gbaji wrote:
You're just as free to make a bad choice as a good one. But if we start taking away choices because we don't want people to make bad ones, we are absolutely infringing their liberty.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- So what you all think about pizza being a vegetable?
So what you all think about pizza being a vegetable?Follow
I don't have any problem whatsoever infringing on the liberties that children don't have to begin with.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're just as free to make a bad choice as a good one. But if we start taking away choices because we don't want people to make bad ones, we are absolutely infringing their liberty.
No, Gbaji feels that people receiving federally subsidized foods have the RIGHT DAMNIT to make poor choices in their selection if they so desire. If they want to feed their kids school pizza and get their grains via 40oz'ers of food stamp malt liquor, it's what liberty is ALL ABOUT!
Edited, Nov 18th 2011 5:38pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Did anyone else watch the show where the British chef came to the "unhealthiest town in America" and served real food at the high school? It was a good show.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're just as free to make a bad choice as a good one. But if we start taking away choices because we don't want people to make bad ones, we are absolutely infringing their liberty.
Yeah, this is what gbaji is missing (shocking!) Kids don't get a choice!
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said they are necessary to reduce childhood obesity and future health care costs.
Good thing socialized medicine has no effect on liberty.
So forcing kids to eat crappy pizza and never giving them veggies is the same as giving them liberty?
No. But the government taking food choices away is a reduction of liberty, and doing so because of an analysis of future health care costs proves the argument I've made many times: When government takes responsibility for paying for something, it will soon take more control over the choices regarding that something. This is just an example of it in action.
It's not about the food. It's about the stated reason for making the change. They're doing it to save health care costs.
What about the choice to have the parents send a lunch?
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sorry, that's dumb.
It's federal government money - I don't see how mandating how it can be spent is dumb.
Mandating that it be spent providing food to children who would otherwise go hungry is one thing. Micromanaging exactly what foods the school must provide is completely different. The assumed objective here is to prevent kids from going hungry because their parents can't afford to provide them with lunches. It is *not* to force the decision about what exact foods the children eat. At long as it's "food" and prevents them from going hungry, the requirement from the federal government's perspective is met.
Quote:
Are you one of those people who hates building codes too?
If building codes start including what artwork I can hang on the walls of my home, yeah. The issue is one of the government using funding generated for one reason, to effect control over something completely different. That funding exists to ensure that kids don't go hungry, not to control what they eat. But liberals just can't help but use government programs to further control people's lives, can they?
Edited, Nov 18th 2011 4:07pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
Actually, I changed my mind. I agree with Gbaji. Just like he agrees it's a terrible breach of liberty to disallow use of food stamps for liquor, candy and cigarettes, I'll agree it makes Jefferson cry when kids are deprived of starchy and salty pizza. Welfare recipients and National School Lunch beneficiaries deserve to get whatever they wants!
You'd have a point if I was ok with the schools using that money to provide liquor and cigarettes to the kids (and no, I'm not going to fall for your candy bait!).
Edited, Nov 18th 2011 4:07pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Surely you admit that limiting what types of foodstuffs adults can purchase with food stamps is a terrible, indefensible breach of their precious liberties, right?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Nadenu wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're just as free to make a bad choice as a good one. But if we start taking away choices because we don't want people to make bad ones, we are absolutely infringing their liberty.
Yeah, this is what gbaji is missing (shocking!) Kids don't get a choice!
I'm not "missing" this. I've directly addressed this at least 4 times now.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
Surely you admit that limiting what types of foodstuffs adults can purchase with food stamps is a terrible, indefensible breach of their precious liberties, right?
When the purpose of the program is to ensure people have food to eat so they don't starve, I don't have a problem with limiting it to actual food which helps prevent them from starving. Pizza, even the pizza served at school cafeterias, does that. Cigarettes and liquor do not.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Well dang, I should have better utilized my overabundance of parsley and basil to make school size batches of pesto. It makes a mean pizza sauce.
I know one of my Senators lobbied hard for the revision of this bill in support of our potato-growers.
I know some nutritional guidelines are necessary, but honestly I don't think childhood obesity is going to be fixed by dabbling around with the quantities of tomato sauce and potatoes schools can serve kids.
I know one of my Senators lobbied hard for the revision of this bill in support of our potato-growers.
I know some nutritional guidelines are necessary, but honestly I don't think childhood obesity is going to be fixed by dabbling around with the quantities of tomato sauce and potatoes schools can serve kids.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
Mandating that it be spent providing food to children who would otherwise go hungry is one thing. Micromanaging exactly what foods the school must provide is completely different. The assumed objective here is to prevent kids from going hungry because their parents can't afford to provide them with lunches. It is *not* to force the decision about what exact foods the children eat. At long as it's "food" and prevents them from going hungry, the requirement from the federal government's perspective is met.
Mandating that the food needs to have actual nutritional value is not the same thing as "micromanaging exactly what foods the school must provide." The proposed legislation didn't even say schools could never serve pizza and fries - it simply mandated more variety.
Also I think it is well within the scope of the program to specify that the goal is to provide healthy food which will give kids the start they need in life.
So you want to steal their precious, precious liberty? Why do you hate freedom, Gbaji?
Who is to say liquor isn't a food? The same jerks who tried to say pizza isn't a vegetable -- the government?? You consume it, yes? It provides calories? You can even cook with it! Just like sugar! Are we saying that sugar isn't a foodstuff now as well? That's insane!
And why can't I use food stamps for hot food or small food items immediately consumable? Hamburgers aren't food now? Where's the outrage? God damn it, when the government subsidizes food, ANY limit to what that food is is practically communism! How DARE the government give you subsidized food and then place limits on it -- am I right?
Edited, Nov 18th 2011 6:18pm by Jophiel
Who is to say liquor isn't a food? The same jerks who tried to say pizza isn't a vegetable -- the government?? You consume it, yes? It provides calories? You can even cook with it! Just like sugar! Are we saying that sugar isn't a foodstuff now as well? That's insane!
And why can't I use food stamps for hot food or small food items immediately consumable? Hamburgers aren't food now? Where's the outrage? God damn it, when the government subsidizes food, ANY limit to what that food is is practically communism! How DARE the government give you subsidized food and then place limits on it -- am I right?
Edited, Nov 18th 2011 6:18pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Olorinus wrote:
Seriously? What kind of slimy heartless ******* is willing to sell out children's health because it offends frozen food manufacturers?
gbaji.
Man, that was an easy one.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Elinda wrote:
I know some nutritional guidelines are necessary, but honestly I don't think childhood obesity is going to be fixed by dabbling around with the quantities of tomato sauce and potatoes schools can serve kids.
I don't think it will "solve" obesity either - but for a lot of kids these meals are their MAIN meal of the day - they aren't getting good food at home - at the very least schools should be aiming to provide them the healthiest meal possible from the program.
It isn't just about the nutritional value of the food that is being served to these kids but about exposing them to vegetables and how tasty healthy food is. If the message that lawmakers and schools are sending to them is "pizza and french fries are everyday foods" and "you wouldn't like vegetables anyway" - how will they ever develop healthy diets?
Elinda wrote:
honestly I don't think childhood obesity is going to be fixed by dabbling around with the quantities of tomato sauce and potatoes schools can serve kids.
Neither does anyone else. Good thing no one is claiming this would single-handedly fix childhood obesity.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I love how the ads on the side of the board are now showing me coucous salad and healthy recipe websites. Go Go Google spying.
Haha... you have ads on.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
honestly I don't think childhood obesity is going to be fixed by dabbling around with the quantities of tomato sauce and potatoes schools can serve kids.
Neither does anyone else. Good thing no one is claiming this would single-handedly fix childhood obesity.
Of course not. Like I said nutritional guidelines are necessary. My most recent regulatory pessimism however just leaves me wondering what food-like item they might replace those fries with.
(hazard of the job)
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
My side ads are trying to sell me a 7-Eleven store.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Mandating that it be spent providing food to children who would otherwise go hungry is one thing. Micromanaging exactly what foods the school must provide is completely different. The assumed objective here is to prevent kids from going hungry because their parents can't afford to provide them with lunches. It is *not* to force the decision about what exact foods the children eat. At long as it's "food" and prevents them from going hungry, the requirement from the federal government's perspective is met.
Mandating that the food needs to have actual nutritional value is not the same thing as "micromanaging exactly what foods the school must provide."
The only nutritional value which needs to be mandated is that it prevent starvation. You know, be actual "food". That's it. If the purpose of that funding is to prevent kids from going hungry, it only needs to be limited to things that prevent kids from going hungry.
Quote:
The proposed legislation didn't even say schools could never serve pizza and fries - it simply mandated more variety.
No. It mandated more of certain types of foods and less of other types. More specifically, it attempted to disqualify certain foods from meeting requirements for funding. I'm not even 100% opposed to the concept itself. I just think that choices like that should be made at the district/school level. As long as the food is "food", that should qualify for the program's needs. If the school wants to make their menu more healthy, nothing is preventing them from doing so.
Quote:
Also I think it is well within the scope of the program to specify that the goal is to provide healthy food which will give kids the start they need in life.
No, it's really not. Those programs exist to provide food for kids who would otherwise have no lunch at all. The only criteria should be that it eliminates that problem.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Mandating that it be spent providing food to children who would otherwise go hungry is one thing. Micromanaging exactly what foods the school must provide is completely different. The assumed objective here is to prevent kids from going hungry because their parents can't afford to provide them with lunches. It is *not* to force the decision about what exact foods the children eat. At long as it's "food" and prevents them from going hungry, the requirement from the federal government's perspective is met.
Mandating that the food needs to have actual nutritional value is not the same thing as "micromanaging exactly what foods the school must provide."
The only nutritional value which needs to be mandated is that it prevent starvation. You know, be actual "food". That's it. If the purpose of that funding is to prevent kids from going hungry, it only needs to be limited to things that prevent kids from going hungry.
Quote:
The proposed legislation didn't even say schools could never serve pizza and fries - it simply mandated more variety.
No. It mandated more of certain types of foods and less of other types. More specifically, it attempted to disqualify certain foods from meeting requirements for funding. I'm not even 100% opposed to the concept itself. I just think that choices like that should be made at the district/school level. As long as the food is "food", that should qualify for the program's needs. If the school wants to make their menu more healthy, nothing is preventing them from doing so.
Quote:
Also I think it is well within the scope of the program to specify that the goal is to provide healthy food which will give kids the start they need in life.
No, it's really not. Those programs exist to provide food for kids who would otherwise have no lunch at all. The only criteria should be that it eliminates that problem.
That we have to have regulations to limit the amount of dirt-cheap frozen tidbits that the schools can feed kids is a sad place to be.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
Those programs exist to provide food for kids who would otherwise have no lunch at all. The only criteria should be that it eliminates that problem.
Legislative text of the National School Lunch Act (1946) wrote:
It is hereby declared the policy of Congress, as a measure of national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food, by assisting the states, through grants-in-aid and other means, in providing an adequate supply of foods and other facilities for the establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.
Nope, they don't exist solely to shovel warm cardboard or whatever will sustain life into the kids. So aside from being completely wrong, good job!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Olorinus wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I know some nutritional guidelines are necessary, but honestly I don't think childhood obesity is going to be fixed by dabbling around with the quantities of tomato sauce and potatoes schools can serve kids.
I don't think it will "solve" obesity either - but for a lot of kids these meals are their MAIN meal of the day - they aren't getting good food at home - at the very least schools should be aiming to provide them the healthiest meal possible from the program.
Why? If our assumption for funding this program in the first place is that this is the main meal of the day, shouldn't we be making sure it's the highest calorie, most fat laden, save-you-from-starvation meal possible? I somehow doubt that kids who are actually not eating food except what's served at school are the ones who are also becoming obese.
This is the government using a program intended for one purpose for another one. It's the other kids. The ones who can afford food just fine, but who are being fed high fat, high calorie meals, junk food, soda, and all sorts of other crap at home who are the target for this. As I mentioned earlier, given that schools can't afford to have one set of meals for the kids on government assistance and another set for those who are buying their lunch themselves, the government can manipulate what is available for the rest of the kids to eat by manipulating the nutritional requirements of the food paid for via the program.
And that's well beyond the mandate of the funded school lunch program.
Quote:
It isn't just about the nutritional value of the food that is being served to these kids but about exposing them to vegetables and how tasty healthy food is.
It's not the government's job to do that though.
Quote:
If the message that lawmakers and schools are sending to them is "pizza and french fries are everyday foods" and "you wouldn't like vegetables anyway" - how will they ever develop healthy diets?
And if the parents who are sending their kids to school are upset at the choices, they can complain and try to get the meals changed. But what's going on is a bunch of busybodies in DC realizing that many schools don't offer a lot of healthy foods, and most kids don't choose to eat them anyway, and the parents aren't complaining, so they feel like they have to step in and force people to eat healthier foods.
It's not the government's job to do this. It's especially not the federal government's job.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Those programs exist to provide food for kids who would otherwise have no lunch at all. The only criteria should be that it eliminates that problem.
Legislative text of the National School Lunch Act (1946) wrote:
It is hereby declared the policy of Congress, as a measure of national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food, by assisting the states, through grants-in-aid and other means, in providing an adequate supply of foods and other facilities for the establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.
Nope, they don't exist solely to shovel warm cardboard or whatever will sustain life into the kids. So aside from being completely wrong, good job!
I'm fairly sure (positive in fact) that pizza fits well within the minimum nutritional requirements outlined by that Act Joph. Good try though!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 277
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (277)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- So what you all think about pizza being a vegetable?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC