What does this Horde of Slaves, Traitors, and Conjured Kings Crave? For Whom These Ignoble Chains and Irons Long Prepared?
Posted on 20 February 2012
Note this article from the Carolina Journal Online.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-with-cafeteria-nuggets.html
RAEFORD – A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs – including in-home day care centers – to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
The girl’s mother – who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation – said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
“I don’t feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote
My comment:
Aux armes, citoyens,
Formez vos bataillons,
Marchons, marchons !
Qu’un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons !
Que veut cette horde d’esclaves,
De traîtres, de rois conjurés ?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves,
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés ?
Federalists in particular please note that this is a USDA mandate, that is, federal and not state or municipal government enacting this regulation of the lunchpail.
Health, since it seems to be an objective and scientifically defined entity, is the favorite excuse for Progressives in their eagerness to overreach the limits of the law, or, indeed, in this case, common sense.
I fear, alas, the time for armed rebellion is dangerously near. How much indignity must free men stand? The dollar and twenty five cents exacted from this mother who fears to speak for fear of retaliation offers as much Casus Belli as the War of Jenkins’ Ear.
For the love of Christ, hold your outraged hands, gentlemen who love this land, and allow the blessings of peace continue while they may. But for love of liberty prepare for the coming storm, sharpen your fathers’ swords, keep your powder dry.
Not much of an ear that Jenkins had. Must not have been terribly attached.
Even by the guidelnes, this decision was monumentally stupid:
“lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables”
And the lunch consisted of: “turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice”
Turkey – that’s meat
Cheese – that’s produced from milk, which is dairy
Two slices of bread for the sandwich – bread is made from flour which comes from grain
Banana – that’s a fruit, which makes one serving
Apple juice – apples are fruit, which makes the second serving
Potato chips – potatos are vegetables
So it’s not like the child was sent to school without any lunch at all, or with a candy bar and fizzy pop for her lunch – which is what those regulations should be set up to monitor, that poor children, whose parents cannot afford or do not know the dietary requirements, should at least have a school-provided mid-day meal (my own school runs a breakfast club in the morning so that before classes, those who need it can have a meal of cereal and fresh fruit).
It was not meant for such petty tyranny. What kind of officious jack-in-office took it upon him- or herself to send that note home to the mother in this case? And why do you, Americans, seem so prone to having these little tin gods cloaking themselves in the armour of national legislation (I speak from the experience of reading stories about six year olds being body-searched at airports by your TSA)?
I once saw a woman being searched who was so old she didn’t understand what was going on. Her son or grandson had to talk her through it to keep her from panicking from terror.
Oh, and I was on the watchlist. Because of my very common name. I know the latter not because the government told me – they refused – but because I met others with my name.
“Oh, and I was on the watchlist. Because of my very common name.”
Granted, a determined terrorist is not likely to act as in the following extract from G.K. Chesterton’s “What I Saw in America” from 1932, when he was filling out a form from the American embassy before getting a visa:
“When I went to the American consulate to regularise my passports, I was capable of expecting the American consulate to be American. Embassies and consulates are by tradition like islands of the soil for which they stand; and I have often found the tradition corresponding to a truth. I have seen the unmistakable French official living on omelettes and a little wine and serving his sacred abstractions under the last palm-trees fringing a desert. In the heat and noise of quarrelling Turks and Egyptians, I have come suddenly, as with the cool shock of his own shower-bath, on the listless amiability of the English gentleman. The officials I interviewed were very American, especially in being very polite; for whatever may have been the mood or meaning of Martin Chuzzlewit, I have always found Americans by far the politest people in the world. They put in my hands a form to be filled up, to all appearance like other forms I had filled up in other passport offices. But in reality it was very different from any form I had ever filled up in my life. At least it was a little like a freer form of the game called ‘Confessions’ which my friends and I invented in our youth; an examination paper containing questions like, ‘If you saw a rhinoceros[Pg 4] in the front garden, what would you do?’ One of my friends, I remember, wrote, ‘Take the pledge.’ But that is another story, and might bring Mr. Pussyfoot Johnson on the scene before his time.
One of the questions on the paper was, ‘Are you an anarchist?’ To which a detached philosopher would naturally feel inclined to answer, ‘What the devil has that to do with you? Are you an atheist?’ along with some playful efforts to cross-examine the official about what constitutes an ἁρχη [Greek: archê]. Then there was the question, ‘Are you in favour of subverting the government of the United States by force?’ Against this I should write, ‘I prefer to answer that question at the end of my tour and not the beginning.’ The inquisitor, in his more than morbid curiosity, had then written down, ‘Are you a polygamist?’ The answer to this is, ‘No such luck’ or ‘Not such a fool,’ according to our experience of the other sex. But perhaps a better answer would be that given to W. T. Stead when he circulated the rhetorical question, ‘Shall I slay my brother Boer?’—the answer that ran, ‘Never interfere in family matters.’ But among many things that amused me almost to the point of treating the form thus disrespectfully, the most amusing was the thought of the ruthless outlaw who should feel compelled to treat it respectfully. I like to think of the foreign desperado, seeking to slip into America with official papers under official protection, and sitting down to write with a beautiful gravity, ‘I am an anarchist. I hate you all and wish to destroy you.’ Or, ‘I intend to subvert by force the government of the United States as soon as possible, sticking the long sheath-knife in my left trouser-pocket into Mr. Harding at the earliest opportunity.’ Or again, ‘Yes, I am a[Pg 5] polygamist all right, and my forty-seven wives are accompanying me on the voyage disguised as secretaries.’ There seems to be a certain simplicity of mind about these answers; and it is reassuring to know that anarchists and polygamists are so pure and good that the police have only to ask them questions and they are certain to tell no lies.”
Now, it is more likely that a Muslim zealot will try to sneak in under the name of “John Smith” than “Abdul Abulbul Amir”, but you can go too far in the opposite direction; as your case shows, it is possible to be so blinkered by regulations that common sense is stifled (on the other hand, there is an Irish-Iranian comedian who grew up on Teeside in the North-East of England called Patrick Monahan, so if he were pulled over because he ‘looks foreign’ and his name is ‘an obvious alias’, that also would be silly). Still, I have to agree with Mr. Barbieri; Americans boast of the Pioneer Spirit but society seems every bit as communally-minded as the Japanese. Even the Germans might think this one a bit much.
The opposite attitude to this reverence for the letter, as opposed to the spirit, of the law is best represented by this 1957 article by Myles na gCopaleen (an attitude still alive and well even in post-Celtic Tiger Ireland):
“Somebody should write a monograph on the use of the word “supposed” in this country.
Start listening for it, either in your own mouth or in others, and you will see that is comprises the sum of the national character, that, it is a mystical synthesis of all Irish habits, hopes and regrets.
…The word occurs most frequently in connection with breaches of the law or in circumstances where the gravest catastrophe is imminent. You enter a vast petrol depot. The place is full of refineries, tanks, and choking vapour fills the air. The man on the spot shows you the wonders and in due course produces his cigarettes and offers you one. “Of course I needn’t tell you,” he comments as he lights up, “there’s supposed to be no smoking here at all.”
…You are aware that your colleague was at the races when he was supposed to be sick, but you are not supposed to know and certainly you are not supposed to report such an occurrence. You are not supposed to use the firm’s telephone for a private trunk call. And so on. In no such context does the term “not supposed” connote prohibition. Rather does it indicate the recognition of the existence of a silly taboo which no grown-up person can be expected to take seriously. It is the verbal genuflection of the worshipper who has come to lay violent hands on the image he thus venerates. It is the domestic password in the endemic conspiracy of petty lawlessness. All that I believe to be true, though possibly I am not supposed to say it so bluntly.”
Perhaps America should import this usage of the term “not supposed”!
To be quite just to that paper that Chesterton had to fill out — it also, no doubt, contained a place for his signature and a statement to the effect that it was all true and lying was perjury.
Then you can slap the guy with perjury even if he has committed no other offenses in the US under the law.
And it makes deportation proceedings easier. (In theory. In practice, it’s harder than you’d think to remove someone from the U.S.)
My name is Irish in origin, too, so everyone asks me if they think I’m IRA. Hardy-har-har.
The Chesterton bit is funny. Though I cringe to do so, I may have to (hesitantly, tentatively) disagree with the man whom I consider to be right on more things than just about anybody. Signing pledges of honesty and the like have been shown to correlate with honesty. While I don’t think it’s going to keep a lot of anarchists out of America, in the aggregate it may actually have some beneficial effect (particularly with those not as bright as GKC).
It might weed out the very stupid bombers, but I think if you’re intending to blow up half a dozen major cities (should you get the opportunity), then you’re hardly likely to balk at perjury.
Which means that it is necessary to have security at airports and borders, pulling over suspicious looking characters to be searched, and again, any terrorist or secret agent with half a brain is going to to try and use a common, ordinary name so you will have to search the “John Smiths” as well as the “Patrick Sarfielf Wolfe Tone Fitzgerald O’Hoolihan”.
But if your “John Smith” is a three year old boy, or you’re looking at a seventy year old granny – then surely to God common sense and a bit of wiggle room can be applied? And even if you do have to search the young child or the old lady, a small amount of common civility and privacy is available?
Minions in uniform robotically parroting “Those are the rules” and stripping people half-naked in the full sight of the public concourse are not increasing the safety of the nation.
I’m 100% in agreement about the stupidities of the TSA. Have you ever read Bruce Schneier’s explanation of “security theater”?
Worse…most doctors tell you NOT to feed your kids chicken nuggets…prefering “real” food–like turkey and cheese.
I don’t know where they breed these people. American conservatives presume a bad European example, but I can tell you with confidence that no European country, not excluding Russia, would conceive of such idiocies, or tolerate them if they happened. (I am reminded of a story Umberto Eco used to tell: once he and some other foreign visitors were in California and wanted to catch a particular movie. The movie had an adult rating and – in spite of all of the people involved being pretty clearly grown up – the usherette insisted on them showing their ID – and in spite of the fact that they were all pretty obviously foreign and had their passports with them, she insisted on nothing but a California driving licence. They ended up going elsewhere.)
No American would have put up with such a thing fifteen years ago. It is scary wondering what has happen here.
On the other hand, keep in mind that this kind of thing is often in one place in a huge country and often gets overturned as soon as it gets press coverage.
Whereas I, even when I was 17.1 years old*, have never had to show ID at a film. Probably just a little bad luck for our semiotician friend.
* which was fewer than 15 years ago.
Hm…
If we are to seriously contemplate armed rebellion, we most consider the costs and benefits. What is the likelihood that we will institute a state that is less intrusive, considering the people likely to rebel? Occupy Wall Street would go in the other direction. The Taxed Enough Already Party seems satisfied in its rather counter productive goals (admittedly they may have just been slandered) involving the democratic process and actually politically campaigning.
So, as we do not all recognize the same problems with the world, any rebellion seems as likely to make things worse as better. That is ignoring the fact that any rebellion without the support of the US Military is doomed to failure in this age due to the technology involved, and the people foreswearing their oaths are likely not to be the best allies in remaking the Republic.
As for the actual action? It was lunatic. The rules should very obviously be changed. I simply say that one should not call up what one cannot put down. That is one of the very first rules, is it not? Right up there with “do not curse the gods” and “do not practice incest.” Violence is probably the last resort here.
I was thinking a very similar thing…if you can’t get something done with votes and lawyers, what in the world makes you think you could do it with guns. After all, the guys who think this is a good idea would have guns, too, and all the more justification to make outrageous laws.
“If we are to seriously contemplate armed rebellion, we most consider the costs and benefits. What is the likelihood that we will institute a state that is less intrusive, considering the people likely to rebel?”
As I said in the post, it is too soon to rebel, since peaceful means of redress still obtain. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
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.
And if those seeking to erect a Despotism, having seen the clear witness of history, behold that this can be accomplished by incremental encroachments on our Liberties, always with some specious public interest of health or safety or administrative necessity, then the only check on the ambition of the nascent tyrants is the fear that an armed and outraged uprising instills.
If we are not ready to defend our liberty by force of arms, then those who lust to rob us of it have no reason to check their ambition.
The incident is certainly stupid, but it is not an example of Federal, or even State, overreach. There was no “agent inspecting all the lunchboxes”. Rather, there was a teacher who sent the child into the cafeteria to get a complete lunch instead of just handing out a carton of milk.
Wondered about that. Good call, Dr. A.
NO question. But the petty tyranny this exemplifies is too frequent not to show some serious flaw. I have lost count of the number of horror stories I heard, for instance, about TSA; and I don’t even want to get into what I have been told about the child-so-called-protection system. Federal jobs do seem to draw an unusual percentage of power-abusing, vindictive lunatics.
However the teacher did have the authority to hand out a carton of milk if the teacher decided the lunch was unacceptable, it is still government reach that gave the teacher the ability to do this.
Having said that it appears one of the stated goals of the program is to ensure the children are getting a proper lunch, which means that by being in the program the parents agreed to the teacher being able to determine if the lunch provided was adequate for the child. Knowing how some parents feed their children then I am perfectly fine with the state provided child care services making sure the child has good food to eat as long as the parents are aware that this will happen and have the option to seek other preschools where such oversight will not occur.
It is the appearance of overreach, or the teacher’s feeling that she had to comply with certain regulations, that likely caused this.
Yes, but the lunch as packed by the mother was perfectly adequate and the child – a picky eater – just ate the nuggets and dumped the rest of the lunch, so she was worse off than if the teacher had let her alone to eat the food her mother knew she would eat.
If the mother had packed a tin of Coke and a Mars bar as lunch, I would understand why the teacher would send the child in to get something decent to eat – but she didn’t.
Sure, the incident was stupid and the school acknowledged that. In a nation of three hundred million, the occasional stupid, or overworked, or stressed-out, or just plain new-to-the-job-overzealous teacher cannot be avoided. What can be avoided is government agents inspecting packed lunches, as Mr Wright’s quote alleges happened; and indeed, this was not the case.
I don’t know if H. C. Anderson is popular reading around here? He was a Danish children’s author of the nineteenth century. One of his most famous stories is that of the feather that became five hens. (The phrase is more euphonious in Norwegian.) It tells of the hen who, cleaning herself, accidentally dislodges a feather, and says “Ah well – if it was loose, it wasn’t making me any prettier.” Through the magic of jealous gossip and exaggeration, the farm is pretty shortly ringing with the scandal of the five hens who plucked themselves bare to look better for the rooster.
Here we apparently have the story of the teacher who became a whole government bureaucracy.
Hans Christian Andersen was extremely famous when I was a child. I don’t know if the same is true of the modern US.
“So it’s not like the child was sent to school without any lunch at all, or with a candy bar and fizzy pop for her lunch – which is what those regulations should be set up to monitor, that poor children, whose parents cannot afford or do not know the dietary requirements, should at least have a school-provided mid-day meal (my own school runs a breakfast club in the morning so that before classes, those who need it can have a meal of cereal and fresh fruit).”
deiseach, I hope that was a poor choice of words. We do not need “regulations” “set up” to “monitor” school lunches – do this and you’re already justifying petty tyranny. What lunch the parents provide their child is their business.
This should not be understood as precluding ordinary common sense. If a child shows up once with no lunch, or “a candy bar and fizzy pop”, this should not be a deal at all: organizational breakdowns happen all the time, and the solution your school came up with is perfectly adequate – provided it’s the child’s choice whether or not to take advantage of it. If there seems to be a pattern, then the child’s teacher could contact the parents informally and ask (with courtesy and tact) if there is a problem, and could they use help.
But ordinary common sense is precisely what is lacking in the “monitors” of the “regulations”. The first incident is noted and permanently logged as a cause for concern; the second, even if it occurs six months later, escalates the concern; the third triggers the merciless and dehumanizing machinery of the bureaucracy, against which there is no defense and from which there is no escape.
I don’t know how school meals are run in America, and the situation is different in Ireland to that in the United Kingdom.
Primary schools – even in my time – had a scheme whereby children would get a half-pint of milk and (at least where I was going to school) a currant bun for lunch, whether or not the parents had provided a packed lunch. There wasn’t any school canteen or kitchen providing cooked meals.
For secondary schools, there is no one standard; some places do provide cooked meals, some buy in pre-cooked meals from local sources. There is a funding scheme which gives grants to provide meals but this applies to schools in areas of disadvantage and/or children with special needs (since the school I worked at was non-selective, it gets a lot of disadvantaged children and children with special needs; inceed, if you sort out the four secondary schools in the town, we come bottom of the pecking order as regards exclusivity and purely academic emphasis).
This means that there are children from broken families, single parent families, families on low incomes or unemployed, and many of them would not get decent meals if relying on parental provision (sometimes because there isn’t a parent to provide for them, but they’re being looked after by a grandparent or shuffled around between family members). So the school tries to provide a balance between healthy meals and food the kids will actually eat (with the breakfast club and the ban on chocolate and candy and fizzy drinks by our principal).
But there is no way we have anyone inspecting lunches or telling kids or parents that “This won’t do, throw it out and go buy something in the canteen”. We do have a home/school liaison teacher who works with parents about things like suitable lunches and nutrition (amongst other topics), but no way she would behave in this manner.
Further to the comment by Fabio P. Barbieri – My wife has dual citizenship. In 2006 we did some shopping at a supermarket, and at the check-out counter asked to pay by traveler’s cheque. naturally, we were asked for identification, so Esther flashed her U.S. passport. You would have thought this would be the gold standard in the U.S., wouldn’t you? But apparently the check-out chick had never been presented with such a thing before, and she asked for a driver’s licence. So Esther presented her Australian driver’s licence, which was promptly accepted.
I tell you, they don’t employ the sharpest knives in the drawer to man the check-out.
Just as well, too. We need those sharpest knives for other tasks. To each their own.