enough those thus excluded would tend to be democrat voters. Funny that.

[muh_muh]

When did parental rights get trumped by government?

1) if im right and he did overstep his boundaries then its not the government that did this but one lone inspector so your whole point is invalid
which wouldnt be terribly surprising since you have a habit of doing that
2) parents dont have a right to malnutrition their children

[trish]

It's has already been established in the U.S.A. that children have no expectation of privacy in public schools. Some schools districts routinely and systematically inspect the contents of lockers. Some school districts invite the municipal police onto school property with drug sniffing dogs to sweep parking lots, hallways, lockers, classrooms, locker rooms, gyms etc. Other school districts subject their student body to random drug testing (for cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes and birth control). All of these activities have been challenged in court and the courts have persistently found that children do not have the same expectations as adults under the constitution. Children in private schools sometimes have even fewer individual rights.

Not that I agree with all this surveillance, but I do recall that when I protested against the implementation of some of these procedures at my own school district, I was joined by the liberals in the community and opposed vociferously by the conservatives (and also the clergy) who felt children needed very close attention.

It seems to me muh-muh has the appropriate reaction in this particular case. There's nothing wrong with a program that attempts to make sure students get balanced meals. Moreover, parents do not own their children, rather they are entrusted to care for, educate and guide their charge into adulthood. Parents and program employees both have been known to be over zealous or sometimes to overreact while carrying out their duties.

[fred41]

Many are getting ahead of yourselves regarding this and all other personal freedoms. There are gray areas everywhere...it's never black & white. When it comes to searching areas of school for drugs...or much more important - weapons, it often becomes necessary for everyone's overall safety to give up some "perceived" personal freedoms.

But on the other side of the coin...I think it would be a very rare instance indeed, where you would give the state the right to go into your child's pre packed lunch and deem it unfit...and then replace it. Don't get me wrong: I don't for a minute think that happened here...but that would, in my opinion be a gross governmental overstep. I don't have any children of my own, but I can't see any parents that would agree to something like that.
I think we all basically agree on some of this.