(Close Window)
Topic: If this is not despotism, what is?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 16, 2012 04:49AM)
When Federal agents scrutinize the lunch a 4-year-old's Mother has lovingly packed for her, and determine it does not meet official specifications, and force the girl to buy a lunch from the school Caféteria --which she does not eat-- and send her mother the bill, you are no longer living in a free country.

And all of us taxpayers are paying for a [url=http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/15/fox-follow-up-reporter-who-broke-school-lunch-story-that-sparked-national-debate-speaks-out/]bloated bureaucracy[/url] to make it happen.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 16, 2012 05:54AM)
Sorry. You lost all credibility when you linked to a Fox news story. Link to a creditable and legitimate NEWS organization.

Fox news only exists to get dumb people rilled up.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 16, 2012 06:09AM)
LOL.

Okay, SLide, I'll call your bluff.

From the [url=http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2012/02/15/preschoolers-turkey-sandwich-deemed-unhealthy-given-chicken-nuggets-instead/?tsp=1]San Francisco Chronicle:[/url]


From [url=http://news.investors.com/Article/601283/201202151820/school-says-moms-lunch-is-unhealthy-.htm]Investor's Business Daily:[/url]


From the more local [url=p://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/16/3015984/robo-call-smackdown-and-the-school.html#storylink=cpy
]Charlotte Observer:[/url]


And to show you that the story has international reach, from the [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101354/Food-police-reject-preschoolers-homemade-lunch--favour-chicken-nuggets.html#ixzz1mXuM7UXj]Daily Mail:[/url]


You may not like any of those sources either, but neither Pravda nor the People's Daily have picked up the story -- yet. Stay tuned . . . .
Message: Posted by: Jon_Thompson (Feb 16, 2012 07:13AM)
Ah, the Daily Hate - I mean Mail.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 16, 2012 07:35AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 06:54, Slide wrote:
Sorry. You lost all credibility when you linked to a Fox news story. Link to a creditable and legitimate NEWS organization.

Fox news only exists to get dumb people rilled up.
[/quote]

I need a laugh...what's an example of a NEWS organization you find credible and legitimate?
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Feb 16, 2012 09:43AM)
Makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know our "government intelligence" is being so well placed! Thank God that little girl wasn't left with no choice but a turkey sandwich carefully prepared by mom and an apple! Oh, the horrors!
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Feb 16, 2012 09:48AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 06:54, Slide wrote:

Fox news only exists to get dumb people rilled up.
[/quote]

Apparently. The mere mention of it seemed to get you pretty "rilled" up.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Feb 16, 2012 09:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 05:49, Woland wrote:
When Federal agents scrutinize the lunch a 4-year-old's Mother has lovingly packed for her, and determine it does not meet official specifications, and force the girl to buy a lunch from the school Caféteria --which she does not eat-- and send her mother the bill, you are no longer living in a free country.
[/quote]

Where in the article did it state that there were Federal Agents involved in this. It plainly stated "that it was an agent from the Department of Health and Human Services at the state level." So this appears to be an issue in North Carolina and no where else. At least I haven't heard of G-Men bursting into schools and forcibly confiscating lunches. This seems to be a case of an over zealous and poorly trained state worker either on a power trip or over zealously interpreting the parameters of a state run program.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 16, 2012 10:36AM)
I interpreted that phrase, Payne, to refer to a Federal employee of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. I will re-check to see if there is more detailed information, and get back to you on that one.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 16, 2012 10:54AM)
This is, in fact, a North Carolina issue, not a federal one.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Feb 16, 2012 11:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 11:36, Woland wrote:
I interpreted that phrase, Payne, to refer to a Federal employee of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. I will re-check to see if there is more detailed information, and get back to you on that one.
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2012-02-16 10:54, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 05:49, Woland wrote:
When Federal agents scrutinize the lunch a 4-year-old's Mother has lovingly packed for her, and determine it does not meet official specifications, and force the girl to buy a lunch from the school Caféteria --which she does not eat-- and send her mother the bill, you are no longer living in a free country.
[/quote]

Where in the article did it state that there were Federal Agents involved in this. It plainly stated [b]"that it was an agent from the Department of Health and Human Services at the state level."[/b] So this appears to be an issue in North Carolina and no where else. At least I haven't heard of G-Men bursting into schools and forcibly confiscating lunches. This seems to be a case of an over zealous and poorly trained state worker either on a power trip or over zealously interpreting the parameters of a state run program.
[/quote]

Recheck to see if there's more information? That is a direct quote from the article YOU linked to? Either you didn't even read your own source or you're just trying to stir up trouble as is your usual M.O.



As you see Slide, Woland's credibility was lost more than 400 posts ago.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 16, 2012 12:00PM)
Whether the issue is "Federal" or "North Carolina," it is certainly an example of unnecessarily intrusive government.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 16, 2012 12:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 12:23, Bill Hilly wrote:

...

Recheck to see if there's more information? That is a direct quote from the article YOU linked to? Either you didn't even read your own source or you're just trying to stir up trouble as is your usual M.O.


As you see Slide, Woland's credibility was lost more than 400 posts ago.
[/quote]

Wow, talk about over the top. I don't see how stating Federal agents over state agents points towards trying to stir up trouble. The point is the same. Ridiculous intrusion by the government. Someone else has lost all credibility with me.

It may be that it was simply a case of an over zealous and poorly trained state worker as Paine suggests. But if that were the case, I would expect the State to apologize and correct the situation which I'm not sure there are any indications that it has happened.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 16, 2012 12:54PM)
I blipped by it and read it as federal workers the first time around. "The Department of Health and Human Services at the state level" is a really weird construction. I'd certainly have written it as "The North Carolina Department of Heath and Human Services."
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 16, 2012 01:00PM)
[quote]On 2012-02-16 13:54, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'd certainly have written it as "The North Carolina Department of Heath and Human Services."[/quote]
But, then, you strive for clarity.

Anarchist!
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 16, 2012 01:04PM)
I thought the thread title said "nepotism" and got all excited.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 16, 2012 01:18PM)
Thanks, Lobo & Rockwall.

Whether the enforcer was employed by the State or the Feds, he or she was acting on the basis of Federal guidelines, from the USDA.

Moreover, a current SCOTUS Justice was asked about just this sort of situation [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kagan-coburn-whether-government-can-make-you-eat-vegetables]during her confirmation hearings:[/url]

[quote]On Tuesday evening, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) posed a hypothetical question to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan: If Congress passed a law that said Americans “have to eat three vegetables and three fruits, every day … does that violate the Commerce Clause?”

“Sounds like a dumb law,” Kagan replied.

…I think that the question about whether it is a dumb law is different from the question of whether it’s constitutional. And I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.

COBURN: Well, I guess the question I’m asking you is: Do we have the power to tell people what they have to eat every day?

KAGAN: Senator Coburn, um…[/quote]

And as [url=http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/12/0212/021512.html]James Lileks puts it:
[/url]
[quote]I guarantee you this: when this program - whatever the devil it is - was first proposed, someone said it will lead to inspectors demanding to see what’s in kid’s lunches, and insisting they eat something else instead of what mom sent. And the critic got a cold, withering look from the good people in charge. i][Really. I think that’s a little overboard.[/i]

You could say: yank the kid! Private schools! But they’ll be next; there’s no possible argument left for letting some private institution wreak their havoc on juvenile constitutions, particularly if they partake of some governmental benefit, like “Streets” or “water” or perhaps clean air.

Yes, I know. [i]Really. I think that’s a little overboard.[/i] [/quote]

I apologize for misreading the original news story and assuming that the Department of Health and Human Services mentioned was a Federal rather than a North Carolina entity. But the guidelines are clearly Federal, and the impulse to control every facet of daily life is quite strong in those who advocate bigger government.

And your taxes are paying for it.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Feb 16, 2012 01:28PM)
The guidelines are set at the Federal level(USDA). The person interpreting and applying the rule was a state employee. As if that makes any difference at all.

Obviously the people who are griping about the source of the news, or whether the person who told the girl her mother made her a bad lunch was a State of Ferderal employee, aren't bothered by the fact that we have people rooting through grade schoolers lunch bags and deciding if what their parents packed is to the governments liking.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 16, 2012 01:30PM)
I don't agree with them getting involved in someone's packed lunch from home.
But I wouldn't have any issue with those lunches which the school sells being required to meet standards of healthiness.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 16, 2012 01:33PM)
Word on the street is that the Heart Attack Grill has aced the contract . . .
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 16, 2012 01:38PM)
I wish. My high school had the nastiest pseudo-burgers I've ever had in my life.
Had to pile the condiments on those things to make them tolerable.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 16, 2012 01:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 14:18, Woland wrote:
Thanks, Lobo & Rockwall.

Whether the enforcer was employed by the State or the Feds, he or she was acting on the basis of Federal guidelines, from the USDA.

Moreover, a current SCOTUS Justice was asked about just this sort of situation [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kagan-coburn-whether-government-can-make-you-eat-vegetables]during her confirmation hearings:[/url]

[quote]On Tuesday evening, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) posed a hypothetical question to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan: If Congress passed a law that said Americans “have to eat three vegetables and three fruits, every day … does that violate the Commerce Clause?”

“Sounds like a dumb law,” Kagan replied.

…I think that the question about whether it is a dumb law is different from the question of whether it’s constitutional. And I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.

COBURN: Well, I guess the question I’m asking you is: Do we have the power to tell people what they have to eat every day?

KAGAN: Senator Coburn, um…[/quote]

And as [url=http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/12/0212/021512.html]James Lileks puts it:
[/url]
[quote]I guarantee you this: when this program - whatever the devil it is - was first proposed, someone said it will lead to inspectors demanding to see what’s in kid’s lunches, and insisting they eat something else instead of what mom sent. And the critic got a cold, withering look from the good people in charge. i][Really. I think that’s a little overboard.[/i]

You could say: yank the kid! Private schools! But they’ll be next; there’s no possible argument left for letting some private institution wreak their havoc on juvenile constitutions, particularly if they partake of some governmental benefit, like “Streets” or “water” or perhaps clean air.

Yes, I know. [i]Really. I think that’s a little overboard.[/i] [/quote]

I apologize for misreading the original news story and assuming that the Department of Health and Human Services mentioned was a Federal rather than a North Carolina entity. But the guidelines are clearly Federal, and the impulse to control every facet of daily life is quite strong in those who advocate bigger government.

And your taxes are paying for it.
[/quote]

A million monkeys typing on a million keyboards for a hundred million years couldn't come up with 5 things that wouldn't be construed to fall under the Commerce Clause anymore.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Feb 16, 2012 02:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 14:33, landmark wrote:
Word on the street is that the Heart Attack Grill has aced the contract . . .
[/quote]
Now THAT sounds like a plan!
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Feb 16, 2012 02:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 14:38, critter wrote:
I wish. My high school had the nastiest pseudo-burgers I've ever had in my life.
Had to pile the condiments on those things to make them tolerable.
[/quote]
Sounds like we went to the same school. It took me years to break the habit of automatically pilling them on any burger before tasting it.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 16, 2012 02:35PM)
LOL. And those 5 things would be construed to fall under "general welfare."
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Feb 16, 2012 02:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 13:32, rockwall wrote:
Wow, talk about over the top.[/quote]

While I do have a problem with just about everything he posts, which is usually just to stir up trouble.

Perhaps I picked the wrong day to break my rule of not reading a thread he starts and ignoring thread I had been in once he enters.

I got a call from the hospital this morning saying my dad will be released tomorrow because they can't do anything for him - after a week of 24 hour observation and tests. My apologies for butting in.

Butting back out now.
- B.H.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 16, 2012 02:43PM)
They’re trying everything to destroy the American Constitution.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 16, 2012 03:25PM)
What. The. ****?

Am I the only one who noticed?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 16, 2012 03:26PM)
Anywho. Forcing kids to buy their lunch, and then there's bribing them to show up in the first place:
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/02/13/cincinnati-high-school-paying-students-to-come-to-school/
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 16, 2012 03:31PM)
Well bribery does work, if intermittent. So they're doing it wrong if that's the only goal.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 16, 2012 03:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 15:40, Bill Hilly wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 13:32, rockwall wrote:
Wow, talk about over the top.[/quote]

While I do have a problem with just about everything he posts, which is usually just to stir up trouble.

Perhaps I picked the wrong day to break my rule of not reading a thread he starts and ignoring thread I had been in once he enters.

I got a call from the hospital this morning saying my dad will be released tomorrow because they can't do anything for him - after a week of 24 hour observation and tests. My apologies for butting in.

Butting back out now.
- B.H.
[/quote]

Very sorry to hear this, Bill.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 16, 2012 04:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 15:40, Bill Hilly wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 13:32, rockwall wrote:
Wow, talk about over the top.[/quote]

While I do have a problem with just about everything he posts, which is usually just to stir up trouble.

Perhaps I picked the wrong day to break my rule of not reading a thread he starts and ignoring thread I had been in once he enters.

I got a call from the hospital this morning saying my dad will be released tomorrow because they can't do anything for him - after a week of 24 hour observation and tests. My apologies for butting in.

Butting back out now.
- B.H.
[/quote]


And my opinion would be the exact opposite. For instance, I have never seen Woland do something like claim someone else's sole motivation is to stir up trouble or to attack someone personally.

I have found Woland's posts, while certainly espousing a certain political viewpoint, are nearly always well thought out, informative, and politely presented and presented with strong supporting logic.

I suspect that is what so many find so irritating about him.

Sorry to here about your father.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Feb 16, 2012 04:25PM)
Thank you Lobo. I appreciate it.

I only mentioned that to explain my shortness of temper. These are trying times for a lot of us and I hope to remember not to post negative or critical replies when in this frame of mind. Heck, this is supposed to be one of my refuges. I don't want to alienate myself (too much).

That said, I do agree that the aforementioned situation, if indeed true, is clearly going overboard. I can see something being done if a child is apparently malnourished or neglected in some other way. That would be a safety type of thing. But if the child is well and the lunch is not moldy or somesuch then it should be the parent's business.

- B.H.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Feb 16, 2012 04:27PM)
Thanks rockwall.

- B.H.
Message: Posted by: Chance (Feb 16, 2012 05:06PM)
"If this is not despotism, what is?"

Easy. Real despotism is when a public figure betrays their sworn duty to serve and protect, and to otherwise support and defend the Constitution.

The official in this story did nothing to betray the public trust or their sworn oath.

It very well could be that the official overstepped their authority. The article says that the actions won't be repeated, which is good to know. But the title "despot" does NOT apply here.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Feb 16, 2012 05:18PM)
It's government gone wild out there, and I am pretty sure the fat woman already sang but nobody noticed due to all the other distractions.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 16, 2012 05:24PM)
[quote]On 2012-02-16 18:06, Chance wrote:
Real despotism is when a public figure betrays their sworn duty to serve and protect, and to otherwise support and defend the Constitution.[/quote]
Your definition seems to be at odds with that of Merriam-Webster:

[b]des·po·tism[/b]

[i]1a : rule by a despot
b : despotic exercise of power
2a : a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power : ABSOLUTISM
b : a despotic state[/i]

Let's check [i]despot[/i], to fill in the blanks:

[b]des·pot[/b]

[i]1a : a Byzantine emperor or prince
b : a bishop or patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church
c : an Italian hereditary prince or military leader during the Renaissance
2a : a ruler with absolute power and authority
b : a person exercising power tyrannically[/i]

[i]2b[/i] seems about right: the guy looks like a despot to me.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 16, 2012 05:30PM)
The official looks more like a Barney Fife to me. And the fact that they told him to knock it off and he backed down, kind of undermines his "despotness" a bit.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 16, 2012 06:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 18:30, mastermindreader wrote:
The official looks more like a Barney Fife to me. And the fact that they told him to knock it off and he backed down, kind of undermines his "despotness" a bit.
[/quote]

That's exactly right...he's trying to create his own little Fifedom.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2012 09:54AM)
The job of the government appears to be to make certain they have jobs. Lets put the above hyperbole behind us, and lets not use words like "despot" and such. Does anyone think it is the job of the state to regulate individual lunches that moms and dads pack?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2012 11:25AM)
Does anyone really think it is the job of the state to regulate and inspect lunches (Federal or State level mind you.) of children that are packed by mom and dad?
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Feb 17, 2012 11:32AM)
"The job of the government appears to be to make certain they have jobs."

The bald truth, elegantly stated!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 17, 2012 11:59AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 12:25, Dannydoyle wrote:

Does anyone really think it is the job of the state to regulate and inspect lunches (Federal or State level mind you.) of children that are packed by mom and dad?
[/quote]

I'm against state-monitored lunches. And murder.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 17, 2012 12:55PM)
The reason that I brought up this incident in the first place is that it is not simply an isolated bizarre happening, but the type of thing that is happening more and more frequently.

Libertarians among us might be interested by this article:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=david_pimentel
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Feb 17, 2012 12:55PM)
What an idiot.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 17, 2012 02:52PM)
[quote]On 2012-02-17 15:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
. . . I think the death penalty should apply to all cases of first degree murder . . . .[/quote]
And with (deliberate) dispatch.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2012 03:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 15:10, Chance wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 13:11, gdw wrote:
And Chance, the point is NOT that we should ignore that particular issue, but that we shouldn't be ignoring everyother issue, and inteject police shooting people into "literally"(since we are mixing threads) every discusion.
[/quote]

Well, since I don't, you and Danny are just talking out the side of your mouth. I've written 300 misc. messages since my last post involving this topic.

And this whole lunch business is not an issue any way. It's a NON issue. More people die of second-hand smoke in one month than will EVER die from a lunch intervention of this type. Having correct priorites is the first step to any discussion involving the public trust.
[/quote]

More people are killed by auto accidents than cops. Lets start there. Lets hear you rail against that. Or here ya go lets try this. Since from this post, which I have not edited in ANY way, seems to indicate your only priority is body count here is one for you. Here is a body count site for you. http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/20-things-that-kill-more-people-than-sharks-every

I have no idea if it is accurate but tell us where cops fall in this one? Before vending machines? Before hot dogs? Where (and provide us with some stats) do cops who kill unarmed people FOR NO REASON fall on this scale?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 17, 2012 03:53PM)
Surprised at the high number for lightening and the low number for tornadoes. Interesting.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 17, 2012 04:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 16:53, landmark wrote:
Surprised at the high number for lightening
[/quote]

A really high percentage of those are golfers going after a Darwin award.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2012 05:54PM)
For the record I do not claim the site is accurate at all.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 17, 2012 05:56PM)
What is the ratio of innocent people shot by cops to innocent cops shot by criminals? Sadly, I seem to read about the latter almost every week.

Sure there are bad cops out there, but there are countless good ones who put their own lives on the line every day.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 17, 2012 05:59PM)
Now I have a craving for Caesar salad!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 17, 2012 07:42PM)
I notice in didn't preface "American citizen" with "law-abiding." For some people, being killed by the police is a chosen occupational hazard.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 17, 2012 07:45PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc

Dang YouTube.